descriptions we liften with peculiar pleafure: yet here, where we moft wish for information, we are moft likely to meet with error. We liften not long before we are difgufted by obscure and contradictory accounts; and, defpairing to extract truth from fuch a mafs of difcordant fiction, too frequently fhun credulity by a fullen acquiefcence in ignorance. This we readily confefs to have been our own cafe, when we first compared the representations of thofe who have written on the religion and mythology of the Hindoos. Indeed, a kind of fatality has attended almost every attempt to illuftrate the hiftory, or explain the creed, of this extraordinary people; the accounts which have been given of them by modern travellers being no less inconfiftent with each other than what has been variously related of their ancestors by the Greek and Roman hiftorians. If Diodorus, Strabo, and Arrian,-if Pliny, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Plutarch, speak of the ancient Brahmans in terms of uncertainty and contradiction,-fimilar, if not equal, inconfiftencies obfcure the writings of Roger and of Philips, of Bernier and Baldæus, of Holwell and of Dow. We mean not to accufe these writers of carelefs or wilful mifreprefentation. The peculiar difficulty of the undertaking is a fufficient apology for their failure. Where fo many varieties of opinion abounded, the task of difcrimination would have been difficult, even if each fect had fyftematized its tenets, and fubmitted them in writing to the inspection of the enquirers. Even with this advantage they must have encountered innumerable obftacles. They must have contended at once with the obfcurity of a foreign language, with the wild exuberance of imagination fo confpicuous in eaftern compofitions, with a profufion of allegories the most licentious, and metaphors the moft daring, which envelope the fubtleties of metaphyfics in tenfold darkness.-But ftill more arduous has been the undertaking of thofe travellers, from whom the little that is recorded of the Indian learning and theology has been collected. It is feldom they have been able to procure a fight of the Hindoo books, and ftill lefs frequently have they been able to read them when procured, though, without an actual perufal of them, nothing certain can be learnt of their contents. The priests, to whole care they are entrusted, have hitherto guarded them, with the moft obftinate jealoufy, from the eyes of ftrangers; and the laity, who are ignorant of the language, are confequently unable to explain them. We are happy, however, to find, from the publications of Mr. Hilhed and Mr. Wilkins, that these prejudices have in fome degree begun to give way, and, for the honour of our country, as well as for the honour of humanity, we heartily with that, by the juftice and liberality of its future conduct, our government in India may lay a foundation for the full and unlimited confidence of this hitherto oppreffed and much injured people.

Indeed,

Indeed, till all the facred books of the Hindoos are tranflated from authentic copies into the western languages, the fubject muft ftill remain involved in error and contradiction: for till then we can neither diftinguish the ancient Brahmanical doctrines from others which are of a later date, nor judge of the opinions of the different fects by referring them to one common ftandard. Nor are fuch tranflations to be wifhed for only by the inquifitive philofopher. The genius and habits of a people, with whom Europe is fo clofely connected by commercial ties, might be contemplated by the merchant and the politician with equal pleasure and advantage; and in our own country, where these characters are fo clofely connected by the territorial acquifitions of the India Company, an acquaintance with Indian literature in general might have the moft beneficial effects. It might even tend to redeem the national character, by teaching Englishmen to confider the natives of India as Men, as Beings endued by Heaven with the fame faculties, the fame talents, and the fame feelings with themselves, and confequently entitled to the fame juftice and the fame compaffion.

In faying this, we mean not to intrude our fentiments on the fubject of Indian politics. We pretend not to determine on the foundness or the equity of that policy, by which commerce is arrayed in all the horrors of war, by which the trader is suffered to affume the truncheon of the general, and the difputes of the counting-house are decided in the field of battle. This is a myftery in the art of government, which the experience of no very diftant age may poffibly unravel. It is fufficient for us to bear our teftimony to the beneficial tendency of every attempt, which, by throwing light on the opinions of the Hindoos, may promote the cause of learning and humanity. Such in general is the character of the work before us. It is published under the authority of the Court of Directors of the Eaft India Company, at the particular defire and recommendation of Mr. Haftings, who, in a letter addreffed to the Chairman of the Company, and now prefixed to the work, explains the motives for its publication, and bears moft honourable teftimony to the fidelity, accuracy, and merit of the tranflator. Indeed, Mr. H.'s letter does not confift merely of introductory remarks, but contains a fort of critique on the work itfelf. He muft, however, excufe us if we have the prefumption to differ from him, not only in our eftimate of the merits of the Geeta, confidered as a compofition, but also in the principles on which that estimate has been formed. Mr. H. fays, that might he, an unlettered man, venture to prefcribe bounds to the latitude of criticism, he would exclude, in eftimating the merit of fuch a production, all rules drawn from the ancient or modern literature of Europe, all references to fuch fentiments or manners as are become the ftandards of

