conferred on our author by the Univerfity of Oxford, July 6, 1759; on which occafion he compofed an admiflion ode. In the 26th year of his age, he married Mifs Cecilia Young, a pupil of Geminiani, and a favourite finger of thofe times. After having refined his tafte, he placed himself under the inftruction of the learned Dr. Pepufch, and acquired, with aftonishing celerity, that profound fcience which his works occafionally difplay. And by the united aid of this fcience, and the gift of genius, he became the firft musician who placed our claim to harmonic excellence on a level with that

of the Italians.

Dr. Arne died the 5th of March, 1778, aged 68, of a fpafm on his lungs; retaining his faculties to the laft moment of his existence. With refpect to his religion, he had originally been inftructed in the principles of the Romish church; thefe, however, he had for many years wholly neglected; and, if we may allow ourfelves to judge from his unreftrained mode of life, did not substitute any better. However, in his laft ftage, the dormant feeds of early maxims and prejudices revived in his bofom, and the fond delufion of that religion on which he had once been taught to reft, now returned; and a priest was called in, by whom he was awed into repentance, and the fins of a whole life, not remarkable for its moral purity, wholly forgiven; and fo entirely was he fatisfied with the holy father's pardon, and fo affured of eternal happiness, that the laft moments of his life were cheered by an hallelujah, fung by him eif.

works were tranflated, and their preten-
tions fully examined, yet there are others,
equally refpectable and learned, who
think we need not be in any hurry either
to tranflate or difcufs them, because they
conceive they have difcovered many
things which fufficiently evince their fu
tility. "For (fay they) if he be fo great a
philofopher as his advocates pretend, why
are his writings disfigured by fo many
ftrange and unintelligible terms, as to
require a new dictionary in order to be
Is not this a circumftance
understood?
of ill omen? Does it not betray want
of judgment? And how can we fup-
pofe an author, who is involved in fuch
obfcurity, qualified to enlighten the
world?"

However, from an intimate acquaintance with KANT's writings, I can fafely affert, first, that he has coined no new words; that, within the compass of his philofophy, only about thirty terms occur, which do indeed found somewhat ftrangely; but it is to thofe only who are unacquainted with the metaphyfical works of modern times: fecondly, that those terms were the only proper ones that could be found to expreis the ideas which have been annexed to them, and that thofe perfons in Germany who have cenfured them, have not been able to propofe better: thirdly, that these terms have been clearly explained by KANT, in their proper places; and that thofe who complain that they do not understand them,

either have not read KANT's work as

is often the cafe, or have not read them throughout, or not in their proper order, or without due attention. But after all, if a new dictionary, to explain thefe ftrange terms, fhould ftill appear neceffary, it will not, at the worst, occupy two octavo volumes, nor indeed even one, but only the small space of an octavo page. pe

Dr. Arne was naturally fond of plea.. surable ease; and gaiety and revelry occupied most of the leifure hours of his life; hence, notwithstanding the number and excellence of his publications, he died almost without property. The culiarity of his genius was an almost conftant command of fweetnefs and originality of meiody. The feature of nature is prominent in all his airs; never affected, never pedantic, never vacant, they are as remarkable for the juftnefs of their expreffion, as for their beautiful fimplicity. X.

To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine.

SIR,

THOUGH there are fome very refpectable and learned men in this country, who fincerely with that KANT'S

But how then can it happen," afk thofe antagonists of KANT," that he is

difficult to be understood? for fo he moft certainly is, even according to the confelt on of his moft zealous partizans. If his language is not barbarous, he must neceflarily either want clear ideas of what he teaches, or the fkill of putting proper words in proper places?"

In anfwer to this queftion, it may be afked, what philofophic author. is there in our days who, treating of fpeculative objects, fuch as the mind, the foul, &c. would be properly understood by many more than that fect to which he belongs, or which he has founded? Do not fome

of

1796.]

