to the modern practice with its alternate solo and tutti, and what we call single and double chorus, that it only aggravates our distress at having no certain clue to the real nature of the ancient music. Can all this singing at a solemn festival with organised choirs, male and female, have been nothing better than a barbarous shouting in unison, like the multitudinous psalm-tune of a country meetinghouse? or was it a grand proportioning of many parts, perfect from base to capital, as the dimensions of a Corinthian temple? Oh, fruitless inquiry! Oh, mystery never to be disclosed!

"Stulte, quid hæc frustrà votis puerilibus optas,

Quæ non ulla tulit, fertque, feretque dies?"

This carmen seculare has always been admired: it seems chiefly admirable for strength and nervous simplicity, and the apparent propriety with which it supports the characteristic features of the hymn. The new edition of this poem which M. Sanadon struck out, seems to have been a most ingenious and all but triumphant conjecture. This was by bringing together certain other odes, which before were scattered, and incorporating them with that portion which the ordinary editions presented as the whole hymn, beginning with "Phœbe, silvarumque potens Diana." Thus he makes it open with the words of the first ode, book iii, "Odi profanum vulgus ;" this ordering off of the profane being understood to be the usual preliminary to the performance of the rites. It is superfluous, however, to dwell on the particulars of a version which the best authorities have considered too questionable to be followed. Sanadon says he observes various defects on the side of metre in this secular hymn, which he cannot account for. "Je ne sçais pourquoi notre poëte a si souvent négligé cette règle, dans un poëme où il devoit ne se permettre rien de tout ce qui est au-dessous de l'excellent; peut-être ne l'a-t-il fait que pour s'accommoder au chant qui demandoit de la variété dans les cadences; car c'est ce qu'on pourroit dire pour l'excuser."+ M. Sanadon confesses elsewhere that be

*

no

and that he is obliged to resort to some friends whenever there is a necessity to speak of it. I wonder, therefore, it did not occur to his friends, that there might be some national anthem to which these words were to be adapted. The "variety of cadences" of which he speaks, is meant by him to relate to the poet's own numbers, which he supposes him purposely to have varied, in order to give the musician after him the greater scope; as we now write odes in different measures, with the same view. But this is far from being a satisfactory explanation; for if this were all, Horace would doubtless have gained elegance, rather than lost it, in the selection of such numbers: whereas lines like these

"Alme Sol, curru nitido diem qui;"

"Lenis Ilithyia, tuere matres ;" "Jussa pars mutare lares et urbem;" are simply inelegant, and contrary to good rhythm, as Sanadon shews. He seems himself to allow the insufficiency of his suggestion, when he says, "Mais cette raison ne sçauroit avoir lieu dans ces autres vers," &c. I therefore imagine it to be not improbable that there was some national strain, peculiar to such occasions, to which it was necessary to adjust the words of this secular hymn-some quaint, old, time-sanctified strain, with many an odd turn in it, not a little puzzling to poets-laureate, who wished to accommodate their verses to the music, and yet to produce a poem that might be read with pleasure. We know how religiously among ourselves certain tunes are cherished for certain times, and how we should resent any attempt to substitute something else in their place, much as the exchange might be agreeable to scientific ears. We also know, how seldom a copy of verses preserves merit as a literary composition, which has had to be cut and squared to fit the course of a particular piece of music. If this notion be correct, it must cause us still more to admire the beauty of the carmen seculare; which, notwithstanding that occasional δυσκουσια which has been adverted to, is a noble march of sounds, well calculated to inspire with enthusiasm the chosen bands of youths and maidens, as they poured forth their voices within the walls of the Ædes Palatina.

"AND this, then, is history!" was the exclamation, if we remember aright, of Frederick of Prussia, when endeavouring to ascertain the precise circumstances of an engagement, and receiving, from three or four eye-witnesses, just as many different accounts of the affair. With much more reason have we again and again exclaimed, when turning over the pages of this trashy book, "And these are the materials of which history is often compounded!"

