the Art of Love was only the pretext, and the Metamorphoses the real ground of this signal banishment; if Ovid declares that he would have suppressed his last work had not many copies been already distributed; if the fifteenth book of the Metamorphoses, published at the very period of his punishment, contains some verses the import of which corresponds with a certain allegory in the zodiac, and if that passage is in every other view unintelligible. If, finally, the zodiac is connected with the Eleusinian mysteries by their acknowledged symbol, the Cista, which the Gemini of an altar found at Gabii support;-is not the conclusion reasonable, that Ovid was banished because the lines, Pressus humo, &c., of the last book of the Metamorphoses referred to the zodiacal allegory, which was the secret of the Eleusinian mysteries ?'

We should close our extracts from this clever little book with the last quotation, did there not remain one other passage, which is so inimitably native and original, and has such a naïveté and bonhommie about it, that we cannot, for our reader's sake, resist its insertion. The author strongly advocates the cause of vegetable aliment, as most adapted to the nature of man, and as therefore best calculated to promote his wisdom, virtue, and happiness. Of this fact the zodiacal allegory serves to convince him; and in defence of his honest opinion he urges the following arguments:

As to the three points in the anatomy of man by which his natural diet may be determined:

1. The human teeth are formed like those of the frugivorous orders of animals; more so than those of the simia tribe; and these last, in their wild state, subsist throughout the torrid zone on the vegetable kingdom.

2. The length of the intestinal canal, properly measured as we measure that of the inferior animals, classes the human species decidedly, in this particular, with the herbivorous races.

3. As man has both a cœcum and a cellulated colon, it is manifest that all the arguments which can be brought from comparative anatomy are against his use of animal food. If the Deity again descended, would He speak more intelligibly and distinctly than in his own works?

The reader, I am confident, will not so misunderstand the writer's meaning as to conclude that he would be thought insensible to the charms of a well-spread table. The assemblage of delicate dishes of fish and meat, in whatever number and variety, has in it nothing revolting to the sight, nor to the other senses. No, no! it would be ridiculous to assert the contrary. But it may be safely stated, that the Order of Causes and Effects on this globe is unfavourable to any but a fruit and vegetable diet for the human species.

'As to the question so often urged, Why are not those Hindoos who live on vegetables free from diseases? It may be answered, their disorders

disorders are milder than those of the carnivorous races, although they use spices which occasion thirst, and common water to re

move it.

For my own part, could I be convinced that in some one of the planets this order of things were reversed; that there, every particle taken into the stomach of the highest flavored meats and liquors were productive of health, longevity, and good morals, I would desire to take wing on the instant, to cleave the air with the rapidity of Juno, and to alight on that orb at some festive hour-festive as this at which I now bring my task to a conclusion. Were such here below the conditions and the benefits of intemperance, who would hesitate to court the social and ardent feelings which circulate with the bottle; especially of such exquisite wine as our neighbours are eager to send us :

"The claret smooth, red as the lip we press

In sparkling fancy, when we've drain'd the bowl;
The mellow-flavor'd Burgundy, and quick

As is the wit it gives, the gay Champaigne."

We have only to ask the author what he thinks of the third verse of the ninth chapter of Genesis?

Not satisfied with this good-humored conclusion, Mr. N. subjoins a facetious copy of verses (not of his own composition, but as a friendly contrast to his own more serious labors!) about the "Soul and Body;" who converse like the "Smile and the Tear" in Mr. Braham's celebrated song. This truly benevolent notion of enlivening the reader, at parting, reminds us of our considerate Irish friend, who, in a poem which we reviewed a few years ago, appended some cheerful notes to his pages, in order to relieve the sadness of the text!

One or two little points remain, on which we are sorry to trouble Mr. Newton: but we are obliged to ask him, purely for information, what he means by his reference to the fountain Arethusa in Ithaca, as that fountain which Alpheus pursued under the sea from Greece to Sicily? Did it stop to take breath in Ithaca? It may

be so.

Again, we should be glad to know why, in the line of Horace,

"Non homines, non Dii, non concessere columnæ,”

the last word should not be a sarcastic anticlimax, signifying the booksellers' shops, instead of a bona fide climax, signifying the Pillars of the Fates?

We now say farewell to this author, with much regard for his learned ingenuity, though with some doubt as to his hypothesis.

ART.

ART. III. Mustrations and Proofs of the Principle of Population; including an Examination of the proposed Remedies of Mr. Malthus, and a Reply to the Objections of Mr. Godwin and others. By Francis Place. 8vo. pp. 280. 8s. Boards. Longman and Co. 1822.

IN

N our notice of Mr. Godwin's "Enquiry concerning Population" (M. R.vol. xciv. p. 113.) we did not fail to reprehend the acerbity and contemptuousness of language which that gentleman used towards Mr. Malthus: his sarcasms glanced from the theory to the individual; and it was painful to remark that he who, in his earlier controversies, was almost provokingly calm and complacent, now lost his temper, and suffered himself to be betrayed into a discourtesy unbecoming the character of a philosophical inquirer. The discourtesy indeed was aggravated by a circumstance which, at the time, had escaped our recollection; namely, that, three years after the publication of Mr. Malthus's Essay, Mr. Godwin published a pamphlet*, to which he has not once alluded in his last work, but in which he speaks of the Essay on Population and of its author in terms of the highest praise.

