Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

1921.7

Buckingham's Travels.

horse, that he was obliged to abandon the design of proceeding to Damascus; and therefore, after examining some hot springs near the Hieromax, the party proceeded to Nazareth. Here our author was confined by lameness for a whole week. During this period, Mr Bankes left him, to visit Acre, and other places On the 12th of Feb. he deemed himself able to proceed on his journey to Damascus, by Tiberias, and with that view left Nazareth at an early hour.

on the coast.

At Tiberias it was found that it 'would be dangerous to proceed thence to Damascus ; so that our author, after examining the western shore of the lake of Tiberias, or the sea of Galilee, was obliged again to return to Nazareth. The ground traversed along the lake was hilly; the most prevalent rock was a black, porous stone; hot springs, ancient baths, and extensive ruins, were met with at different points of the progress northward. Tal-hown, at present a station of the Arabs, is supposed to occupy the site of the Capernaum of the New Testament. It stands on the edge of the lake, from nine to twelve miles N.N. E. from Tiberias. Many ruins of magnificent buildings were Our author returned found here. to Tiberias in the evening, of which he has given a very minute descrip

tion.

After his return to Nazareth, from his excursion along the coast of the lake of Tiberias, our author was told that a large caravan was on the eve of departing from Nablous for Demascus, and was advised to join it. Accordingly, as the securest mode of prosecuting his journey to that city, he left Nazareth for Nablous, on the 16th of February, and went southward through the celebrated plain of Esdraelon. In this route, he had in view many interesting objects-such as Tabor and Hermon, and various other places, as well as towns and villages, familiar to the readers of the Scriptures and of history. At Ianhoer he was kindly entertained by the chief, who, with his dependants, expressed great admiration of the English. Next morning our travel

VOL. IX.

ler was on his way at an early hour,
and passed through a pleasant and
cultivated country. At ten, he turn-
ed a furlong off the common path,
to have the opportunity of stopping
at Sebasta for refreshment. With
Maundrell, and other travellers, he
regards this village as occupying the
site of the ancient city of Samaria.

The mounts Ebal and Gerizim,
the history of the Samaritans, and
the locality of Jacob's Well, where
our Saviour held the conversation
with the woman of Samaria, record-
ed by the Evangelist John, drew the
attention of our traveller; for all of
which we must refer our readers to
Josephus, the Bible, and the author's
own book.

Again disappointed of going to Damascus, he once more returned to Nazareth; and here the volume closes.

We have formed a very high estimate of the merits of this volume of travels. It contains a great deal of valuable information, illustrative of the sacred Scriptures, and of civil history. That portion of it occupied with the narrative of the excursion to the country east from the Jordan, must be especially attractive to readers of various tastes, both from the novelty, and the kind of information with which it is replete. The description of the general aspect of that country, the notices of its present inhabitants, and the detailed account of its antiquities, are all given in an animated and pleasing style, and cannot fail to be read with interest. The reverence with which the author speaks of, refers to, and quotes Scripture, is also, in our estimation, no slight recommendation of his work, and forms a complete contrast to the profane flippancy of the school of authors to which Lady Morgan belongs. time in tracing the history of the towns which he visited, than altogether suits our taste; but we have no doubt that his details may be useful to many of his readers; and it is pleasing to learn, that the statements of Josephus, as well as those of most of the travellers who preceded our author in the same route, are accurate and worthy of credit.

He takes more

4 A

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

MR EDITOR,

[ocr errors]

Cowley.

I SELDOM read "The London," and you know the reason. A few days ago, however, chance threw it in my way; I took it up, and ran hastily over its pages. Guess my surprise, when, in a paper baptised "Popular Retrospect of Philosophy and Science," the very first thing that caught my wandering eye was a paltry and petulant attempt to accomplish the apotheosis of Dr Thomas Brown, by depreciating the invaluable labours of his predecessors and masters, Dr Reid, Mr Dugald Stewart, and Mr Alison! What contemptible worm has thus sought, so far as its infinite small efforts would go, to undermine the imperishable edifice of renown which the labours of these illustrious men have reared, to commemorate their intellectual triumphs, I do not, and I desire not to know; but, with your permission, I flatter myself I shall be able to prove, in a few words, to the entire conviction of all honest and impartial persons, that the author of the paper above named knows little of the writings he so sweepingly condemns, and nothing at all of those which he has satirised by his eulogy. A little learning is indeed a dangerous a mischievous thing. It renders dogmatism more disgusting, and folly more prominent. It is noisy, and full of pretension. It approves without judgment, and condemns without discrimination. It is inflated and bombastical, and generally talks about "dreams!" Systems it overturns with a breath, and deems the most original and ingenious speculations 66 superficial," and " worthy a moment's notice." It extinguishes, by one stroke of the pen,

un

the hard-earned reputation of a great philosopher, which it had cost him the unremitting labour of half a century to rear up. It-but let us to the proof.

