rdities of the gentleman we have just parted with, but in her
writings there is a constant effort to be forcible, which leads her
always a little on the wrong side of good taste and common sense.
There is an uneasy and ceaseless labour to be brilliant and astute.
The reader is perpetually impressed with the effort that is put forth
in his favour,--an ambiguous claim, and the only one, that is made
upon his gratitude.

America is not without her army of critics, her well-appointed and
disciplined array of reviewers. The _North American Review_ betrays no
inferiority to its brethren on this side of the Atlantic. Let there be
therefore no mistake in regarding Mrs Margaret Fuller as the
representative of the critical judgment of her country. But there is a
large section, or coterie, of its literary people, whose mode of
thinking we imagine this essayist may be considered as fairly
expressing. Even this section, we do not suppose that she _leads_; but
she has just that amount of talent and of hardihood which would prompt
her to press forward into the front rank of any band of thinkers she
had joined. She is not of that stout-hearted race who venture forth
alone; she must travel in company; but in that company she will go as
far as who goes farthest, and will occasionally dart from the ranks to
strike a little blow upon her own account. The writings of minds of
this calibre may be usefully studied for the indications they give of
the currents of opinion, whether on the graver matters of politics,
or, as in this instance, on the less important topics of literature.

Amongst this lady's criticisms upon English poets, we remarked some
names, very highly lauded, of which we in England have heard little or
nothing. This, in our crowded literature, where so much of both what
is good and what is bad escapes detection, is no proof of an erroneous
judgment on her part. We, on the contrary, may have been culpably
neglectful. But when we looked at the quotations she makes to support
the praise she gives, we were speedily relieved from any self-reproach
of this description. Passages are cited for applause, in which there
is neither distinguishable thought, nor elegance of diction, nor even
an attempt at melody of verse; passages which could have won upon her
only (and herein these quotations, if they fail of giving a fair
representation of the poet, serve at least to characterise the
critic,) could have won upon her only by a seeming ai