ages of Nadir, we cannot but mourn over ill-fated India ;' and when the poet celebrates 'the restoration of literature in the east,' we cannot help inquiring, with. whom is it restored? What poet now sings in the full melody of Sanscreet rhyme'? What learned Pandeet has Hindostan now to boast Their glory has departed, and another people have usurped it. These are reflections, which almost involuntarily arise, when even the name of India meets the But this is not the poet's fault, and whatever censure we may pass upon his work, we trust, will not be considered as arising from that state of our feelings, produced by the emotions that arise in our bosoms for miseries, which he had no hand in producing. ear. The poem, now under consideration, we are, on the whole, pleased with; though in some parts uninteresting and unequal in its merit. There are beautiful passages and lines scattered throughout it; some wherein boldness of imagination is displayed, and others, which tell you that the poet's ear is tuned to melody. After giving the character of Arungzebe, one of the ravagers of the east, and the manner in which he spent his earlier years as an austere and gloomy recluse, he proceeds: "Thus, by fell visions rous'd, th' usur per springs Fierce from his lair, to lap the blood of kings. Go, count thy spoils, thy trophies grim rehearse, similes resorted to, which resemble those celebrated beauties who continue to be toasts after several changes of admirers, as a mere matter of course. To these our poet has, with great independence, refused to pay court. He seems judiciously to have avoided an excursion into that region of metaphor, whose air has been so long and so often breathed, that it has become too rarified, either to impart or to preserve vitality. Yet even in the few which he has introduced, he has not been very successful. The two following are rather awkwardly expressed: 'Still social war, in gloomy wrath ar ray'd, Succeeds the fury of the Persian blade; wind, Touch'd by its stroke the mountain flames behind.' the sun; To purify with pity and with dread, And the future reason'd from the past. Inspir'd, dilated all the generous heart." It reminds us of one, who feels it his duty to invite certain persons to his house, from whose company he had much rather be excused, and, after all, cannot treat them with common civility. These, however, are succeeded by much finer lines : Nor less inspired and bold, in later time, Flow'd the full melody of Sanscreet rhyme, Which tells what hosts on Kirket's plains engaged, What ruthless wars fraternal chieftains Here the fierce Kooroos all their thun. P. 16. The plan of this poem is what might very naturally suggest itself. the degraded state of Hindoo literThe first part of the poem describes ature during the latter part of the last century. A transition is then made to its ancient splendour, during the period when India was the last part is taken up in celegoverned by her native kings; and brating the revival of learning on the banks of the Ganges, under. the auspices of the English. There THE next part of this work comprises the view and analysis of Dr. Priestley's works, by Mr. Cooper and Mr. Christie. Before we proceed to this part of the book, we shall offer some remarks,suggested by the memoirs, of which we have given a sketch. These memoirs contain, besides the facts related, his, and his biographers' opinions and assertions upon different subjects, and an exhibition of the character and principles of Dr. Priestley, entitled to notice. They insist that Dr. P.'s place is high on the scale of moral worth. It can not be denied that he possessed many amiable dispositions, and practised many virtues. He was a devout worshipper of God, in the character in which he conceived him. In the conduct of his studies and pursuits, and in his literary and scientifick labours in general, views of publick utility appeared to predominate over those of fame or 爱 profit. His life gave ample proofs of sincerity, disinterestedness, and probity. He was always temperate, and frequently abstinent.— He was invariably diligent in the use of his time and talents; and never felt the leaden weight of sloth, nor deferred his task from an indisposition to perform it. He observes that he had oftener occasion to blame himself for anticipating, than for delaying the business that was before him. Whether it was a sanguine temperament, or an uncommon superiority to selfish considerations, that induced him to promulgate and to xpress all his opinions, without any regard to consequences, or any care how much the prejudices of men might be shocked, or their feelings exa→ cerbated, we need not determine. He always persisted to believe that every subject is open to discussion; and that nothing, which any man thinks true or useful, need be suppressed in concession to the imbecility or depravity of human nature. According to him, it is lawful to instruct the subjects of a monarchy, that kings are the scourges of heaven; the citizens of a republick, that they would show their wisdom by choosing a king; and the members of an ecclesiastical establishment, that every such establishment ought to fall, and must fall. He deems himself injured and persecuted, by having been considered unfriendly to his own country, merely for writing against the wisdom and utility of its institutions. For he insists, that though a revolution is an evil, the continuance of abuses is a greater evil; and that the mischiefs of putting down a bad system, are too temporary and trifling to be balanced against the chance of a glorious and happy result of the experiment. In allowing the right fident prediction of the good issue of the French revolution had been so completely disappointed and shamed, that it appears to us the mind must be made of stubborn stuff, or consigned to the despotism of party and passion, which could refuse to admit the delusiveness of its former speculations. He expresses no astonishment, and exhibits no humiliation, that he espoused with ardour the French re of investigation to all parties, he is more liberal than all