The London Catalogue of Books published in Great Britain, with their Sizes, Prices, and Publishers' Names, from 1814 to 1846. London: 8vo. pp. 542.

to the same conclusion; and robs the mind at once both of that mental discipline which will always follow the thorough investigation of a limited class of subjects, and of that really accurate knowledge which such a limited survey alone can ever securely impart. The field of knowledge does not admit of universal conquerors: according to the happy saying of Sydney Smith-if science is their forte, omniscience is their foible.

ignorance. Singular, if the very means by | bition, indeed, is but a more laborious path which we take security against a second invasion of barbarism, should, by its excess of activity, bring about a condition not very much better! "A mill will not go," such reasoners will say, "if there be no water; but it will be as effectually stopped if there be too much." In brief, it may seem to be one of those cases, if ever there was one, in which old Hesiod's paradoxical maxim applies that "the half is more than the whole;" or, for that matter, a much smaller fraction.

At all events, one thing is clear: to guard against this danger will demand, as time rolls on, an increasing attention to the prime object of all education-the formation of sound habits of mind-the discipline of the faculties-a thing of infinitely more consequence than the mere variety of the information attained. There will also be required efforts, more and more strenuous, to digest and systematize, from time to time, the ever-grow

And this dreaded result would certainly be realized, if men were to attempt to make their studies at all commensurate with the increase of books around them. Compelled to read something of everything, it is certain they would know nothing of anything. And, in fact, we see this tendency more or less exemplified in the case of vast numbers, who, without definite purpose or selection of top-ing accumulations of literature; and to proics, spend such time as they can give to the vide the best possible clues through this imimprovement of their minds and the acquisi- mense and bewildering labyrinth, or rather tion of knowledge, in little else than the cas- through the several parts of it: for who can ual perusal of fragments of all sorts of books; thread the whole? Nor are the best modes who live on the scraps of an infinite variety of pursuing study unworthy of attention. Inof broken meats which they have stuffed into deed a very useful book (if we could get a their beggar's wallet; scraps which, after Leibnitz or a Gibbon to compose it) might all, only just keep them from absolute star- be written on the "art of reading books" in vation. There are not a few men who the most profitable manner. If students had would have been learned, if not wise, had patience for it, (though the progress might the paragraphs and pages they have actually be slower,) we are convinced that a much read, been on well-defined subjects, and mu- deeper and better compacted knowledge tually connected; but who, as it is, possess would be obtained by a more thorough adnothing beyond fragments of uncertain, in-herence to the maxim so warmly approved accurate, ill-remembered, unsystematized information; and at the best are entitled only to the praise of being very artificially and elaborately ignorant; differing from the utterly uncultivated, only as a parrot who talks without understanding what it says, differs from a parrot who cannot talk at all.

But this tendency, though it must attend the unlimited increase of books, and though we see it often most unhappily realized in individual cases, is, for the most part, readily corrected. The majority of men will, as heretofore, only read what answers their purpose on the particular subjects which necessity or inclination prompts them to cultivate; while many of those who are not thus protected by circumstances, will be as effectually secured from such dangers by a sound education. That must be our safeguard against the formation of the pernicious habit of desultory reading; and against an ambitious, but ill-judged attempt at obtaining encyclopædic knowledge. This last am

by the great historian just mentioned, "multum legere, potius quam multa," and by a constant habit of examining the scope and context of the authors referred to on any important points. The knowledge thus acquired, partly from the trouble it gives, partly from the many associations suggested by the collation of different writers, and the comparison of different styles and modes of thought; nay, even by the different forms and type of the books themselves, seldom fails to be firmly impressed on the memory. These collateral aids are like reflectors, which increase indefinitely the intensity of light, and render a subject luminous which would otherwise be obscure. How instructive are these words of Gibbon-himself a conspicuous example of what even a postdiluvian life industriously employed may accomplish: "We ought to attend not so much to the order of our books, as of our thoughts. The perusal of a particular work gives birth perhaps to ideas unconnected with the subject it treats;

Perpetual access to a large library, it may be suspected, is often an impediment to a thorough digestion of knowledge, by tempting to an unwise indulgence. There is a story of a man who said he always read borrowed books with double attention as well as profit, because he could not hope to renew his acquaintance with them at pleasure! This of course presupposes that he returned the books he borrowed-an event which, we fear, does not always happen.

I pursue these ideas, and quit my proposed | in the strict sense of the word, such a creaplan of reading." ""** "I suspended ture as "the universal scholar" does not, and my perusal of any new books on a subject, never did exist. But there as certainly have till I had reviewed all that I knew, or be- been men who have traversed a sufficiently lieved, or had thought on it, that I might be large segment of the entire circumference of qualified to discern how much the authors existing science and literature, to render the added to my original stock."t name something more than a ridiculous hyperbole. It is commonly indeed, and truly said, to be impossible for the human mind to prosecute researches with accuracy in all, or even many different branches of knowledge; that what is gained in surface is lost in depth; that the principle of the "division of labor" strictly applies here as in arts and manufactures, and that each mind must restrict itself to a very few limited subjects, if any are to be really mastered. All this is most true. Yet it is equally true that in the pursuit of knowledge the principle of the "division of labor" finds limits to its application much sooner than in handicrafts. The voracious "helluo librorum" is not more to be suspected of ill-digested and superficial knowledge, than he whom the proverb tells us to avoid, (though for a very different, and as we suspect, less valid reason,) the man "unius libri."* A certain amount of knowledge of several subjects, often of many, is necessary to render the knowledge of any one of these serviceable; and without it, the most minute knowledge of any one alone would be like half a pair of scissors, or a hand with but one finger. What is that amount must be determined by the circumstances of the individual, and the object for which he wants it; the safe maximum will vary in different cases.

It is probable, indeed, that a comparatively small number of well-selected bookseven when our own-would, generally, be likely to form a sounder and more serviceable knowledge than the unlimited range of a large library. Most readers must have been aware of the fastidious mood with which, in moments of leisure, they have stood before a goodly assortment of attractive writers, and instead of making a substantial repast, as they would have done with less to distract their choice, have humored the vagaries of a delicate appetite-toyed with this rich dainty and that and after all have felt like a school-boy who has dined upon tarts-that they have spoiled their digestion without satisfying their hunger!

But without stopping any longer to examine this paradox--whether the multiplication of books is to produce a diminution of knowledge or not there are other consequences of the prodigious activity of the modern press far more certain to arise, and which well deserve a little consideration.

One of the most obvious of these consequences will be the disappearance from the world of that always rare animal, the socalled "universal scholar." Even of that ill-defined creature called "a well-informed man" and "general student," it will be perpetually harder to find exemplars; while assuredly the Huets, the Scaligers, the Leibnitzes, must become as extinct as the ichthyosaurus or the megatherium. It is true that,

There are opposite dangers. The knowledge of each particular thing that a man can study will always be imperfect. The most "minute philosopher" cannot pretend perfection of knowledge even in his little domain; and if it were perfect to-day, the leakage of memory would make it imperfect by to-morrow. No subject can be named, which is not inexhaustible to the spirit of man. Whether he looks at nature through the microscope or the telescope, he sees wonders disclosed on either side which extend into infinity—the infinitely great or the

For what can be suggested in favor of the "Man of One Book," the reader may profitably consult the observations of Mr. D'Israeli on that subject in his "Curiosities of Literature." There is truth in what he says; but if the proverb is to be taken at all literally, we are convinced that it has less than the usual average of proverbial wisdom, and that the "man of one book" will prove but a shallow fellow.