The first extract we shall produce is a perfect specimen of the shallow of a certain great city of the south impertinence for which the Literatists have acquired so much and just celebrity, and will, no doubt, astonish all those who understand the writings of Dr Reid and Mr Stewart. Lector benevole-here it is! "He (Dr Thomas Brown) has shown most clearly, that the dreams of Dr Reid, though advocated by the superficial eloquence of Mr Stewart, are baseless and vain; and, of course, that Mr Stewart's elements, however prettily written, and however extravagantly praised by the friendly critics of the north, contain nothing that was not borrowed from Dr Reid, though Dr Reid had absolutely nothing worth borrowing; his chief work being full of gross mistakes and misconceptions!!" The idealess scribbler by whom this notable sentence was indited, (I say nothing of the malice and venom which it indicates), appears, on all occasions, to have the word "dreams" at the end of his goose-quill; for, in the preceding page of the Popular Retrospect," we find him revelling in "baseless mathematical dreams," and conveying his corporation backwards

to the world-building days of Thales and Anaximander," although, I presume, he would feel himself in no small degree puzzled were I to require of him to define " a mathematical dream," or to tell me, in plain cockney, what "worlds" were

built" in the "days" of "Thales and Anaximander!" But, as he avers that Mr Stewart's Elements " contain nothing which was not borrowed from Dr Reid, though Dr Reid had absolutely nothing worth borrowing!" and as he appears to have a natural partiality to dreams," I beg leave to state, for his information, (for he is grossly and deplor ably ignorant,) that the finest portion of Mr Stewart's Elements is the chapter on." Dreams," which has been almost universally admired, on both sides of the Tweed, (of course I always except a few shallow num

skulls, who set up for independent thinkers), which I, in common with many others, consider the happiest effort of Mr Stewart's mind, and which he could hardly have "borrowed" from Dr Reid, that philosopher never having written a syllable on the subject !!!

But, forsooth, the "dreams" of Dr Reid have been "advocated by the superficial eloquence of Stewart!" You cannot, for your life, Mr Editor, avoid being astonished at the marvellous impudence of this assertion. Sir Richard Philips has kindly undertaken to overturn the Newtonian Philosophy. I indeed recollect your assuring me, that the poor man could not read the first page of the Mécanique Céléste, were he offered, as a reward, the whole amount of the National Debt; but that is nothing to the purpose. Suppose the bibliopolic knight should take it into his cranium to assert that Newton did not understand mathematics. I ask you, would any man, not a frequenter of gin-shops, or a masticator of opium, éver trouble his head, for a moment, about a confutation or a reply? You will answer in the negative. Mutatis mutandis, is not the same thing applicable to the person before me? I think it is; and I must have higher authority than that of the drivelling dogmatist whom I am now castigating, before I shall be induced to alter my opinion. What writer, I ask with defiance, has equalled Mr Stewart in comprehensive historical views, and eloquent and profound examinations of the labours of preceding philosophers? His Preliminary Dissertation forms an era in the Annals of Mental Philosophy. It affords a vast panoramic view of all the departments of metaphysics; it brings under our eye the labours, the errors, the discoveries, and the systems which have characterised a succession of ages; it has aggregated the scattered elements of the history of the human mind into a beautiful and invaluable panopticon of knowledge, to which succeeding philosophers will be proud to refer, with veneration, as the best inheritance which the learning, eloquence, and genius of the eighteenth century have bequeathed to them; and, finally, it displays a rare union of the purest

