1822.] 
regulates the multiplication of man- 
kind, But, says the reviewer, there is a 
“ natural tendency’’ to increase in one 
case, and none in the other. We say 
no. Put a seed in the ground, it has a 
natural tendency to grow ; putacouple 
together, they have natural tendency to 
multiply, but the “ natural tendency” 
is the same in both. We could say 
much more on this subject, but we 
must content ourselves at present, with 
showing the fallacy of the geometric 
ratio applied on/y to population. What 
the reviewer observes on the propricty 
of providing the means of subsistence 
before an increase of consumers is 
thought of, is very good, and well wor- 
thy attention, both from individuals 
and legislators. 
In the eighth article, “* Prometheus 
Unbound,’ bating the usual declamation 
on the immoral, impious, and unsocial 
tendency of Mr. Shelley's writings— 
there are many things, we think, from 
which this singular genius might bene- 
fit in the exercise of his powers; espe- 
cially in what is observed on his want 
of taste—the substitution of unmeaning 
verbiage for sublimity—absurdity for 
eriginality—incohereut metaphors for 
richness of imagination—and the in- 
correctness and irregularity of his ver- 
sification. 
Our old. friend, the Laureate, turns 
up next, with an odd rambling kind of 
article about ‘‘ Astrology and Alchemy,” 
and Francis Moore’s “ Loyal Almanac.” 
We really wonder what the Doctor 
will turn to at last: does he consider a 
belief in divination, fortune-telling, and 
witchcraft necessary to the complete 
re-establishment of ‘ social order ?”’ 
The following is a sample of the stuff 
he has raked out of old Nixon’s and 
Mother Shipton’s Prophecies : 
When the bear is muzzled and cannot byte, 
And the hors is fettered and cannot stryke, 
And the swanne is sicke and cannot 
swymme, 
Then shall the sploy-foot England winne ! 
A more trumpery article was never 
raked together. It consists of extracts 
from Lilly’s Life, Sibley’s Astrology, 
Butler’s Defence, and Scott’s Witch- 
craft, made in profound ignorance of 
the subject, and without the slightest 
discrimination between the vulgar and 
the recondite. 
The tenth article, “ Route from Tri- 
poli to Egypt,” by Signor Della Bella, 
in IS17, is good, as notices of voyages 
and travels in the Quarterly generaliy 
are; and the reviewer justly complains 
Quarterly Review, No. LI. 
203 
of the Signor’s want of ability or indus- 
try, to avail himself of the opportuni- 
ties which presented in the course of 
his journey to settle disputed points on 
subjeets of ancient history and natural 
curiosity. 
The eleventh article, Morellet’s* He- 
moirs of the French Revolution,” is ofa 
different character, and in the worst 
style of the Quarterly, full of misrepre- 
sentation, absurd reasoning, and vulgar 
abuse of the men who adorned the 
“Jatter period of thereign”’ of LouisX V. 
and to whom Europe, in spite of their 
errors, is indebted for so much valua- 
bie information on the true interests of 
society. The object of the reviewer, 
in the usual stupid way, is to associate 
the writings of the ** philosophers”’ with 
the crimes of the revolution; whereas 
it is pretty well ascertained, from the 
recent publications of Grimm, Deffand, 
and Marmontel, that the two had little 
or any connexion. That the Encyelo- 
pedists wished to abate the abuses of 
superstition and political oppression, 
may be granted; but their principles 
had as liitle to do with democratic tur- 
bulence, as the true precepts of chris- 
tianity with war aud intolerance. If 
is indeed a solecism in reasoning, to 
connect the pursuits of literature and 
science (and such were the engagements 
of the French literati) with deep-laid 
schemes of violence and disorder, and 
we should much sooner infer the oppe- 
site extreme of servility and indiffer- 
ence. What Madame de Staél remark- 
ed on Voltaire may, we think, be ap- 
plied to his contemporaries : they wist- 
ed society to be enlightened raiher 
than changed, and doubtless felt too 
great interest in the artificial distine- 
tions time had established, to wish has- 
tily their overthrow. 
The twelfth and last article, is 
Dalzel’s “ Lectures on the Ancient 
Greeks 3°? a posthumous work, which, 
from a slight glance at a few chapters, 
we concur, had better not seen the 
light, affording another instance to that 
we lately noticed inthe friends of Mad, 
de Sta#l, of mistaken friendship ob- 
truding on the public what the writers 
never intended. for publication, aud 
which detracts from their previous re- 
putation. The subject, however, poor 
as it is, affords a pretext for a tedious 
disquisition on the “ Ancient Greeks 5” 
in which the writer is pleased to remark 
that his former lueubrations had had 
an unfavourable effect on ourselves, a 
point about which he is totally misin- 
formed, 