"I approach the author of that Essay," he said, "with a sentiment of unfeigned approbation and respect: the general strain of his argument does the highest honor to the liberality of his mind. He has neither labored to excite hatred nor contempt against me or my tenets: he has argued the questions between us just as if they had never been a theme for political party and the intrigues of faction: he has argued just as if he had no end in view but the investigation of evidence and the developement of truth." (Thoughts, &c. p. 55.)

So much for the author; and the general eulogy on the Essay itself is scarcely in less measured terms, for Mr. G. goes on thus:

"This author has a claim, perhaps, still higher upon my respect: with the most unaffected simplicity of manner, and disdaining every parade of science, he appears to me to have made as unquestionable an addition to the theory of political economy as any writer for a century past. The grand propositions and outline of his work will, I believe, be found not less conclusive and certain than they are new. For myself, I cannot refuse to take some pride, in so far as by my writings I gave the occasion and furnished an incentive to the producing so valuable a treatise.” (P. 56.)

"Thoughts occasioned by the Perusal of Dr. Parr's Spital Sermon, preached at Christ Church, April 15. 1800. Being a Reply to the Attacks of Dr. Parr, Mr. Mackintosh, the Author of an Essay on Population, and others." Robinson. 1801. (See Rev. vol. xxxvii. p. 254.)

This "valuable treatise," however, we all know has been pulled to rags and tatters, and the author himself treated with great contumely, by the same Mr. Godwin; who in his former pamphlet had also said (page 10.), "Of this book, and the spirit in which it is written, I can never speak but with unfeigned respect."

We are much obliged to Mr. Place for having reminded us of this pamphlet; and luckily, in rummaging among a huge mass of cobweb-covered tracts, we laid our hands on it:-luckily, we say, because the extracts which Mr. Place has given from it excited our curiosity to read the whole; and luckily, also, because we think that he has not quite fairly given them. We have nothing to do with Mr. Godwin's want of candor in avoiding all reference to his former pamphlet, or with any change of opinion as to the merits of Mr. Malthus's work, which may have taken place in his mind. The argument is all with which we are concerned: the rest may be left to his own reflections. Mr. Place, in order to fix the charge of inconsistency on Mr. Godwin, quotes at pages 5. and 6. these words from his pamphlet: "Hence it appears that the progress of population (in North America) is in the nature of a geometrical ratio, or 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, doubling itself every twenty years. Having thus ascertained and fixed the principle of population, we come next to consider the means of subsistence," which would only go on "in an arithmetical ratio for ever;". "the conclusion presents to us in the most striking light the inadequateness of the principle of subsistence to meet and bear up against the principle of population. Population left to itself would go on in the ratio of 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, &c., and subsistence upon a supposition, certainly sufficiently favorable, only in the ratio of 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, &c. for every twenty years successively." After this quotation, Mr. Place says, Such were Mr. Godwin's opinions three years after the Essay on Population made its appearance.' Indeed, from the tone and manner of Mr. Place, any body would suppose that Mr. Godwin had come forwards as a zealous volunteer in support of that very theory which he has recently attacked with so much severity: but we must say that this is not a fair statement: for we have referred to the pamphlet, and perceive that Mr. Godwin, in the sentence immediately following, expressly says, "I have found it most convenient both for the sake of clearness and brevity, to state the main doctrine of the Essay on Population in my own words: I hope I have done justice to the meaning of the author; I am sure I have not designedly misrepresented it." (P. 59.) Hence it is clear that, whether according with his own sentiments or

not,

not, Mr. Godwin is merely explaining "in his own words," and "for the sake of brevity," the theory of Mr. Malthus. This would have struck Mr. Place if he had read attentively, because in the same page (59.) Mr. Godwin, far from acquiescing in the theory, combats its deductions: his pamphlet was written for the very purpose: "the inference," says he, "from these positions, (namely, that population is kept down "by the grinding law of necessity; misery and the fear of misery,") is, that the political superintendents of a community are bound to exercise a paternal vigilance and care over these two great means of advantage and safety to mankind; and that no evil is more to be dreaded, than that we should have too little vice and misery in the world to confine the principle of population within its proper sphere." What is this but the very language which he has reiterated in his last "Enquiry?"

The only change of opinion, or inconsistency, if so it must be called, that we can find in the two works, is that in the first Mr. G. too hastily admitted the ratios in their full extent, and confined himself to the task of repelling the conclusions of the theory; while, in the latter, he has labored to undermine the very foundations of the theory itself, by exposing the fallacy of these imaginary ratios, which had at first deluded him. Mr. Place, in his introduction, affirms that in every reply to the Essay on Population, except this second from Mr. G., the principal point in the controversy, namely, the power of increase, has been conceded: but Mr. G. has now "denied the power of the human race to increase its numbers, has insisted that there is more reason to fear a decrease than to expect an increase,' &c. These two affirmations are quite distinct. Where has Mr. G. denied the power of the human race to increase its numbers? His apprehension of its decrease arises from the effects which he sees resulting from the political institutions of society in various countries; and he has, on the contrary, contended that if governments had been: more mild, and the productions of the earth more equally distributed, there is no country on the face of it which would not produce and maintain a more numerous than the existing population. He says expressly in his last Enquiry, "I by no means undertake to assert that there is absolutely no tendency in the human species to increase, though I certainly think that the idea of guarding ourselves against the geometrical ratio is just as sagacious and profound as that of Don. Quixote's fighting with the windmills. All I affirm is, that the evidence we yet possess is against the increase; and I think it is the business of the true statesman and philanthro