Memoirs of Grammont, and other such writers, in whose amber the grubs are preserved? We think-nay, we are sure that such subjects are not in harmony with the feelings and opinions of people at the present time; and it is on that account that we lament Mr. Jesse did not aspire to nobler and better subjects, from which he could have reaped a richer reward of his successful toils. Mr. Jesse is a young man, and therefore, he will not be offended with the advice of those who are much further advanced in the path of life than himself; and in this assurance we venture to advise him to eschew all attempts at what is called fine writing; and to be very suspicious of his most elaborated and elegant sentences. We could give some examples of what we mean from these volumes, but it is not necessary. We only observe, that had the manuscript been submitted to us, we should have altered the form and expression of the following passages. History has shewn us that the patriot is often the worst enemy of the lower orders: and that it is better for the poor man to gain his livelihood even by weaving purple for a despot, than to trust for emancipation to the delusions of republicism." Now in this sentence, in the first place, by the term patriot, we are to understand not that person who really feels that "Omnes omnium caritates amplectitur patria," but the demagogue, the man who, under the appearance of patriotism, has cloaked his selfishness and ambition; secondly, to "weave purple for a despot," is far too poetical a form of speech to assimilate well with the other members of the section; and thirdly, we are not told from what the poor man expects emancipation, we presume, from poverty; but the forma lectionis is not correct. There is a passage at p. 134, on the burial of Cromwell, which we should, in like manner, strip of some of its ornaments. At p. 141, Mr. Jesse observes, "The history of Cromwell will prove that the semblance of piety and philanthropy can mask the greatest crimes; that prayers and fastings are no evidences of true religion; and that patriotism is often the shadow of a name." This reflection, alas! is but too GENT, MAG. VOL. XV. true; and from that very cause hardly worth being selected for formal consideration at the same time, we observe, that prayers and fastings are not evidences of religion, but duties belonging to the practice of it; and that, like other duties, they may be performed from unworthy motives. P. 330. We do not see the peculiar form or propriety of the word in italics :- "Dryden's Tragedies are a compound of bombast and heroic obscurity endorsed in the most beautiful numbers." P. 346. We should consider the following observations as much wanting in precision and accuracy of inference. "The King, as is well known, died a Roman Catholic; and there is reason to believe that he had very early conformed secretly to that faith, and that he was altogether in the habit of thinking more sincerely on religious matters than was generally supposed. The sectarian, perhaps, will be disposed to consider popery but little removed from scepticism. The more charitable, however, will judge otherwise, and will award to Charles the portion of credit which may be his due." P. 478. Speaking of Buckingham. "Whether as the philosopher or rake, as the man of pleasure or the man of business, or the man of science, we find him equally versatile, capricious and unprincipled to the last." In what way was he unprincipled as a man of science? P. 83. Mr. Jesse says, "6 Milton, Marvell, and Waller, were retained near his (Cromwell's) person." As far as Milton is concerned, we do not agree to this. Milton himself says, he had no influence or familiarity with Cromwell. He tells Heimbach that he cannot serve him. Propter paucissimas familiaritates meas cum gratiosis." Ep. Fam. Dec. 10, 1657. What does Mr. Jesse mean by saying, unfortunately Milton was his own secretary," &c.? Vol. II. p. 496. Speaking of Lady Dorchester, Mr. Jesse quotes the wellknown lines in Johnson's Vanity of Human Wishes. "Yet Vane could tell what ills from beauty spring, And Valiere cursed the form that pleased a King." I 58 1 REVIEW. Brougham's Dissertations on Subjects of Science. "There is nothing, however, in what we know of her history, to prove that such was the case. On the contrary, her life appears to have been a long course of undeserved prosperity. The name was selected incidentally by Dr. Johson for the sake of the metre, or the want of a better. Boswell, we believe it is, who suggests that the substitution of the name of Shore for Valière would have made the illustration happier, and the couplet more effective." A little further inquiry would have shown Mr. Jesse that not Boswell, but Lord Hailes, suggested the alteration. See Tour in Scotland, p. 37. Lord Hailes told Johnson that he was mistaken in the instances he had given of unfortunate fair ones; for neither Vane nor Sedley had a title to that description. Lord Hailes then proposes his alteration in a note to Mr. Boswell. We must now quit the author and his work, assuring him that we are convinced that he has talents and knowledge for a work very superior to those he has now produced. Let him take a more ambitious flight, and vie with the Russells, Listers, and Mahons of the age, in their historical researches; and leave King Charles and his ladies in the "Fool's Paradise," of which the plate to Mr. Jesse's last volume is no bad representation. Dissertations on subjects of Science, connected with Natural Theology, &c. H. Lord Brougham. 