stream, but all of them hidden, or nearly so, in the clefts and caverns. · "The Shepherd who had given the alarm had lain down again in his plaid instantly on the greensward upon the summit of these precipices. A party of soldiers were immediately upon him, and demanded what signals he had been making, and to whom; when one of them, looking over the edge of the cliff, exclaimed, See, see! Humphrey, we have caught the whole Tabernacle of the Lord in a net at last. There they are, praising God among the stones of the river Mouss. These are the Cartland Craigs. By my soul's salvation, a noble Cathedral ! 'Fling the lying Sentinel over the cliffs. Here is a canting Cove. nanter for you, deceiving honest soldiers on the very Sabbath-day. Over with him, over with him-out of the gallery into the pit. But the Shepherd had vanished like a shadow; and mixing with the tall green broom and bushes, was making his unseen way towards a wood. Satan has saved his servant; but come, my lads follow me I know the way down into the bed of the stream-and the steps up to Wallace's cave. They are called the "Kittle Nine Stanes." The hunt's up. We'll be all in at the death. Halloomy boys -halloo !' · 6 "The soldiers dashed down a less precipitous part of the wooded banks, a little below the craigs,' and hurried up the channel. But when they reached the altar where the old grey-haired minister had been seen standing, and the rocks that had been covered with people, all was silent and solitary not a creature to be seen. Here is a Bible dropt by some of them,' cried a soldier, and, with his foot, spun it away into the pool. A bonnet-a bonnet,' cried another now for the pretty sanctified face that rolled its demure eyes below it.' But, after a few jests and oaths, the soldiers stood still, eyeing with a kind of mysterious dread the black and silent walls of the rock that hemmed them in, and hear ing only the small voice of the stream that sent a profound stillness through the heart of that majestic solitude. Curse these cowardly Covenanters what, if they tumble down upon our heads pieces of rock from their hiding-places? Advance? Or retreat?' There was no reply. For a slight fear was upon every man; musket or bayonet could be of little use to men obliged to clamber up rocks, along slender paths, leading, they knew not where; and they were aware that armed men, now-adays, worshipped God,-men of iron hearts, who feared not the glitter of the soldier's arms-neither barrel nor bayonet-men of long stride, firm step, and broad breast, who, on the open field, would have overthrown the marshalled line, and gone first and foremost if a city had to be taken by storm. "As the soldiers were standing together irresolute, a noise came upon their ears like distant thunder, but even more appalling; and a slight current of air, as if propelled by it, past whispering along the sweetbriars, and the broom, and the tresses of the birch-trees. It came deepening, and rolling, and roaring on, and the very Cartland Craigs shook to their foundation as if in an earthquake. The Lord have mercy upon us what is this ? And down fell many of the miserable wretches on their knees, and some on their faces, upon the sharp-pointed rocks. Now, it was like the sound of many myriad chariots rolling on their iron axles down the stony channel of the torrent. The old grey-haired minister issued from the mouth of Wallace's Cave, and said, with a loud voice, The Lord God terrible reigneth.' A water-spout had burst up among the moorlands, and the river, in its power, was at hand. There it came-tumbling along into that long reach of cliffs, and in a moment filled it with one mass of waves. Huge agitated clouds of foam rode on the surface of a blood-red torrent. An army must have been swept off by that flood. The soldiers perished in a moment but high up in the cliffs, above the sweep of destruction, were the Covenanters-men, women, and children, uttering prayers to God, unheard by themselves, in that raging thunder." ~{ author Here we close our extracts. The volume from which they have been made stands in no need of our praise, and therefore we shall leave these few passages to speak for themselves. The appears throughout in the most amiable character. Every page overflows with images of the most pure and beautiful tenderness. Occasionally he displays a deep knowledge of the sterner and more troubled passions. His faults are the faults of exuberance never of poverty; and we have a confident hope that ere long, by exerting all his great powers together, and concentrating their energies on some work of a more extensive character, he will take boldly the high place that is his due. The intelligent reader of these little tales will be delighted, but certainly will not be surprised, in receiving a MASTERPIECE from his hands. NEW OXFORD CONTROVERSY." AFTER reading these two pamphlets, we wish to say a very few words about a controversy which has been going on apparently for some time, and with much bitterness, but of which until now we had seen nothing at all and what we say shall be altogether in the spirit of peace-making; for, in truth, we are of opinion, that the belligerents are clever young men, and that they are both of them chiefly to blame, for having meddled with matters they had nothing to do with. And, in the first place, could any thing be more absurd, than to begin a mighty fuss about a few paragraphs in the Edinburgh Review, stuffed