Page:The New Monthly Magazine - Volume 102.djvu/431

Rh with Queen Caroline's reception from Dover to London—"nothing like it had been witnessed since the restoration of Charles II."

When a parallel does not occur to the historian's mind, he has recourse to some such trite formula as, "It is impossible to describe;" "words would fail to depict," &c. Thus: "No words can convey an idea of the impression which the death of the Duke de Berri produced in France." "No words can convey an idea of the transports into which the Royalists were thrown by the auspicious event" of the birth of the Duke of Bordeaux. "No words can convey an adequate idea of the general transports which prevailed through the British Islands at the withdrawal of the bill" of pains and penalties against Queen Caroline (1820). "No words can adequately describe the universal enthusiasm which her arrival excited among the great bulk of the people." "No words can convey an idea of the extent to which the system of pillage" extends in Russia. When Ferdinand VII. declared in favour of freedom in 1814, "no words can describe the universal transport with which this decree was received."

A masterstroke of Alisonian criticism seems to be a certain formula, of which the following are slightly varied expressions:—"Inferior to Napoleon in genius, and greatly so in vigour and condensation of expression, General Jomini is much his superior in impartiality and solidity of judgment." "Unequal to Jomini in military science or political thought, General Mathieu Dumas is greatly his superior in picturesque power and graphic effect." Mr. Huskisson "had neither the persevering energy of Mr. Pitt, nor the ardent soul of Mr. Fox, nor the playful eloquence of Mr. Canning; but in thorough mastery of one great branch of government he was superior to them all." M. Guizot, though "less terse in his style than Montesquieu, less discursive than Robertson, is more just and philosophic than either." Joanna Baillie—"less stately and pompous than Corneille, less vehement and impassioned than Schiller, her dramas bear a certain affinity to both." Dr. Thomas Brown "had all the acuteness and analytical turn of Hume or Hutchinson, and all the ardour and tenderness of Goethe and Schiller:"—"inferior in learning to Stewart, Brown was more original," &c. Francis Horner—"less eloquent and discursive than Brougham, less aërial and elegant than Jeffrey, he was a much deeper thinker than either." "Less distinguished in public life" than Warren Hastings, "his antagonist, Sir Philip Francis, has left a reputation hardly less enduring." Canning, again, "less philosophical than Burke, less instructive than Pitt, less impassioned than Fox, was more attractive than any of them." If M. de Villèle "did not carry away his audience by noble sentiments and eloquent language, like Chateaubriand; nor charm them by felicitous imagery and brilliant ideas, like Canning; he succeeded in the end in not less forcibly commanding their attention, and often more durably directed their determinations." Mr. Grattan "was not so luminous in his exposition of facts as Pitt, nor so vehement in his declamation as Fox; but in burning thoughts, generous feelings, and glowing language, he was sometimes superior to either." The Grand-Duke Constantine "rivalled Richard Cœur-de-Lion in his valour in the field, but he surpassed him also in the vehemence with which he ruled the cabinet, and in acts of tyranny," &c. The Czar