de Lion to whom the honour of canonization is here attri buted? Dalmatic, we believe, is a term for a prelatic vestment, not a pastoral staff, p. 141, and we question whether Pasiphaë ever before found herself on the banks of the Eridanus lamenting the death of Phaeton.

The very corrections themselves which have been so liberally bestowed by Mr. W. on his History of the Race of Valois, are a source of imperfection which he could hardly have foreseen. The text is now so overcharged with commentary that it resembles Bayle's Dictionary or Harris's Lives (avowedly written on the same model) more than a regular history. But besides that the mode itself is very inconvenient and perplexing when adopted in a work, like the present, of connected narration. Mr. W.'s notes are, many of them, not like Bayle's the depositories of new and curious anecdotes, but mere repetitions, and sometimes contradictions of the text.

It were much to be wished, therefore, that Mr. Wraxall, while engaged on his task of correction, had bestowed so much pains on the subject as to have revised, enlarged, and altered his text, rather than poured over it such a deluge of

notes.

But, notwithstanding these defects, we must confess that a history of so deep research has seldom come before our eyes, so pleasantly told and so full of entertaining anecdote as this; and we warmly recommend it to Mr. Wraxall to pursue his design of illustrating, in a similar manner, the more remote periods of French history.

In fact it must be the fault of the writer if, with such excellent materials, a history of France is not made the most amusing, as well as instructive, of all historical compilations. The dry, methodical, and verbose writers of other countries have been very fond of twitting their volatile neighbours with the want of a regular national history. But while such stores of familiar and minute information are to be extracted from the multitude of their contemporary memoir-writers and chroniclers, we have little reason to reproach them with their deficiency in an article. that may be so well spared and is so very amply supplied.

Brantôme himself, with all his occasional indecency and immorality, is an inestimable treasure; and it is matter of some surprise that, in this age of translation, that most amusing writer has not found his way to this country in an English dress. We are far from being advocates for transforming into our language the whole of what the profligate Frenchinan has transmitted to us: but we are of opinion

that the greater part of his works, judiciously curtailed and selected, would make a most useful and agreeable addition to our literature.

ART. XV.-The Knights: Tales illustrative of the Marvellous. By R. C. Dallas, Esq. 3 Vols. 12mo. Longman. 1808.

MR. DALLAS deservedly stands high in the public esti mation for his knowledge of character and manners and his agreeable mode of conveying the results of his observation. In a late work to which we have already given our share of praise, (the Morlands) he contrived to excite an unusual degree of interest by his whimsical, but ingenious, invention of grafting on the same stock two widely different fables, contrasted with each other as separately illustrative of the simple' and the surprising.' In the latter story, however, notwithstanding its title, no event was admitted out of the course of nature, and the author reserved to himself that power of introducing scenes and images from real life in which he particularly excels.

With all our love for romance, we opened, under some degree of uneasiness, the present volumes, which profess to treat of nothing within this visible diurnal sphere;' we entertained some doubts of Mr. Dallas's success in trying adventures on fairy-land; and we must add that on perusal we were confirmed in the doubts which had previously assailed us. Not that the author entirely fails in the article of amusement; but he seems to be altogether unprepared in the knowledge of costume which is requisite for the undertaking.

The Knights of Tours' which occupies the first, and half of the second Volume, is written a good deal, we suspect, on the model of the Popular Tales of the Germans,' a most fascinating production,of which the Margravine of Anspach is said to have been the authoress, though we do not vouch for the fact. In that delightful little work, the playful satire of Voltaire was most happily combined with a wild and luxuriant fancy, and the best purposes of novel writing were fully answered; many a bed of sickness has been cheated of some hours of pain or depression by the perusal. Mr. D., however, cannot stand a comparison in the present instance. His humour is clumsy and his imagination confined within narrow bounds. The adventure in the Isle of Meloloques, if meant to be satirical, is very deficient in point. That in

the palace of Strigillina is extravagant, without being entertaining. There is a total want of keeping in the characters and language; and vulgarity has not unfrequently been mistaken for easy and familiar diction.

Why the Knights Errant,' which occupies the remaining part of these volumes, is called a tale illustrative of the marvellous,' is not very obvious. It is perhaps marvellous that a gentleman should so completely lose himself in the book he is reading, as Joinville is represented to have done, especially when the book is so dull a one as that which Joinville reads. It is also marvellous, in common life, for a lady to dream so long and complicated a dream as that dreamed by Felicia; but this is an every day occurrence in novels, and therefore undeserving the distinction given it by the title of the book. The allegorical tale is intended for a satire on modern life and manners; but it is conveyed in a very uninteresting shape. That of Acajou and Zirphilla' is the most lively portion of the work; but our memory strangely deceives us if we have not seen it many years ago in the Italian language; and, whether Italian or French originally, Mr. Dallas has taken it to himself without any sort of acknowledgment.

