starting accents the sleeper from the fatal calm of his lethargy, and this in language some times quaint and antiquated, but ever glowing and energetic, proceeding straight from and going at once to the heart!

On such a green and refreshing oasis we would wish to take the last look of our subject. Haileybury in spite of the dark side of the picture which is too often uppermost, cannot fail here and there to inspire more wholesome recollections. And such will undoubtedly pour forth most readily at the mention of him, whose earnest hope, as it was his undoubted privilege, could shape no aspirations more heartfelt than "not to be entirely unremembered in the great body of the Civil Service of India.' Unremembered indeed he can never be. Spite of years and of engrossing cares the example of that moral and intellectual greatness may now and then touch some secret spring long disused, and one carnest thought inspired by his remembrance, one echo from the cloquence so often dwelt on of old, may bring back in a flowing tide all the deeper feelings of our nature, as fresh, as pure, and as warm as ever.

When the foregoing article had been not only projected, but well nigh completed by one of the regular contributors to this work, a somewhat elaborate and able paper on the same subject, embracing also that of Fort William College, reached us. The cominunication was altogether anonymous. The short note which accompanied it, was simply signed "A SUBSCRIBER," without date, or name of residence, or any sign or mark, internal or external, by which the author might be identified. Had it been otherwise, we would, at once, have entered into communication with the author. And now, we trust, since he is "A SUBSCRIBER," that, when his eye catches this notice, he will at once furnish us with the means of so doing. If his object be privacy, he has only to say so, and his name will be as safe in our keeping as in his own. A letter addressed to the care of our Publishers, will at any time reach us.

Before dismissing this topic, we may advert to the subject of anonymous communications generally. Of this description, many have already been forwarded to us. But, except in a single instance, in which the author treated of his subject in a way which commended itself to our own judgment, we have not availed ourselves of any of them. Surrounded as we happily are by a staff of as able and willing auxiliaries as India can supply, we are wholly independent of any such contributions. And surely it is always more pleasant to have to deal with substances rather than with shadows-with actual personalities than with empty names.

While we have to thank all anonymous friends for the good-will evinced towards us, and their hearty sympathy with our great object, we must entreat of them henceforward to disclose their names, in confidence, to the Editor, if they really desire their proffered services to become practically available.

ART. II.-1. The Vedanta Chandrika;-an Apology for the present system of Hindu worship. Written in the Bengali language and accompanied by an English translation. Calcutta, 1817.

2. Translations of several principal books, passages, and texts of the Veds, and of some controversial works on Brahmanical Theology. By Rajah Rammohun Roy. London, 1832. (Partly reprinted, in Calcutta, 1845.)

3. The Philosophy of the Hindus;-The Uttara-mímánsá or Vedánta. By H. T. Colebrooke, Esq., New Edition, London, 1837.

WERE we disposed to take our departure, for a season, from the domain of the inductive Philosophy altogether, with all the glorious monuments of its triumph, we could not do so more effectually than by plunging at once into the bottomless abyss of Hindú metaphysics. Such, however, is not our present intention. Our sole design is one of plain, sober, practical utilitarianism.

It is now pretty generally known that, in this country, under the common appellation of Hindúism, there are two great generic systems of religion, with their respective divisions and sub-divisions endlessly multiplied. There is the system of Polytheism, with its idolatrous rites and ceremonies, followed from time immemorial by the great masses of the people. There is the system of Monotheism, running through all gradations between the opposite extremes of Spiritual and Materialistic Pantheism, professed in theory at least by the more learned classes of the native community. Of all the modifications of nominal monotheism, that which is commonly known under the name of "Vedantism," has always been accounted the most orthodox, that is, the most accordant with the Vedas, the great, primordial sources of Hindú theology. Now, since of late years, very great efforts have been made in Calcutta and elsewhere to revive and re-invigorate, by a fresh infusion of life and energy, this system which had gradually become in a manner superannuated and effete, the curiosity of individuals has been considerably excited, and the question has on all hands been raised, "What is Vedantism?" To answer this question, in as compendious, plain, and intelligible a form as possible, is our sole immediate object.

The works placed at the head of this article, with Wilkins' Bhagavat Gita, would furnish all the needful information. But as these cannot be accessible to most readers, nor, if they were,

could they, in their own original native forms, prove acceptable or even tolerable reading, our purpose is to spare their time and patience, by attempting to extract the pith and marrow out of them. Of the works of Wilkins, Colebrooke, and Rammohun Roy, we need say little. They have been too long and too well known to every Oriental scholar to require the aid of any fresh criticisms at our hands. Of this only need we remind the less experienced of our readers, that of all the men who have ever written on the Indian Philosophy, Colebrooke is at once the most profound and the most trustworthy. The translations of Rammohun Roy often do not faithfully represent the original: by the adoption of certain words and phrases, which in the English language, are the vehicle of true and pure ideas, he often contrives to throw a colouring of verisimilitude and refinement over the sentiments of his author, which really does not belong to them. The general fidelity of Wilkins as a translator has never been impeached; but his important services, in this respect, have been limited in a great measure to the Bhagavat Gíta. Colebrooke, on the other hand, has gone over the whole range of Indian Philosophy, beginning with the Vedas themselves. Of the standard works on the different systems he has supplied, partly analyses and party translations; and never were analyses or translations furnished by any one who more signally manifested his possession at once of the ability and the will to be rigidly precise-drily, scrupulously, systematically accurate. Of the first work at the head of this article, less is known; indeed, very few appear to have ever heard even of its existence. As the original production of a native of our own day, on a very abstruse and metaphysical subject, it is at once curious and important. It was published, in 1817, anonymously; and the following are the only scanty particulars which we have been enabled to glean concerning the author and his work. His name was Mrityunjaya Vidyalankara. He was head Pandit of the College of Fort William; and afterwards Pandit of the Supreme Court under Sir Francis Macnaghten. He died, about 1820, at Moorshedabad, on his return from Benaras; bearing universally the character of a very learned man in all the Darsans or systems of Sanskrit learning and philosophy. He was himself wholly unacquainted with the English language. His son, who succeeded to his station at the Supreme Court, has been known to ascribe the credit of having aided his father with the English translation to the late Sir W. H. Macnaghten. Of the work itself only two hundred and fifty copies were originally struck off; and as there has been no second edition, it has long been difficult if not impos

