1823.] Philosophy of Contemporary Criticism, No. XXXII. 
For the, Monthly Magazine. , 
. THE PHILOSOPHY OF CONTEM-. 
PORARY CRITICISM, | 
NO. XXXII. 
Quarterly Review, No.56, January1823. 
HOULD the Quarterly Review 
be read in after-times, some asto- 
nishment will be excited by its glaring 
anachronisms. ‘The Number before 
us is entitled January 1823, although 
it contains reviews of several books 
that were not published until some 
months after that date. We are told, 
indeed, on the wrapper, that this 
Number is published in July ; but the 
wrapper is perishable, and the title- 
pages of the work belie this assertion. 
What purpose the proprietors or the 
editors have in view for thus protract- 
ing the period of publication, we can- 
not divine; for surely there can be 
no want of contributors capable of 
writing such long and heavy essays as 
those which it generally obtrudes upon 
its purchasers. We shall see, in the 
course of our analysis, if there be any 
apparent circumstance that warrants 
the delay. _ y's 
. The first article in this Number is a 
review of M. Lacretelle’s Histotre de 
V Assemblée Constituante de France, a 
work in two octavo volumes, published 
last year in Paris. In the outset of 
this review, M. Lacretelle is abso- 
lutely loaded with praise, the reason 
for which may be guessed from the 
following extract: — ‘‘The present, 
however, is not his first essay upon the 
French+revolution. A narrative of 
that dreadful event bad been com- 
menced by Rabaud St. Etienne, a 
partizan of the republic, but averse to 
regicide ; and it was continued by M. 
Lacretelie in the same tone of mind. 
But the volumes now before us breathe 
a different spirit; and we heartily 
congratulate their author upon the 
seyere animadversions which this 
change has drawn upon him from the 
French liberalists. The deviations of 
M..Lacretelle from sound principles 
have been in a great measure correct- 
ed by years; and his former helpmates 
are nettled at his . abjuration of 
wickedness aud folly.” It is thus 
agreed, on both sides, that this histo- ' 
rian has been, during one period of his 
life, very foolish and very wicked,’ The 
only point in dispute is, therefore, , 
whiether his career of folly and wiched- 
ness Was run in his early or in his latter 
days. ‘The reviewer adds, “ We could 
Montucy Maa. No. 386. 
105 
quote numerous instances of a similar 
reform among the eminent men of our 
own country;” and then he mentions 
Burke, Sheridan, Grattan, Curran, 
and a living author,—all of whom are 
Irish. As men adyance in life, -he 
says, “the general tendency of their 
political opinions pass from ultra-de- 
mocracy in youth to. more settled forms 
of monarchy in maturer age.” The 
reviewer is right, and we could remind 
him of other examples :— 
Eager, when young, on life’s great race we start, 
Yet warm with all that animates the heart; 
Till, tir’d with age, we linger on the way, 
And all our virtues, one by one, decay: 
Prudence succeeds where hope was wont to blaze, 
And Nature’s lost amid the length of days. ‘ 
Apostate, however, as he is, this 
Frenchman, it would seem, has not 
yet attained to that height of ultra- 
royalism which is pleasing to the re- 
viewer, who, in consequence, favours 
us with forty-four pages of a history of 
the Constituent Assembly, the produc- 
tion of his own pen; in which Marie- 
Antoinette is painted as a goddess, 
and ‘Lafayette as a demon. : 
The review of Burton’s Description 
of the Antiquities and other Curiosities 
of Rome is very well drawn up, and 
forms an useful appendix to that enter- 
taining work. ‘The remarks describe 
many curious objects, particularly 
churches, which Mr. Burton had_ 
omitted, and several mistakes and in- 
advertencies into which he has fallen, 
—without any of that impertinence and 
insolence so generally resorted to by 
reviewers. Whatever superstitions 
may exist among ourselves, we can 
seldom veneraie those of other nations. 
There are few who can sympathise 
with Warburton when he blames 
Socrates for having endeavoured to 
destroy ‘the established gods’ of 
Athens.” The relics of the saints, 
which are still sacred in Rome, excite 
the smiles both of Mr. Burton and of 
his critic. ‘The identical “chair of St. 
Peter, which he occupied as universal 
pastor, till he suffered death for 
Christ’s sake,” 1s still preserved, and 
many arguments are adduced ‘by 
Bonanni to prove that it is genuine. 
Calvin doubted, because it was made 
of wood, so perishable ‘a material. 
“ But, if this were a true ground for 
doubt, (says the honest Bonanni,) the 
true Cross and the cradle of our Sa- 
viour are made of wood, as are several 
statues of the saints; and nobody 
doubts about them,” ; 
P Phe 
