1799] 
% 
from the tomb. This was: intended as a 
fyibol — though poorly enough devifed — 
to exprefs the idea that the philofopher has 
fhed light on the world atietihis death: a 
» poet might have employed it with tuccefs, 
but it was not at all fit for the ftatuary : 
that pair of hands ftarting from the tomb 
excite a difagreeable fenfation. 
The farcophagus of Voltaire is loaded 
on every fide with prolix infcriptions, 
which recount his aétions and his deferts 
in a great profufion of words, and in a 
ftyle by no means fuited to monumental 
records, 
When the whole work is completed, 
fepulcral lamps are to be kept burning 
night and day in thefe vaults, and will im- 
part an air of greater majefty to thefe 
manfions of the dead. ° 
The afhes of Descartes are preferved in 
the repofitory of the national monuments, 
in the cloifter of the Auguftine friars ; 
they are inclof<d ina fmall farcophagus 
of porphyry excellently wrought in the 
Egyptian ftyle, which the Count de Caylus 
brought from Italy, and which bears this 
fimple infcription—** A thes of Descartes.” 
‘They were to have enjoyed the honours of 
the Pantheon: but in confequence of the op- 
pofition made by Mercier, thie refolution to. 
that effect was poftponed for future con- 
fideration. The arguments of Mercier 
againit the apotheofis of that philofopher 
were more ingenioufly fancied than forcibly 
felt or well exprefled: and Descartes loft his 
caufe on that occafion, only becaufé Che- 
nier (who, purfuant to a decree of Osto- 
ber 28, 1793, had made the motion on 
the 29th of May 1795) fuffered himfelf to 
be taken by furprife, and defended him 
with arguments ftill weaker than thofe of 
his opponent. But I doubt not, that, ona 
fecond attempt, the motion will be agreed 
to: for all Paris was enraged at Mercier’s 
invective, and angry with him for his 
lightly-gotten victory. 
At the fame time he had attacked Vol- 
taire, and oppofed his inauguration in 
the Pantheon ; by which conduét he com- 
pletely incenfed the literati. On the day 
of the debate in the council of the 
five hundred, I dined with Mercier in 
company with feveral deputies and men of 
letters, who were more powerful adver- 
faries than Chenier had proved him(felf in 
the council. Mercier—a man of true fen- 
fibility, eftimable in every point of view, 
and who may juftly be confidered as one of 
the moft virtuous members of the national 
reprefentation—was feverely taken to taik 
for his invective, and explicitly challenged 
to produce better arguments than thole he 
MONTHLY Mac. XLVI. 
French Pantheon....On Irony. 
441 
had ufed in the morning, The good 
Mercier was clofely prefled ; and findin 
himfelf here deftitute of all adventitious 
aid—no' tribune at hand—no pretident to 
protect him from interruption in his dif- 
courfe—with fomething of a hefitation in 
his {peech—he et | a very teeble de- 
fence of his opinion againft his powerful 
affailants, Le Roi, Fourcroy, Bégoin, 
Lacépeéde, Juflieu, Dolomieu, and other 
literary men who were in the company. 
Tf the caufe had been refumed during the 
circulation of the glaffes, the party of 
Descartes would have triumphed by a 
great majority: but, after a very ani- 
mated though amicable difcufion, Mer- 
cier had the laft word, repeating his 
favourite exclamation—‘* No idols, no 
idolatry, in the republic !” 
EES —— 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
O form, in which wit ever fhews 
itfelf, can be more entertaining than 
IRONY, ‘The perpetual contrait between 
what it expreffes, and what it means ; the 
arch ambiguity with which it puzzles 
liftening ignorance and fimplicity; the 
new poignancy with which it fharpens 
fatire; the more refined zeft it gives to 
praife ; are merits, fuch as may, among 
the reft of its advantages, well contribute 
eminently to recommend it to general fa- 
vour. Its happy ambiguity of purpofe, 
in particular, has often produced effeéts 
fufficiently Judicrous and  whimfical. 
STEELE is faid to have been deceived fo 
far, as not to perceive the ironical inten= 
tion of that comparative criticifm of the 
pattorals of Pope and Ambrofe Phillips, 
which Pope fent him, to be inferted in the 
Guardian, and of which the publication 
made Pope and Phillips ever after, mortal 
enemies. I myfelf have known a man, a 
voluminous author, an inexhauttibletalker, 
a warm pretender to unequalled delicacy 
of feeling, and to matchlefs acutenefs of 
difcernment in matters of tafte ; who 
read with raptures Johnfon’s character of 
Dick Minim, the critic, in the Idler ; 
not as an ironical defeription of a fhailow, 
would-be critic; but, as affording a fyftem 
of rules by which any perfon might eafily 
make himfelfa mafter in genuine critici{m ; 
and as ferioufly delineating the character 
of the truly accémplifhed judge of litera- 
ture. Nay, what may appear more fur- 
prifing, I found a young phyfician of ny 
acquaintance, but the other day, diligently 
ftudying Swift’s “ Treatife on Polite Con- 
verfation,” as a manual of politenefs and 
delicacy which he might copy, and of 
3 L Wity 