It is not the "liberal' cant and twaddle of the book that either disgusted or surprised us-by the volley of puffs which had issued from Suns, and Advertisers, and Spectators, for six months past, we were well forewarned of this; and we are now so far inured to this sort of nonsense, that it passes as a matter of course, like the swearing in a sea-novel.

Our astonishment was excited, simply and solely, by the strange and unaccountable knack of blundering which the writer seemed to have acquired. The amount of this, in the aggregate, seemed really quite marvellous. The first time we took up the book, we

opened it in five or six different places, and in each lighted instantly on some astounding statement. It was chiefly this feature in the work which induced us to devote three or four pages to its mention. Had it been only ordinarily incorrect, it might have descended to the trunk-makers in peace; but there being some chance that here and there a book-club might give circulation to its statements, it seemed almost necessary to let it be generally known that somewhere about one-half of its statements of fact are contrary to truth. In many instances they are doubtless unintentionally so; but in those which concern points of age, appearance, stature, &c. of public men, the errors are so incessant and so strange, as to make it almost an inexplicable problem how such a series of blunders ever were got together. We shall particularize a few of these, hastily noted down during an hour's glance through the book, both as a specimen of the extraordinary infelicity of the author, and as a justification of the title we have affixed to the work at the head of this article.

1005

'Night after night, and week after week, did the Tories look to the bench he occupied, in the hope of his pouring out another such torrent of eloquence; but they looked in vain."

"He could not deliver two consecutive sentences on the spur of the moment."

"His celebrated maiden speech consisted of gloomy forebodings of the effects which would flow from the passing of the Reform-bill."-P. 103.

84

A vacancy occurring by Mr. Macaulay's acceptance of an appointment in India"-" he (Mr. Sadler) lost his election (at Leeds) by a majority of six to one."-P. 104.

Mr. T. Macaulay's "personal appearance is prepossessing! His hair is of a beautiful jet black. His face is rather inclined to the oval form."-P. 172.

Mr. Charles Grant, "when at the University of Oxford, in 1806, published a poem. His personal stature is of the usual size. He generally rises at siɩ !”P. 176.

Mr. Cobbett "could not have been less than six feet two!"-P. 191.

Sir John Campbell " in person is of the middle size."-P. 221.

Sir Henry Parnell "is of the middle size."-P. 233.

"Before the passing of the Reformbill, the metropolitan members were only sir in number."-P. 236.

"At this moment, there is a majority in the House in favour of the ballot !”— P. 239.

Think of a man's telling you-who represents himself as being well acquainted with the parties-that Sir H. Parnell is " of the middle size;" and that Mr. Sergeant Wilde is " above the middle size!" Think of one who gives you to understand that he has seen the people he talks of, and who proceeds to talk of Bab Macaulay's prepossessing appearance, and Sergeant Wilde's gentlemanly manners. Hear him talk of Sir Andrew Agnew's nose like the beak of an eagle! and of Whittle Harvey's thickness of person! What can one say

to all this, but that either the names must have been shuffled, and must have got attached to the wrong characters, or that the man who writes all this stuff must have very strange optics. And not this only, but he goes out of his way to talk of Lord Glenelg's habit of early rising; having first set the said lord down as a man of lower stature than Sergeant Wilde!

But we must pass on to the second volume, which is worthy of its forerunner. The following are a few specimens of its accurate observation.

"When the measure to be introduced is of great importance, the usual practice is to ask leave to bring in the bill."P. 22.

The Duke of Cumberland "has not the remotest pretensions to intellect of any kind, or in any of its various modifications."P. 83.

The Duke of Newcastle is "very stout and very unwieldy in his physical conformation. His face is full, and inclines to the rotund form."--P. 97.

The Duke of Buckingham “is regarded as the head of a certain party in that House, amounting to thirty or forty, and numbering among its members the Duke of Northumberland," &c.-P. 102. The Marquess Wellesley " in height is of the average size."-P. 115.

Lord Eldon" is tall."-P. 131. Lord Harrowby "is slightly above the middle size, with an inclination to stoutness."-P. 154.

Lord Mansfield "has never but once opened his mouth since 1834.”—P. 160.

Lord Wynford—“ His matter and manner are equally unattractive."-P. 162.

