diftant countries, are often wrong; and, in general, liable to fufpicion that their accounts of the Eaft, as well with regard to manners, as hiftoric facts, are inconfiftent with the Afiatic authors; irreconcileable with Scripture; contradictory in themfelves; and often impoffible in nature: that as the later writers, Diodorus, Strabo, Plutarch, are often in complete oppofition to the earlier hiftorians, and complain of the repugnances with which they are every where perplexed, nothing can more ftrongly point to a fundamental error: that modern chronologers, commentators, and compilers of ancient hiftory, differ likewife greatly in opinion; fupporting frequently their systems by points of a moft doubtful complexion, and rejecting others of a far more probable appearance: that a resemblance in names is often preferred to a confiftency in facts: that the inventions of fuperftition, or the fictions of poets, are often viewed as real events; and the fame critical accuracy employed in fixing the early epochs of imaginary beings, as in refolving the most rational truths of more authentic times: that fuch being the uncertain bafis of ancient story, no materials ought to be despised: that the Perfian and Arabian hiftorians are entitled to attention, in whatever regards their own countries; their relations being grounded at least on national belief; and national belief never originating without some foundation: that the mere priority in time of the Western to the Eaftern writers, when unfupported by circumstances of higher evidence, fhould give no preference in regard to authority; as, upon the fame principles, we might rank a Cteftas before Plutarch; a Roger de Hoveden before Hume; or a Gregory of Tours before De Thou: that we may perceive fome strong lines of truth in the Eaftern hiftorians, from their concurrence with the Bible, in the few facts mentioned above; whilft even their filence on fome heads, with their flight variation in others, furnish high prefumption of their authenticity: for had they been exactly in conformity with the Scripture, we fhould naturally have concluded, that their materials had been borrowed from thence; and confidered them merely in the light of tranflations. But the manner in which they are told fhows, that the great lines were independently known in Perfia; and that the difference is fimply what might have been expected between facred writers, who had every opportunity of information, and the annalifts of another country, who neither had fuch advantages, nor were fo deeply interefted in the events.' Were we to make diftinct remarks on every thing advanced by our Author which might admit of doubt and difcuffion, we fhould be carried far beyond the bounds to which this article must be confined. But it is impoffible to país over what he hath faid concerning the Grecian hiftory of the Perfian empire REY. Aug. 1780. without I without notice. No reasonable critic can have the least objection to the fullest and freeft inquiry into this matter. As it is undoubtedly right that the Eastern hiftorians fhould have a fair and candid hearing, we fincerely wish that their accounts may be produced and examined, and that every degree of credit may be paid to them which they fhall be found, upon a clofe and fober investigation, to deferve. Neither have we fuch a bigoted attachment to the Greek writers, as not to be fenfible that they are liable to mistakes, that they are probably very erroneous with regard to numbers, and that they may have been mifled by national vanity. But, after all, Mr. Richardfon must be capable of affording us a profpect of a far fuperior evidence to what he has hitherto given, before he can perfuade us to reject the relations of the Grecian hiftorians in fo peremptory a manner as he hath done in the paffages above cited. It is not eafy to conceive that these hiftorians could be fo totally ignorant or misinformed in the events recorded by them. They wrote at a period which was near the time when the facts related by them happened. They wrote whilst the Perfian empire subsisted, and whilft its connection with the republics and colonies of Greece was an object of the greateft notoriety. They were themfelves enlightened and polished men, and wrote among an enlightened and polifhed people. Their hiftories were recited before the Grecians and others, who affembled together, from all quarters, at the public games; and were an appeal to the knowledge of every man that was prefent. Xenophon in particular, who was fo excellent a philofopher as well as an hiftorian, and who poffeffed a calm and candid mind, had the opportunity of going far into the