THE

METHODIST QUARTERLY REVIEW.

APRIL, 1842.

EDITED BY GEORGE PECK, D. D.

ART. I.-1. Introduction to the History of Philosophy. By VICTOR COUSIN, Professor of Philosophy of the Faculty of Literature at Paris. Translated from the French, by H. G. LINBERG. 8vo., pp. 458. Boston: Hilliard, Gray, & Co. 1832.

2. Elements of Psychology, included in a Critical Examination of Locke's Essay on the Human Understanding, being a Translation from the French of ten Lectures of Volume II. of Cousin's History of Philosophy in the Eighteenth Century. Translated from the French, with an Introduction and Notes. By the Rev. C. S. HENRY, D. D. Second edition, prepared for the use of Colleges. 12mo., pp. 423. 12mo., pp. 423. New-York: Gould & New

man. 1838.

3. Philosophical Miscellanies; translated from the French of Cousin, Jouffroy, and B. Constant, with Introductory and Critical Notices. By GEORGE RIPLEY. Contained in Vols. I. and II. of Specimens of Foreign Standard Literature. 12mo., pp. 383, 376. Boston: Hilliard, Gray, & Co. 1838.

THE philosophical writings of Cousin have for several years been rapidly gaining favor in this country; but the public mind seems not yet to have decided upon their merits, nor determined what rank to assign them among the productions of the master spirits in philosophy. We are not surprised at this tardiness, when we reflect with what suspicion every metaphysical system, originating in France, is received on this side of the Atlantic.

It is undoubtedly true that the opinions of Cousin are not to be received without due allowance for French enthusiasm and French prejudices. Allowance is to be made, too, for the peculiar forms of expression and style of thought, incident to the views of the French upon morals and theology; nor should we forget the mysticism in which papal superstition has shrouded the pure and sublime truths of Christianity. And, indeed, after we have made VOL. II.-11

- all the allowance that philosophical candor would require, we may find opinions expressed by him to which we cannot subscribe. Some things, too, we may find vaguely expressed. But these, though they may subject him to severe, and, in some instances, to deserved criticism, will by no means justify that wholesale butchery of his philosophy, in which certain sanguinary critics seem to glory. They are only the excrescences which an exuberant and fertile genius, incessantly goaded to action by a determined spirit, will here and there shoot out. Apply to these the pruning knife, lop them carefully from the main trunk; and much that is really grand and beautiful will remain. But some can see nothing but the deformities, the excrescences of Cousin's philosophy; upon these they "lay too might and main," and after rendering themselves ridiculous by an exhibition of their ignorance of what they would fain oppose, they arrogate to themselves the honor of giving him a signal overthrow. A closer inspection, however, might have shown them, that while the true elements of his philosophy remained untouched, they have wasted their energies in demolishing a spectre, conjured up by their own shallow divinations.

In writing a former article on this subject, we expressed some of the convictions which had arisen in our own mind from an attentive perusal of Cousin's works; without reference to the views that were entertained by others respecting them. Indeed, we had devoted but little attention to the criticisms with which almost every review in the country has teemed. We found too much satisfaction in the general scope of his metaphysical discussions, and in the frank, and, in general, the clear elucidation of his principles, to feel much solicitude in knowing what flaws "penny worth of criticism might beetle in the edges of his philosophy." Since then, however, our attention has been called to some of these specimens of criticism; and we must confess our surprise at the manifest injustice that is done to the French philosopher, whatever may be his faults; and the assiduity with which some seek to fasten upon him opinions which he has nowhere avowed, and which are deducible by no fair criticism from the general tenor of his works. It will be our object in the present article to consider some of these points of attack, and the "far-fetched" criticism by which it is endeavored to bring odium upon a work whose wide circulation, we have no doubt, would have an influence to excite philosophical inquiry, and thereby greatly subserve the cause of truth; but we shall not hesitate to apply the pruning knife, for we are smitten with no "lues Boswellina," wherever it may be required.