Mr. Nitfch on Kant's Philofophy.

of our materialists exprefs themselves very clearly and elegantly; and are not their works very much misunderstood by the fupernaturalifts, idealifts, and fceptics? And is not each of thefe in its turn, equally mifunderstood by the others ?There are, indeed, fome men impartial and inquifitive enough to understand fully what others have to ftate against their principles, but their number is too infignificant to invalidate the truth of the obfervation. Now as the philofophic public, though they are difinclined to follow the ftandard of any fect, are yet divided into materialifts, fupernaturalifts, idealifts, and fceptics; and as KANT's works contain a train of ideas, militating not only against all thefe parties, but alfo, in fome measure, against the foundation of all the fystems which they have hitherto formed, of the mind, of the foundation and principles of human knowledge of the moral nature of man, of the Deity, of a future ftate, &c. it would be a miracle indeed, if, under fuch circumftances, thefe works fhould be directly and generally underfood, even by the most impartial enquirers after truth, although the ideas contained in them, and the language by which they are conveyed, were models of clearnefs and propriety.

"But (fay thofe objectors) what can we expect from a fyftem which directly runs against the common fenfe of mankind, and prefumes to reject all the fyftems hitherto framed ?" To this I re

703

"Let us, however, grant for a moment (fay thofe critics) that KANT had conftructed an entirely new fyftem of fpeculative philofophy, which approaches nearer to truth than any other known to the world; of what ufe can it be to a lawyer, a divine, a phyfician, or a lover of the fine arts, to employ his time up a metaphyfics, especially as every branch of folid fcience has been very fuccefsfully cultivated, without their affiftance?". To this I muft reply, that the question, of what ufe a fcience might be ? betrays feldom a genuine love of truth; for whoever infifts upon a clear anfwer to it, before he can refolve to enter upon any, will make great progrefs in none; especially as the ufe of a thing cannot be clearly perceived before the thing itself is fully known and the most valuable difcoveries would have been loft to the world, if the difcoverers had tried nothing but what they knew before hand would be of pofitive ufe to their defigns. Befides, is it not fufficient to know, that the chief ftudy of mankind ought to be man, or at least the principal part of man, which is the mind? Is it not clear that every man of good education and learning, while he ranges about in the field of external objects, and learns to meafure the fun and the ftars, thould referve fome little portion of his time to get acquainted with himfe f, and with the invariable laws of his mental faculties? For it is only by an accurate knowledge of thefe laws, that he is enabled to guard himself against the errors and fluctuating opinions, circulating in our days, regarding objects to which no rational being can be indifferent; and it is only by an intimate acquaintance with the eternal laws or our judging, reafoning, and perceiving faculties, that he will have it in his power to fecure himfulf from that defpondence and fcepticifm which muft one day or other overtake him when he comes to examine, feriously and calmly, thofe maxims and principles which he has imbibed from his infancy, by which he has judged of his fellow creatures, the world, and himself; and by which he has regulated his conduct. No man, indeed, is perfect; he is ignorant of many things; but he ought not to remain ig norant of fuch things as direy tend to preferve the dignity of his nature and the rationality of that character which diftinguishes man from the brutes. If it be, therefore, clear, that every man of education and learning ought to endeaYour at an intimate acquaintance with

ply, that, if KANT's fyftem be falfe, it will be an effential requifite of the true one, to keep at an equal distance from all the fundamental tenets of thofe contending parties. For though each of thefe parties must neceffarily be right in fome refpects, becaufe otherwife they would not have been able to figure in the world for one year, much lefs for many centuries; yet each of these parties must alfo be wrong in fome other refpects, or elfe it would have been impoffible for an oppofite party to arife, much lefs to flourish, along with them for as many centuries. The true philofophy, therefore, must be that which excludes the errors of each fyftem, and comprehends only the truths contained in them all. If this obfervation be well founded, and if KANT has discovered a road totally different from that which other philofophers have purfued, furely we may now expect much 'more of him than if he had followed a fect, and fupported the eternal diffentions of fpeculative philofophers.

the laws of his mental faculties, it unavoidably follows, that every lawyer, divine, phyfician, and every lover of the fine arts, in cafe they have not yet made fuch acquaintance, fhould no longer hefitate to make it. And they will then have abundant reafons to ftudy the metaphyfics of KANT; for this philofopher has opened new and important profpects into the field of metaphyfics, which, however they may be at prefent difregarded, yet ought to be ftudied and carefully examined.