2 vols. 1839. THE three Dissertations of importance in these volumes are as follows: 1. On Instinct. 2. On the Origin of Evil. 3. On Fossil Osteology. The first is distinguished by much acuteness in reasoning, and by the detection of many fallacious arguments which had long passed current, rather than by any steady or stronger light thrown прод the very mysterious and abstruse subject discussed. Of the second, nearly the same remark must be made. Had Lord Brougham done no than show the very illogical ture of the arguments used in the former dissertations by Dr. King and Balguy, he would have done the same good as he who removes all that had been imperfectly constructed before, before, when he meditates erecting a more new 4 [Jan. building. The third dissertation is useful, as showing scientifically the existence and construction of the fossil animal remains, their difference from the existing animals, and the adaptation of their structure to a form of things distinct from the present. The whole of these volumes shows a wonderful activity of mind, an immense variety of knowledge, and perhaps as much accuracy and depth as can exist with such multifarious acquirements. The dissertation on Instinct is given in the form of a dialogue between Lord Brougham and Lord Spencer. It is written with great clearness, animation, and acuteness; and if at last we confess that its pages of inquiry have added little to the illustration of the subject, we shall not be at the same time unwilling to acknowledge the extreme difficulty and darkness in which it had to work. The argument runs thus: 1. The peculiar or distinctive quality of instinct ascertained, and that which distinguishes it from reason, i. e. it acts without teaching either from others-that is, instruction-or from the animal itselfthat is, experience. To this general description of instinct Lord Brougham adds another peculiarity-it acts without knowledge of consequences, acts blindly, and accomplishes a pur. pose of which the animal is ignorant. 2. Animals have two kinds of operation, one of which we agree to call instinctive, distinguished by the ignorance of the object and want of intention; the other both knowingly and intentionally done. 3. Animals have intelligence as well as instinct. When the act is done in ordinary circumstances, it may be called instinctive or not, according as it is what our reason could, in the like circumstances, enable us to perform or not, and according as the animal is in a situation which enables him to act knowingly or not. Another class of acts is clearly to be called rational, when the means are varied, adapted, adjusted to a varying object, or when the animal acts in artificial circumstances in any way. It would appear that in vertebrated animals which have a cerebral and nervous system, intelligence prevails; in invertebrated, instinct. This intelligence, this share of reason among the animal creation may differ from ours VS. MOV SAM AYSE 1841.] REVIEW.-Brougham's Dissertations on Subjects of Science. 59 either in degree or in kind, for where the difference in degree becomes so vast, there is hardly any chance of encroachment or confusion, hardly any more likeness or comparison than if the difference were radical and in kind. The author then analyses the mind, and resolves our mental faculties into perception active and passive, memory active or passive, consciousness, abstraction, comparison. How far the animals possess these powers is next examined. The result of the whole inquiry is, that they possess both instinct and intelligence. When instinct is interfered with by obstacles interposed, the animal's intelligent powers are brought into action, and then the uniformity and perfect regularity arises. The more sagacious the animal is, the greater variety is perceived in his actions and habits. Intelligence or reason will sometimes interfere with instinct, as our voluntary actions will sometimes interfere with the involuntary operations of secretion; but the instinctive operation proceeds whether the animal wills or no,-proceeds without his knowledge and beyond his design. "The whole question is one of relatives and connexions: adaptation, adjustment, mutual dependence of parts, conformity of arrangement, balance and compensation, everywhere appear pervading the whole system, and conspicuous in all its parts. It signifies not in this whether we regard instinct as the result