pelled, to ftate our doubts as to their authenticity. Our duty to the public, which is paramount to every private confideration or moral repugnance, will not admit that we fhould glofs over, either directly or indirectly, any thing which wears the appearance of deception; and as the whole affair refts folely on their authenticity, That is the question which alone remains to be decided. We shall therefore endeavour to lay before our readers a connected view of the evidence, with fuch remarks as may be neceflary.

"Whether we have yet reached that happy period, I fhall not pretend to determine; nor can we decide if the prefent phasis of the French revolution be that in which those who call themfelves the friends of Lewis XVI act wifely in evoking the fhade of this unfortunate Prince. The motives which have led them to make this appeal to the public are configned in the preface to the intended French edition of theje letters. He cite the words of

the editors themselves.

66

Many refpectable writers have "attempted to reconcile the memory "of this good King with the efteem of "his contemporaries, which he never "deferved to have loft. Their works “have been read with avidity, and "the pages have been bathed with the "tears of regret. But it never yet "entered into the mind of any perfon

66

to paint the unfortunate Monarch by "his moft fecret thoughts, by extracts "from his manuferipts, by his analy"ies, by his public and private correre"fpondence. This, however, is the "fureft way of appreciating him, to "behold him, not in his court, amidst "his courtiers, with that kind of bor"rowed foul wh ch the habit of com"manding gave him, but in the pre"fence of his intimate friends, of nature, and of his own confcience. It is by this mode of trial that we difcover the man without reproach, "and that we fometimes feel drgult at "the great man. The end which it was " intended to promote by the publica"tion of thefe letters, was, to featter a few flowers over the tomb of a prince, the friend of mankind, whofe

46

"apothcofis will furely be one day "made by future generations."

The first thing that occurs to the mind on perufing the above extract, is, have the letters been already published in France? If they have, why is it not explicitly ftated, and faid in the title page, to have been "tranfluted from the French ?” and who are the editors? If they have not been publifhed, how did Mifs Williams procure the copies ? and in what fenfe does the use the word intended edition? Thefe are queftions which it is neceffary fhould be folved fatisfactorily, or they must tend to invalidate the caufe they would fupport.

"Whatever opinions may be formed of the motives of the French editors for the publication of this correfpondence, it feems doubtful if the end they had in view will be attained."

"In reading this correfpondence, which, according to its intended editors, is to place him in the prefence of his intimate friends, of nature, and his own confcience, we may be led to fufpect either that we have hitherto miltaken the meaning of thefe terms, or that confcience is a more accommodating principle with the rulers of na tions than with other men; and whatever difpofition we may have to firew flowers over the tomb of the unfortunate, we may be allowed to doubt whether any generation, even the remotelt, will raife Lewis XVI to the honours of an apotheofi-."

Here is a degree of ambiguity, which cannot cafily be removed. In the firit extract the exprefies herfelf pofitively---the "motives of lines afterwards we meet with inthe French editors:" a very few tended French editors! How is this to be reconciled? In what manner are we to account for fuch

a palpable contradiction? Perhaps an error of the prefs. Alas! there are too many fuch errors throughout the whole preface!

"It was the intention of the King's friends to have published thofe papers in two volumes. The unit contained

fimply his letters, and were defined a nous montrer Louis XVI homme privé, to prefent the private character of the King. The fecond volume contained all that could portray him, comme homme public, as a public character; and confited of his difcouries, memorials, obfervations, writings, the analyfis of a few of his works; all which objects, united, were to prefent us the laft King of France as a prince really enlightened, made to govern men in the folitude of the cabinet, fitted to become the counfellor of a king, worthy of exccuting, capable of judging men, and tranfmit ting his judgements to pofterity. This work was fuppoled by the editors to offer a full juftification to men who were prejudiced, to awaken in gencrous minds grateful recollections, to excite remorte in the hearts of the King's perfecutors, to give ufèful inftructions to ftate men, and teach crowned heads that it is not fuficient to poffels the virtues of Trajan and Antoninus; that the courage of heroes, and the policy of great kings, are equally neceffary, joined to the wisdom of a Sally, and the firmnefs of a Richelieu.'