propriety

propriety for opinion and action in our own modes of life, and equally all appeals to our revealed tenets of religion and moral duty. He would exact from every reader the allowance of obfcurity, abfurdity, barbarous habits, and a perverted morality. With thefe deductions he hesitates not to pronounce the Geeta a performance of great originality; of a fublimity of conception, reasoning, and diction, almoft unequalled; and a fingle inftance, among all the known religions of mankind, of a theology accurately correfponding with that of the Chriftian difpenfation, and powerfully illuftrating its fundamental doctrines.

It will not be fair, he fays, to try its relative worth by a comparison with the text of the firft ftandards of European compofition; but let thefe be taken in the most efteemed of their profe tranflations, and in that equal fcale let their merits be weighed. On this ground he would not fear to place in oppofition to the beft French verfions of the Iliad or Odyffey, or of the 1ft and 6th Books of our own Milton, the English verfion of the Mahabharat.

We have searched the records of criticifm for precedents, but can find none that can warrant a compliance with the requifitions of Mr. H. The cuftoms of our court are directly oppofite to his propofals, nor do we even wish to recollect a cafe which would justify us in conferring unmixed praise on a work, abounding, even by the confeffion of its warmeft advocate, with manifeft and palpable abfurdities. If any thing could authorize fuch a conceffion, we might, indeed, difmifs thefe new canons of criticifm, without further obfervations. At prefent we would fubmit it to the candour of Mr. H. whether there be not fome degree of inconfiftency, we will not fay of abfurdity, in his remarks. When he requires us to exclude every rule drawn from the ancient or modern literature of Europe, would he imply, that they are not what others have fuppofed them to be, the refult of good fenfe and experience? If this implication be not intended, it is furely a bad compliment to the Geeta, to deprecate the examination of it before the tribunal of reafon. But Mr. Haftings tells us, that the Geeta is a performance of astonishing jublimity of concep tion, reafoning, and diction. Why then does he plead to earnestly for the allowance of obfcurity and abfurdity? Occafional inftances of both have ever been excused, even according to the ftricteft rules of European criticifm. Mr. H. muft therefore fuppofe them to be more than occafional, when he would exact a particular indulgence in their favour. Befide, if the Geeta be really, as he informs us, a single instance among all the known religions of mankind, of a theology accurately corresponding with the Chriflian difpenfation, why are we forbidden to compare it with our revealed tenets of religion? If it so powerfully illustrate the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, what need is there of Rav. March, 1786.

P

conceffions

conceffions in favour of barbarous habits and perverted morality? We will not do Mr. H. the injuftice to fuppofe, that he feriously means to draw a parallel between the Geeta and the facred records of Chriftian faith. The futility, as well as the impiety, of fuch a parallel will, we truft, be fufficiently evinced by the analyfis which we mean to give of the work, and by the remarks which it will be our duty to make on it. In the mean while, we beg leave to explain the principles on which our judgment will be formed.

