to be really useful to the interefts of virtue, it ought to be ac companied by a well-founded efteem. He, therefore, who accurately difcriminates between great and good actions; who ftrips the former of that falfe glare by which they are furrounded, and reprefents them in the true light; performs an effential service to the caufe of morality. This was admirably done by the late Dr. Hawkesworth, in one of the papers of the Adventurer, in which he drew a parallel between Alexander the Great and a highwayman.

M. ALBRECHT, in the first part of the prefent effay, has attempd this talk, but not, in our opinion, with equal fuccefs.

In his examination of the celebrated heroilm of Decius in devoting himself to the infernal gods,-he afks, what was there fo admirable in this action?-His heroifm in rufhing on cer-. tain death?-His death was unneceffary; it was the refult of temporary madness, occafioned by a contemptible fuperftition. If the freedom of his countrymen depended on his deftruction, they must already have been funken deeply in the most wretched flavery; the war itfelf was unjuft; the advantages which the conful, by this felf-devotion, procured to the Romans, were not fuch as a wife man would have wished them to poffefs; and to have cured them of their ridiculous fuperftition would have been conferring a much more folid and lafting benefit. With this action he compares that of Codrus, which he equally blames, as prompted by fimilar fuperftition and madness.

Who does not fee, however, that this reafoning is very little to the purpose? We grant that a modern General, who, on the authority of a vifion or an oracle, fhould imitate the conduct of Decius or Codrus, would juftly be regarded as a madman: but the case is widely different with respect to the Greeks and Romans, who were perfuaded of the truth of these pretended revelations. Though convinced of the error of their principles, we cannot avoid admiring the difinterefted facrifice of themselves, in order to avert from their country what they conceived to be the moft dreadful calamity. It is their perfuafion of this, and the confequent beneficent motive, by which we estimate the moral worth of the action with regard to the agents.

In the fucceeding chapter, the author makes fome obfervations on civilization and what is generally called heroifm, which are in an inverse ratio of each other. The heroic ages were always thofe of ignorance and barbarifm; and in fuch times alone,' M. ALBRECHT fays, could the mad exploit of Mucius Scævola have been applauded.-On the character of Cincinnatus he obferves; whoever impartially confiders the whole of his hiftory, will not find the poverty of this patrician fo worthy of admira

tion, and will not wonder at the confidence which the fenate repofed in him in creating him dictator; the whole tranfaction has not any thing in it which can be called patriotifm; unlefs party-fpirit is to pafs under that name.' This is placing the matter in a wrong light. What we admire in the character of Cincinnatus is the integrity as well as the difinterestedness of a man in neceffitous circumstances, who would not take advantage of the abfolute power with which he was entrusted, to relieve his wants, and to recover a fortune confiftent with the rank which he held in the republic; and this admiration of him will remain, however we may blame the oppreffive and unjust conduct of the patrician party to which he belonged.

We agree with our author that the Roman hiftory, which is generally one of the first read by youth, is very partially written, and tends to inculcate wrong fentiments, both moral and political. We are there taught to confound the improbable legends of fabulous antiquity with the annals of hiftoric truth; or as Livy exprefles it, Hane dare veniam antiquitati, ut, mifcendo humana divinis, primordia urbium augustiora faciat: we there learn to venerate the most contemptible fuperftition, merely because it has been handed down to us adorned with the beauties of poetry; and we become accustomed to view as a monument of political wifdom, one of the most wretched governments that ever existed; a state, in which nothing but external war could pre vent internal contention; and in which the public welfare and the fafety of individuals were conftantly disturbed by the tyranny and ambition of the great, or the mad and ill-conducted, though juft, refentment of the lower orders. So much do wo fuffer this partiality to impofe on us, that we talk of Roman liberty and Roman patriotifm, when, if we reflected, we should fee that no people could be more oppreffed; and that the grand object of their patriotifm was the conqueft and plunder of all within their reach. Similar objections may be urged against the history of most of the ftates of Greece; and, for this reafon, we think, they ought not to be studied till the judgment is fortified by found principles of morals and politics. In the mean time, it were to be wished that we had fome work on antient history, in which the author, instead of blindly following the legendary tales and adopting the prejudices and errors of antiquity, would bring his fubject to the test of true morals and politics; and would teach youth to discriminate between what is probable and improbable, and to distinguish good actions from fuch as can merely be reputed to be great, and are often deferving of deteftation. Millot's work is one of the beft of this kind, but does not come up to our idea.

APP. REV. VOL. XV.

M m

M. ALBRECHT

M. ALBRECHT very happily illuftrates the diftinction between great and good actions, by contrafting the character of Alexander the Great with that of M. Le Poivre; who, about twenty years ago, was governor of the Ifle of France *. This gentleman enriched the island, over which he prefided, by introducing into it the culture of the bread-fruit, and of all the useful plants which he could collect from other countries; among which were the clove and nutmeg trees: but, though he adorned and fertilized a barren fpot; though the fruits of his labours will be reaped by generations yet unborn; his character and circumstances will never attract general attention, because they have too much fimplicity to excite that astonishment which magnifies its object, and which renders the destructive and unjust exploits of the Macedonian Monarch fo much admired; though, if weighed in the balance of reason and philofophy, Le Poivre will appear the benefactor, and Alexander the defolating scourge, of his fellow-creatures,

All fociety our author confiders as founded on that unalterable condition of our existence, that, confidered as individuals, we are infufficient for our own happiness: the natural paffion of the fexes for each other, and for the offspring which is the confequence of their union, we have in common with all other animals: but, in mankind, these paffions are ennobled by fentiments of permanent tenderness and rational affection; and on thefe the love of our country is built. It will never be beft promoted by fictitious fplendours, and artificial gratifications, but by the tranquil enjoyments of domeftic life; and it will be found to prevail moft where these are most generally and equally diffused, and where fimplicity of manners prevents families from looking for happiness beyond their own sphere.