This intention it appears was never fulfilled by his friends, but was left to be done by our authorefs. Who thofe friends were we are not told; how they came poffeffed of the correfpondence, or how it afterwards paffed into the hands of Mifs W., is left equally untold. fort of bungling explanation, bowever, is to be found at page xviii, which we will lay entire before our readers.

A

"The materials for this monument to the glory of Lewis XVI have been for fome time prepared. The French editors ftate that they have it in their power to enlarge this collection, but that a choice was necedary. We are therefore in poffction of those which are moft favourable to the caufe which the friends of the late King are anxious to support, decming the evidence fufficient to gain every fuffrage in its favour.

"It is unneceffary to mention the reafons which produced the delay of their publication, and ftill lefs the uncans by which thefe manufcript voJunes fell into my hands. The only

important point to be ascertained was that of their authenticity. The French editor, in the note which precedes his preface, ftates, that the originals are depofited in the hands of a perfonage who will think it a pleasure and a duty to communicate them to fuch as are curious or incredulous.' This fiatement is true. But, independent of this external proof, which is conclufive to thofe who are acquainted with the hand-writing of the King, fuch meafures have been taken as appeared to me fully fatisfactory to arrive at the greateft fupplementary proof, by confulting fuch perions as are most likely to be informed on the fubject. The proofs which I have obtained from men who now till eminent offices under the republic, and from others who exerciled the highest functions under Lewis XVI, and who were confequent.y infructed both as to the fpirit and the letter, leave no doubt whatever with refpect to the authenticity of thote papers. While they present the King alternutely as a private and public man, by his correspondence with individuals, and his difcourfes to the national reprefentation and to fections of the people, it appears fingular that no fufpicions entered the minds of the French editors, that the public, who were called only to admire, would fometimes paufe to compare and to realon. The editors, it is true, in their preface, hazard certain animadverfions which wear the air of impartiality, and to which they would limit thofe of the readers. We dare at prefent, they obferve, publish without fear in books what is already in every heart; and declare, in the name of future generations, that Lewis XVI, on the throne of the Bourbons, had no other reproach to make himself in the difficult art of goneutralifes every thing, that want of cerning, than that irrefolution which Jelf-confidence which renders the mo narch null, and that weakness which deftroys.'"

Mifs Williams is of opinion, that it is perfectly unimportant to state by what means these letters came into her hands: we think quite the contrary; that ftatement is the very key-ftone to the whole, and can alone infpire her readers with confidence. In this age of impofture and deceit, we are bound to

exact the moft rigid evidence; -and there is "no divinity which hedges in" our political empiric fo as to render her fuperior to the poffibility of fufpicion, and especially in a cafe of fo delicate a nature as that of publishing the correfpondence of a deceated monarch. She is more correct when the obferves,, " that the only important point to be afcertained was that of their authenticity;" but the imagines that fhe has perfectly established that point, by telling us that the French editor * ftates, that the originals are in the hands of a perfonage, "who will think it a pleafure and a duty to communicate them to fuch as are curious or incredulous." Why is not this perfonage mentioned, and the means pointed out by which the incredulous (for they are many) may make the application? This would have had fomething like an appearance of honesty; but, instead of this, we are told that the above "statement is true!"---Are we then to rely upon the fimple word of an individual, under fuch peculiar circumftances; and by thus pinning our faith down to her ipfe dixit, accredit documents which of all others tend most to fhew, in a plain unvarnified ftate, the workings of the mind, and the very heart of a king whofe virtues and whofe fuppofititious crimes yet excite the contentions of party?