Lord Lyndhurst- The result of the discovery was an offer, in 1821, to bring Lord Lyndhurst, then Mr. John Singleton Copley, into parliament, for Ashburton." -P. 166.

"I do not recollect seeing him in the House in the session of 1834, and not above two or three times in that of 1835." -P. 178.

Lord Abinger is "far advanced in life, being in his fifty-eighth year."P. 197.

The Marquess of Westminster "has entered his sixtieth year."-P. 248.

Lord Grey" rejoices in the long line of an illustrious ancestry."-P. 276.

The Duke of Richmond, "before the passing of the Reform-bill, was a decided Tory."-P. 365.

The Archbishop of Canterbury" has a fine, clear voice, which is melodious and

Soporous in its tones "" "The

of eighty-one years presses upon him." "The haughtiness arising from conscious superiority of birth."-Pp. 377-9.

The Bishop of Exeter is in the meridian of life, being only about his fortyfifth year."-P. 383.

"He dislikes the evangelical party in the church, and is looked on by that party with no favourable eye."-P. 393.

The Bishop of London "belongs to the evangelical party in the church: he is looked on as their leader."-P. 398.

"He is corpulent, and scarcely reaches the middle height.”—P. 395.

"He generally pits himself against Dr. Philpotts."—P. 399.

The Bishop of Durham "is about his sixtieth year."-P. 403.

It may be remarked, that a large proportion of the errors we have pointed out concern external points,—a man's age, and stature, and appearance. These are trifling points, it is true, but they are quite sufficient to convict a man of extraordinary carelessness.

99.66

en

If, in at least one case out of three, he blunders as to a matter so easily ascertainable as a man's height or deportment, or the age of a nobleman,-who will place any reliance on his more general discourse, touching "liberal ideas," ""philosophical notions," larged views," and "all that sort of thing?" The man who assures you that Cobbett was sir feet two,—that Lord Eldon is tall,- that Sergeant Wilde is above the middle-size; the man who pourtrays Lord Glenelg and Lord Wellesley as being each " of the usual size"-there being at least twelve inches difference in their stature; the man who talks of the thickness of Daniel Whittle Harvey, and the unwieldiness and rotundity of the Duke of Newcastle, at least gives proof of this, that his account of the most trifling, the most easily ascertainable fact is not worth a farthing. We may be assured that on other and more important points he is equally unfaithful, and can feel no surprise when we find Lord Wellesley figuring among "the Tory marquesses (p. 115), or the prognostic of Lord Carnarvon, that "the Reform interest has great things to expect from his future career!" (p. 297.)

The truth is, that the whole work forms an excellent satire on the phrase

DOW

Dr. Philpotts took his A.M. degree in 1798; being then, according to this chronicler, about seven years of age.

Neither the Bishop of Exeter nor the Bishop of London belong to the evangelical party-neither of these prelates shew any dislike of that party.

Dr. Maltby took his degree in the year 1792.

the daily press. We may suppose him one of the élite of the gang, from the mere circumstance of his soaring to the height of two volumes octavo. The subject, too, is one peculiarly belonging to his profession; it is nothing more than to give an account of the people whom he is daily seeing and hearing. Here, then, we have concentrated, refined, and sublimated, that "knowledge" which is daily doled out to us in the daily press. And what, in this improved and corrected form, do we find the whole to be, but a mass of blunders, only tending to leave the relying reader in a far worse condition of ignorance than it found him?

But let us not do injustice to the writer before us. We can easily believe that, like Tattle in the pla, "his intentions were good." We take him to be a poor silly young man, who, having picked up a knack of theme-writing at school, has taken up the daily press as an employment, and, no doubt, thinks it quite magnificent to be able to compare O'Connell with Tacitus (!) and to detect the "sophistry" of Lord Lyndhurst. Still, in the following sketches, which we give as an act of justice to himself, premising, however, that they are the best things in the book, we think our readers will discern a sort of fairness of purpose, and be of opinion, with us, that the present is only another of the many instances in which a young man of tolerable parts, and no very evil dispositions, has been perverted to flippancy, conceit, and ridiculous pretension, by the intoxicating seductions of modern