sible to obtain a copy; indeed, we have never seen one except that which has fallen into our own possession.

With these few prelimimary remarks, we proceed at once to answer the general question, What is Vedantism? This, for the sake of distinctness, we shall do, under various leading heads

I. The History of the Vedant System.

The founder of the system is universally acknowledged to be Vyása; which name by its derivation seems to allude to the peculiarities of his birth, like many names in Hebrew. To this another term is sometimes added or prefixed as Vyása-deva, from his being one of the divine sages; and Veda-vyása from his having collected together the Vedas. He is also, from the name of his father, called Paráshara; and from the name of his mother Satyavati-suta.-Beside which he is also called Dwaipayana and Krishna-dwaipáyna from his having been born on an island or rather a dark sand bank in the river Jumna: and Vádaváyna from the name of the place to which he most frequently went on pilgrimage. There are other names, but these are the principal.

He was by birth an illegitimate child in high life, being the son of Paráshara, a brahman by Satya-vatí, the wife of king Shantanu. Hence he was the reputed brother of king Vichitravírga and grandson of the great sage Vashishta. After the death of his reputed brother, he, from a custom similar to that among the Jews, married his brother's wives, and had by Ambá or Ambiká, Dhaita-rashtra; by Ambáliká, Pándu; and by a female slave, Vidura: all of whom particularly the first two became greatly celebrated in the pages of history.

As an author he is the greatest in the Sanskrit language, and may be regarded as the father of Hindú literature. He spent his time chiefly in writing and teaching. He had five distinguished disciples to whom he taught the Vedas and Puránas. To Paila he taught chiefly the Rig-veda; to Viashampayna, the Yajar-veda; to Jaimani the Sáma-veda; to Sumanta the Utharva-veda; and to Suta chiefly the Puránas. His principal works were the collection of the Vedas, the Vedant Darsan, the Mahábhárata and Shri-Bhagavat and other Purans.

The Vedant appears to have been the last but one of the six Darsans, or leading systems of Hindú Theological Philosophy; so that the author of it had an opportunity of improving on those who had gone before him in studying the philosophy or metaphysics of Theology. The first Darsan was the Sankhya written by Kapila; the second, the Nyúya by Gautama; the

third, the Vaishéshika, by Kanáda; the fourth, the Pátanjalí, by Patanjala; the fifth the Vedant by Vyása; and the sixth the Mímánsá, by Jaimani.

The antiquity of the Vedant system cannot be determined with exactness, though we may ascertain enough for every useful purpose. According to the Hindú accounts, Pándu was the son of Vyása-the son of Pándu was Judhisthira, whose reign is reckoned at 36 years; that of his successor Parakshit at 60; that of Janamejaya at 84; that of Shátaníka at 82. Then follow twenty-five successors, whose reigns make 625 years. Then follow 14 other reigns said to be 500 years. Again, fifteen others said to be 400 years. After these are eight reigns not defined, which we put down at the rate of the last 200 years. Then comes the reign of Vikramaditya, which is acknowledged by scholars to be 57 years before the Christian æra. Thus, even by the account of the Hindús themselves, the Vedant system was only about two thousand and forty-four years before the Christian æra.

But as the Hindús are known to exaggerate in their numbers, it may be safer to take the reign of their kings-supposing the number of these to be accurately recorded, a point which may well be doubted-at the mean rate of kings among the Jews, and in our own nation. 66 reigns by the Hindús give 2,000 years, which is about 30 years to each reign on the average. 21 Jewish reigns give 505 years, making 24 years to each. 55 English reigns give 1000 years, which is an average of 18 years to each. By the Hindú standard, then, the antiquity of the Vedant system would be about 2,000 years before Christ; by the Jewish standard about 1600; and by the English about 1,200. As the lives of men might be longer at the time alluded to than at present, we should not object to the Jewish standard: and we shall certainly not be going to excess if we take a middle number between the Jewish and English, and say 1500 before the Christian æra. This, which is by far the most favourable supposition that can be made for Hinduism, brings the subject within the first authentic dates of History.

The evidences on which the antiquity of the system rests are internal and external. Internal evidence is found in the existing works of the author the Vedanta Sára-the Mahábhárata and the Shri-Bhagavat. In an episode of the Mahábhárata called the Gíta, Vyása gives a minute account how the system was taught by Krishna to his disciple Arjuna; so that in addition to its being sanctioned in part by the Vedas and other Darsans, he professes to have received it from the deity incarnate.

External evidence is found in the universal consent of all