of the animal's faculties, actuated by the impression of his senses, or the faint glimmerings of intelligence working by the same rules which guide the operation of more developed reason, or as a peculiar faculty differing in kind from those with which man is gifted, or as the immediate and direct operation of the Great Mind which created and which upholds the universe. If the last be the true theory, then we have additional reason for devoutly admiring the spectacle which this department of the creation hourly offers to the contemplative mind. But the same conclusion of a present and pervading intelligence flows from all the other doctrines, and equally flows from them all. If the senses so move the animal's mind as to produce the perfect result which we witnessed, these senses have been framed and that mind constituted in strict harmony with each other; and their combined and mutual action has been adjusted to the regular performance of the work spread out before our eyes, the subject of just wonder. If it is reason like our own which moves the animal mechanism, its modification to suit that physical structure, and to work those effects which we are unable to accomplish, commands again our humble admiration; while the excellence of the workmanship performed by so mean an agent, impresses us with ideas yet more awful of the Being who formed and who taught it. If to the bodily structure of these creatures there has been given a mind wholly different from our own, yet it has been most nicely adapted to its material abode, and to the corporeal tools with which it works. So that while a new variety strikes us in the infinite resources of creative skill, our admiration is still raised, as before, by the The manifestation of contrivance and expert- So the inquiry closes; and although than this? Can any The dissertation on the Origin of Evil is valuable, as it most clearly shows the fallacy and weakness of the reasoning of the most eminent writers on the subject, as Bishop King, Dr. Balguy, &c. Indeed, it seems wonderful how these learned and acute persons could have been satisfied with their own very illogical line of argument. We are convinced that this subject is placed far beyond the powers of the human intellect, among the secret things of God, and that it requires the veil of the other world to be withdrawn before it can be understood by us. Lord Brougham has shown himself a better logician than his predecessors, not only by refuting their errors, but by attempting a less arduous flight himself.* An analytical view of the researches of Fossil Osteology, and their application to natural theology, follows, which is given in a well arranged summary. The chief discoveries in this branch of science point out their importance, and establish the truth of the scientific descriptions of them by Cuvier and other naturalists. With respect to animal life, the result of these curious and learned investigations is, 1. That there were no animals of any kind in the ocean which deposited the primary strata, nor any on the Continent which that ocean had laid dry on its retreat. 2. That the present race of animals did not exist in the earlier successive stages and revolutions through which the globe has passed. 3. That our own species did not exist in those earlier stages either. The conclusion to which these propositions lead is, that an interposition of creative power took place about 6000 years ago, to form the present race of creatures, and man among the rest. That an act of creation was performed at one precise time is demon One cause of their discomfiture certainly has been their aiming too high, attempting a complete solution of a problem which only admitted of approximation and discussion of limits. (p.52.) At the same time we must say, that Lord Brougham's argument from probation is anything but forcible or satisfactory to our minds. See p. 76-8. strated as clearly as any proposition in natural philosophy, and demonstrated by the same evidence, the induction of facts, upon which all the other branches of philosophy rest. The History of the Roman Empire, from the acession of Augustus to the end of the Empire of the West. By Thomas Keightley. 12mo. pp. 444. IT is observed by Heeren, in speaking of Levesque's Studies in Roman History, that whoever wishes to preserve his enthusiasm for ancient Rome, ought not to read that work. There are two classes of readers to whom Mr. Keightley's volume will prove unacceptable, as he himself surmises, in allusion to his former ones. "By some I am accused of illiberality, on account of my hostility to democracy and to the church of Rome; my reply is, I detest despotism under all its forms, and I view these as unmitigated tyrannies, and as those from which the world has most danger at present to apprehend. That I am no admirer of monarchic despotism, the following pages will sufficiently prove. (Pref. p. v.) Both these points, indeed, are touched upon in the present work, as a sketch of