In delivering our opinion of oriental compofitions, we have ever thought it néceffary to diftinguish the merit of the writer from that of his work. The former will always depend on circumftances, on the ftate of learning and civilization in the age and country in which he wrote, and on the peculiar advantages of education which he himself enjoyed. The fairest flowers of genius have too often been cramped by national ignorance and abfurd prejudices, by barbarous habits and perverted morality. In this cafe, we have only to admire those tints, which, had they been the offspring of a more kindly foil, and been cultivated by the foftering hand of art, might have glowed with tenfold luftre, and triumphed in unrivalled beauty. But the merit of a compo→ fition fhould be eftimated without any reference to its author, or to the difficulties he encountered. It is to be tried, not indeed by arbitrary rules, which have no foundation in reason, but by thofe founded in nature and the relation of things, thofe, to the propriety of which, when they are fairly and explicitly propofed, every rational mind will affent. Of this kind, we conceive, are thofe general rules which nature dictated to the critics of Greece and Rome. If now, as we proceed in the examination of the Geeta, we take thefe critical axioms for our guides, they will oblige us to vindicate the cause of European literature from comparisons which tend to degrade it; but they will not diminish the value of the work, or prevent our beftowing all due praife on it, when confidered as a curious fpecimen of the ancient Hindoo learning and mythology.

The Bhagvat Geeta is an epifodical extract from the Mahabharat, a voluminous poem, affirmed to have been written above 4000 years ago, by Kreefhna Dwypayen Veias, a learned Brahman, and ftill venerated by the Hindoos as a work of divine infpiration and authority.

:

The Mahabharat contains the genealogy and general hiftory of the houfe of Bhaurut, fo called from Bhurrut its founder; the epithet Maha, or Great, being prefixed in token of diftinction: but its more particular object is to relate the diffentions and wars of the two great collateral branches of it, called Kooroos and Pandoos; both lineally defcended in the fecond degree from Veechee traveerya, their common ancestor, by their refpective fathers Dreetrarashtra and Pandou.

The

The Kooroos, which indeed is fometimes ufed as a term comprehending the whole family, but most frequently applied as the patro nymic of the elder branch alone, are faid to have been one hundred in number, of whom Dooryodun was efteemed the head and reprefentative even during the life of his father, who was incapacitated by blindness. The fons of Pandoo were five; Yoodhishteer, Bheem, Arjoon, Nekool, and Sehadeo; who, through the artifices of Dooryodun, were banished, by their uncle and guardian Dreetrarashtra, from Haften apoor, at that time the feat of government of Hindoftan. The exiles, after a series of adventures, worked up with a wonderful fertility of genius and pomp of langage into a thousand fublime defcriptions, returned with a powerful army to avenge their wrongs, and affert their pretenfions to the empire in right of their father; by whom, though the younger brother, it had been held while he lived, on account of the difqualification already mentioned of Dreetrarashtra.'

At this period the epifode opens, in the form of a dialogue, supposed to have paffed between Kreefhna, an incarnation of the Deity, and his pupil and favourite Arjoon, one of the five fons of Pandoo above mentioned. It is divided into eighteen chapters, or, as the Tranflator calls them, lectures.

The title of the firft is, The grief of Arjoon.'-When the two armies of Kooroos and Pandoos are drawn up ready to engage, whilft the clangour of innumerable fhells is heard on all fides, and the weapons of death begin to fly abroad; Arjoon, who is reprefented as ftanding with Kreefhna in a fplendid chariot drawn by white horses, requefts that he may be driven into the mid fpace in front of the two armies, to take a nearer view of the hoftile ranks. And here, looking around him on all fides, and beholding relations, and brethren, and friends, prepared for mutual deftruction, he is feized with extreme horror and com. punction, and at length his grief burfts forth into the following natural and pathetic expoftulations:

Having beheld, O Kreefhna! my kindred thus ftanding anxious. for the fight, my members fail me, my countenance withereth, the hair ftandeth on end upon my body, and all my frame trembleth with horror! Even Gandeev my bow escapeth from my hand, and my fkin is parched and dried up. I am not able to fland; for my underftanding, as it were, turneth round, and I behold inaufpicious omens on all fides. When I fhall have deftroyed my kindred, fhall I longer look for happiness? I wish not for victory, Kreefhna; I want not dominion; I want not pleafure; for what is dominion, and the enjoyments of life, or even life itfelf, when thofe, for whom dominion, pleasure, and enjoyment were to be coveted, have abandoned life and fortune, and ftand here in the field ready for the battle? Tutors, fons and fathers, grandfires and grandfons, uncles and nephews, coufins, kindred, and friends! Although they would kill me, I wish not to fight them; no not even for the dominion of the three regions of the univerfe, much lefs for this little earth! Having killed the fons of Dreetarashtra, what pleafure, O Kreefhna, can