Nothing could be farther from literary justice, or from our own intention, than to quote an isolated passage from Mr. Neale's work, and wrest it to an interpretation at variance with the general tenor of the context. But, notwithstanding the above explanations, we are constrained to adhere to our former criticism. The passage in question was selected at random as representative of an error pervading the entire work, an error which is ingrained into its fundamental theory. The distinctions which we endeavored to establish between Space and Extension are everywhere overlooked or neglected in it, especially the distinction between them as to imaginability. Though intended "to shadow forth the more subtile conceptions of thought," all sensuous symbolism of Space inevitably materializes it, and yields only illustrations of Extension. The circle or sphere, with a centre and circumference bearing definite and fixed relations to each other, is inadmissible even as an illustration of absolute and limitless vacuity; for it determines that which is, on pain of contradiction, indeterminable. A "centre of Space" may be "taken anywhere"; but, once taken, it is fixed, and conceivable only by the sensuous imagination as an element of a limited, geometrical figure. Such a conception, therefore, far from symbolizing Space, which is a bare, void condition of things, yields only a concrete image of Extension. The idea of Space can be arrived at only by pursuing a very different route.

The error of Mr. Neale is, as we conceive, enveloped in the germinal principle of his theory. Motion, as the a priori condition of the " constructive action of thought," upon which he lays so much stress, is logically posterior to the thing moved, and the thing moved is logically posterior to Space and Time, the conditions of things in general. Hence motion is not the first fact, or "substance of our thoughts." Indeed, motion, being a mere predicate, and not a subject, manifestly cannot stand alone at all, as an object of thought. The influence of Trendelenburg is powerfully apparent in Mr. Neale's work; and both writers confound motion with activity in general. All motion is activity, but all activity is not motion; activity is a generic term, of which motion, or the activity of matter, and the activity of mind, for which we have no generic name, are the species. Hence to explain all facts, physical and mental, by means of motion alone, evidently materializes philosophy, however unintentionally, and renders the confusion of imagination and pure intellection (and consequently the confusion of Space with Extension) a logical necessity of the procedure. The "constructive action of thought," viewed as the activity of mind representing matter and creating new combinations of it, throws much light upon the nature of the sensuous imagination, and in this respect philosophy owes much

to Trendelenburg and his school; but viewed as entire activity of thought, it is only a fragment put for the whole. Mr. Neale's work is ingenious and very suggestive; and, despite a certain want of lucidity caused by deficient analysis, is a valuable contribution to metaphysical literature. Its aim and scope enlist our sympathy and respect; and we trust it is the harbinger of other works.

We are obliged, by the necessity for brevity, to omit further remarks on Mr. Neale's note; but perhaps enough has been said to substantiate our former criticism.]

APPENDIX.

THE SEMI-CENTENARY OF THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW.

THE Completion of the fiftieth year of the existence of the North American Review is an event of such importance in its career, and of such interest in relation to the periodical literature of America, as to justify special commemoration. Few if any other quarterly or monthly periodicals in this country have attained so long a continuance of life, and no other similar publication has been more ably sustained, or received more constant and cordial support from the public.

The long line of its one hundred volumes contains the record of a period full of changes in the political and social, as well as the literary, conditions of the country, and through this series of years the Review has done good service, not only in maintaining and advancing the standard of American letters and scholarship, but also in defending the principles on which American institutions rest, and in illustrating their value and adaptation to the needs of free society. It has not been unfaithful to the pledge implied in its great name, and those among its founders who still survive to receive the respect of their countrymen may look back with honorable satisfaction to the share they had in the establishment of a journal which has held so high a place, and acquired so creditable and welldeserved a reputation.

