, the comparative amount of his past and present merits
can only be ascertained by the uncertain standard of his reader's
feelings; and these must always be less lively with regard to a second
performance; which, with every other excellence of the first, must
necessarily want the powerful recommendations of novelty and surprise,
and consequently fall very far short of the effect produced by their
strong cooeperation. In the _second_ place, it may be observed, in
general, that wherever our impression of any work is favourable on the
whole, its excellence is constantly exaggerated, in those vague and
habitual recollections which form the basis of subsequent comparisons.
We readily drop from our memory the dull and bad passages, and carry
along with us the remembrance of those only which had afforded us
delight. Thus, when we take the merit of any favourite poem as a
standard of comparison for some later production of the same author, we
never take its true average merit, which is the only fair standard, but
the merit of its most striking and memorable passages, which naturally
stand forward in our recollection, and pass upon our hasty retrospect as
just and characteristic specimens of the whole work; and this high and
exaggerated standard we rigorously apply to the first, and perhaps the
least interesting parts of the second performance. Finally, it deserves
to be noticed, that where a first work, containing considerable
blemishes, has been favourably received, the public always expects this
indulgence to be repaid by an improvement that ought not to be always
expected. If a second performance appear, therefore, with the same
faults, they will no longer meet with the same toleration. Murmurs will
be heard about indolence, presumption, and abuse of good nature; while
the critics, and those who had gently hinted at the necessity of
correction, will be more out of humour than the rest at this apparent
neglect of their admonitions.

For these, and for other reasons, we are inclined to suspect, that the
success of the work now before us will be less brilliant than that of
the author's former publication, though we are ourselves of opinion,
that its intrinsic merits are nearly, if not altogether, equal; and
that, if it had had the fortune to be the elder born, it would have
inherited as fair a portion of renown as has fallen to the lot of its
predecessor. It is a good deal longer, indeed, and somewhat more
ambitious; and it is