the story. Do you remember the two Miss Ormsdens introduced just at
last? Very flat and unnatural. Madelle. Cossart is rather my
passion.'

Two notices of her works appeared in the 'Quarterly Review.' One in
October 1815, and another, more than three years after her death, in
January 1821. The latter article is known to have been from the pen of
Whately, afterwards Archbishop of Dublin. {140} They differ much from
each other in the degree of praise which they award, and I think also it
may be said, in the ability with which they are written. The first
bestows some approval, but the other expresses the warmest admiration.
One can scarcely be satisfied with the critical acumen of the former
writer, who, in treating of 'Sense and Sensibility,' takes no notice
whatever of the vigour with which many of the characters are drawn, but
declares that 'the interest and _merit_ of the piece depends _altogether_
upon the behaviour of the elder sister!' Nor is he fair when, in 'Pride
and Prejudice,' he represents Elizabeth's change of sentiments towards
Darcy as caused by the sight of his house and grounds. But the chief
discrepancy between the two reviewers is to be found in their
appreciation of the commonplace and silly characters to be found in these
novels. On this point the difference almost amounts to a contradiction,
such as one sometimes sees drawn up in parallel columns, when it is
desired to convict some writer or some statesman of inconsistency. The
Reviewer, in 1815, says: 'The faults of these works arise from the minute
detail which the author's plan comprehends. Characters of folly or
simplicity, such as those of old Woodhouse and Miss Bates, are ridiculous
when first presented, but if too often brought forward, or too long dwelt
on, their prosing is apt to become as tiresome in fiction as in real
society.' The Reviewer, in 1821, on the contrary, singles out the fools
as especial instances of the writer's abilities, and declares that in