"Gives not the hawthorn bush a sweeter shade To shepherds looking on their silly sheep And to conclude the shepherd's homely curds, [bottle, His cold thin drink out of his leather His wonted sleep under a fresh tree's shade, All which secure and sweetly he enjoys, Is far beyond a prince's delicates, His viands sparkling in a golden cup, His body couched in a curious bed, When care, mistrust, and treason wait on him." Oliver, in the last year of his life, in his last speech to his last abortive Parliament, publicly proclaimed that his bitter experience corroborated the declaration of the poetic sage; "I can say," he declared, "in the presence of God, in comparison with whom we are but like poor creeping ants upon the earth, I would have been glad to have lived under my woodside, to have kept a flock of sheep, rather than undertaken such a government as this!" (iii. 428.) A few months after those words were uttered, that death which Oliver had so often dealt out to others, with hand terrible and unsparing, entered within the little circle of his own affections. He had one ewe lamb, the tyrant struck at her; no prayers, nor skill, nor tears could avert the blow; and she was not its only victim. The grim hero who had deluged Tredagh with blood, and had, there and elsewhere, witnessed and commanded human sufferings and miseries the mention of which makes men to shudder, was so overwhelmed by the sight of these domestic sufferings, that the mere "sympathy of his spirit with his sorely afflicted and dying daughter" brought him to the grave. Pages of slander have been devoted to the misrepresentation of the circumstances of his dying-bed, and even natural omens have been falsely called in aid to favour the belief that Providence supernaturally testified its abhorrence of this famous man. Many of our readers will probably now learn for the first time that the great tempest which is universally believed to have raged "for some hours before and after his death," (Clarendon, book xv.) and to have made his departure from the world a circumstance of terror and Many are the idle tales invented by fearful cavaliers, to whom the name of Oliver was as terrible as that of Richard to the Saracens, which this book will dissipate. Now, for the first time, after the lapse of two centuries, can we make an approach towards judging righteous judgment respecting the character of a man whom even his slanderous enemies admit to have been a person of "a great spirit, an admirable circumspection and sagacity, and a most magnanimous resolution." Now can we call him to our bar, and true verdict give, of "hypocrite or not." We have not space for the consideration of the high question, but here is the evidence upon which it may be determined. Mr. Carlyle has with great labour brought it to the light, gathered it up from a multitude of quarters, set it before friends and enemies with a noble honesty. Here it is; whoever wills may judge. Did he what he thought right, ever looking to the judgment of God and not to the condemnation of men? Did he in all his ways put his trust in the defence of the Most High, not fearing or caring what men could do or say respecting him? Did his outward speech and outward action demonstrate "the act and figure of his heart," or was his whole life a mere "seeming for his peculiar end?" He may have been mistaken; that is not the question. There is no doubt that in many things he erred grievously. But was he honest or a dissembler, truthful or a pretender? Here is his own tale told by his own pen, and whoever shall in time to come censure him without reading and studying it, will be a calumniator rather than a judge. Insincerity is the offence alleged against both Charles and Cromwell. What if they were tried by the same test? Collect the letters and speeches of the sovereign. Print them all, public and private, to his father, the pope, Strafford, Laud, Hamilton, Glamorgan, Henrietta Maria; close up the collection with the Eikon, if you will; and what a moun tain of dissimulation would be the result! Can it be pretended that one tittle of evidence of anything of the same kind can be deduced against Cromwell from the volumes before us? Impossible! This book is the production of a writer whose genius is unquestionable, and whose great powers are sanctified by an ardent love of truth. He is a fearless, honest man, of exalted ability and noble aims, and, conjoined with a great deal of admirable humour, he possesses the faculty of historical picture drawing in a very remarkable degree. His sketch of the death of Raleigh (i. 62) is a little jewel; his accounts of the military achievements of Cromwell; his brief notice of the trial of the King; many passages in his illustrations respecting Cromwell's parliaments; and, finally, his account of Cromwell's death, are all of very high merit as historical narratives; but why does he deform his book, repel readers, and lessen his great influence, by the introduction of such termagant words as are to be