tainment of excellence." and betook himself to his task with an altered spirit, a pen no longer flowing with gall and bitterness, but dropping words of humanity and regret. With peculiar indulgence, he forbore to notice the posthumous pieces written in the old strain; and confined his remarks to Mr. Shelley's translations, indisputably the best things he ever executed, and perhaps the only ones deserving the attention of the public. From an inditer of blasphemous gibberish, equally devoid of taste and reason, Mr. Shelley now appeared to be a person possessing" a fine ear for harmony, a great command of poetical language-a fine liveliness both of feeling and imagination"-as a person, in short, who "wanted little to be a distinguished original poet" but distinctness of conception, and regulation of taste. As a translator, he is said to have had " every requisite for the at...." His verse, at once chastened and inspired by the continued contemplation of consummate art, was capable, not only of reaching a classical gracefulness, but of reflecting vividly the strength of genius and the projection of its language." "Our literature can show few translations from the Greek poets more elegant than his of the Hymn to Mercury,' and the Cyclops of Euripides;' nor, in spite of a few inaccuracies, could Goëthe himself desire to see the effect of the famous Maydaynight scene of his Faust' transferred into any foreign language with more truth and vigour than Mr. Shelley's version exhibits. The reader is aware that Mephistopheles carries Faust to the great wizard festival, shortly after the consummation of Margaret's ruin. The opening of their adventures in this region of enchantment is thus admirably given"; and the passage of Mr. Shelley's translation is copied at considerable length. Introductory to another extract, the critic observes: "Nor is the following, in another style, less exquisite." And in the next page: "To show how well the man who could serve the Gothic muse in this way, could feel and transfer the polished graces of an Attic master, we shall transcribe part of the first chorus in Mr. Shelley's version of the Cyclops; which passage, though we shall not now copy it, we consider quite as good as the Reviewer does. In conclusion, he has these words: "One department of our literature has, without doubt, sustained a heavy loss in the early death of this unfortunate and misguided gentleman." Does he mean the blasphemous department of our literature? And is it really a heavy loss to be delivered from a man whose poetry was nothing but "drivelling prose run mad”? Are we then at length come to this, that the "ravings of Atheism," &c., are to be designated by the terms " dulcia vitia" in the Quarterly Review'? Doubtless to those who dwell in Albemarle Street, a light hath sprung up, and they begin to perceive, by the help of it, that heartless malevolent abuse will no longer pass for criticism. Perhaps the new conductors of the Quarterly' have felt a touch of liberalism, and are inclined to wipe out, as far as they may, the remembrance of their predecessors' sins'-Twere a work of charity, LOVERS' RECOLLECTIONS. HAST thou forgot the magic tie That once endear'd thy soul to mine? And bid each past impression live; What though the Fates asunder tore Two hearts, that, bursting with the pain, Profusely bled at every pore, And oozed a pang from every vein; Yet, dearest, as we've met again, Still ardent, faithful, fond, and true, Let us the holy hour enchain, And all our transports past renew. Give me once more that pledge of love, And, as thy rubies cling to mine, I'll drink the sigh, that, half supprest, Trembles upon that lip divine, As softly stealing from thy breast. Where, where are those encircling arms, Which round my neck thou oft hast thrown, And, sighing, swore that all thy charms Were ever mine-and mine alone? Bid them again be fondly twined Around a heart no change could sever A heart which even Death will find Responsive to thine own for ever. While that chaste bosom, which, in youth, LETTER OF A CIVIL SERVANT TO SIR CHARLES FORBES, BART., M. P. IN concluding our review of this Work, to which we have already devoted two previous articles,* we may be permitted to repeat a remark made at the close of one of them, in reference to the apparent disproportionately extended notice of a very small publication. The work itself professes indeed to be " a very hasty view of our Indian Administration;" but, hasty as it is, it touches on every branch of it;-on the Home Administration,' as it is called, including the Board of Control and the Court of Directors; on the Local Administration, as it affects the civil and military servants and the European residents; and on the rule exercised over the Natives of the country itself. It is true, that " a very hasty view" even of these important subjects may be included within the limits of a pamphlet; or, in a still more abbreviated form, it might be brought within the compass of a single sheet of paper. But whosoever would analyze this " very hasty view," for the purpose of pointing out its errors or defects, and drawing attention to the portions worthy of adoption and praise, must, if he would support his criticism by reasoning and illustration, go much more deeply into detail than the author himself has thought it necessary to do. It is easy enough, in the dogmatical style of modern reviewing, to give sweeping praise or censure to writings under examination, without condescending to give reasons for either. But, as we never venture to give publicity to any opinion without having in our minds what appears to us good and sufficient grounds for entertaining it, we are always anxious to give the reader the reasons which influence our own judgment, that he may see for himself how far these make the opinions, in support of which they are offered, worthy of his adoption. Oracles have always been remarkable for their brevity: and authorities that are superior to reasoning may issue their decrees in few words. But we prefer the masterly and beautiful addresses of the American Presidents to the speeches of the European Monarchs: and while treatises of many volumes are often written on a single text, and debates of days in succession maintained on some one proposition suggested in a single paragraph, we think that a pamphlet of fifty pages may contain sufficient materials, to one who is earnestly