taste, with the richest and most varied erudition, the most laborious research, and the most unrivalled felicity and beauty of expression and style. If the history of Events is believed, and justly, to require the exercise of some of the highest and rarest qualities of the human mind; a fortiori, will the history of profound Philosophical Systems, in one of the most difficult departments of science, demand these qualities in still greater measure and abundance. In proof, at once, of the depth and comprehension of this eloquent historian of human improvement, let me only refer the reader to the accounts given, in Part First, of the works of Machiavel and Montesquieu-and of the Leibnitzian, Kantian, and French Metaphysical Philosophy, in Part Second. I will venture to assert, always under favour and correction of those who understand the subject, that Great Britain possesses only one living philosopher and scholar, adequate to the achievement of the survey to which I have this moment alluded. With reference to "the friendly critics of the North," who are accused of having "extravagantly praised" Mr Stewart's elements, I would, in name of the fraternity, convey to this luminary of the “London Magazine," and inditer of "Popular Retrospects," a morsel of salutary advice; and that is, to scribble whole cart-loads of bad prose, if it so like him; but-in future-to eschew all mention of the "Critics of the North," as he would the Evil One.

[ocr errors]

The one half of the "Retrospecter's" afflictions, however, has not yet been told. He has made up his own mind, that Mr Stewart is "superficial," and has " borrowed every thing from Dr Reid;" yet," adds he, in the bitterness of his heart, "what is more common (nothing!) than to hear Mr Stewart called the greatest Metaphysician and Moralist of the age?" Very stupid this in the world, considering that a Mr R. has written a "Popular Retrospect of Science and Philosophy" in Taylor and Hessey's London Magazine! and considering, too, that "Dr Brown has fearlessly pulled down former systems!"

The second vial of the "Retro

[blocks in formation]

AND ORIGINAL THINKER,' as he has been most ludicrously called by his friend Mr Jeffrey." This is not a very long sentence, yet it has this merit, peculiar to itself, that it contains three distinct allegations, diametrically opposite to the TRUTH. To begin with the least important: in the review of Alison on Taste, which I consider as by far the ablest and most eloquent literary article that has ever adorned any periodical work, Mr Jeffrey has, in no one instance, applied the terms "profound and original thinker" to Mr Alison, although, had they been so applied, which they are not, they would have been the reverse of "ludicrous," namely, appropriate and just. It is not the fashion here, as among the Cockney Literatists, and Book-makers, and Magazine-compounders, and "Popular Retrospect"-men, for authors to be-puff and be-laud one another, in order to cheat the public. into a belief that "they are something." Mr Jeffrey speaks of Mr Alison's books in terms of just but measured commendation, in the first paragraph of the paper, and never again returns to the subject, but enters at once into a new, and, we will add, more convincing exposition of the theory, than that given by its excellent author, whose "book is a little too long, and the style a little too verbose.' The next falsehood contained in the ominous sentence above quoted, is, that "the theory of Mr Alison, concerning beauty and sublimity, has fallen before the sweeping pen of Dr Brown." It is morally impossible that R. could have read Dr B.'s Lectures. If he had, he must have observed that Dr Brown differs from Mr Alison only as to the "combination or succession of trains of images, or feelings, called ideas of emotion," but acquiesces completely in the soundness of the fundamental principle on which Mr Alison's the

ory is grounded. "We have reason to believe," says the Doctor, "that the chief part of beauty is truly derived from that mental process which has been termed association-the suggestion of some feeling, or feelings, not involved in the primary perception, nor necessarily flowing from it." (Brown's Lectures, Vol. iii. P. 148.) I need not inform the intelligent reader, that this is Mr Alison's leading proposition in terminis, and limited exactly as he has delivered it. And, what is not a little remarkable, Dr Brown, with his usual aptness and felicity of quotation, an art in which he shines unrivalled, has produced, in confirmation of his coinciding with Mr Alison, two lines from Dryden, which, in fact, contain the germ of the theory :

"The cause of love can never be assign'd; "Tis in no face, but IN THE LOVER'S

MIND !"

