careleffness of the writer, and fometimes reprove the thoughtJeffness of the man. Unless an author be very attentive, the eafe and diffusenefs of epiftolary compofition degenerate into rapid incident, and unmeaning obfervation. An inítance of this occurs, p. 180. Upon fubjects of morality and religion, we have noticed a very improper levity. We read more than once of the providence of Nature," (pp. 275, 371) and we think the writer's apology infufficient for the pleafure he feems to take in defcribing the Ruffian bagnios. Vol. II. p. 75.

We do not approve of the flight mention made of Mr. Coxe (vol. I. p. 269) or of the ailufions which, we apprehend, are pointed againft him in other places. To that accurate and learned traveller this nation is much indebted: and his book will probably be read and ftudied, when a publication like the prefent fhall be laid by and forgotten.

Neither can we commend, the cenfure which the author feems fond of directing against his countrymen. A Ruffian, a Laplander, and even his rein-deer, are fure to be praised with enthusiasm; but an Englishman abroad meets with no quarter. As however we have good authority, at least in one inftance, for believing better things of our countrymen, we shall decline paying implicit deference to the reprefentations of this half-Scandinavian. Our readers will judge for themselves, and compare the account of the British Club at Petersburg, vol. I. p. 384, with Mr. Coxe's account, p. 456, vol. I. 4to.

Having mentioned thefe faults, which we hope to see corrected in a fucceeding edition, we fhall take our leave of this traveller in good humour, and conclude with recommending to our readers one more pallage among the many which deferve praife. We mean the plan of "an hofpital for the reception of fuch females as with to return to the paths of virtue." The author is aware that there are hofpitals of this nature in England; but that they do little fervice, owing to the inconfiderate plan of their establishment." We do not agree with him in this opinion; but his fuggeftions on this fubject are liberal and fenfible. See vol. II. p. 84.

We intended to have finished here; but it would be unpardonable not to make fome mention of the thockingly romantic ftory of Maria Feodorovna. The writer's abilities are confpicuous in the narrative: we hope alfo that, in this inflance, he has given a difplay of his powers of fiction; for if the account be true, it exceeds any fingle picture of human mifery we have ever feen or heard of.

ART. VIII. Tranfactions of the Royal Irish Academy.

(Concluded from p. 192.)

THE remaining articles of this volume are employed on fubjects of polite literature and antiquities. Of the former kind there are three, of the latter two papers. Of each, in their order, we shall give some brief account.

POLITE LITERATURE,

I. The comparative Authenticity of Tacitus and Suetonius, illuftrated by the Question "whether Nero was the Author of the memorable Conflagration at Rome?" By Arthur Browne, L. L. D. S. F. T. C. D. and M. R. J. A. P. 3—16*.

Dr. Browne ftrongly, and not without fuccefs, attacks the historical character of Suetonius, and fhows it to be highly probable that the accufation of caufing the confiagration at Rome, was one of thofe calumnies to which the tyrant Nero was expofed, from the general odioufnefs of his character. He was not at Rome when the fire began; he difpatched orders from Antium for extinguifhing it, and, after fome delay, went thither to fave his own palace from deftruction, in which he did not fucceed. A few other circumftances tending to lower the estimation of Suetonius for veracity, are thus collected in a note. Abundance of inftances might, the writer fays, be found:

"Such as Suetonius' affertion that Tiberius abolished the privilege of fanctuary, when the contrary, which is afferted by Tacitus, is proved beyond a doubt, by coins fubfequent to his reign; his making Germanicus conquer a king of Armenia, when Armenia had no king, and was not at war with Rome; his representation of the character of Nero, in many refpects differing from the traits given by Tacitus and others; his mentioning the lofs of an army in Afia, when from Tacitus it appears it was only the rumour of fuch a lofs. Surely thefe variances would not have appeared trifling to Lipfius, who took fuch pains to reconcile thefe authors, when differing in the point, whether Agrippa Pofthumus was killed by a centurion, or a tribune of the foldiers. Jofephus obferves, that no man's character has been more mifreprefented, from adulation on the one fide and prejudice on the other, than Nero's." Note, p. 5.