To know the laws of our mental powers, it is requifite to know their effects; for we can know powers only from their effects. The mental phenomena, called ideas, judgments, and reafonings, are, indeed, in fone meafure, the effects of external caufes, or external objects; but KANT has fully demonftrated, that they are not entirely and exclufi ely the effects of thefe caules, and, therefore, acquire another caufe befides the external. This other caufe is in the mind; is a mental power. The fenfible ideas of external objects will, therefore, be the joint produce of an external and a mental caufe. The effects of these two different caufes, are, confequently, blended together, and conftitute a fenfible idea. Whoever, therefore, would know the mental cause of a fenfible idea, and get acquainted with its properties, muft firit of all be able to diftingu fh, in a fenfible idea, that effect which belongs to the mental caufe, from that effect which belongs to the external caufe. This diftinction, of which our philofophers do not even conceive the poffibility, KANT has been fo fortunate as to establish. And in order to fhow the importance of an enquiry into his philofophic fyftein, I need only dwell a few moments upon this remarkable diftinction. If this diftinction be true, and if our philofophers have not obferved it, itfollows unavoidably, firft, that they have, in their ideas of the external world, afcribed thofe effects to the external world which belong to the mind; and thofe effects to the mind which belong to the external world; fecondly, that in fo doing, they have confounded thoughts with things, and things with thoughts; and thus, in fome meafure, perverted the very view and afpect of nature; thirdly, that by this remarkable confufion, they have given birth to materialifim, fupernaturalifim, idealifm, and feepticifm, which thake the very foundation of all human knowledge; and, fourthly, that they have rendered it impoffible for themselves to conftruct a confiftent and fatisfactory fyftem of

knowledge concerning the mind; for in this fyftem, the principal queftion to be treated, will be, What is Reafon? What is the Understanding? What is Sense? But as thefe powers cannot be explained, but from their effects, and as their effects are confounded with other, and different, effects, we may easily conceive how the explanations must be qualified, which are deduced from fuch confufed premifes. Should not, therefore, every lover of truth and fcience, contribute fomething to bring about an examination of the pretenfions of KANT for fo much is cear, that if they are well founded, a great and unexpected reform in the whole field of theoretical philosophy will be the immediate confequence. But let none be prejudiced againit this philofopher, from my having faid, that our views of nature are, in fome meafure, perverted by the prefent fyftems. Natural philofophers have made folid and fubftantial difcoveries. This KANT does not deny; and when he fays their views are perverted, he means only that part of every one of them is fo.

Let none imagine that this confufion of thought is trifling, because it hinders not the progrels of great difcoveries: a natural philofopher may difcover many new and furprifing properties of bodies, though he cannot exactly diftinguish between what, in his ideas, belongs to the things, and what to the mind; as a man may make great advances in agriculture, though he believes that the fun moves round the earth; yet it was only by leaving the fun at reft, and putting the earth in motion, that our grand fyftem of aftronomy was conftructed. It will be by a like reform in our views of things, by avoiding the confufion of thoughts with things, and things with thoughts; and by a philofophy of the mind, built on the principles of KANT, that the diffentions concerning matter, coufe, effect, and substance, can be brought to a final determination; and in this manner the fundamental fcience of all natural philofophy be rendered confiftent with itself, and complete; not to mention the beneficial effects which the Kantean notions muft produce upon the diffentions in Morals and Religion.

I am fully convinced, however, that it is utterly impoffible to fhow the importance of the Kantean Syftem, by mere remarks on that fyftem. As that man has a very imperfect and contracted view of the grandeur and beauty of St. Peter's church, at Rome, who only faw a few disjointed pillars of that noble building; fo he must have but a precarious idea of

thei

1796.]

