} 
bO2 
conferred on our author by the Univerfity 
of. Oxford, July 6, 17593 on which oc- 
cafion he compofed an admiflion ode. 
In the 26th year of his age, he married 
Mifs Cecilia Young, a pupil of Gemini- 
ani, anda favourite finger of thofe times. 
After having rcfined his tafte, he placed 
himfelf under the inftruétion of the 
‘learned Dr. Peputch, and acquired, with 
aftonifking celerity, that profound {cience 
which his works cccafionally difplay. 
And by the united aid of this fcience, 
and the gift of genius, he became the 
firft{ mufbcian who placed our claim to 
harmonic excellence on a level with that 
of the Italians. 
Dr. Arne died the sth of March, 1778, 
aged 68, of a fpafm on his lungs; re- 
taining his faculties to the laft moment 
of his exiftence. With refpeét to his 
religion, he had originally been inftruct- 
ed in the principles of the Romifh church; 
thefe, however, he had for many years 
whcelly neglected ; and, if we may allow 
curfelves to judge from his unreftrained 
mode of life, did not fubftitute any bet- 
ter. However, in his laft ftage, the dor- 
mant feeds of early maxims and preju- 
dices revived in his bofom, and the fond 
delufion of that religion on which he had 
ence been taught to reft, now returned ; 
and a prieft 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 fatished with the holy 
father’s pardon, and fo affured of eter- 
nal happinefs, that the laft moments of 
his life were cheered by an hallelujah, 
-fung by himieif. 
Dr. Arne was naturally fond of plea. 
furable eafe ; and gaiety and revelry oc- 
cupied moft of the leifure hours of his 
life ; hence, notwithfianding the number 
and excellence of his publications, he 
died almoft without property. The pe- 
culiarity of his genius was an almoft con- 
ftant command of {weetnefs and origi- 
nality of meiody. The feature of na- 
ture is prominent inall his airs; never 
affeéted, never pedantic, never vacant, 
they are as remarkable for the juftnefs of 
their expreifion, as for their beautiful. 
timplicity. xX. 

To the Editor of the Monibly Magazine, 
STR, 
ry HOUGH there are fome very re- 
fpeétable and learned men in this 
country, who fincerely with that Kanr’s 
Mr. Nitfeh on Kani?s Philofophy. 
fOr: 
works were. tranflated,-and their preten- 
tions fully examined, yet there are others, 
equally ref{pe€table and learned, who 
think we need not be in any hurry, either 
to tranflate or difcufs them, becaufe they 
conceive they have difcovered many 
things which fuiiciently evince their fu- 
tility. “ Por (fay they) if he be fo greata 
philofopher as his advocates pretend, why 
are his writings disfigured by fo many 
ftrange and unintelligible terms, as to 
require anew dictionary in erder to be 
underftood ? 
of ill omen ? 
of judgment? And how. can we fup- 
pofe an author, who is involved in fuch 
obfcurity, qualified to enlizhten the 
world ?”’ 
However, from an intimate acquaint- 
ance with Kanr’s writings, I can fafely 
affert, firft, that he has coined no new 
‘words; that, within the compafs of his 
philofophy, only about thirty terms oc- 
cur, which do indeed found fomewhat 
firangely ; but it is to thofe only who are 
unacquainted with the metaphyfical works 
of modern times: fecondly, that thofe 
terms were the only proper ones that 
could be found toexprets the ideas which 
have been ‘annexed to them, and that 
thofe perfons in Germany who have cen- 
fured them, have not been able to pro- 
pofe better: thirdly, that thefe terms 
have been clearly explained by KanT, in 
their proper places ; and that thefe who 
complain that they do not underftandthem, 
either have not read Kawr’s works. 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 di€vonary, to explain thefe 
ftrange terms, fhould {till appear-necef-, 
lary, it will not, at the worft, occupy two 
oétavo volumes, nor indeed even one, 
but only the {mall fpace of an ottayo 
page. : 
‘¢ But how then can it happen,” afk 
thofe antagonifts of Kant, “ that he is 
dificult to be underftcod ? for fo he mott 
certainly is, even according to the con- 
fefhon of his moft zealous partizans. If his 
language,is not barbarous, he muft ne- 
ceflarily 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 {peculative ob- 
jects, fuch as the mind, the foul, &c. 
would be properly underftood by many 
Is not this.a circumfance’ 
Does it ‘not betray want 
ae 
more than that fect to which he belongs, - 
or which he has founded? Do not fome™ 
af 
