trALLAm's INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF EUROPE.

THESE three and concluding volumes of Mr. Ilizr.sm's work em- brace the literature of Europe from 1550 to 1700; the one hundred and fifty years being divided into three periods of fifty years, and each period subdivided into distinct branches of the principal subject,—as classical literature, theological literature, speculative philosophy, moral and political philosophy and jurisprudence, poetry and the drama, polite literature in prose, physical and mathematical science, with an all-embracing section for less pro- minent works, under the head of miscellaneous literature. This classification has its advantage in keeping each species of literature distinct, as well as in presenting the subjects more clearly to the reader's mind, and enabling any particular to be more readily referred to ; though an author who wrote upon different subjects has of course to be looked for its different places. The arbitrary termination of a period at the middle and close of a century, is a forcible subjection of nature to chronology, not necessary in itself, and carried out to an extent rigidly pedantic ; authors being placed in two epochs for no other reason than the year of publication. For instance, the Minor Poems and " Comus " of 111n.zoN, and his polemical and political writings, are treated of in the first half of the seventeenth century ; whilst " Paradise Lost," " Paradise Regained," " Samson Agonistes," and the Tractate on Education, are relegated to the period be- tween 1650 and 1700 ; though the mind of the author and the spirit of his works deafly belong to the sera previous to the Resto- ration. SHAKSPERE fares more oddly: Mr. HALLAM stops at 1600, with those plays written, or more properly supposed to be written, betbre that time ; those produced afterwards are noticed in the next half-century in another volume, some seven hundred pages on. " RareillEN Joxsox" is handled still more ludicrously : "Every Man in his Humour " is treated by itself; and then, after as great a separa- tion as intervenes between those of his friend and rival, the rest of his works are reviewed. It is as obvious in this case as in that of MILTON, that the education, the early habits, the manners of the age, and all in short which contributes to form the character, belonged to the 'Dimas, though the genius might have been ripened and some of its productions sent forth under the STUARTS. Both SI1AKSPERE and Bas JONSON were Elizabethan. The proper division to have followed would have been epochs determined by the nature of the subjects, regarding chronology, but not obeying it servilely. It would have been of small consequence if an epoch of polite literature ended a little earlier or a little later than one of physical or mathematical science.

In the preceding part of the work, the subjects were more broad and general than in the present,—as the decline of ancient learning, time limitation of modern European languages, time slow and struggling efforts of individuals to preserve literature from total extinction, and to foster its growth, till the invention of paper and printing, the general improvement of mechanical arts, time growth of commerce, and the pout ical circumstances of the age, conduced to the fill revival of classical learning about the beginning of the sixteenth century. The variety of subjects and persons, with the immense extent of materials in the period treated of in the vo- hones betrrc us, have rendered the narrative somewhat more mi- nute—rather bibliographical than historical. The same remark also applies to this its to the earlier part of the work—that the greater portion of the author's materials being of necessity derived from compilations, much of the work is deficient in those charac- teristic traits, those striking features, which are gained by drawing than originals. But though his knowledge may be second-hand, it is always mastered ; his reflections and his style are always his own, and nowhere display the servile spirit of the compiler. This criti- cism, however, must be taken with many exceptions. On 'subjects with which the previous studies of the author have made him fluniliar, Mm'. HAis.sss rises to the generality of history. For example, his chapter on theological literature front 1550 to 1600, traces the effects of the weakness, jealousies, follies, and treachery in effect, of the leading Retbrmers on the popular mind, and the opportunity it gave for Catholicism to rally, in a truly histori- cal spirit; particular books and particular men being kept pro- perly subordinate to time results produced by the general literature and conduct of the theologians of the period. Books whose merit, reputation, or peculiarity have induced a reading, give tokens in their notice of an acquaintance with the originals,—as in the ana- lysis of Maaress time Jesuit's bold treatise on Government,* or *,,De Rege et Regis Institutione the "Republic" of BODIN. Still less, of course, does second-hand knowledge appear in authors whose works are the hand-books of

all people. '1 he nicely penetrating remarks on "Don Quixote" may

he adduced as an instance of our meaning, as well as the seriatim observations on the Plays of SHAKSPERE. The hypercritic might, however, remark, that a history of literature should rather deal with the change which SHAKSPERE made in the national drama, and his character as compared with other dramatic poets, than in a comparison of his plays with one another, or a separate criticism on the writer.

