friend's fame was neither wanton nor unpremeditated: nor, when we A pressing application has been made to us by the Rev. A. Clarke, of Liverpool, to remove an impression which he fears may arise that he has borne testimony to the efficacy of a certain quack medicine, the advertisment of which was lately stitched up with one of our Numbers. It is altogether unusual with us to take any notice of these extraneous additions; and we do not think that, in this instance, there was ground for Mr. Clarke's apprehension, since the person whose evidence is quoted is said to be a Methodist preacher at Manchester: but Mr. C. says that, as there is no such person in the latter city, (which, we suppose, is generally the case,) and as there never was a preacher of that name in the connexion besides himself, he is liable to be considered as the person meant. He therefore particularly requests us to state that he never had any knowlege whatever respecting the efficacy of the medicine in question; and that any use of his name in this business is a gross forgery. Weighty reasons oblige us to refrain from acceding to Mr. Houghton's request: but we shall consider the remarks which he has communicated to us. We shall attend to the observations of A Constant Reader as far as circumstances will permit. Cantal's letter is received, but "Non nostrum inter vos tales componere lites." From Philo-modernus, Mr. Lowell, &c. we have to request the In the last Appendix, p. 485. 1. 18. from bott. for cocoas," p.180.197. 29. R.W. THE MONTHLY REVIEW, For MARCH, 1802. ART. I. The Metaphysics of Aristotle, translated from the Greek; with copious Notes, in which the Pythagoric and Platonic Dogmas respecting Numbers and Ideas are unfolded from antient Sources. To which is added, a Dissertation on Nullities and diverging Series; in which the Conclusions of the greatest modern Mathematicians on this Subject are shown to be erroneous, the Nature of infinitely small Quantities is explained, and the ro iv, or the one of the Pythagoreans and Platonists, so often alluded to by Aristotle in this Work, is elucidated. By Thomas Taylor. 4to. pp. 500. 21. 2s. Boards. White, &c. 1801. NEARLY a century and a half have elapsed since the empire of Aristotle, which for two thousand years had been established over the opinions of mankind, was attacked and destroyed. The chief author of this event was Descartes; who, though less sagacious, less profound, and less circumspect than Bacon, has perhaps eventually been a greater benefactor to Philosophy. By the freedom of his speculations and the boldness of his ideas, he effected a revolution the most remarkable that occurs in the history of science; he released men from the thraldom of dark notions and hard words; he taught them to be attentive to the operations of their understanding, and to doubt every thing of which they had not clear conceptions; and his claim to fame depends less on the truths and discoveries which he has transmitted to us, than on the daring and sceptical spirit which he excited.-That which usually happens in such cases followed in this: opinion, once put in motion, vibrated from one extreme to the other; Aristotle, formerly the idol of adoration, became an object of derision; and his first matter, his occult qualities, and his substantial forms, were used as terms of reproach to defame the memory of old schoolmen, or to depreciate those who still seemed to think that much sense and sound philosophy existed in the writings of the Stagirite. In spite, however, of the change of doctrine and of our new systems, still Aristotle is a mighty name, and VOL. XXXVII. much much that he has written is destined to be immortal, secure from the fluctuations of taste, and beyond the reach of hostility. It is not our present concern to distinguish, in the Aristotelian philosophy, that which is perspicuous from that which is obscure; nor that which is level with common capacity from that which soars above all human comprehension; nor the worth and weight of matter from the ostentatious and empty pomp of words. That we are exempt from such a task is matter of no inconsiderable self-congratulation; for the re-perusal of Aristole, in the present translation, has confirmed us in our former judgment, that (as Mr. Taylor himself also acknowleges) the Metaphysics are distinguished from the rest of the works of Aristotle by the profound obscurity in which the meaning of the greater part is involved.' Deep, indeed, is the gloom: few are able to throw light on it; and few will make the attempt: for those philosophers, who have contributed to overthrow the doctrine of Aristotle, have excited and cherished in the world a sceptical and suspicious spirit: mysterious language is not now supposed essentially to enfold sublime truths; and men of the present day do not infer profundity when they meet with obscurity: they have learnt that "La vérité est simple, et peut etre mise à portée de tout le monde quand on veut en prendre la peine." We are not now introduced, for the first time, to the learned and indefatigable author of this translation: but hitherto our acquaintance has produced no sentiments of mutual regard. Terms even of contumely and contempt have been exchanged; and we are now likely to part with as little cordiality as ever: for we have no great reverence for the opinions of Mr. Taylor, if opinions they can be called, and the angry and scurrilous expressions of his preface are not calculated to excite any emotions of good will. The translation is ushered in by an Introduction of nearly sixty pages in the first part of which, the writer lays down the division of the books of Aristotle, in order to determine where his Metaphysics are to be placed:-he then shews what the end of his philosophy is, what kind of diction he employs, why he wrote obscurely, and what qualifications a reader of the Metaphysics ought to possess. As those who do not understand Aristotle (and the number is not small) may be curious to know why he wrote obscurely on abstruse subjects, we present them with the following exposition: Those more antient than Aristotle, thinking that it was not fit to expose their wisdom to the multitude, instead of clear