The last, and most monstrous, falsehood, contained in the above sentence-and which, indeed, proves to demonstration, that the writer never read a line of Dr Brown's Lectures, thus quoting what he never saw-is, that Dr Brown "HAS NOT

DEIGNED TO HINT EVEN AT THE

EXISTENCE" of Mr Alison, whom this most pitiful of all scribblers would sneer at, if he durst, under the ironical epithets of "profound and original thinker." Ah! pauvre. badaud! vous êtes perdu! The following sentence has turned up at random: "Such is the view of the origin of this emotion, which has been given, with much felicity of language, and with much happy illustration of example and analysis, by my VERY INGENIOUS AND VERY ELOQUENT FRIEND, THE AUTHOR OF THE ESSAYS ON THE NATURE

AND PRINCIPLES OF TASTE. The continued suggestion of trains of harmonizing images, MR ALISON CONsiders, &c.!!" The "Lion's Head," (O quale caput!) obligingly informs us, "that a greater number of men of talent than the London Magazine now unites in its support, were (was) never before combined in furtherance of any undertaking of a similar nature.' I hope it is no presumption to ask, if the author of a "Popular

Retrospect of Science and Philosophy" be a unit in this mighty combination? But this would be "tearing the veil of mystery from the face of learned ignorance and solemn stupidity!"

Not satisfied with giving us the foregoing samples of his imbecility, petulance, and gross ignorance, this ill-starred Zoilus of the "London" commences a second tirade against Mr Stewart, greatly more insolent, and, as I shall just show you, Mr Editor, -for it gives me pleasure to break this fly on the wheel-indicative of ignorance still more manifest and deplorable. He assures us, on his own authority, that Part Second of Mr Stewart's dissertation, lately published, is "rather tedious and prosing," and that it is loaded with notes, the sweepings of his common-place book, which he found it was beyond his ingenuity to interweave with his text." To this malevolence and virulence, it would be quite degrading to offer any thing by way of serious reply; more especially as they seem to proceed from a mind that can cherish hatred without provocation, and find an independent pleasure in the exercise of malice, even for its own sake just as the devil loves evil, because it is evil. But lo and behold what follows!" He (Mr. S.) has cautiously abstained (in Part Second of the Dissertation) from giving any sketch of the improvements introduced by Dr Reid." What will be the astonishment of your readers, and of yourself, most worthy Editor, when I tell them and you-what you very probably know well enough already, but which I must nevertheless tell you that Section VIII., the longest of the Dissertation, is entitled "Metaphysical Philosophy of Scotland,”—and that a considerable portion of that Section is expressly devoted to giving" a sketch of the improvements introduced by Dr Reid!!!" In fact, Mr Stewart apologizes for being "somewhat more minute than in the former parts of his Historical Sketch," on the ground of his "anxiety to supply some chasms in the literary history of his country, which could not be so easily,

[blocks in formation]

nor, perhaps, so authentically, filled up by a younger hand." And here occurs another proof that the author of the "Popular Retrospect" never read farther than the "Advertisement" of the Dissertation, at which he has discharged his "imbelle telum.” There Mr Stewart states, that he "entertains but a very faint expectation of finishing his intended Sketch of the Progress of Ethical and Political Philosophy during the Eighteenth Century." This satisfied the Philo sopher of the "London," who hence sagely concluded, that as Mr Stewart had postponed his intended "Sketch of the Progress of Ethical and Politi cal Philosophy during the Eighteenth Century," ergo, he had forgotten to say any thing of the Metaphysical Philosophy of that period, and consequently had cautiously abstained from giving any sketch of the im provements introduced by Dr Reid." Is not this proof of ignorance, and wholesale condemnation, conclusive? But I must refer your readers to the Dissertation itself.

But Mr Stewart, pursues the wonderful Cockney, "has reluctantly ad÷ mitted, that Dr Reid was very imperfectly acquainted with the metaphysics of his own age." If Mr Stewart had admitted such a thing, it would not have been correct. No man, surely, was better acquainted" with the metaphysics of his own age," than the celebrated opponent and antago nist of Hume, who did justice to his learning and deep philosophical spirit of investigation. And who, let me enquire, were the metaphysicians "of his own age?" I reply, Hume, whom he answered so ably and conclusively-Campbell, Beattie, and Gerard, his own colleagues at Aberdeen, whom he used to meet regularly at a club to discuss metaphysical subjects

and, lastly, Dr Oswald, his most intimate friend and disciple. These are facts which speak for themselves. Mr Stewart has, however, stated, (Dissertation, p. 196), that Dr Reid's

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

acquaintance with the metaphysical doctrines of his predecessors does not appear to have been very extensive;"but he immediately adds, the other hand, Dr Reid's limited range of metaphysical reading, by forcing him to draw the materials of his philosophical speculations almost

« AnteriorContinuar »