428 The Philosophy of Contemporary Criticism.—No. XV HI. | Mareh 1, 
ed praise, and not more praise, in our 
opinion, than her extraordinary merits 
asa writer and thinker deserved. But 
on this occasion we suspect the reviewer 
from a wish to be both generous and 
just, to departed excellence, has felt 
himself rather awkwardly situated. 
The subjects reviewed are, the “@uvres 
Inédites’? of Madame de Staél, con- 
sisting of her first and her last writings, 
—of the plays and poems of her youth- 
—and of the pieces with which she 
amused her later retirement, and which 
she did not live to revise. Now, 
though the world is at all times eager 
to see the ‘ first’ and ‘ last’ of those by 
whom it has been greatly amused or 
instructed, weapprehend it is a curiosity 
which should not always be gratified. 
In the present case we doubt not the 
friends of the illustrious author have 
acted with the partiality, if not with 
the discretion of true friendship. Of 
the pieces they have published, we have 
only read the Div <Années d Evil, 
which, we are told by the reviewer, is 
the most remarkable in the collection, 
but which, in our opinion, contains de- 
tails much better omitted. We do not 
allude particularly to what is said of 
Bonaparte—for every body knows Ma- 
dame de Staé] hated Bonaparte, and 
Bonaparte disgraced himself bya paltry 
prosecution of the first woman of the 
age; though we think on the subject, 
some things had better have been with- 
held, especially what is related about 
Napoleon pirouetting & la Bourbon, and 
the precautions the author took to be 
prepared for his impertinencies. But 
what we object to more than these, is 
the account of the prostratious and ce- 
remonies, before Madame de Staél left 
Coppet, and the extravagant praise she 
has lavished on the Russians, for no 
better reason that we can discover, 
than that she was hospitably received 
by the emperor, who comes in also for 
ashare of her admiration, for the not 
less disinterested motive that he was 
about to make war on her prosecutor. 
These things we readily admit are all 
very womanly, and do not detract from 
the moral worth of Madame de Staé1; 
but with many they will lessen their 
confidence in her judgment, and their 
admiration for the intellectual great- 
ness of the author of ‘ Considerations’ 
and the‘ Influence of Literature.’ 
The nevt article, “ The Greek Ora- 
tors.”’ displays more learning than phi- 
losophy, and does not evince a very 
intimate acquaintance with the true 
principles of eloquence. Jt may be 
proper to hold up to youth examples of 
snecessful application, but we surmise 
the utmost that can be attained by in- 
dustry alone, is not more than medi- 
ocrity.. That Demosthenes was a la- 
borious corrector of his speeches—that 
by haranguing the waves, and eareyine 
stones in his mouth, he surmounte 
the defects of nature, are far from con- 
vincing us that he was indebted to 
these causes for his unrivalled excel- 
lence. There is a wide difference be- 
tween giving scope to a power and 
creating the power itself. It is a dif- 
ferent thing to loosen a tongue that is 
tied, or remove a cataract, and to give 
the faculty of speech, er the power of 
vision. One is the province of art, thé 
other the gift of nature. What Demos- 
thenes did for himself was no more,— 
he only untied his tongue. The soul of 
an orator he had, and all he did by his 
‘pebbles’ and his ‘ waves’ was to give 
her ‘ verge and room enough.’ —We 
could enlarge on this point, but what 
we have said must convince the re- 
viewer, we differ widely from him in 
our view of his subject. And if, he 
will find, we think that it has not been 
by labour and preparation that assem- 
bled multitudes have been moved and 
animated ; but by a word—a phrase— 
a spark of fire, struck out at the mo- 
ment, which not art could have fore- 
seen or provided, had not the element 
of combustion been previously im- 
planted by nature in the mind of the 
speaker. 
“* Mr. Scarlett’s Poor Bill’ forms the 
sivth article. It is rather too racy and 
rough even for us, though we have seen 
articles from the same hand we ad- 
mired. The reviewer treats Mr. Scar- 
lett indeed very cavalierly, and is quite 
merry with his schemes for checking 
population. We think, however, Mr. 
Scarlett is right, at least so far as his 
bill goes to prevent litigation. Ifa man 
need assistance in Cornwall, we cannot. 
see why he should be removed ‘into 
Yorkshire to receive it. Where a man is, 
it is generally the interest of society he 
should remain. By his forcible removal 
his industry is taken from a place where 
it is in-request, to one where it is not 
in demand. The consideration about 
settlement is inapplicable in this ease, 
as it isa measure intended to be gene- 
ral, not local. It isnot what one parish 
may gain or another lose, but the total 
effect on the community that is to be 
considered. The points to be answered 
are 