To suppose the possibility of a better work than Mr. IIALLANes, is easy enough, on the principle of a division of labour. if philoso-

phers, divines, a surgeon, a physician, the students of polite letters, and classical scholars, could be found, each in his way competent to the task, and willing to undertake the further research requisite to

write a ifistory of the study with which he was generally fiuniliar, no doubt a more comprehensive and original work than the one before us could be produced. But such a constellation of zeal, industry, ability, and art in writing, is not likely to be found in any age, and least of all in ours, when the quid pro quo is the first thing regarded. After all, it would not supersede the Introduction to the Literature of Europe, on account of the length to which it would most probably extend ; for a history of the criticism and commentaries on classical authors, with its cognate branches, would of itself occupy half the length of the work before us. Omissions, perhaps considerable ones, may be found in Mr. IIALL:tm, by those acquainted with any particular branch of letters ct anti every person who opens the book may have his own opinion on the length or brevity at which some particular

topic is treated. But, atter every objection has been alleged, this work will still be indispensable to the library and to the stu- dent. He may not on sonic particular subject find as much as he wants, or as much as he expected ; but he will find a succinct and readable sketch of nearly every eminent book and every eminent author, from the 'dawn of learning to the year 1700, with directions to carry him further if he please, as well as a commentary on the men and their works, always large, liberal, and just, if not always profound or comprehensive. Our former remark upon the difficulty of giving any extracts, which shall convey a fair sample of the author, (that of the book being from its nature out of the question,) applies still more closely to the present volumes. Our quotations, therefore, must be looked upon merely as curious paragraphs, adapted to our columns and the taste of newspaper readers, nothing more.

CRITICS OF THE FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES.

Those who now, by glancing at a note, obtain the result of the patient dili- gence of these men, should feel some respect for their mimes and some admi- ration for their acuteness and strength of memory. They had to collate the whole of antiquity ; they plunged into depths which the indolence of modern philology, screening itself under the garb of fastidiousness, affects to deem un- worthy to be explored, and thought themselves bound to become lawyers, phy- sicians, historians, artists, agriculturists, to elucidate the difficulties which ancient writers present. It may be doubted also, whether our more recent editions of the classics have preserved all the important materials which the

indefatigable exertions of the men of the sixteenth century accumulated. In the present state of philology, there is incomparably more knowledge of gram- matical niceties, at least in the Greek language, than they possessed, and more 'critical acuteness perhaps in correction, though in this they were not always deficient ; but for the exegetical part of? criticism, the interpretation and illus- tration of passages not corrupt but obscure, we may not be wrong in suspecting that more has been lost than added in the eighteenth and present centuries to the &mans in as, as the French affect to call them, whom we find in the bulky and forgotten volumes of Grater.

Nor let the difficulties of learning, for the scholar of those times, be forgotten. There were no introductory grammars in the mother tongue, to theilitate his first advances; no dictionary for tyros, with meanings limited to the easy authors he begins with; no editions with notes, or construction, or illustrations of any kind, serviceable to the student; no neat type and handy-sized book. In those times, the scholar had to do every thing for himself, beyond the rico voce instruction of the pedagogue, with an indifferent grammar and worse dictionary : his very books were often ponderous tomes printed in black letter—always so till the advent of Amirs. Books them- selves were scarce, and only accessible in any number in libraries. Even at a later date, ESCHENDACHIES, in the prefhce to the edition of his Orpheus, gives a half-pleasant half-melancholy account of the troubles and disappointment he endured before he could find a copy to peruse. Yet see how sturdily they worked, and the result of their labours, in STEPHENS' rntsannrs.

The year 1572 is an epoch in Greek literature by the publication of Stephens's Thesaurus.