Such a blind, fuch an anile docility would have difgraced the ages of groffeft fuperftition, when monkish mummeries deluded half the world. Mifs Williams herself is even aware that the public would queftion her authorities, and adds, as a kind of falvo, the existence of an

The French editor (hitherto editors) is charged with the refponfibility rather than the English one. The former nobody knows any thing about; he is to all intents and purposes an imaginary being, called up at pleafure to remove the load from off the fhoulders of that perfon, who is bound to vindicate the imputation which must be thrown upon her veracity,

evidence, which can be evidence only to a very few, if any, individuals now living; " but independent of this ex ternal proof, which is conclufive to thofe who are acquainted with the handwriting of the King, fuch meafures have been taken as appeared to me fully fatisfactory to arrive at the greateft fupplementary proof, by confulting fuch perfons as were mot likely to be informed on the fubject." She then proceeds to tell us, that he has obtainedproofs from men who now fill eminent offices under the republic, and from others who exercised the highest functions under XVI; but he does not condefcend to tell us what thofe proofs are, nor from whom they were obtained. Indeed, there is fomething difhonestly ambiguous in the whole of this pretended explanation; and Mifs Williams has certainly much to undo before he can regain that portion of the public confidence which it is probable the has loft on the prefent occafion.

Lewis

It must alfo ftike every mind very forcibly, how dexterously fle waves the general question, by fuddenly remarking that thefe letters "prefent the King alternately as a private and public man, &c." If there be any one, who after reading the above extracts, or the whole preface, who yet can feel a doubt as to the authenticity of thefe pretended letters of Lewis XVI, we can only fay, in the language of Shakspeare, that they are at liberty to keep their opinion, allowing us at the fame time the privilege of keeping ours.

Having thus unequivocally ftated our doubts, and being firmly of

*This is completely ridiculous. Is it impotlible, for certain obvious reasons, to imitate the hand-writing, fo as to impofe on thoje who may have been blessed with a fight of the originals?

It is remarkable, that in no one inftance does the deign to mention any names it is fuch perlons, and great perfon ages, and fo forth.

opinion (under the prefent evidence of the cafe) that thefe letters are not authentic, we shall forbear to offer any remarks upon them; only obferving, that they contain internal evidence which goes confiderably to ftrengthen the dubiety of the whole. The style of the originals is far from what might be expected to proceed from the pen of Lewis XVI, poffeffing neither dig nity, perfpicuity, nor ftrength. The obfervations which are appended to each letter by the oftenfible tranflator are often very trivial and very fuperficial; the political fentiments which they breathe are thofe of a revolutionary fanatic, whofe enthufiafim ftill remains unquenched, though fatiated with blood, maffacres, and perpetual crimes. Her ardour for liberty and equality becomes perfectly ridiculous when the talks of putting her felf on the fide of the oppreffed multitude ---that people would indeed be oppreffed if governed by men imbued with the principles of a modern philofopher and a modern politician!

ART. XIX. The Temple of Nature; or the Origin of Society. A Poem, with Philofophical Notes. By Erafmus Darwin, M.D. F.R.S. 1803.

4to.

A POEM, or a fyftem of philofophy, which, like the work before us, is replete with doctrines little different from the heterodox tenets of Epicurus and his difciples, is perufed by ferious and intelligent minds with various fenfations, Some entertain doubts in regard to the body of facts; others are difpofed to question the accuracy of the deductions; and others again are inclined to reft their opinion principally on the confequences to which fuch a fyftem would lead us. To the enlightened understanding, aware of the illufions of an imagination warmed by the profecution of a favourite theory, con

But it is not to the philofopher alone that Dr. Darwin addreffes himfelf. He is not content with two appeals to the fober judgement of men, or with a deliberate difcuffion of his doctrines in the plain phrafeology of philofophy: he calls in the aid of poetical embellifhment; and ferving up his fyftem' twice again, well feafoned with tropes, and garnished with highfounding phrafes and picturefque epithets, he attempts to render a theory of cofmogony palatable to thofe who, in thefe matters, follow the fuggeftions of the fenfes, uncon nected by knowledge and uncon trouled by reflection.