found in every page of these volumes? His abusive nicknames displease every one; and his strange words, which, if spoken, produce wild crashes of sound resembling the hullabaloo which once passed for the unknown tongue" amongst the Irvingites, are especially mourned over by those who in other respects are great admirers of his writings. For our own parts these things call up upon our cheeks, as we read them, a blush for the writer who can so far sin against custom and good taste. If we are reading aloud, we skip over the jargon and pass on. It brings to our mind Hamlet's description of the efforts of those tragedians who warred against the ears of the groundlings, and we would entreat him, as the Prince of Denmark did the player, to reform it altogether. are to Africa; I have now met with another passage of the same author, which is so decisive on the subject, as to remove any further doubt. In a poem called Fantaisie, vol. viii. p. 12, are these lines. Aussi les Grecs, en amour les prémiers, Ont à Pallas, Déesse des guerriers, Donné l'œil verd, et le brun à Cythère, Comme d'Amour et des Graces la Mère." "So the Greeks, who have best degoddess of war, l'œil verd, and to scribed love, have given to Pallas, the Venus, the goddess of love and mother of the Graces, l'œil brun." It now only remains to see what was the colour that the Greeks gave to the eyes of Minerva, which are thus described as "vert." Hom. II. 1. 206. θεὰ γλαυκωπὶς ̓Αθήνη. So also, ii. 166, 172, 279, 426, and in no less than thirty or forty more passages. The first passage quoted is translated by Cowper (v. 250,) To whom the blue-eyed Deity. These Mars to battle roused, These Pallas, azure-eyed. And so throughout the Iliad and Odyssey, wherever the translators have given the meaning of the original; but Pope often, and Cowper sometimes, have omitted the epithet altogether. This point then we think being ascertained, it only remains to observe, that Mr. Cary, in general so well informed, so careful, and so accurate, has been extremely unlucky in translating "verd" hazel, as that very colour is the one given by the poet to Venus, as a contrast to the blue or grey eye given to Minerva, and therefore the one he should have particularly avoided. So much on the subject of "blue eyes:" a subject that once was the cause of greater disputes, and more dire events, than fortunately take place in the fields of criticism. "Nabussan, the King of Babylon," we are told, “adored the beautiful Falide, but she had blue eyes, which was the source of great misfortunes, for there was an ancient law in the kingdom of Babylon which forbade their kings to fall in love with any maiden who was glaucopis, or blueeyed." This law had been established by the priests for five thousand years: 3 Q and accordingly all ranks of that empire came to the king remonstrating against his falling in love with Falide. Who ever (said they) heard of a king liking blue eyes? Preposterous! black, grey, green, hazel, all are at the sovereign's service. But blue! prodigious!! It was certain the glory of the kingdom of Babylon was drawing to an end: the abomination had reached its height. All nature was threatened with dissolution! could it be believed-Nabussan, son of Nussanabo, was in love with two great blue eyes!' All the females with black eyes, and dark eyes, and hazel eyes, were particularly furious. The priests laid the kingdom under an interdict. The subjects refused to pay the taxes. Lands were left uncultivated. The country was threatened with invasion, and all because the King Nabussan loved Falide, who had a pair of the loveliest blue eyes imaginable." B-h-ll. MR. URBAN, J. M. AS the castle of Eu became in 1844 an object of much interest as the scene of the cordial and happy meeting of the sovereigns of France and Great Britain, I collected a few notices relating to the castle and abbey, which may even still be acceptable to your readers, from their connexion with some passages of early English history, especially since the particulars given in the journals of the day from guidebooks, &c. related merely to the present residence, and did not go back further than the 16th century. Yours faithfully, RICHARD TAYLOR. P.S. The fine work in bas-relief in the court-yard of the Maison Bourgtherode, Rouen, representing a former royal meeting at Guisnes,-that of Henry VIII. and Francis I.