6

Upon the whole, habitual novel-readers will find something new, or at least unusual, in the work now presented to them; and, for the sake of variety, we confidently recommend it to their perusal. To those of a more scrupulous taste who only occasionally 'dip into romance for the diversion of an idle, or the solace of a melancholy hour, we cannot promise that it will answer their intention in reading it. To Mr. Dallas himself we venture a word of advice; to leave the marvellous' for which he is not calculated, and return to the simple' or, more accurately speaking, 'the domestic,' a class of writing in which he has often af forded us a very considerable portion of rational amuse

ment.

ART. XVI. The mysterious Language of St. Paul in his Description of the Man of Sin, proved from the Gospel History, to relate not to the Church of Rome, but to the Times in which it was written, with some Remarks on Sir H. M. Wellwood's Sermons on Matt. xxiv. 14. By H. Nisbet, M. A. Rector of Tunstall. Mawman. 1808.

MR. NISBET is a judicious judicious and rational religionist,

6

whose researches have for several years been directe dto the elucidation of some of the more obscure and difficult passages in the christian scriptures. In the present performance, Mr. Nisbet has endeavoured to prove that i Thessal. ii. 1-12, which most commentators have consedered as prophetic of the anti-christian tyranny, superstition and enormities of the church of Rome, has no reference whatever to the papacy, but designates the revolt of the Jews from the Roman yoke, and the consequent destruction of their capital. We think that Mr. Nisbet has supported his interpretation of this difficult chapter in a very satisfactory manner; and that what he has said on the subject harmonizes throughout better with the context than any of the other modes of exposition which we have seen. Noesselt, in his Opusc. ad interp. S. script. Hala, 1785, had previously supported a similar interpretation. By the man of sin and the son of perdition, 'ii Thess.. ii. 3, Mr. Nesbit understands the Jewish nation. The fourth verse, will probably suggest to the mere English reader the strongest objections to this interpretation; for it is said of this man of sin' that he opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.' In the scriptures, magistrates or those who are the objects of temporal respect are called gods; and St. Paul in the latter part of the verse intimates that the Jewish nation, or man of sin, more particularly designating the great council of the Jews, would not only throw off all subjection to the civil authorities of the Roman government, but would erect a civil and spiritual domination in its room; so that they would rule in the temple of God and demand an implicit obedience to their impious tyranny. This fact was amply confirmed in the history of those calamitous times which preceded the destruction of Jerusalem. By the mystery of iniquity' which 'doth already work,' verse 7, St. Paul means that spirit of infuriated hostility to the Roman government, which was secretly dif fusing itself throughout Judea. He who now letteth' &c. probably refers to the Emperor Claudius, after whose death, the mystery of iniquity, the secret combustion of revolt burst into a flame. Whitby refers the he who letteth' to the Emperor Claudius. Noesselt does the same. When St. Paul says of this man of sin, that his coming is after the manner of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders,' &c. he alludes to the numerous impositions which were both before and during the siege practised on the deCRIT. REV. Vol. 14. May, 1808. H

luded Jews by the factious demagogues and fanatics who acceJerated their destruction. The destruction of the Jewish polity, the son of perdition; or the man of sin,' owing to the rebellion of the Jews, which we think that St. Paul exclusively designates in this passage, though not actually at hand or in an incipient state of completion at the time in which he wrote, was yet as he intimates fast approaching, and would be manifested when he who then let, was taken away' Thus this obscure and strongly controverted part of scripture which Dr. Paley seems to have considered as 'inexplicable,' is made to receive a clear and definite signification. The phraseology which St. Paul uses on this occasion, bears, in some prominent particulars, a striking resemblance to that of Christ, when predicting the destruction of Jerusalem, Matt. xxiv. Mark xiii. Luke xxi. Hence we have an additional argument that the passage in Paul alludes to the same event, though from obvious reasons he speaks of it in terms which are designedly obscure. That, the man, of sin,' of whom the apostle speaks, had not the most distant allusion to any great christian, or rather anti-christian domination, which was, in a future age to spring up at Rome or in any other quarter of the world, is evident from this, that he mentions the destruction of this man of sin' as though not actually present, yet very near at the time he wrote; and he congratulates the christians to whom this epistle was addressed on their exemption from the impending woe, by the salutary impression of the divine doctrine which they had embraced; and he enforces this consideration as au argument for their comfort and security. This would have been entirely misplaced if he had been talking of the papacy; of which those who were then living, could neither expect to see the rise nor the fall. Indeed however parodoxical it may seem, from the numerous and massy volumes which have been written on the supposed scriptural prophetic delineation of the papal domination, we will venture to assert, after a mature consideration, that no part whatever either of the New Testament or of the Old, contains any prediction of, or the slightest allusion to, the papacy.