Pattison’s concluding paragraphs from his review of Elwin’s edition of Pope (1871, I think):

But to all the minutiae of illustration and criticsm, Mr. Elwin’s attitude is one of an indifference somewhat contemptuous. We have alluded to his disregard of the contemporary orthography in the text. And his rough and ready mode of passing by difficulties does not leave a curious reader in a satisfied state of mind. When Pope talks of Zoroaster as a conjuror, we don’t want to have Pope refuted out of Smith’s Dictionary, but we should like to know the parentage of that false rendering of the term magian, and how far it was current in Pope’s time. On the line, ‘Favour’d man by touch ethereal slain,’ Pope writes in a note: ‘Several of the ancients, and many of the orientals since, esteemed those who were struck by lightning and sacred persons, and the particular favorites of heaven.’ It has puzzled scholars to divine where Pope got the notion that death by lightning was a mark of heaven’s favour, seeing that the uniform tenor of classical tradition is to regard it as an effect of divine vengeance. Mr. Elwin makes no difficulty. ‘Superstitions,’ he says, ‘often clash. Plutarch mentions that persons struck with lightning were held in honour.’ The difficulty consists, not in finding ‘clashing superstitions,’ but that Pope should have found an authority for a statement so direct and categorical, which we cannot find. We will undertake to say he did not find it in Plutarch. It is hazardous to deny that any passage is to be found in a Greek author, whose works run to some dozen volumes, yet we will venture to challenge Mr. Elwin to produce any words of Plutarch, to the effect he mentions. The words which Mr. Elwin ascribes to Plutarch are, indeed, to be found in a Greek writer of later date than Plutarch. But, besides the improbability of Pope having read Artemidorus’s Oneirocriticon, even in Rigaltius’s Latin version, the words there found would not authorize Pope’s direct assertion that the thunderstruck were thought to be heaven’s favourites. Mr. Elwin’s memory may have confused the words of Artemidorus with a passage in Plutarch, which, however, affirms the received belief, and not Pope’s fancy. ‘In many parts of the world,’ says the speaker in Plutarch, ‘the bodies of those killed by lightning are surrounded by a fence, and left, where they lay, unburied’; burial not being thought allowable for an enemy of heaven.

This kind of research consumes a great deal of time. But Mr. Elwin has shown that, as an editor, he will spare no pains. All that we venture to ask for is, that instead of spending his time in abusing his author, he would try the more useful, though more difficult, plan of explaining and illustrating him.

Pattison finds the right passage, not in Plutarch but in Artemidorus, then mentions Rigaltius’s Latin version, and expresses his doubts about whether Pope read either. Pattison not only clears up the textual problem, but takes Elwin out behind the the Bod for a good old fashioned ass-whoopin’.

And that’s the art of the unfavorable review, which demands tact and brilliance if it’s to be done right.