and explicit diction, adopted fables and enigmas, metaphors and similitudes; and under these, as veils, concealed it from the profane and vulgar eye. But the Stagiite praises and employs obscurity, and perhaps accuses accuses and avoids philosophical fables and enigmas, because some interpretation may be given of them by any one, though their real meaning is obvious but to a few. Perhaps, too, he was of opinion that such obscurity of diction is better calculated to exercise the mind of the reader, to excite sagacity, and produce accurate attention. Certain, indeed, it is, that the present fashionable mode of writing, in which every author endeavours to adapt every subject. to the apprehension of the meanest capacity, has debilitated the understanding of readers in general, has subjected works of profound erudition to contempt merely because they are not immediately obvious, and, as if the highest truths were on a level with the fictions of romance, has rendered investigation disgusting whenever it is abstruse. That this obscurity, however, in the writings of Aristotle does not arise from imbecility, will be obvious to those who are but moderately skilled in rhetoric: for such is the wonderful compres sion, such the pregnant brevity of his diction, that entire sentences are frequently comprised in a few words; and he condenses in a line what Cicero would dilate into a page. His books on Meteors, his Topics, and his Politics likewise, evince that he was capable of writing with perspicuity as well as precision; and among his lost works, Simplicius informs us that his Epistles and Dialogues were most elegantly written. Indeed, says he, none even of the most illustrious writers is equal to Aristotle in epistolary composition.' Mr. T. next states that a naturally good disposition, a penetrating sagacity, and an ardent love of truth,' are the necessary qualifications for those who study this work, and shews why these qualifications are requisite. He then says: The design of Aristotle in this work is to lead us from forms merged in, or inseparable from, matter, to those forms which are entirely immaterial, and which, in his own words, are the mosť luminous of all things. But he considers these forms so far only as they are beings; or, in other words, so far as they are the progeny of one first being, and are characterised by essence. Nothing, therefore, is discussed in this work pertaining to will or appetite, or any thing of this kind, because these are vital powers; nor to sen. sation, the dianoëtic energy and intelligence, because these are the properties of gnostic natures. Hence, we shall find that the Metaphysics of Aristotle unfold all that is comprehended in the great orb of being, so far as every thing which this orb contains is stamped as it were with the idiom of its source. The same thing is likewise effected by Plato in his Parmenides; but, as we have before observed, more theologically, conformably to the genius of his philosophy, which always considers nature so far as she is suspended from divinity. The Metaphysics of Aristotle are, therefore, the same with the most scientific dialectic of Plato, of which the Parmenides of that philosopher is a most beautiful specimen, with this dif. ference only, that in the former the physical, and in the latter the theological, character predominates.' Next follows a particular explanation of the business of scientific dialectic: but, for certain causes, the comments of Mr.T. do do not easily admit abridgment, and they are too long for our insertion. With respect to the disposition of the books of the Metaphysics, Mr. Taylor retains the order in which they were placed by antiquity, and published by Aldus and Bessarion; and he says that the arrangements of Petit and Dr. Gillies, which are different from such as had been adopted by the earliest and best of Aristotle's Greek interpreters, sufficiently prove that those writers attempted to rectify what they did not understand.' He then continues his objections to the arrangement of Dr. Gillies, and subjoins observations to prove that his censure is just after which, we meet with considerations on the books in the order in which they have been transmitted to us by the ancients, terminated by the following reproof of Bacon and Malebranche: In short, the whole of his Metaphysics consists either in the enumeration and solution of doubts, or in the dicussion of such things as are subservient to their solution. And we have largely shewn that every part of his works abounds with doubting, and that he every where exhorts the reader to doubt, as above all things necessary to the perception of truth. It may, therefore, from all this be fairly and safely concluded that those who have represented his philosophy as tyrannical, have either ignorantly confounded it with the barbarous reveries of the schoolmen, or, desirous of becom ing dictators in philosophy themselves, like Lord Bacon and Malebranche, have most unjustly ascribed to the Stagirite that unbounded ambition with which they were so eminently inspired; an ambition which is satisfied with nothing short of unrivalled renown, and which "Bears, like the Turk, no brother near the throne." • In order that the reader may comprehend the latter part of the 12th book of this translation, perceive the simplicity of Aristotle's theory of the mundane system, and understand how grossly it has been misrepresented by modern wit, Mr. Taylor gives quotations from Aristotle's physical auscultations and books of the heavens. Although, however, these extracts are introduced by a judicious observation and pertinent illustration, intended to manifest that hypotheses are not necessarily true because they afford a solution of phænomena, yet we suspect *We believe that we are not the first who have noted the pas-, Bages whence Pope borrowed this idea: they are as follow; "Etsi enim Aristoteles, more Ottomanorum, regnare se haud tuto posse, putaret, nisi fratres suos omnes contrucidasset," &c. Bacon de Augmentis Scient. p. 107. "Nam Aristotelis philosophia, postquam cateras philosophias (more Ottomanorum erga fratres suos) pugnacibus confutationibus contrueidasset," kc. Novum Organum, p. 285. that |