The history of the North American Review, if written in full, would be the history of the progress of American literature for fifty years. The earlier years of this century were years of small things in letters. The intellectual energies of the people were employed in other than literary pursuits. Not one American author had yet won for himself enduring popularity or distinction. There were no greater names in our national

literature than those, now perhaps too much neglected, of Trumbull, Dwight, and Charles Brockden Brown. Irving had published in 1809 his Knickerbocker's History of New York, but his triumphs had scarcely begun. Everett left college in 1811; Prescott, in 1814; Bancroft, in 1817. In Boston there was more literary cultivation and activity than in other parts of the country. Buckminster and Channing had raised the style of pulpit eloquence, no less than the character of religious thought. The Anthology Club brought together a good number of clever men, and the "Monthly Anthology" was by far the best magazine that had been published in America. But the Anthology ceased to appear in 1811, and a journal of wider scope and higher character was required to meet the needs of the times.

What those needs were, and with what design the North American Review was established, are set forth in the following extract from an essay by Mr. William Tudor, the founder of the Review.

"The powerful influence of the French Revolution and the universal interest it excited in all civilized countries, not only pervading the literature of every nation, but marshalling all the world in its contagious quarrels, had for well-known reasons an extraordinary dominion in this country. Political sympathies and antipathies gave a bias to all our opinions. In addition to which, we were so young in the career of literature, we ran so much risk of adopting barbarisms both in taste and sentiment, from the passionate vehemence of party feelings, and the presumption of rash pretenders, that many sound scholars saw no other mode to avert the threatened evils, than to show unlimited deference to the great standards of English learning. In following this course, they sometimes confounded the ideas of time and space; and blended the respect that was due to what was consecrated by the former, with a deference to opinions protected only by the latter, which might be often prejudiced, interested, and unsound. The danger that might thus arise is obvious; it may be compared to the apprehension that is felt in some countries respecting those who believe in the Papal supremacy, which if it could be confined to spirituals would be almost a matter of indifference, and is only dreaded on account of its opening a passage to the insidious entrance of political influence and the possession of temporal power. The admiration that was so justly felt for the illustrious names of English literature and politics in past ages, was often blindly given to their living descendants, whose infirmities were invisible at a

distance. These feelings sometimes produced a little too much severity in judging our own productions, and rather more submission to foreign criticism than impartial justice would have dictated in either case. The consequence was occasionally a want, or rather a suppression, of national feeling and independent judgment, that would sooner or later have become highly injurious.

"To counteract the tendency of this state of things, which, if I have not succeeded in describing it very clearly, will still be understood by many persons, was one of the chief motives in establishing this Review. The spirit of the work was national and independent as regarded foreign countries, yet not falling under the dominion of party at home; and the tone of it, in these respects, is I think different from that of any preceding journal. This tone it has always preserved, with one or two slight exceptions, and I do not know how far my vanity will be pardoned in making a claim to some agency in establishing it, as the only one I have to any merit connected with that work.

"The citizens of the United States are not yet emancipated, nor can they expect to be for some time to come, from a degree of dependence on foreign opinion in everything regarding literature. Yet criticism is every day gaining ground among us, obtaining wider influence as it displays greater talent, and the period is perhaps not very distant when foreign literary decisions will be sought for principally under the impulse of curiosity; and our own tribunals will be esteemed the supreme authority."

The circumstances attending the establishment of the North American are stated in a communication which the present editors of the Review have had the pleasure of receiving from the Hon. Willard Phillips, and which they have much satisfaction in being permitted to publish. Judge Phillips says:-

"In December, 1814, and January, 1815, an association was formed for starting a literary periodical, consisting of John Thornton Kirkland, then President of Harvard College, Edward T. Channing, afterward Professor in that institution, myself, and I think one or two others, of which, however, I am not certain. The title proposed was 'The New England Magazine and Review,' and I was to be editor of it. Articles of association were adopted, and sundry meetings were held, the records of which were made by Mr. Channing as secretary, and, as I have been told, a copy of them is still extant. In this stage of our

Miscellanies, by the Author of "Letters on the Eastern States," (Boston, 1821, 12mo,) p. 56.