RRORS AND TRUTH.

Des Erreurs et de la Verite, ou les hommes rappeles au principe
universel de la science; ouvrage dans lequel, en faisant remarquer aux
observateurs l'incertitude de leurs recherches, et leurs meprises
continuelles, on leur indique la route qu'ils auroient du suivre, pour
acquerir l'evidence physique sur l'origine du bien et du mal, sur
l'homme, sur la nature materielle, et la nature sacree; sur la base des
gouvernements {168} politiques, sur l'autorite des souverains, sur la
justice civile et criminelle, sur les sciences, les langues, et les
arts. Par un Ph.... Inc.... A Edimbourg. 1782.[369] Two vols. 8vo.

This is the famous work of Louis Claude de Saint-Martin[370] (1743-1803),
for whose other works, vagaries included, the reader must look elsewhere:
among other things, he was a translator of Jacob Behmen.[371] The title
promises much, and the writer has smart thoughts now and then; but the
whole is the wearisome omniscience of the author's day and country, which
no reader of our time can tolerate. Not that we dislike omniscience; but we
have it of our own country, both home-made and imported; and fashions vary.
But surely there can be but one omniscience? Must a man have but one wife?
Nay, may not a man have a new wife while the old one is living? There was a
famous instrumental professor forty years ago, who presented a friend to
Madame ----. The friend started, and looked surprised; for, not many weeks
before, he had been presented to another lady, with the same title, at
Paris. The musician observed his surprise, and quietly said, "Celle-ci est
Madame ---- de Londres." In like manner we have a London omniscience now
current, which would make any one start who only knew the old French
article.

The book was printed at Lyons, but it was a trick of French authors to
pretend to be afraid of prosecution: it {169} made a book look wicked-like
to have a feigned place of printing, and stimulated readers. A Government
which had undergone Voltaire would never have drawn its sword upon quiet
Saint-Martin. To make himself look still worse, he was only ph[ilosophe]
Inc...., which is generally read _Inconnu_[372] but sometimes _Incredule_;
[373] most likely the ambiguity was intended. There is an awful paradox
about the book, which explains, in part, its leaden sameness. It is all
about _l'homme_, _l'homme_, _l'homme_,[374] except as much as treats of
_les hommes_, _les ho