territories of the Perfian empire, and by his engagements with the younger Cyrus and his adherents, could not fail of receiving much authentic information concerning that empire. But it is not upon the teftimony of the Greek hiftorians alone that the credit of the leading facts, with relation to the monarchy of Perfia, depends. Thefe facts are continually alluded to, and confirmed, by the Grecian poets, orators, and philofophers; and the evidence that might hence be collected would be found uncommonly striking and important. To fuppofe, therefore, as Mr. Richardfon has done, that the connections between Greece and the Perfian empire were events of too little moment to reach the ears or engage the attention of the King of kings, is carrying historical fcepticism to a moft unjustifiable extravagance. We are afraid that our Author, during his ftudy of the Eaftern languages, forgot his Greek learning; for we will not fay, that if ever he had paid a proper regard to it, he could not have advanced fo ftrange a fuppofition. What is it, too, that he has to oppofe to the accounts of Perfia left us by the Gre cians? He hath himself informed us, that the ancient Perfian literature 6 literature was almoft entirely annihilated by the Arabian conqueft in the seventh century; and that the principal hiftorians of Perfia, now known in Europe, are all fubfequent to the Mohammedan æra. Firdoufi, who is the oldeft of thefe writers, lived 1500 years after Cyrus, and 350 years after the deftruction of the fecond Perfian monarchy. He was likewife, according to Mr. Richardfon's own description of him, an Epic Poet, who, in his romantic hiftory of the Kings and Heroes of Perfia, difplays an imagination and smoothness of numbers hardly inferior to Homer; and who hath interwoven in his poems the whole fanciful range of Persian enchantment. Until, therefore, fome better authorities can be produced than we have yet any account of, the Greek hiftorians must be permitted to retain their general credit. While our Author was engaged in difplaying the utility of the Arabic and Perfian languages in throwing light on early times, it was fcarcely poffible that he fhould avoid taking notice of Mr. Bryant's celebrated analyfis of ancient mythology. That very learned gentleman, though confeffedly ignorant of these languages, hath, nevertheless, dealt largely in etymology, and endeavoured to confirm his fyftem from particles and words which are evidently of Eaftern original. Here then is opened a fair field of difcuffion; and accordingly, Mr. Richardson has employed the fixth fection of his fecond chapter in confidering the fubject. After flightly touching on what Mr. Bryant has advanced to establish the univerfality of the deluge from Gentile authorities, our ingenious writer examines more at large the Cuthite or Amonian worship of the Sun and Fire; as the ftrongeft arguments may hence be deduced, to demonftrate the utility of the Arabic and Perfian languages, in relation to the history and mythology of ancient times; and to fhow convincingly, at the fame time, that the most intimate acquaintance with the literature of Greece and Rome will lead the greatest critical acumen but a little way without fuch affiftance. The refult of our Author's ftrictures on Mr. Bryant's etymologies, is, that though, like an able General, that gentleman has made admirable difpofitions even on bad ground, and his arguments will ever command refpect, yet the ftations he has chosen must baffle all his skill to defend. Without an acquaintance with the Eastern tongues, fays Mr. Richardson, all analysis of Eastern names must be completely fanciful: for whilft numbers of words, which may be expreffed perfectly alike in European characters, have roots and meanings totally different; others, which, in the eye of a stranger to the dialects, may bear no refemblance, will claim the fame radical origin, and poffefs little va riation of fenfe. Widely differing, therefore, as thofe Eastern inflexions are from the genius of European tongues, it must be evident, even to those who have never made them an object of study, that the fame principles which might guide an inquirer through the etymologies of the one class, must, in general, palpably mislead his researches in the other.' The third chapter of the first part of the work before us, confifts of ten fections, and comprehends many entertaining obfervations on eastern manners. The fubjects here confidered by Mr. Richardfon, are, the channels through which Eastern customs may have flowed into Europe; the prevalence of the feudal fyftem in the Eaft in early times; oriental notions of supernatural beings; the