-appears to possess so much merit as a work of art, as to make it desirable that a casting should be obtained and fixed up in one of our museums. There is a casting in the museum at Rouen, and another at Versailles, from moulds which I believe are preserved. IN Latin documents, Eu or Ou is called Aucum, and Augum. The abbey, Ecclesia Beatæ Mariæ de Augo, is described in "Neustria Pia," p. 694, as situated "apud Aucum, oppidum nobilissimum dioecesis Rothomagensis, in confinio Normaniæ et Picardiæ: non longe à mari Magno Oceano. Cujus primarius fundator legitur Guillelmus I. comes Auci, filius nothus Richardi I. cognomento Intrepidi, ducis Normaniæ: à quo et comitatum Aucensem dono accepit, pro sua legitima: cujus uxor extitit D. Lescelina. Guillelmus igitur comes Auci primus fundator hujus loci agnoscitur, ann. 1002.” The following is a note on a passage in William of Poitiers, from Mr. Baron Maseres's Historiæ Anglicana Monumenta, p. 60. "Roberti Aucensis Comitis, means Robert, Earl of Eu, or Ou, or Owe (for it is wrote all the three ways in old authors), which is a town in the northeastern part of Normandy, near the sea-coast, about half-way between Dieppe and Saint Valery, at the mouth of the river Somme. This Robert, Earl of Eu, was descended from Richard the First, Duke of Normandy, by one of his concubines. This Duke Richard, besides his children by his beautiful wife, Gunnor, a lady of great family in Denmark, (amongst which were Richard the Second, his successor in the dukedom of Normandy, and Emma, that was Queen of England and mother of King Edward the Confessor,) had two sons by his concubines, whose names were Godfrey and William. Of these, Godfrey was first made Earl of Eu, and upon his death his brother William succeeded him in that earldom, and was succeeded in it by his posterity down to the time of Willelmus Gemeticensis, or William of Jumieges, who flourished in the reign of William the Conqueror. The words of Gemeticensis are as follows: 'Genuit etiam [Richardus primus] duos filios, et totidem filias ex concubinis. Quorum unus Godefridus, alter verò dicebatur Willelmus. Horum prior comes fuit Aucensis. Quo defuncto, accepit frater ejus cundem comitatum, quem adhuc hæredes ejus jure successionis possident.' It seems probable, therefore, that the Robert, Earl of Eu, mentioned in the text, was grandson to this William, and consequently great-grandson to Duke Richard the First and if so, he was second cousin to William the Conqueror. It is on account of this descent that our author REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. 1. The Life of Wesley, and the Rise and Progress of Methodism. By Robert Southey. Third edition. 8vo. 2 vols. 2. Catalogue of Works in Refutation of Methodism, from its origin in 1729 to the present time. Compiled by H. C. Decanver. Philadelphia, 1846. Imp. 8vo. pp. 54. IN consequence of the favourable reception of two editions of Mr. Southey's Life of Wesley, the author had designed a third, but the preparation was delayed, by other engagements, till completion was impossible. The task has therefore devolved on his son, the Rev. Charles Cuthbert Southey, Curate of Cockermouth, with the benefit of a few alterations and insertions made by his father, as was his custom, in his own copy. There are, however, two important additions. 1. The MS. notes of the late Mr. Coleridge, whose copy was returned, after his death, by his own request written therein, to the author. They were not intended for publication, nor originally for the author's view, and therefore, as the editor justly observes," they show, in a very interesting manner, the fresh impressions made upon Mr. Coleridge's acute mind." 2. An elaborate critique on Mr. Wesley's life and character, by the late Alexander Knox, who was member of his society at an early age (though the connection did not last long) and held occasional intercourse with him. He had drawn up this paper at Dr. Southey's request, and "chiefly with the view of convincing him, that he had judged erroneously, in ascribing to Mr. Wesley any motives of an ambitious character." Of these two communications, which are not perfectly identical in sentiment, the editor says, "These two additions, I am confident, will be well received by the public, as affording them, with the work itself, at one view, the opinions of three men of no ordinary minds, upon the life and character of a fourth. Somewhat widely indeed do they, on many points, differ in their estiGENT. MAG. VOL. XXVI. a mate; and possibly the reader may be inclined to think the author's judgment of Mr. Wesley, on the whole, the most just and the most impartial one." (Preface, p. viii.) 66 The original work, it is well known, did not satisfy the Wesleyan body, who yet felt its importance so far, as to commit the task of criticising it to one of their most distinguished members, Watson, who published first, Observations upon it, and subsequently a Life of Wesley, embodying the views of his own communion. Mr. Soames, in his excellent continuation of Mosheim, when introducing a sketch of the rise of Methodism, says, "in preparing this paragraph Watson's Life of Wesley has been exclusively used: Southey's, however, is much fuller, and more philosophical." (vol. iv. p. 408, note.) Mr. Coleridge, in one of his notes, observes, Indeed, how much will not philosophy owe to Robert Southey, for the preservation of so many facts, that serve as clues through the labyrinth of religious fanaticism!" (vol. i. p. 140.) And he expresses a wish that Southey had written the History of the Monastic Orders, or, at least, the lives of Loyola, Xavier, Dominic, and the