The new number of the Edinburgh Review has a dull,
disappointing, behind-date look. Why should we have an article at this time of day on "Henry Erskine and his Times," not to speak of the imperfect view taken in it of Thomas Erskine, who was a much stronger man than his brother ? There is an article on "The Mery Oasis," which is really a newspaper review of Mr. O'Donovan's book. The writer on "The Nationalisation of the Land" has not such keenness either of eye or of pen as the Quarterly critic of Mr. George. Besides, when he compares Mr. George's views to those of Communists, Socialists, and the like, he ignores or forgets the fact that Mr. George claims for- his "one great remedy" that it will realise the dream of the Socialist, without resort being had to Governmental repression. There are, in fact, only two good papers in the new Edinburgh,. "Life and Correspondence of George Sand" and "Immanuel Kant and the Kantian 'Revival,'" the latter of which, apart from other merits, is a very good précis of recent Kantian literature.
Previous page