old Perfian æra, and the feftivals celebrated by the Perfians in honour of their fuperintending angels; the traces of chivalry in the Eaft, and the importance of women among the Arabians, Perfians, and Tartars; the Eaftern mufic; private war, and compofitions for homicide; the generofity and hofpitality of the Afiatics; the trial by Ordeal; and the adminiftration of juftice. We could enlarge, with pleafure, on what our Author hath said upon these topics; but we must be contented with referring our Readers to the Differtation itself. [To be concluded in another Article.] ART. V. Memoirs of the Life of David Garrick, Efq. Interfperfed with Characters and Anecdotes of his Theatrical Contemporaries. The whole forming a Hiftory of the Stage, which includes a Period of Thirty-fix Years. By Thomas Davies. 8vo. 2 Vols. Davies. 178c. 10 s. T is happy for the memory of David Garrick, that his hif Itory given was duly qualified not only to delineate, with truth, the portrait of the man, in private life, but to judge rightly of his public merit-to do justice both to his moral character, and to his profeffional excellence. Mr. Garrick, in the opinion of many, who knew him not intimately, was a versatile character, formed by nature on a plan fimilar to Dryden's Zimri: A man fo various, that he feem'd to be Not one but all mankind's epitome But this is not the precise idea; for Garrick muft then have had much bad as well as good in his compofition; which was by no means the cafe. He was not, it is true (any more than other men), free from failings; but his failings were few, and of no great magnitude. Goldfmith feems to have formed a jufter notion of him, when he happily characterized him as An abract of all that is pleafing in man. Mr. Mr. Garrick has been often cenfured as an avaricious man*; a charge which is warmly and, we believe, juftly obviated by Mr. Davies; who obferves that, by fome he was faid to be parfimonious, nay, avaricious: others gave out that he made too great and oftentatious a parade of magnificence, unbecoming the. condition of a player. To artempt to please all the world, would be juft as idle, as to defpife its cenfures when founded upon truth or probability. Mr. Garrick kept a plentiful table; he rejoiced to fee his friends at his board; he kept horfes and carriages, and had a number of fervants, and equipage, fuch as became a man of his large fortune; but all his expences were regulated by the firictest eco nomy. That Mr. Garrick took delight in accumulating (well-earned) wealth, is a fuppofition not to be controverted; nor is he to be cenfured for procuring and infuring to himself, by the laudable exertion of those rare faculties which nature had fo abundantly bestowed on him, the godlike pleafure of diftributing that wealth, to make others as well as himfelf happy.-It is the man of economy alone, who is able to do this without departing, in any inftance, from the right line of justice to all. The fons of extravagance and prodigality may promote the intereft of individuals by their profufion, but as they do not mean well, the merit no commendation: on the contrary, the contempt and derifion of mankind is all the recompence they can expect to obtain for their thoughtless diffipation and ruined fortunes. That Mr. Garrick's generofity was great, if not unbounded, we wanted not the teftimony of Mr. Davies to inform us; but * Mr. Davies pronounces jealousy to have been Mr. Garrick's 'worst fault.' It was in him, lays our Author, little less than envy, that hateful disease of the mind, from which few men are exempt, yet what all men difown; for I never knew any man, but one, who had the honesty and courage to confefs that he had a tincture of envy in him. He, indeed, generously owned that he was not a ftranger to it; at the fame time he declared that he endeavoured to fubdue it. Mr. Garrick, who fcarce ever had a competitor, and, perhaps, will never have an equal, was weak enough to be alarmed at every fhadow of a rival. Though, in the opinion of the world, he flood upon a pedestal, looking down upon all actors as his inferiors; yet, fometimes, from the impulfe of theatric jealoufy, he would condefcend to raise the meanest fhrub of the ftage to a level with himself. This seems to have been a proper punishment for his want of candour; for I never remember to have heard him fpeak warmly in the commendation of any actor, living or dead. If great examples can excufe or alleviate a fault fo unworthy of fuch a man, we can bring a Pope, an Addifon, and many others, to fpeak for him, who were equally guilty, with a much greater degree of ill-will.' + Dr. Johnson. I 3 for |