*N. B. The pages recommence here, and at the divifion Antiquities; evidently for the fake of making up the volume with more facility.

II. An Effay on the Origin and Nature of our Idea of the Sublime. By the Reverend George Miller, F. T. C. D. and M. R. J. A. P. 17-38.

We have here one of thofe ufeful treatifes, in which, by confidering and combining the opinions of preceding writers on a fubject of difficult fpeculation, the author forms a doctrine more nearly approaching to the truth than any other, fingly taken. It is like deducing a theory from collecting and com. paring the refults of feveral fets of experiments. The writers confidered by Mr. Miller are Longinus, Mr. Burke, Lord Kaims, Dr. Priestley, and Dr. Blair. Of thefe, Longinus only defcribes the fublime from the internal feeling it produces, which is that of a proud elevation of mind; according to Mr. Burke, it confifts in terror; Dr. Priestley places it in awful ftillnefs: Lord Kaims derives it from the magnitude or elevation of visible objects; and Dr. Blair is inclined to think that mighty force or power, whether accompanied with terror or not, has a better title than any thing hitherto mentioned, to be confidered as the fundamental quality of the fublime. Among thefe views of the fubject, nothing can be more narrow, partial, and imperfect than that of Dr. Prieftley. That of Lord Kains is confidered by the prefent writer as most exactly deduced from nature and the analogy of language. But he divides fublime objects into three claffes: 1. External fenfible objects, whether of fight or hearing, &c. : 2. Thofe that excite the emotion called by Dr. Blair, the moral or fentimental sublime: 3. Superior beings. On all thefe claffes the remarks. here given are pertinent and good; and the distinction between pathetic and fublime is alfo touched with great acuteness. We cannot, without going into great detail, give more than this brief analysis of a paper very highly philofophical.

III. Effay on the following Subject, propofed by the Academy: viz. On Style in Writing, confidered with respect to Thought and Sentiments as well as Words, and indicating the Writer's peculiar and characteristic Difpofition, Habits, and Power of Mind. By the Rev. Robert Burrowes, D. D. F. T. C. D. and Secretary to the Royal Irish Academy. P. 39-92.

Great acuteness of mind and elegant direction of ftudies, are exhibited in this memoir. Dr. Burrowes has examined the characteristic differences of ftyle with much fuccefs, and illuftrated them with skill; and though he does not undertake to present his memoir as a finished treatife on the fubject; but feels rather that he has only touched lightly on a few of its principal topics;" yet it will be found to contain much matter

that

that is instructive, and nothing that is not interesting. We cannot give a better fpecimen of the writer's powers of difcrimination, than by placing before our readers his comparifon between the different treatment of the fame fubje&t by Atterbury and Clarke.

"Atterbury and Clarke have both written fermons on this text: "If they hear not Mofes and the prophets, neither will they be perfuaded though one rofe from the dead." Each of them begins by explaining the occafion on which thofe words were fpoken: but Atterbury in the courfe of his explication fhews us the fitnefs of the rich man's making his requeft particularly to Abraham, and describes, with pointed irony, the voluptuaries of his own day, under the character of the fenfualifts of the evangelical times; while Clarke, in his introduction, exactly afcertains how far the rich man's reafonings were juft, and wherein lay his mistake. Each then proceeds to the main body of his difcourfe; and here Atterbury, confidering the position in the text as a truth rather furprizing, and one not likely to meet ready acceptance on the first propofal, employs himfelf to limit its extent fo as to fecure to it a more favourable reception; while Clarke prefaces his main argument by proving, from the defign of religion and the faculties of man, that perfect and irrefiftible evidence on these points is not to be expected.

