with opprobrious epithets.' I am convinced,' fays our ingenious Author, and we moft cordially join him in the affertion, that Chriftianity will never appear in its native luftre, till the moft perfect unequivocal toleration be every where eftablished; because this alone will allow religion to exert its natural energy, and enjoy the fame advantage with every other fcience, and, by means of free enquiry, extracting fresh light and evidence, bring it nearer and nearer to the pure ftandard of divine truth.' The fecond Differtation, which obtained a filver medal, is by the Rev. GERRIT HESSELINK, A. L. M. & Phil. Dr. Profeffor of Divinity in the Baptifts Congregation in Amfterdam. This is alfo an excellent differtation. Profeffor Heffelink, has confidered the fubject in a lefs abftracted, and lefs general view; and from the different manner in which he has difcuffed the fame points, the two Differtations become valuable fupplements to each other. The general divifions of this, are the fame with thofe of the former differtation. The firft part is introduced with fome ob. fervations on the degrees of certainty of which different truths will admit; and the abfurdity of fcepticism is expofed by vindicating the certainty of the principal doctrines of natural religion, and the evidence of the New Teftament, confidered as the hiftory of a revelation. He also proves, that, with respect to all the most important and effential doctrines of Chriftianity, the New Teftament is fo explicit, as to leave no juft excufe for fcepticifm. His vindication of the Gofpel in this particular, and the arguments by which he fhews the abfurdity of requiring a greater certainty of its truths, are excellent for their philofophical accuracy, as well as for the elegant and forcible manner in which they are urged. In the fecond part, the Profeffor traces dogmatifm up to its fources in the heart, and points out the various accidental circumftances which contribute to confirm and encourage it. Here he difplays an amiable candour of difpofition, and great knowledge of the human mind. An exceffive attachment to fyftematical theclogy is so obvi. ous a promoter of dogmatifm, that it could not well escape our Author's animadverfion. Thefe fyftems, he obferves, are generally compofed of a great number of articles, fo artfully complicated, that not one of them can be left out, without opening a chafm, and deftroying the connection of the whole feries of truths. The fyftematical divine does not, indeed, look upon all the doctrines, which compofe his fyftem, as of equal weight, when abstractedly confidered; but the leaft important become indifpenfably neceflary, because he has connected them with more effential truths, which, in his opinion, they illuftrate and confirm. Hence he defends them with the fame zeal as he does the fundamental 4 fundamental doctrines of religion; because he confiders them as giving a confiftency to his fyftem, without which it would feen fall into ruins. Thofe fpeculative doctrines, which have divided the profeffors of the Gospel into fo many fects, are not only ufelefs, but even prejudicial, to practical Chriftianity. So far from having a falutary influence on our temper and conduct, they often fifle the good feed, and prevent its ftriking root in the heart. If the truth of this be doubted (fays our Author), let the perfon, who is accustomed to act from religious principles, feriously ask himfelf, whether, when excited to a duty of religion, or an act of virtue, the doctrine of original fin, of the imputed righteoufness, or two-fold nature of Chrift, or any fuch fpeculative articles, were uppermoft in his mind, or even occurred to his thoughts? Or let him examine whether, when in the hours of fickness or adverfity he fought the confolations of religion, he had recourse to his complicated fyftem, and the vain refinements of fcholaftic theology? No; it is a firm conviction of the exiftence of the Deity, of an all-directing Providence, of a future ftate of recompence, of the love and mercy of God in Chrift, and of other truths of a nature fimilar to thefe, which has a direct influence upon our conduct, arms us against the affaults of temptation, and cheers the heart when drooping under the burden of affliction. Among the directions for avoiding the two extremes of scepticifm on the one hand, and dogmatifm on the other, we have fome ufeful obfervations on the method of lecturing on theology commonly adopted in Holland, which tends not fo much to enlighten and enlarge the mind, as to contract the views of the ftudent, and to make him additus jurare in verba magiftri. The Socratic method of teaching is recommended, as it accuftoms the learners to exercife their own faculties, and to examine the fubject themselves, inftead of blindly acquiefcing in the dogmatical dictates of their inftructor. Our limits will not permit us to enlarge farther on this excellent Differtation, nor to take into our prefent confideration the following difcourfe, which terminates this volume. ART. XIV. Inftituts Politiques et Militaires de TAMERLAN, proprement appellé TIMOUR, ecrits par lui-même en Mogol, et traduits en François, fur la Verfion Perfane d'Abou-Taleb-Al-Hoffeini, avec la Vie de ce Conquérant, d'après les meilleurs Auteurs Orientaux, des Notes, et des Tables, Hiftorique, Géographique, &c. Par L. Langlès, Officier de NN. SS. les Maréchaux de France. i. e. Political and Military Inftitutes of Tamerlane, properly called Timur, written by himfelf in the Mogul Language, and tranflated into French, from the APP. Rev. Vol. LXXVII, Rr Perfian 578 Langlès's French Translation of the Inftitutes of Tamerlanė. Perfian of Abou-Taleb-Al-Hoffeini; to which is added the Life of that illuftrious Conqueror, according to the beft Oriental Writers; with Notes, and Tables, Hiftorical, Geographical, &c. By L. Langlès, &c. 8vo. Paris. 