neral principle; investigations commenced by Newton and completed by Laplace. Of all the facts thus detected, various and important though they be, none is so remarkable as that which regards the permanency of the system, so far as the sun, the planets, and the satellites are concerned; and which analogy gives us a right to infer even in relation to the action of comets, however irregular and eccentric their motions may be. This permanency is then consonant with the great physical law of the indestructibility of matter. As we know of no physical agent that can annihilate the smallest and most unimportant particle, so also do we find no cause in action by which any diminution or permanent variation, in the motion of the heavenly bodies, can be detected. If, however, we can trace no design in the mere constancy in the quantity of matter that makes up the universe, the stability of the solar system affords the most indubitable evidence of the action of vast power, and illimitable intelligence. This stability is by no means inherent in the physical nature of the bodies that compose the system, but grows out of their having been originally placed under certain peculiar circumstances. Thus, had not all the planetary orbits been nearly circular, had not they as well as their satellites moved in the same directions, and had there been any great obliquity among the orbits, however well arranged and regular might have been the system at first, a few revolutions would have involved the whole in inextricable confusion. Laplace has indeed attempted to transfer these conditions one step farther back, and to describe a state of distribution and motion, whence the simple action of gravitation might have deduced the present state of things, and the conditions of stability we have just given. He has, for this attempt, been accused of atheism, but certainly with no propriety; for, to proceed one step backwards towards the final cause of things, involves no denial of the omnipotence of that cause; nay, may in many cases lead to a more full exhibition of the wisdom with which the whole has been planned, and the power by which motions and properties, originally impressed upon inert and chaotic matter, have compelled it to assume a state, beautiful for its regularity, and admirable in its symmetry. ART. II.-CORNEILLE. 1.-Euvres de Corneille, avec les notes de tous les Commentateurs. 12 vols. 8vo. Paris: chez Lefevre. 1824. 2.-Histoire de la Vie et des Ouvrages de P. Corneille. Par M. JULES TASCHEREAU. Paris: 1829. WHILE pains have heretofore been taken by the literary journals of this country, to present a comprehensive view of the treasures of German, Italian, English literature,-to point out the excellence abounding in the dramatic compositions of these nations; while the greatest stress has often been laid in delineating even the minor features in the characters, and the most trifling incidents in the literary career of the poetical classics of England, Italy, and Germany, it is painful for us to confess, that comparatively little has been said of French writers of the same class, and, we believe, more especially of the dramatic compositions with which many of them have enriched the literature of their country. We cannot, at the present moment, revert to more than a very few articles in which the literary career of the first has been made a matter of primary consideration, or the latter a subject of fair critical examination. The consequences of this are obvious. We have not unfrequently had occasion to observe, that, to many competent English scholars in these states, who have reaped from a diligent perusal of original works, and of our periodical reviews, a thorough acquaintance with all the beauties of Shakspeare,-with all the features of his extraordinary genius, as well as with those of English writers of very inferior note; who from the same periodical publications, have acquired a tolerable knowledge of even the details of the biography and literary career of German and Italian dramatic poets, the names, and still more evidently the dramatic works, of Corneille, Racine, Molière, and their successors, are hardly known; surely not as familiarly as the merited reputation they enjoy in their own country, and, indeed, all over the continent of Europe, so powerfully demands. The second work, the title of which will be found at the head of this article, and which has not long since made its appearance, is the production of a gentleman already advantageously known to the literati of the European continent, by the history of the life and writings of Molière, published a few years since; and to the English reader, through the medium of a survey of the same work, contained in the third number of the Foreign Quarterly Review of London, and written by the great Scottish novelist. The present volume, no less than its predecessor, recommends itself by the purity and elegance of its diction, and bears ample evidence of the extensive literary acquirements of its author, and of his industry in collecting all the materials necessary for its composition. Yet it is impossible to present this work as one free from defects. M. Taschereau is, indeed, open to censure, for not offering a critical examination of the dramatic works of his author,-a task which the contradictory judgments passed on them by foreign and French critics, render it extremely desirable he should have undertaken. Peter Corneille was born at Rouen, in Normandy, on the 6th of June, 1606. Destined from infancy to the profession of the law, in which his father held a distinguished rank, he was sent to the college of the Jesuits to acquire his classical education. In 1627, his parents obtained for him permission to practise as an advocate, although he had not yet attained the requisite age. But he did not continue long to attend to the duties of this profession. Nature had lavished upon him all the attributes of the poetic genius; and love, that frequent stimulus to its effusions, soon revealed to him his true vocation for rhyme and numbers. Yet although the biographers of Corneille, and the historians of the French stage, supported by his own avowal, are unanimously agreed relatively to the causes of this revelation, there is some difference of opinion among them, respecting the particular occasion of it, or the period at which it occurred. Fontenelle, the nephew of Corneille, in his biographical sketch of the latter, remarks on this subject; "a young man introduces a friend to a girl with whom he is in love; this friend establishes himself at the lady's on the ruins