full of spleen against Oxford in general, but more particularly against Oriel College? The paragraphs were (although Professor Sandford says they made him laugh very heartily when he read them) intolerably dull-full of a sort of faint feeble fluttering aspiration after merriment, but really and helplessly dull in every possible sense of the term. But even if they had not been dull, who would have minded them? Dr Copplestone and the Edinburgh Reviewers had a paper war ten years ago, and the Reviewers were licked. What wonder, then, if the Edinburgh reviewers are fond of having a cut at Oriel College, and the Doctor's book on Predestina tion, when opportunity serves? But this was not all. The article in ques tion contained palpable proof of its being the production of some person, whose personal feelings had, some how or other, been extremely exacerbated, in regard to ORIEL COLLEGE. Was not this enough to clap an extinguisher upon the torch he had flung-even had it been a more blazing affair than it really was? Secondly, What could be more absurd than the Champion of Oxford, (since Oxford was to have one,) making Professor Sandford the umpire between Oxford and the Edinburgh Review? Professor Sandford is well known to have got what is called " first class degree" at Oxford, and, we believe, one of the prizes for essay writing. He is also well known to have stood for a fellowship at Oriel, and not to have been successful as to that object of his ambition. He is also known to have been lately elected Greek Professor at Glasgow; and be is reported to be discharging his duties there in a manner equally honourable to his talents and industry. But what are all these things? to what do they amount? If they convinced the "Close College" man's mind that this was the fittest judge to hold the balance, in regard to such a controversy as the present, we can only say they would have tended to convince us of exactly the reverse. Thirdly, What could be more absurd than first to choose a man your umpire, and then abuse him to his face?" Close College" does little but sneer at Mr Sandford; at the least, this was unwise. If you really thought he had himself written the article in the Review, this is not the style in which you should have dealt with him: but you knew very well he did not write it. Fourthly, Could any thing be more absurd than for Mr Sandford, a young man who left Oxford only last year, and cannot possibly have enjoyed any very extensive opportunities of studying the relative merits and defects of the different University-systems now existing in Europe, to turn round in this ungracious manner on his old Alma Mater, whose Champion had paid him so high a compliment? What does Mr Sandford know about such people as Dr Copplestone and Mr Davison, that he should talk about them so briskly? Has he ever read five pages of Copplestone on Predestination? If he had done so, he must have perceived that the head of Oriel " I. A Letter to Daniel K. Sandford, Esq. Professor of Greek in the University of Glasgow, in answer to the strictures of the Edinburgh Review, on the open Colleges of Oxford. By a Member of a close College. Parker, Oxford, &c. 1822. * II. A Letter to the Rev. Peter Elmsley, A. M. in answer to the Appeal made to Professor Sandford, as umpire between the University of Oxford and the Edinburgh Review. 3y D. K. Sandford, Esq. Professor of Greek in the University of Glasgow. Munday and Slatter, Oxford. 1822. is no mark for clever lads of two-and- are pleased to tell us that Mr Brougham twenty to fling their gibes, at, in six- knows no Greek. You yourself are penny pamphlets. A very few months no great shakes at English; and I am ago, was not a fellowship in the much mistaken if three months' laDoctor's College his own prime am- bour would not at any time enable Mr bition? Reconcile this inconsistency Brougham to catechise you as to your if you can. Besides, was Mr Sand- Greek, in a style rather more severe ford so weak as not to see, that what than your Oxford examining-masever he said, in his pamphlet or ters are up to. And on the other elsewhere, against Oriel, and against hand, Mr Sandford, be so good as Dr Copplestone, could not carry much to wait a little. Exert yourself viweight with it, after what had hap gorously for twenty years, and if at pened? Copplestone and the College the end of that time you be either may have done a very unwise thing a Davison, or a Copplestone, or a for themselves, in not electing him. Millman, we shall all lend you our As it turns out, however, they have ears; but we have too good an opinion really by their rejection done him a of your nature, to expect that you will piece of excellent service:-At all then crave hearing upon any such toevents, he should have been wise pics as you have recently been discussenough to hold his tongue. ing in a manner so utterly unworthy of yourself. Fifthly, Can any thing be more utterly ludicrous than the airs both of these pamphleteers give themselves? one would really think some great matter were at issue, and none but they could settle it. Their productions are equally full of the marks of juvenile exultation-there is on both sides a wonderful deal of pretence pretence of lofty solemn serenity on the part of "Close College," and pretence of easy indifferent scavoir faire and nonchalance on the part of the Glasgow Professor. The gravity of the one is enough to make one laugh-the vivacity of the other is at least as amusing, and for the gross terms in which they speak of each other-for epithets we would hate to repeat, oc cur continually on both sides-'tis enough to make a horse chuckle to hear such words from members either of" close colleges," or of "open" ones. Such Billingsgate slang would not be suffered by Jackson among the lads of the fancy. 