other remarkable founders. (p. xvi.) For our own part, we regard the work as one of the most valuable psychological books in our language, though the author, in venturing on theological questions, goes to the full extent of his depth. If it has not satisfied the community whose rise it relates, the question may justly be asked, what body of men were ever satisfied with a history not written by one of themselves, who would consult their feelings, both as to what he inserted, and what he omitted? Some specimens of it, but the author did not create them, the ridiculous may be gathered from nor are they peculiar to one community. The general tendency of the work is serious, and exhibits Mr. Wesley as an unwilling separatist, as his other biographer Watson wishes 3 S him to be thought, on the occasion of his address to the clergy, which he printed in 1756. We shall now give a few specimens of the contributions from the pens of Mr. Coleridge and Mr. Knox, premising, that they partake of the nature of the two annotators' minds. On the expression "the evils which Puritanism had brought upon this kingdom," (i. 128.) there is a characteristic note of Mr. Coleridge's, inquiring "what these evils were? and replying much as Mr. Carlyle might be expected to do. He quotes Hume, as allowing that "our present political liberty is the direct consequence of this Puritanism, and religious toleration indirectly," though surely we may remark that the Seven Bishops are entitled to a share in it. He considers the temporary suspension of the hierarchy and hereditary senatorship," with the, alas! too brief substitution of a hero for an imbecile would-be despot," as the effect of a collision between the two extremes, viz. the prelatic prerogative party, and the Puritan parliamentary; and asks, "why attribute these evils to the latter exclusively?" If Mr. Coleridge could now give his suffrage in answer to the question, Should Cromwell have a statue? we may judge what it would be. At vol. ii. p. 97, on the subject of Universalism, or rather of the question, 66 can an unbeliever, whatever he be in other respects, challenge anything of God's justice?" Mr. Coleridge properly observes, that Wesley, if obliged to vindicate himself on this point, would have done so, by laying the stress on the words challenge and justice. Such a position would be impregnable, for nothing can be challenged, except in respect of a covenant, of which to such persons there is none. He observes, that, if the question were put differently, the answer might have been," we may hope, though we are not authorised to promise. 99 But where hope itself is the result of promise, it must not be indulged too * Wesley, in the main, inclined to the milder extreme, though we are not aware that, like the Portuguese Andrada, he attributed a justifying faith to the sages of antiquity. readily without such a warrant. All the speculation in the world cannot affect the question, which is determined beyond our control; and its real bearing, as frequently mooted, is, not whether those who had not the light of a revelation are safe without one, but whether modern unbelievers can reject it with impunity. These specimens will show the nature of Mr. Coleridge's notes. Mr. Knox's remarks occupy more than ninety pages, but he was in some degree identified with the subject, having formerly published, in a newspaper, a sketch of the impression made on him by Wesley's manner and conversation, which was inserted by Moore, his first biographer, and copied both by Hampson and Dr. Whitehead. He also possessed several of Wesley's letters (between forty and fifty). His estimate of Wesley is mainly formed from the correspondence published in 1809; a single expression, "Mr. Wesley's uniform integrity," (ii. 416,) will serve as a specimen of it, beyond which we have only room for a single sentence; but we must remark, that it would be well for eminent men if they had always such zealous advocates, since Mr. Knox is to Wesley what Mr. Coleridge, as we have seen already, is to Cromwell. "Another charge against Mr. Wesley I cannot equally dispute, namely, that of enthusiasm. Still he was an enthusiast of no vulgar kind: as Nelson was an enthusiast for his country, so was John Wesley for religion. Where the highest interests of man were concerned, Mr. Wesley made no account of precedent, or public opinion, or maxims of human or even of ecclesiastical prudence. . Singular as his course was, he no more supposed himself raised above the guidance of his reason than of his conscience." (Vol. ii. p. 432.) ... The last assertion will best be supported by a passage of Wesley's own, which shows how rationally he could judge of a principle of decay contained within Methodism itself, and which indeed narrows the effect of every religious revival. His discernment in this respect must place him far above the common run of enthusiasts, even some of very high cha racter. "I do not know how it is possible, in the nature of things, for any revival of |