of the introducer. The pleasure which this circumstance causes in him, renders him a poet. He composes on the subject a comedy; and thus it is that the great Corneille was formed." This anecdote, coming, as it does, from a relative of Corneille, and supported by the circumstance that the first dramatic work of the great tragedian was founded on an adventure of the sort, was received without opposition, and credited, until, many years after, one of the ablest commentators of Corneille, the Abbé Granet, plausibly argued that it was unfounded. M. Taschereau, in the work before us, has, we believe, gone farther than his predecessors, and proved, by a reference to the exact date of the first representation of Corneille's comedy, alluded to by Fontenelle, and which really took place four years after the period mentioned by this author, as well as by an allusion to several pieces of poetry contained in his works, and which, there is every reason to believe, were composed previously to the come dy in question, that the poetic genius of Corneille was not manifested suddenly in the composition of a regular drama, but was gradually developed; that his powers, called forth by the influence of the tenderest of passions, were tried in fugitive pieces addressed to the object of his love. In 1629, Corneille made his début in the career he was destined so greatly to illustrate-that of a dramatic writer. His first production, as we have already seen, was a comedy. Mélite was intrusted to a company of comedians, then performing at Rouen; but the director of these, Mondory, who a few years before occupied the first rank among the actors of that period, judging it worthy of a more enlightened audience than could be obtained in a provincial town, hastened to Paris, with a view of having it performed there. To this comedy, which differed in many respects from those in vogue at the time, the public did not at first award the degree of credit it deserved. But the force of habit being broken, and prejudices having ceased to exercise their sway, no long time elapsed, before the same individuals, who had remained, at the first representation, insensible to the comparative poetic beauties of that play, and blind to its superiority in respect to plan, style, and sentiment, over the comedies of Jodelet, Hardy, and other writers of the period, were forced to adopt a different sentiment. Its success was complete, and procured for its author a high reputation among the public, as well as at court, then much more than at present the arbiter in all matters of taste. While admitting the propriety of this change of sentiment, relatively to the merits of Mélite, and regarding it as decidedly superior to the comedies of Corneille's predecessors or contemporaries, we are very far from holding it up as a faultless composition, and likely to establish alone the reputation of its author. M. Gaillard, as quoted by M. Taschereau, has remarked, that Mélite is as superior to the most perfect pieces of Hardy, as the Tartuffe and Misanthrope of Molière are superior to Mélite, and in this judgment we entirely acquiesce; for its defects are innumerable, and justify the opinion of those who maintain, that, when compared with the comedies just cited, and even with some of the succeeding plays of Corneille, it must be regarded as a complete failure, and beneath the eulogium. To conciliate this seeming contradiction of sentiment respecting the merit of Mélite, it will be necessary to offer here a few observations on the state of public taste in dramatic compositions, at the time Corneille began to write, and next point out the difference existing between that comedy and those of preceding or contemporary writers. When Corneille commenced his career, the French stage was confessedly a public school of corruption. As was also the case in England, all the rules of morality, and of common decency, were, constantly, and in the most undisguised manner, violated. Though more regular than the comedies of the preceding age, those of the seventeenth century failed, by neglecting the unity of action, which was often intricate and obscure. As authors were then ignorant of the art of fixing the attention of their auditory, by the delineation and development of characters, they endeavoured to produce effect by multiplying incidents and adventures, and were generally far from assuming nature as their guide. Independently of these defects, the influence exercised at that time over public taste, by Italian and Spanish writers, gave rise to others no less detrimental to the progress of the dramatic art. Disguises, extraordinary resemblances, mistakes about, and changes of, names, accidental meetings, intercepted letters, &c., were borrowed from the latter, while gallant pastorals, grotesque caricatures, and witty and sentimental shepherds, were derived from the Italians. The grotesque, more or less coarse, was the only means employed to excite laughter. Every author considered himself under the obligation of introducing among the characters of his pieces a Capitan; "a sort of coward, who contrafitted heroes, and was flogged on the stage while speaking of the emperors he had dethroned, or of the crowns he had distributed." It is true, that Jodelle, Grévin, and particularly La Rivey, had contributed to the progress of the dramatic art, by introducing a purer diction, a better taste in the selection of their characters, more regularity in the intrigues, &c. But these improvements were feeble; and, after the death of La Rivey, comedy languished, at times appeared to retrograde, and certainly did not advance one step towards perfection, until Corneille appeared. It is very plain, that to have found comedy in this state of rudeness, and to have rid it of those grotesque and ridiculous characters; to have adopted a language more decent and appropriate, simplified the dialogue, imparted dignity to the action and sentiments, and to have made some approaches towards the unities; it is plain, we repeat, that to have effected all this, even in a limited degree, is to have improved the art; and this is precisely what Corneille has done in Mélite. Whatever, therefore, may be the defects of this piece, compared to comedies of a more modern date,-however disposed we may be to join in opinion with those who have shown, that, in regard to plan, to plot, to the sentiments expressed, to poetic language, and to the observance of the unities, Mélite is greatly in default, however true may be the accusation of its not imparting those moral lessons, which it should be the leading object of dra |