desirous of illustrating fairly the merits and demerits of its suggestions, for even a more extended review than that which it has received at our hands. See the Oriental Herald' for August and September, vol. x. pp. 223, and 551. We pass from this introductory digression to resume our examination of the remaining portion of the work; and continue as before to let the author be heard in his own language, rather than through our interpretation of his meaning. He commences the third section of his Letter to Sir Charles Forbes' thus: "Having thus taken a very hasty view of our Indian administration, as connected with Europe and Europeans, I will proceed as briefly to state the opinions which I entertain on the same subject, as applied to the Natives of the East. This part of the subject has often formed a topic of discussion between us, and it is also that upon which I consider that you have been placed in a position, during your residence in India, more favourable to forming liberal and unprejudiced opinions than the majority of those to whose authority, on Indian affairs, deference is usually paid. Placed as you were, from the extent and variety of your mercantile pursuits, in direct, and, if I may use the expression, social communication with Natives of wealth and talent, you had opportunities of becoming acquainted with their feelings on all subjects of Government, which are studiously concealed from the public functionaries, by whom Government is administered. In communications between public officers and the Natives, there is always the reserve of master and servant-there is no equality; and therefore there is no real confidence." This statement is unquestionably correct: and this admission as undeniable as it is important. But what a field of reflection does this single paragraph open to the mind of the reader? what a train of inferences are fairly deducible from this single disclosure? It is here admitted, and no one acquainted with the people of India can for a moment doubt the fact, that there is no real confidence reposed by them in their rulers. Could this have been the case if we had never broken our faith towards them? or if we consulted their feelings and wishes, as well as our own interests, in the measures by which their rights and happiness were to be so deeply affected as they are by almost every act and regulation of the authorities to which they are subject? Certainly not. It was considered the greatest reproach to Lord Amherst to say that he had lost the confidence of all his countrymen in India: but here is a Civil Servant of the East India Company, far from being an enemy to the system, but simply desirous of seeing it improved, a person who has no doubt passed some years in the country itself, who says freely that the public officers of the Company's Government, which include nearly all the European population of India, have not, and never had, the least confidence placed in them by the people, who therefore never venture to reveal to them their real sentiments, but keep them always studiously concealed! Now, to those who know much of the Asiatic character, it is hardly necessary to say, that a disposition to flatter, to reverence, nay, almost to pay the homage of worship to persons in authority, is the natural tendency and prevailing characteristic of Asiatics generally, and of Indians in particular;—while of this we may be certain, that as long as the feelings of the Natives, on all subjects of Government, were really favourable to their rulers, they never would be concealed, inasmuch as it is always as agreeable to the ears of men in power to listen to eulogies on their measures as it is to the tongues of their subjects to utter them. This "studious concealment" of the feelings of the Natives is therefore the strongest symptom that could be shown of deep and universal dissatisfaction with the yoke under which they suffer: and the Civil Servant' in this only corroborates the opinion of all who have gone before him, down to Sir John Malcolm, the latest authority on the subject that the feelings of the Natives are hostile to our rule because they think it unjust and oppressive. 6 The writer of the Letter' admits, however, that it is of great importance to ascertain what those feelings and opinions really are; and thinks the position in which Sir Charles Forbes was placed, as a merchant, unconnected with Government, such as to have given him opportunities of knowing them which could never have occurred to any public functionary. But if it be of importance for rulers to ascertain the real feelings of the people, in order that they may shape their legislative measures with some reference to the views taken by the people themselves of their own interests and happiness, there never has been a more safe, or more efficient mode of obtaining a perfect knowledge of this, than through a Free Press. An individual merchant, like Sir Charles Forbes, supposing him to enjoy the unlimited confidence of all those few Natives by whom he could be surrounded, would know the sentiments of a very small portion of the population in India. But there are Natives who, even to the European gentlemen with whom they are most intimate, would hesitate to express their opinions freely on many subjects connected with the Government of the country. The suggestion made by De Lolme, of a temple in which every individual might deposit his sentiments, with the certainty of having them made public, without fear of punishment for their want of conformity with those of persons in authority,* would completely effect this object. The Press is that temple, and there never yet has been one so effective, nor one which every friend of the freedom and happiness of man should be so proud to support and defend. Mr. Mill, in his instructive History of "If, for example, in an empire of the East, a place could be found which, rendered respectable by the ancient religion of the people, might ensure safety to those who should bring thither their observations of any kind, and from this sanctuary printed papers should issue, which, under a certain seal, might be equally respected, and which in their daily appearance should examine and freely discuss the conduct of the cadis, the pashas, the vizir, the divan and the sultan himself,--that would immediately introduce some degree of liberty."-De Lolme on the Constitution of England. 8vo. p. 299. |