the champions of the people in this country, where the people have the whole power. Here we are given to understand, that though the institution of kings, and dukes,and bishops,may be treated with every freedom, yet a denial of the divine right of republicanism, is treason. There are certain "primary principles, which constitute the leading, essential, distinguishing features of an elective revolution; as though its atrocities publick, which are to be treated with solemn reverence, and sup ported by a religious respect." Dr. P. and his friends demand for him, the praise of candour, and a readiness to acknowledge mistakes. His steadfast adherence to his long received and long cherished opinions and theories in philosophy, amidst all the new causes of doubt or disbelief, which appear ed,might perhaps consist with these qualities. For he himself taught, that the understanding,not less than the affections and actions, is subject to the influence of habit; and that reasoning is feeble against inveterate modes of thinking. Dr. P. is sometimes contemptuous in argument, and seems to think a certain degree of that high seasoning of controversy,' which he complained of in Dr. Horseley, is to be allowed. Yet he confesses that he was more sarcastick and disrespectful in his remarks on the Scotch metaphysicians, than, upon reflection, he approves. In one class of subjects, his feelings seem to have blinded his judgment; his pride or resentment to have prevailed against his reason, or he would have discovered less per tinacity in adhering to the last to the political sentiments and revolutionary theories, which he for merly adopted. Events had so completely refuted them; his con were not involved in its principles; and speaks as though he had reason to be proud of the invitation to be a member of the national convention. In the offices and relations, which Dr. P. sustained, he exemplified the greatest diligence and fidelity. As a minister, he was laborious and attentive. He particularly bent his efforts to the formation of religious sentiments and moral habits in the young; and bestowed great pains on this part of his charge, by lectures and catachetical instructions, in addition to the weekly services, in which the whole congregation were concerned. As a schoolmaster and professor, he was in defatigable and patient, and spared no exertion to produce in his pupils the utmost improvement, of which they were capable. He is known to have been amiable and affectionate in the intercourse of private and domestick life. He and his biographers aim to vindicate his character as a citizen. They are highly displeased that he was not considered a good subject in his own country, and that his political sentiments and associations made him invidious to any persons in this. But it cannot be denied, that the complexion of many of his publications, and the proceedings of many of his friends in England, were of a nature to excite alarm 2 1 and disgust; especially after the scenes exhibited in France, scenes which made humanity shudder and reason recoil, and compelled every civilized government to tremble for its existence, and every enlightened advocate of liberty to abhor revolution. He said he was peace*able, whilst, at the same time, he was laying a train, that, if it took effect, would destroy and lay waste society. He was a severe sufferer by the brutal fury of the mob at Birmingham. But it would have been right, if he had seen himself condemned of a gross disregard of caution, however pure were his intentions, in this exhibition of the temper of an inflamed populace. The excesses, whch occasioned him such terrour and mischief, and were near costing him his life, were the same in kind as those which his friends celebrated with triumph, and the same as his principles and opinions, operating as they might have done on the popular passions, would have spirited the multitude to commit against the friends of the court and the establishment. It is ascribed to a change of politicks in this country, a change which the son calls disgraceful to America, that Dr. P.'s political character sunk in the esteem of the federal party. This is said without foundation. The enlightened men of this party never respected Dr. P. for the part he took relating to the French revolution, or for his countenance of the spirit of innovation and change in Eng, land. They had no confidence in his theories about popular rights and civil polity; and they knew from the first, that he did not un derstand the nature of our governments. But they honoured him in for his virtues as a man, and his * merits as a philosopher; and whilst he forbore to interfere in politicks 1 they were desirous he should live here in quiet and reputation. But when, at a time that France was heaping indignities and injuries upon our country, and intriguing with the people against the government, he joined with her partizans in their festive celebrations; when he retained among his intimates one of the defamers of our tried states. men, and preachers of sedition; when he appeared so weak or so perverse, as to lend his name to the unfounded and profligate slanders of the Washington and Adams administration, he indeed lost much of the regard of the federalists. Although we have no idea that the alien law was made with any particular reference to him, as he supposes, or that Mr. Adams had any intention of sending him out of the country, we admit that his conduct produced the alienation and regret of many, who had before held him in much consideration. In these memoirs much pains are taken to show, that Dr. P. had reason to be satisfied with his reception in this country, and was not disappointed in his expectations of the state of things here. When he first arrived, he paid lavish encomiums upon our constitutions, and upon the people; and he continued in this strain for several years. A letter written in October, 1796, gives a very flattering account of the Americans. Yet, in a Maxim of political Arithmetick, published in Feb. 1798, we find a different tone. The following passage deserves to be quot ed: |