ecclesiastical history forms part of his plan. " This volume completes the author's History of Rome, as the former ended with the Republic. With a laudable care for the purchasers, he has printed them as separate works, a distinction not always sufficiently attended to. "I wished (he says) to shun the imputation of forcing any one to buy a volume that he might not want;" and it would be unjust to pass over such disinterestedness in silence. The author is so well known as a writer of history, that much of our task is saved, and we have only to offer our remarks such upon passages as appear to call for them. At p. 87, Caractacus is merely mentioned, in order to relate, that Agrippina was present in state, when he was led captive,- —an indirect way of writing history. At p. 114, speaking of the decline of tillage in Italy, and the supply of corn from Egypt, Mr. K. justly ob serves, that " any one who could ob. tain possession of Egypt could starve the capital." What follows may be recommended to the advocates of AntiCorn-Law measures. "In every point of view this policy was bad it should be the object of every prudent government to maintain a sound agricultural population; and no great nation should ever suffer itself to become dependent for its food on the selfishness or caprice of strangers." At p. 119, the author distinguishes well between the Greek and the Roman ideas of a future state. His expressions occasionally want simplicity, e. g. relegated (p. 155), delators (p. 168). In speaking of Antoninus Pius, he properly translates that epithet by dutiful. At p. 188 he uses the word Porphyrogenitus, "born to a reigning emperor, differently from the sense implied at p. 20, where it is employed for Caius and Tiberius, in the reign of Augustus. Mentioning the fall of Cleander, in the reign of Commodus, (p. 191,) he says, "When the cavalry entered the streets, they were assailed with missiles from the roofs of the houses, and the people being joined by the urban cohorts, rallied, and drove them back to the palace," which reminds us of some of the occurrences in Paris, during "the three days of July." "A certain imbecility of character was in effect the chief blemish in Aurelius. It would almost seem as if too early a study of speculative philosophy were detrimental to a man who is called on to take an active part in the affairs of life, and to direct the destinies of an empire." (P. 186.) This remark might, without any injustice, be extended to education in general. The inutility of exciting habits of mental activity in children too early, in preference to bodily ones, is often severely felt in after life. At p. 222, he says in plain terms, that elective monarchy is an evil of the greatest magnitude," a sentence which might serve as a motto to any history of Poland. At p. 241, we have was by mistake for were, which we mention, that it may be corrected. At p. 248, speaking of the Emperor Tacitus's at tempt to revive the dignity of the Senate, he observes, "in history there is no return, and the real power of the once mighty Roman senate had departed for ever." The first clause is expressed himself better at p. 428, rather obscurely worded; and he has where he remarks, that "the course of decline is not to be stopped." In the account of literature, there is no mention of Longinus. Are we to infer that the author has adopted Mr. Knox's theory, which ascribes the treatise on the Sublime to another Dionysius? At p. 289, he compares the conquest of Britain by Constantius, after the single battle in which Allectus was slain, to the invasion of England by William the Norman. The comparison is just; but we must remember, that it was not thus that the native Britons were subdued their struggles against the Romans, Saxons, and Normans, were those of generations, and, in the two latter cases, of centuries; for we must distinguish between the resistance of the Saxons and their Cambrian contemporaries after the invasion of William. We cannot agree with his unwillingness to attach the term apostate to Julian; it does not imply that his motives were insincere, but simply the fact of his abandoning Christianity. It is even used in a most important passage of the New Testament, (1 Tim. iv. 1. Orig. Gr.) in the verb αποστήσονται, for persons who nominally adhere to the Christian creed, while they pervert its principles. There is something awkward in entitling Part 3 The Christian Emperors, when it begins with Diocletian and Maximian; and if this title is retained, their reigns should be transferred to the end of the second part. Mr. K. has dealt more fairly with Constantine than it is usual to do. But, under that emperor's reign, he passes far too sweeping a censure on Eusebius, in denying altogether his claim to truth and integrity as an historian, because he omits the tragical deaths of Crispus and Fausta. Eusebius may have preserved silence, simply because he could not make up his mind how to view those melancholy transactions; |