Hence M. ALBRECHT concludes that a diftinction of ranks, or an hereditary nobility, is prejudicial to fentiments of true patriotifm: as tending to infpire the great with pride and vanity, and to degrade the lower orders. We cannot deny the juftice of his remarks with respect to those countries in which nobility descends to every individual of a family: but they cannot be applied to Great Britain, where the title is limited to a fingle perfon. In England, patriotifm is not in danger fo much from the diftinction of different ranks, as from their bordering too closely on each other; in confequence of which, individuals become defirous of emulating, in fplendid appearance and expenfive pleasures, the ranks immediately above them. What he advances concerning incorporated companies, taxes, excifes, and ftanding armies, as prejudicial to patrietism, is abstractedly

See Rev. vol. xli. p. 258; and New Series, vol. vii. p. 335.

juft.

juft. We acknowlege that these are evils: but, in the present circumftances of mankind, they are all, except perhaps the first, evils which could not be abolished without inducing greater inconveniences. It fhould be remembered that there is a difference between abstract philofophy and practical politics, fimilar to that between mathematical and phyfical poffibility; and that the theorist, who does not take into his calculation those obftacles, which proceed from the nature of the materials of which his machine must be compofed, will always be difappointed in the refult of his plans, and, instead of reaping the reward of ingenuity, will incur the blame of inconfideration.

The author's remarks on the influence of religion on patriotifm are juft, fo far as they relate to an hierarchy, or to an eftablishment of a particular fyftem of doctrine, with exclufive civil privileges to its adherents: but what he advances on this fubject is by no means new. He feems to think that the very fpirit of Chriftianity tends to diminish that of patriotifm. It does indeed tend to deftroy that unjust partiality to our country which would lead us to hate all others, and to pursue national intereft at the expence of juftice and humanity; and if this were patriotism, it would be happy for mankind if it were entirely annihilated :—but the spirit of the gospel, which connects the love of our country with the love of mankind, and which inftructs nations, as well as individuals, to act toward others as they would with others to act toward them, is highly favourable to true patriotism, prevents it from being abused as a motive to a vicious conduct, and renders it a virtue of the greatest moral worth.

In the remainder of this volume, the author has thrown together fome loose thoughts on the several political constitutions that have exifted in the world. In thofe on theocracy he appears to be no advocate for the Old Teftament, and grofsly mifreprefents the Jewish government: but, on this head, he is very judiciously answered by the Dutch tranflator, who has admirably pointed out and confuted his errors. This gentleman obferves that, if M. ALBRECHT had refrained from injudicious reflections on the Mofaical law, what he has faid of theocracy might have been very justly applied to defpotism.

Of abfolute monarchy, the author declares that he thinks better than he otherwife fhould do, from a veneration for the memory of Cæfar and Frederic. If this refpect for two individuals, from among all the monarchs that have reigned, be his only reason, we cannot avoid thinking it a very poor one; befides, Cæfar, if he means Julius, could scarcely be faid to have been a monarch. He farther obferves that every nation must bave, and really has, a monarchical government, as long as Mm 2

the

the people do not understand their own interefts, and are therefore unequal to the talk of governing themselves: but, as foor as they have acquired this knowlege, though the forms of abfolute monarchy may be preferved, the fpirit of it is abolished.

In his chapter on mixed governments, M. ALBRECHT betrays his ignorance of the British conflitution. Certain defects, which are faid to have crept into the adminiftration of it, but which are contrary to the fpirit of the conftitution,--fuch as the venality of electors, the inequality of the reprefentation, and the influence of places and penfions,-are the first objects which ftrike a foreigner, and lead him, without proper inquiry, precipitately to condemn the whole. In the chapter on republics, which concludes this volume, we find fome good remarks on the caufes of the decline of moft of the republics of Europe. This decline the author afcribes to their inferiority to their neigh hours, which obliges them to purfue a timid and felfifh caution: hence alfo they are obliged to buy the protection of others, and to hire armies for their defence, inftead of depending on their own efforts. This naturally introduces a languor and want of energy; the people learn to confider the payment of money as their only duty to their country; their private intereft is their fole concern; and they become utterly infenfible to public fpirit.

After having perufed the volume before us, we own that we are aftonished at the reputation which it has acquired on the Continent; for, though it contains fome good obfervations, they are mixed with many extravagances; and the reafoning is very far from being fo accurate as, in a work of this kind, we haye a right to expect.

ART. IV. Redeveering over den Invloed der waare Verlichting, Sc. i.. A Difcourfe on the Influence of intellectual and moral Improvement on the Happiness of Women, and on Domestic Felicity. Delivered in Amfterdam at the General Meeting of the Society for promoting the Public Welfare. By JACOB KANTELAAR. 8vo. pp. 92. Amfterdam. 1794.

THE

"HE object of this refpectable fociety is to diffuse useful knowlege among their countrymen; for which purpofe they have propofed prizes for the beft works on national educa tion, and for elementary books for the inftruction of children, and of the lower claffes of people. At the general annual meeting, the prefident for the year pronounces a difcourfe on fome fubject analogous to the object of the fociety; and M. KANTE. LAAR, who filed this office last year, difcbarged its customary duty by delivering the oration before us. His defign is to thew that favage and uncivilized nations Have no ideas of true con

jugal