'Tis worse than Tom and Jerry. Young Gentlemen, it would be just as well as if you would attend to the duties of your respective stations-and, believe me, the University of Oxford and the world at large, will just go on as well as if you kept printing pamphlets every week, for a year to come. When you, Mr Champion, have ever exhibited one-fiftieth part of the talent that Mr Brougham's worst speech in Parliament, or Mr Brougham's worst article in the Edinburgh Review contained, you may then, if you please, open your mouth, and perhaps you may get somebody to listen to you about Mr Brougham's accomplishments. You To conclude, We beg to assure these doughty epistolizers, that all OXFORD does not lie within the sound of the great Tom of Christ Church. In every town of England, in a thousand of her hamlets, in a thousand of her halls, there are at this moment accomplished men, clergymen and laymen, squires, and knights, and lords, who understand the merits of the university at which they were bred-and who, our young friends may depend upon it, will not, if ever HER interests be really in danger, leave HER " tali auxilio et defensoribus istis." These men are in no danger of saying like Professor Sandford, that they might as well have spent "three years at Jerusalem" as at Oxford.-Good Heavens! what would Samuel Johnson, at the age of sixty, and at the head of the English literature of his day, have said if he had heard any body use such language?-Their hearts cling to the soil where their heads were enlightened, and casting back eyes of respectful love, they, as life and the affairs of life move on, "Still drag at each remove a length'ning chain." When one thinks what a great proportion of all that is eminent at this moment in England-in legislation and in letters-stands connected by the indissoluble ties of true knowledge and true affection with this great seat of learning, one may certainly be pardoned for regarding, with some little indignation, the silly and inept crowing and hooting of these new-fledged combatants. The old Oxford contro 66 you do? versy (as it is called) was silly enough" You squirrels that want nuts, what will -but there we had at least a Copplestone on the one side and a Playfair on the other. But now! why First Class Examinations," and "Prize Essays," and "Fellowship Examinations,” are all very good things in their way: but of all this more than enough Durham, June 3, 1822. J. C. B. [We cannot refuse admission to anything J. C. B. sends us ; but we really are quite ignorant as to all this matter, and should be glad to hear what "the Belligerents" have to say for themselves.-C. N.] DOUSTERSWIVEL'S INQUIRY INTO THE THEORY OF IMPOSTURE. IN taking up a work of so much acuteness and originality, we feel that we are going to present to our readers a morsel, of which the flavour will not soon leave their palates, and which, although it has something of the poignancy of garlic, has also a more permanent claim to interest, in possessing the sterling value of truth. We are well enough aware of what has been said of the harshness of style in this publication-but really, after all that has been complained of, we do not see reason why any person should view the matter with exasperated feelings. Here are general propositions, and the investigation of certain forms in nature. We find (in the latter chapters of the book) what no one can deny may give offence to the feelings of individuals-but still we repeat, that if any general proposition appears to be exemplified in what is passing around us, none but an enemy of truth can object to pointed illustrations, and to the bringing home of metaphysical ideas to particular instances. The interest which general truth excites in the world is, for the most part, so slight, that he may almost claim praise for a benevolent action, who, in following the more abstruse walks of scientific inquiry, refreshes his readers with an appeal to facts, and to things in which they are immediately interested. This stimulus is required for re-awakening flagging attention. We laugh, and the world is improved. Thus the cloud of lethargy, which hangs over remote and obscure generalities, is dispelled. Individual excitement is produced, and, we repeat again, we laugh, and the world is improved. But to the first chapters of the book none of these observations can apply; nor can it be said, that in any single sentence of them is any strong illustration, except such as are taken from general nature, and from instances with which every person is acquainted. When the Tartuffe of Moliere was first represented, we believe there were hundreds of ecclesiastics in Paris who believed that Moliere had been overlooking their con duct, as individuals, and meant to satirize them in particular. Nay, they probably imagined that they recognised some of their own expressions interwoven with his verses. Such is the conviction produced by truth, when exhibited by a man of genius.. With regard to the theoretical idea which forms the ground-work of this essay, we think it well expressed in the first chapter; and we cannot