128 
to stand on an elegant pedestal; was 
furnished with a revolving cylindrical 
sounding-board, receiving impulse 
from the wind; its powers were very 
superior to the olian harp, and 
might be placed in a bower, summer- 
house, garden, or other situation, at 
pleasure. W. H. WEEKEs. 
Sandwich; August 10. 
* * We shall be happy to give place to 
the engravings and further descriptions to 
which Mr. Weekes refers. 
—a— 
For the Monthly Magazine. 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF CONTEM- 
PORARY CRITICISM. 
NO. XXIV. 
Quarterly Review, No. 53, July 1822. 
T was once remarked by a learned 
advocate to his enquiring client, 
that he had an excellent case, com- 
plete in every point, with one small 
exception—the proof. So we are in- 
clined to say of the Quarterly Review 
in general, and of the present number 
in particular, that it contains a body of 
very spirited and clever criticism, in 
which we find nothing to blame but its 
prejudice, unfairness, and malignity. 
We admire the frankness with which 
a northern periodical, whose great 
merit consists in the excess of its 
modest assurance, professes to “be 
always candid and impartial, except in 
politics ;” and, setting matters of state 
policy and state religion out of the 
question, we doubt not that the Quar- 
terly would administer most whole- 
some and upright judgment. But, if 
evidence be the bone and sinew of a 
litigated cause, candour and imparti- 
ality are, in no inferior degree, the very 
life and soul of areview, In matters 
of minor literary interest, these quali- 
ties are commendable and becoming; 
but, in the higher concerns of politics 
and religion, they are of vital im- 
ortance. It is not of the party prin- 
ciple of this Review that we complain, 
for these feelings must be expected to 
mingle themselves with the discussion 
of neutral topics, and we are ready to 
make a reasonable allowance for their 
bias. But we are romantic enough to 
think, that they might be confined 
within some limits of charity and fair- 
ness, and that the exaltation of Joyal 
and orthodox zeal ought not wholly to 
supersede a regard to justice and 
truth. Yet this exasperated critic per- 
sists in shutting his eyes to all consi- 
deratiens when he rushes on his victim; 
and his ferocity, like that of the animal 
< 
The Philosophy of Contemporary Criticism, No. XXIV. [Sept.'1, 
to which we may liken him, has at 
least this good effect, that he often 
misses his aim. ‘The present number 
affords fair specimens of the peculiar 
merits and vices of this Review. 
In the first article we have a well- 
written dissertation on the Life and 
Writings of Camoens, including re- 
marks on the two English versions by 
Fanshawe and Mickle, in which we 
recognize the correct taste and exten- 
sive information which, on subjects 
like these, Mr. Southey never fails to 
display. There remained, however, 
little new to be said either of the poem 
or its author. The merits of the for- 
mer, and the character and adventures 
of the latter, were sufficiently noto- 
rious. To this country the poetry of 
Portugal is known only in the Lusiad, 
and that work only through Mickle’s 
translation. As a leading national 
poem, it will always maintain a perma- 
nent rank, but it is too little known in 
the original to admit of its becoming 
popular in a translation. We wish 
Mr. Southey had confined himself to 
Portugal, and not gone out of his way 
to reflect upon the French, against 
whom his hatredseems as deep as when 
they occupied the Peninsula; and still 
less was he called upon, in this quiet 
critique, to proclaim that, at home, 
“villains, and dupes, and madmen, 
are scattering the seeds of rebellion 
with indefatigable industry.” Mr. 
Southey may depend upon it, they 
scatter in vain. Such seeds are only 
to be sown with effect by the hands of 
harsh and unprincipled governments, 
and spring up only when they are 
received into the hearts of an impo- 
verished and injured people. 
We hold in great respect the learn- 
ing, research, and industry, exhibited 
in the next article, attributed to Mr. 
Ugo Foscolo ; and we heartily wish it 
had been directed to a better purpose. 
The History of the Holic Digamma is 
wrapped in a very venerable shrond 
of antiquity and mystery, which the 
labours of the critic have not, in any 
degree, removed—‘‘ Tis but to know 
how little can be known.” Where all 
is hypothesis and conjecture, the 
greatest praise which can accrue to an 
enquirer, is that which we cheerfully 
yield to Mr. Foscolo, that those which 
he has hazarded are at least plausible 
and ingenious. 
We arrive, in the third article, at 
oue of those virulent eflusions of pre- 
judice and spleen which have so often 
disgraced 
EE I a re eae 