"So fhail my lines foft rolling eyes

engage,

"And now-white fingers turn the volant page;

"The fmiles of beauty all my toils repay, "And youths and virgins chaunt the living lay." Cunto I, 1. 29.

An air of novelty, a luxuriant polish of diction, a bold affertion of opinions at variance with the common tenets of modern education, an appearance of great originality of deduction, and an enumeration of facts at once fingular and important, are the feductive charms by which Dr. Darwin affails the underftanding of this latter clafs of readers; and by which he has given plaufibility to the inferences of fophitry, and an appearance of truth and validity to vague and unfounded hypothefes. We prefume, therefore, that no apology will be neceffary, if we extend our criticilms to fome length, and follow him ftep by step through his fyftem, in order to point out to "Youths and Vir

gins" the bafelefs fabric of fome of his philofophical vifions. But while we endeavour to expofe his fophifms, we muft confefs that we have been often pleafed by the ftrength of his imagination, and often inftructed by the new light in which familiar objects are exhibit. ed by the new relations which he points out, and the new combinations under which he teaches us to review them. But the volume firft claims our attention as a poem: we thall afterwards examine it as a fyftem of philofophy.

Inftruction is not the immediate province of poetry; and where the fubject to be inculcated is of an abftract nature, poetry is ill caleulated to fulfil the purpofe. The poet fpeaks in metaphorical phrafes, and reafons from flight analogies and diftant comparifons; and when be defcends to a ftyle more compatible with logical accuracy, his language lofes the greater part of its diguity and attractions. Thofe poems of the didactic kind, which poflefs the double merit of delighting and inftructing the reader, fuch as the Georgics of Virgil, and the English Garden of Mafon, are employed on fubjects connected with the appearances of nature, and are therefore capable of all the poetical embellishments which the novelty, beauty, and fublimity of natural objects fuggeft to the imagination. In thefe inftances, picturefque defcription not only aids the purpofes, but is itfelf not unfrequently the medium of inftruction.

The Temple of Nature poffeffes in fome degree a fimilar advantage; and the various talents and acquirements of Dr. Darwin feem peculiarly adapted to didactic poetry, or, in his own phrafe, "to enhit fcience under the banners of the imagination." But fo difficult it is to defcribe minute mechanical changes, without employing lan guage too metaphorical to be perfpicuous, or too abftract and pro

faic to gratify poetic tafte, that we find the bard compelled incefiantly to defcend to profefied profe, in order to enforce and illuftrate his doctrines. But the recurrence to long and perpetual annotations is very objectionable. It implies an intiinfic obfcurity, a palpable im-` perfection in the body of the poem. The teacher becomes a poet, in order to commence the talk of inftruction; but, Lefore he can ac complith his purpofe, he finds it necellary that he ceafe to be a poet: a tacit acknowledgment that he has chofen means ma equate to his ends. Not to mention the perplexity which the conftant crevette occations to the reader, and te interruption of the reg du tren of pleafurable feelings vrch a rɔgular and connected poem produces. The notes, however, like those of the Botanic Garden, conta’» much carious information; but they con

in alfo much repetition of obfervations, which the Doctor has repeatedly prefented to us before, in thofe notes, as well as in his two profe works, Zoonomia and Phytologia. For we have now, in fact, had four editions of his fyftem, with few alterations and no amendments.

The plan of the poem is tolerably regular, beginning with the origin and production of or ganic life, which occupies the first canto; the fecond treats of the reproduction or the continuation of living beings; the third is occupied with tracing the progrefs of mind; and the fourth, and laft, relates to the moral ftate of fociety, and treats of good and evil. The Hierophant of the Temple of Nature is fuppofed to deliver the various doctrines to the Mufe in a series of difcourfes, occafionally interrupted by the queftions and obfervations of the latter. These two personages conflitute the whole machinery, if it can be fo called, of the

poem.