but admire Mr Dousterswivel for the closeness and firmness of apprehension with which he retains an abstract idea, which he has once understood, and goes on pursuing it through different instances. We shall translate his first exposition of the subject, from the first chapter, which is On the Original Idea of Im posture. "The observation of particular instances is seldom enough to explain the theory of any thing in the world so perfectly as to free the mind from perplexity about it. Abstract concep tions are necessary for this purpose. In attempting to throw a clear light on the theory of Imposture, I shall begin by inquiring for the original idea of it, which may be traced, through va rious examples, into the form of one Theorie der Betrug von Jacob Dousterswivel, M, D. Leipsig und Frankfurt, a. m. bei Wm. Nichtsagen. u. comp. (May 1822.) thing surrounding or covering an other, so that the interior object is shut in, and concealed. Almost all the words used for expressing imposture have some reference to this idea. Imponere, to place upon, refers to the same notion which is expressed by the phrase over-reach, and for the same meaning, there are also the phrases, to take in, and to get round about; and, in the Latin, circumvenire. There is also the popular phrase to come over, or to get the advantage of any one, as if, in cheating, a net were thrown over the head of the person deceived, Perhaps other examples might be found and produced to support what I have advanced; but it is evident that, in all these phrases, there is a reference to the same notion. The original idea of imposture, therefore, is, that the interior object is not the same with the exterior, but is covered and concealed by it, and from hence comes deception to the spectator. This is the origin of hypocrisy, which wears a mask, separate from that which is within. The outer parts of an onion, concealing the inner part, present a good image of hypocrisy. And the onion, when cut across, to shew what is within, exemplifies the detection of imposture. Such are the forms of imposture, when external appearances are used as the means of deceiving the spectator. But, in another point of view, the person who is imposed on is like the interior object which is over-reached and taken in ; while the impostor is like the serpent called the Constrictor, which gets round about the animal it wants to kill. The statue of Laocoon may represent a virtuous man struggling with the impositions of the world. The act of over-reaching resembles the act of wearing a mask, in so far as it is the placing of one thing upon another, And this resemblance is exemplified in nature; for the ivy, and other climbing plants, which kill more generous trees, are also seen spreading over the walls of old buildings, to cover them with a mask of vegetation, which is unlike the dead stones be hind. The Pharisees were compared to whited sepulebres, covering old rotten bones. It is remarkable, that in all cases, the idea of over-reaching and shutting in, corresponds with that of death. Life is the continuity of parts, forming an undivided whole. But this cannot be, if the exterior parts VOL. XI. are separate from the interior. If I wished to give the image of a person who had become the victim of imposition, I would represent him completely overgrown with ivy, and vainly struggling for breath through the clustering leaves, while the long pliant creepers were binding his arms and fixing his position, so as to prevent him from making any sign to shew that there was a living creature hidden within. Through these examples we may return to the figure of the onion, which is the best image of imposture completed; for it is externally neat and tight on all sides, and expresses as little of its interior nature as the Pharisees or Round-heads said of their private intentions. The whirlpool of the ocean says as little of the ship which it has swallowed. The hog may perhaps be a representation of the voracious and engulfing powers of imposture; for its exterior coat of fat covers and encloses its flesh, so that it appears a large animal; but when cut across, it presents a form like that of the onion. But, as I said before, the idea of imposture corresponds with that of death; for, an animal or vegetable, covered and shut in, must die, and the apathy and stupor of animals is generally in proportion to the thickness of their exterior coats. The pileus, or hat of Mercury, who took charge of the dead, must have had a particular relation to the idea of covering, as expressing the power of imposture and stupefaction. The most appropriate symbol of death is the skull, which is the only osseous part that over-reaches and encloses. And it will generally be acknowledged that imposture has a wonderful power of mortifying those who are taken in In making these observations it will easily be perceived, that I intend not any reflections against Messrs Gall and Spurzheim; for, in examining into the properties of the skull, they must have been acting against imposture. The conceptions which I have here brought together are for the purpose of making the abstract form of impos ture clearly intelligible, as in the figure of the onion. Imposture is better detected by a sort of intuition than by elaborate thought. But, in the transactions of this earthly stage, we must examine, with too unrelenting an eye, the ordinary mundane impositions, which are not malignant, nor follow 4 R |
