we not said enough to
support our thesis? to prove what strange results may be arrived at if
philosopher, following after philosopher, bases his speculations on what
is current in the school-room, instead of recurring to honest and
simple-minded observations of nature--and to show that on this subject
of _perception_ our veterans Reid and Stewart have taken up the only
safe position our present knowledge admits of?

FOOTNOTES:

[6] "Relatives are known only together: the science of contraries is
one. Subject and object, mind and matter, are known only in correlation
and contrast, and in the same common act: which knowledge is at once a
synthesis and an antithesis of both, and may be indifferently defined an
antithetic synthesis and a synthetic antithesis of the terms. Every
conception of _self_ necessarily implies a conception of _not self_;
every perception of what is different from me, implies a recognition of
the percipient subject in contradistinction from the object perceived.
In one object of knowledge, indeed, the object is the prominent element,
in another the subject; but there is none in which either is known out
of relation to the other. The immediate knowledge which Reid allows of
things different from the mind, and the immediate knowledge of mind
itself, cannot, therefore, be split into two distinct acts. In
perception, as in other faculties, the same indivisible consciousness is
conversant about both terms of the relation of knowledge."--_Edinburgh
Review_, No. 103, p. 165.--A very able and elaborate paper, attributed
to Sir William Hamilton.

[7] _Lewes' Biographical History of Philosophy._ Vol. iv., p. 209. In
every way a remarkable work. Written with great vivacity and clearness,
comprising a world of matter in the briefest possible space,--and, O
reader, and O author, forgive the anticlimax!--at the least possible
cost. In fact it forms part of the Series known as "_Knight's Weekly
Volume_." To find a strictly original work of so much ability given to
the world in this form, proves that the publisher and the man of letters
are, in this mercantile age, second to none in the activity and
enterprise with which they render _their_ service to the public.

CHARLES DE BERNARD.

The position of French novels and novelists in the appreciation of the
English public, has undergone, within the last few years, a notable
change. We need revert to no distant period to recall the day when the
word "Pari