But the general shortcomings (as they have been admitted to be) in the whole of the second quarter of the century (or a little less) with us, were but natural results of the inevitable expatiation, unsystematic and irresolute, over the newly discovered provinces.

And they gave admirable work of various kinds--work especially admirable if we remember that there was no general literary uprising with us as there was, in France and elsewhere, about 1830.

If it were in any way possible--similar supposings have been admitted in literature very often--it would be extremely interesting to take a person _ex hypothesi_ fairly acquainted with the rest of literature--English, foreign, European, and classical--but who knew nothing and had heard nothing of Bulwer, Disraeli, Peacock, Marryat, even Ainsworth and James and others between Scott and the accomplished work of Thackeray (Dickens's is, as has been said, mainly a sport of genius), and to turn him loose on this work.

I do him the justice to suppose that he would find not a few faults: I shall also do him the justice to think it likely that he (being, as said, _ex hypothesi_ furnished with the miscellaneous knowledge necessary to enjoy them) would enjoy them very keenly and thoroughly.

If you added the minorities of the time, such as that very clever Miss Robinson (I think her name was Emma) who wrote _Whitefriars_ and other historical romances in the forties; such as Charles Macfarlane, who died, like Colonel Newcome, a poor brother of the Charterhouse after writing capital things like _The Dutch in the Medway_ and _The Camp of Refuge_--if, I say, you gave him these things and he was a good man, but lazy, like Gray, I think he would vote for a continuance of his life of novels and sofas without sighing for anything further.