Henry Stephens had devoted twelve years of his laborious life to this im- mense work, large materials for which had been collected by his father. In comprehensive and copious interpretation of words it not only left tar behind every earlier dictionary, but is still the single Greek lexicon ; one which some have ventured to abridge or enlarge, but none hare presumed to supersede. Its i arrangement, as is perhaps scarce necessary to say, is not according to an alpha- betical but radical order; that is, the supposed roots following each other Bather a singular one suggests itself to us, unless we have overlooked the page where it is to be found—that of BUSDEQUIUS ; who, for various reasons, was entitled to a niche in any work treating of the literature of Europe. His style is remarkably fresh and vigorous; treating his matter very en- tertaining and original ; he was the first, and (except Lady Mei:saw:is and Authors of our own age) perhaps the only writer who painted the Turks in a true and life-like manner, drawing them as men instead of Saracens' heads ; and as an authority for Turkish history, or for sonic of its episodes as an his- torian himself, he must always stand unshaken. Probably the execution of Mies- TAMA, in KNOLLES, BMA MT. HALLAM praises so highly, preferring it to ROBERTSON'S, is drawn from BUSDEQUIUS; for lie gives a very graphic ac- count of the death, as well as of the circumstances which led to it.

SPECULATION ON SIIAICSPERE'S HAPPINESS.

There seems to have been a period of Shakspere's life when his heart was ill at ease, and content with the world or his own conscience ; the memory of hours mi,spent, the pang of affection misplaced or unrequited, the cape. rience of man-s worser nature, which intercourse with ill-chosen associates, by choke or circumstance, peculiarly teaches; these, no they sank down into the depths of his great mind, seem not only to have inspired into it the conceit. tion of Lear an I Thelon, lint that of one primary character, the censurer of mankind. This type is first seen in the philosophic melancholy of Jaques, gazing with an emiliminished serenity and with a gayety of fancy, though est of manners, on the fillies of the world. It assumes a griever vast in the exiled Duke of the same play, and next one rather more severe, in the Duke of "Measure for Measure." In all these, however, it is merely contemplative philosophy. In Hamlet this is mingled with the impulses of a perturbed heart under the pressure of extraordinary circumstances: it shines no longer, as in the former characters, with a steady light, but plays in fitful coruscations amidst feigned gayety and extravagance. In Lear it is the flash of sudden inspiration across the incongruous imagery of madness; in Timon it is ob. sawed by the exaggerations of misanthropy. These plays all belong to ! nearly the same period ; " As You Like It " being usually referred to 1600, E>•

" Hamlet," in its altered form, to about 1602, "Taegu " to the same year, "Measure for Measure" to 1603, and " Lear " to 1604. In the litter plays of

Shakspere, especially in " Maelleth " and the " 'Tempest," much of moral speculation will he found, but he has never returned to this type of character in the personages.

It is not often Mr. Ilimsm condescends to facetiousness, but the parsimony of managers draws from hint a pleasant remark on what might have been the fate of SHAKSPEUE'S descriptions, under h close-fisted tyrant of the green-room. It seems to be the inure probable opinion, that moveable scenery was un- known on these theatres. "It is it fortunate circumstance," Mr. t'ollier has observed, " for the poetry of our old plays that it was so ; the imagination of the auditor only was appealed to ; and we owe to the absence of painted can- vas many of the finest descriptive passages in Shakspere, his contemporaries, and immediate followers. The introduction of scenery gives the date to the commencement of the decline of our dramatic poetry." In this remark, L. which seems as original as just, 1 entirely concur. Even in this age the pro- t. digality of our theatre in its peculiar boast, scene-painting, can hardly keep pace with the creative powers of Shakspere: it is well that he did not live

when a manager was to estimate his descriptions by the cost of realizing them on canvas, or we might never had stood with Lear on the cliffs of Dover, or amidst the palaces of Venice with Shilock and Antonio. The scene is per- petually changed in our old drama, precisely because it was not changed at all. powerful argument might otherwise have been discovered in favour of the unity of piece, that it is very cheap.

We will close with a matter more akin to " the shop."

TILE FIRST REVIEW.