"Atterbury on his first head of proof establishes that fuch a meffage as that in the text fent to a wicked man would not be complied with; that he would doubt of its reality, and find out natural modes of accounting for it; that he would fuppofe it fome dream of a melancholy fancy, or fome trick of his unbelieving acquaintance; and that even if he fhould receive it at first as a revelation, the progrefs of time would take away his horror, and the raillery of his companions laugh him out of his perfuafion. On his fecond head of proof he then argues, that the evidence specified is, in reality, a lefs probable or powerful means of conviction than the actual evidence of the Gofpel-because the gofpel evidence contains refurrections from the dead, with many other proofs-because the evidence required exerts all its force on the firft impreffion, after which it is ever afterwards in a declining state, whereas that which is given gains ground by degrees, and the more it is confidered the more it is approved-and, faftly, becaufe the force of the motive in the one cafe is particular and confined within a fingle breaft, whereas the other is an univerfal standing proof, tried and approved by men of all defcriptions, and falling in with the general fenfe and perfuafion of thofe with whom we converfe. Clarke proves firit, that God has given all the intrinfic evidence from the nature of the thing itself that it is poffible to be conceived, with all the external proof, from unquestionable teftimony, that was ever given to any mat ter of fact in the world-and, fecondly, he proves that fuch as will not be perfuaded by that evidence, would not, by reason of the wick edness of their hearts, be perfuaded by any other evidence which their own fancy could fuggeft. "Atterbury

"Atterbury concludes with feveral inferences directly pointed against practical errors or received prejudices-against the unreafonablenefs of expecting miracles on occafions of little importance-against the belief of fuch frivolous miracles-againft pretended ftipulated appearances from the dead-against our objecting to the degree of evidence vouchfafed to us, because others have had fuch as we deem irrefiftible-and he concludes his inferences (which take up a third part of his whole difcourfe) with an exhortation to magnify the divine wifdom, which hath fo ordered the first proofs of our faith, that they will be equally fatisfactory to the end of time, his conduct in the moral world being fimilar to that in the natural, and reasonable motives being preferable as inftruments of conviction, to astonishing by immediate miracles. Clarke's inference is in one page-that if we free ourselves from thofe unreasonable prejudices with which carelessness, and want of confideration, and unrighteous pactice are used to blind us, we fhall be fully convinced, by the evidence vouchsafed us, of the truth of Chriftianity.

"I have given minutely the fchemes of these two fermons, because perhaps there is not any where to be found a more complete contraft of habits and difpofitions, exemplified in two compofitions of the fame fort, and on the fame fubje&t. The Bishop of Rochester, a man of elegant literature, of much knowledge of the world, and of political habits and affociations, confiders his fubject with refined ingenuity and practical addrefs, difplaying an extenfive acquaintance with human manners, and a perfect infight into the prejudices of the heart. Clarke, whofe habits were originally formed to academic ftudies, and who through his life continued a man of scientific research, steadily pursues his train of important demonstration, without any endeavour to find out novel topics, or any deference to preconceived notions, with little light from experience, and little attention to practice. It is not unpleafant to obferve Clarke glancing, with a careless and hafty view, at fome of the principal topics on which Atterbury fo largely dilates. Suppofing the meflage in the text conveyed to the wicked," as foon as the prefent terrible apprehenfions were ceafed," fays Clarke," it is extremely probable they would find fome way or other to afcribe it all to the delusion of fancy and imagination, and that their old vicious habits and defires, and beloved fins, would again by degrees prevail over them." Thefe collateral points, however, he will not go out of his way to difcufs, fatisfied that if he can, by one undeniable chain of reafoning, eftablish the pofition in the text, what may occur on probable grounds againft it is not worth confideration. Atterbury, who knew how ill the truth is received which opposes a prejudice, how much attention is always paid to him who fhews an accurate knowledge of the thoughts of his hearers, and how eafy it is to convince after you have filenced an objection, confiders all these practical topics at full length. On the whole, Clarke looks for what will prove, and Atterbury for what will perfuade; Atterbury would affect his audience, and Clarke will convince his readers." P. 73.

ANTIQUITIES.