Mr. Nitfch on Kant's Philofophy.

the importance and the extenfive utility of the Kantean Philofophy, who only reads a few remarks on fome principles which have been torn from their connection with the grand and ingenious whole of this celebrated fyftem. At all events, the whole must be ftudied, every part of it muft must be clearly viewed in its coherence with the whole; other-, wife, neither the whole, nor any part of it, will be properly underfood. And I may add, that if the whole of the Kantean philofophy were found to be falfe, yet the plan and articulation of that fyftem alone will greatly reward the trouble of its ftudy, and for ever remain a fubject of admiration; independent of the confideration that the refutation of the fuppofed new errors of KANT, might lead to the difcovery of new truths.

705

contain thofe very truths which human reafon has fought in vain for many conturies, and which it wants, to become confiftent with itself, particularly in thofe more important and ftill controverted questions regarding the properties and powers of the mind perceivable to man, the origin and principles of human knowledge, the fource of moral and religious ideas, &c.; fhould this be the cafe, what man is there, that has a heart warm for truth, who who would not fincerely lament, that in our enlightened times, fo many years fhould have elapfed before fuch valuable difcoveries could obtain a candid examination?

Having, therefore, a more favourable. opinion of the impartiality and justice of the Britif public, and being convinced that if truth is to conquer in the end, a time must approach when the Kantean principles will be as generally admired and adopted, as they are at prefent unknown and defpifed; and although it is true, I have as yet met with little encouragement, I am till firmly refolved not to relax in thofe exertions which I have made for three years paft, to bring those principles to the bar of the public; and, therefore, refpectfully invite the genuine friends of truth and philofophy to fupport me with their encouragement in this great and difficult undertaking.

"But (fay fome men of experience and learning) as the favourable and unfavourable accounts of the Kantean fyftem have hitherto been very vague and unfatisfactory; and as mankind, in dubious cafes, are inclined to believe rather the bad than the good reported of a foreign author; not only great doubt is ftill generally entertained of the importance of KANT's metaphyfics, but this doubt has degene rated into fuch a degree of inactive and frigid indifference, that if a man of property does not step forward to get them tranflated at his own expence, KANT'S The means I propofe for the accomworks, though they might have been plishment of this object, are Writing and examined twelve years ago, will, in all Lectures. If the firft is used alone, the probability, not be tranflated for many progrefs of truth and enquiry will be years to come. For what man will un-flow; for as KANr's notions do not dertake the talk of tranflating KANT, fquare with the common run of popular if it is difficult for him to find a pub- opinions, they will either be confidered as liher; and what bookfeller will have any falfe, or as infignificant, and in either cafe thing to do with them, when he fears it be very little examined. And if the last is will be difficult to procure readers; and employed alone, few perfons will be able how many readers can be reasonably ex to get acquainted with KANT's ideas, pected, when the public at large are pre- and the advancement of truth and enjudiced against KANT; and how, and quiry will be equally flow. It is, therewhen, will thefe prejudices be removed, fore, belt to combine them; for it is by when fo many unfavourable reports are this combination alone, that the princidaily circulating against him, and when ples of KANT can gain the most ample this philofopher has fo few friends to re- publicity, and excite a fufficient number commend him, and to defend his preten- of refpectable opponents and defendants fions from calumnies, invented and propa- to bring the truth to light. gated by ignorance, and, not unfrequently, by malice?"

But whatever may be faid of the difpofition of the public towards KANT, I cannot believe that it is fo unfavourable, as has been reprefented. Suppofe it, for a moment, to be poffible (and I defy any body to prove the contrary) that KANT'S works fhould, after much ftruggle, and against all expectation, finally appear to

It is therefore my intention, provided it fhould meet the approbation and encouragement of the public, in the course of the enfuing winter, to read Lectures, and to publish" An Analysis of the Perceptive and Reafoning Faculties of the Human Mind."

No. 34, Wimpole-fireet,
October 8, 1796.

F. A, NITSCH.

THE

QUESTION: Ought Senfibility to be cherifb-vourable to fenfibility than others; and