The knowledge of new accessions to literature which its lovers demanded, had hitherto been communicated only through the annual catalogues published at Frankfort or other places. But these lists of titlepages were unsatisfactory to the distant scholar, who sought to become acquainted with the real progress of learning, and to know what he might find it worth while to purchase. Denis de Salle, a Member of the Parliament of Paris, and not wholly undistinguished in literature, though his other works are not much remembered, by carrying into effect a happy project of his own, gave birth, as it were, to a mighty spirit, which has grown up in strength and enterprise, till it has become the ruling power of the literary world. Monday the 5th of January 1(165, is the date of the first number of the first review, the "Journal des Scavans," published by Salk under the name of the Sieur de Nedonvihle ; which some have said to be that of his servant. It was printed weekly, in a duodecimo or sexto-decimo form, each number containing from twelve to sixteen pages. The first book ever reviewed (let us observe the difference of subject between that and the last, whatever the last may be,) was an edition of the works of Victor Vitensis and Vigilius Tapsensis, African Bishops of the fifth century, by Father Chillet, a Jesuit. The second is Spelnum's Glossary. According to the prospectus prefixed to the "Journal des Scavans." it was not designed for a mere review, but a literary miscellany ; composed, in the first place, of an exact catalogue of the chief books which should he printed in Europe. Not content with the inert titles, as the majority of bibliographers had hitherto been, but giving an account of their contents, and their value to the public ; it was also to contain a necrology of distinguished authors, an account of experiments in physics and chemistry, and of new discoveries in arts and sciences, with the principal

decisions of civil and ecclesiastical tribunals, the decrees of the Sorbonne and other French or foreign universities ; iu short, whatever might be interesting to men of letters. We find, therefore, some piece of news, more or less of a literary or scientific nature, subjoined to each number. Thus, ia the first number, we have a double-headed child born near Salisbury ; in the second, a question of legitimacy decided in the Parliament of Paris; in the third, an experiment on a new ship or boat constructed by Sir William Petty ; in the fourth, an amount of a discussion in the College of Jesuits on the nature of comets. The scientific articles, which bear a large proportion to the rest, are illustrated by engravings. It was complained that the "Journal des Scavans" did not pay much regard to polite or amusing literature ; and this led to the publication of the " Mercure Galant," by Vise, which gave reviews of poetry and of the drama. Though the notices in the "Journal des Seamus" arc very short, and when they give any character, for the most part of a laudatory tone, Sallo did not fail to raise up enemies by the mere assiunption of power which a reviewer is

alphabetically, every derivative or compound, of .whatever initial'lctteryil placed after the primary word. This method is certainly not very convenientto the uninformed reader; and perhaps, even with a view to the scientific knowledge of the language, it should have been deferred for a more advance' staae of etymological learning. The Thesaurus embodies the critical writings of Butlanis and Camerarius, with whatever else had been contributed by the Greek exiles of the preceding age, and by their learned disciples. Much, as doubt, has since been added to what we find in the Thesaurus of Stephens, al to the nicety of idiom and syntax, or to the principles of formation of words, but not, perhaps, in copiousness of explanation, which is the, proper object of dictionary. " The leading defects conspicuous in Stephens," it is said by the critic already quoted, " are inaccurate or falsified quotations, the deficiency of several thousand words, and a wrong classification both of primitives antide- rivatives. At the same time, we ought rather to be surprised that, under et. isting disadvantages, he accomplished so much even in this last department, than that lie left so much undone."

The student of politics, or the speculative politician, will find much to interest him in the treatises on Government and Public Authority, which were produced by the civil dissensions following the Reformation, and the insolent oppressions of power, and which • formed in fact the germ of the theories the Long Parliament first reduced to practice. But we mat pass on to lighter matters. Bete is n curious byto affect. Menage, on a work of whose he had made some criticism, and by no means, as it appears, without justice, replied in wrath; Paths and others rose up as injured authors against the sell-erected censor; but he made more formidable enemies by some rather blunt declarations of a Gallivan feeling, as became a counsellor of the Parliament of Paris, against the Court of Rome; and the privilege of publication was soon withdrawn from Salto. It is said that be had the spirit to refuse the otter of continuing the journal under a previous censorship ; and it passed into other bands, those of Gallo's, who con- tinued it with great success.i It is remarkable that the first review, irithin a feW months of its origin, was silenced for assuming too imperious an authority over literature, and for speaking evil of dignities.