1787. T is four years fince the first publication of Timur's Inftitutes, by Major Davy, and Profeffor White. It is more wonderful, therefore, that they should not have been generally tranflated into European languages, than that they should have claimed fo much of M. Langlès' attention, as this verfion fhews him to have bestowed on them. Much labour, and, indeed, no fmall share of erudition, has been employed in this work; for though the French Institutes are evidently intended for the use of common readers, yet the Notes and Indexes are fufficiently tinctured with Eaftern learning. The difference between Major Davy's verfion and that of Monf. L. is easily discernible: but it is, in general, not fo much a difference of fenfe as of ftyle and diction. The Oxford, or, to fpeak more properly, the only edition of Timur, was published not merely as an object of learned curiofity, but as a valuable claffic, which might facilitate the acquifition of the Perfian language; and that a translation was added, in which elegance was fometimes facrificed to fidelity, is a circumstance moft gratefully remembered by those for whole ufe it was intended. To have retained the fame fcrupulous exactness in a work defigned to convey hiftorical and political information to his countrymen in general, would have argued a want of taste and difcrimination in Monf. L. which cannot now be imputed to him. Major D. therefore, is comparatively literal and concife; M. Langlès, free and paraphraftic. Yet fo far is this difference from diminishing the real merit of either, that it evinces the judgment of both. This general comparison might perhaps fuffice, did not the French tranflator challenge our examination of feveral paffages, to which he affixes a fenfe very different from that which his predeceffor afcribes to them. Some of these, and the arguments by which he endeavours to fupport his own interpretation, we fhall readily fubjoin; for they plainly diftinguish him from thofe tranflators of tranflations, who only exemplify the affertion of the Satirift, "That even fhadows have their fhadows too." In p. 21, the following paffage is thus rendered by M. Langlès: وچون بمسامع وي رسيد كه دين محمدي. بمرتبه ضعیف شده که در نیاز بعد از تشهد. صلوات بر محمد و بر ال محمد نمیفرستند See Rev. vol. Ixi. p. 451. ; alfo vol. lxx. p. 248. Il apprit, (telle étoit alors la décadence de la religion) que dans les priêres publiques, après la profeffion de foi, on négligeoit d'implorer les faveurs du Seigneur pour le prophête et pour fes defcendans.' "When he was informed that the duties of our holy religion were neglected to fuch a degree, that the people after the profeffion of their faith, did not include the pofterity of Mahummud in their bleffings and benedictions on that boly Prophet," is the lefs accurate verfion of the English tranflator. Page 224 of English edition, که دنیا غدار است و عاشق بسیار دارد "For the world is full of treachery, and hath many lovers." On this paffage M. Langlès remarks, Ghaddâr, (IX), que le texte porte, eft certainement une faute; & il faut lire £ Dzrâ, (↓~£). Ghaddâr signifie trompeur, perfide, ADzra une vierge, l'un & l'autre mots font Arabes. Sans cette correction l'idée eft incohérente, et inintelligible. We fee no neceffity for this correction. The printed text is fupported by the authority of a MS. to which we have had access. Nor does the context seem to require the alteration fo ftrongly contended for. The language is undoubtedly figurative, and the figure would perhaps be more perfect, if his were fubftituted for ن غدار ; yet even then, perhaps, the thought would have in it as much of French levity as of critical precifion. The fenfe, however, of the English translation is fufficiently perfpicuous, and Monf. L. betrays much hafte, if not arrogance, when he fays that it is incoherent and unintelligible. Page 232 of the English edition, وعلونه اون باشي ده برابر علوفه تابینان P. 49 of the French verfion, "Le chef de dix (Ounbachi) recevoit dix payes de foldats." On this paffage, the tranflator obferves, "Il y a dans le texte, Tabinan. Je ne fçais de quelle, langue eft ce mot. J'ai fuivi l'interprétation du traducteur Anglois. Peut-être feroit-ce le plurier Perfan, du mot Tartare Tebe taba, pêle-mêle, comme des infectes attroupés dans un même lieu. Timour vouloit peut-être defigner par ce mot les fimples foldats." Dictionnaire Tartare-François du P. Amyot. MSS. tom. ii.. P. 102. Rr 2 The The fame word occurs again in p. 244, واکر از ایشان کاري بظهور رسد که ازان كار فسادي در ملک ظاهر شود تایین امرا نماند Major Davy feems to have totally miftaken the fenfe of this paffage: "And that if any of them fhould be guilty of actions, from whence difturbances might arife in my dominions, that they should be delivered over to the judgment of their peers." M. Langlès has tranflated with greater accuracy, "Lorsqu'on apprénoit de leur part des manœuvres capables de jetter le trouble dans le royaume, ils étoient relégués dans un rang inférieur." The word lil is probably of Tartarian original, and from a comparison of several paffages in which it occurs in the work of Timur, we think that its fignification may be ascertained with fufficient exactnefs. The word, then, implies, if we may fo exprefs ourselves, an idea of proximate inferiority. Thus page 230, line 5, and 12, it fignifies common foldiers, not abfolutely, but as the immediate inferiors of the Ounbaufhee: and in page 275, line 6, from the manner in which it is combined with the word it seems abfolutely neceffary to adopt this mode of اون باشي interpretation. Page 250, line 13, دزد را امر نمودم در هر جا که باشد و هرکس بیابد پیاسا رسانند "Robbers and thieves, in whatever place they might be found, or by whomfoever detected, I commanded to be put to death."This paffage is with greater propriety rendered by the French tranflator, Partout où fera trouvé ou voleur, quelle que foit la perfonne qui l'aura découvert, il fera puni felon la loi de Genghiskhan, nommée Yaffa.' The tranflator, in his Table des Matieres, has collected an account of the celebrated code of Genghis Khan, to which Timur here alludes, and which, though little known in Europe, is ftill faid to exift entire in Asia. It were unjust to close this Article without mentioning the life of Timur, which M. Langlès has compiled from Eaftern writers. It is written with eafe and fpirit, and exhibits a ftriking, and, if we miftake not, a faithful portrait of this illuftrious conqueror. ART. |