תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

the reft; but, being earneft in foul-faying-I called out to them, with a windpipe fo clear and ftrong, that they were amazed at it: I'improved this firft furprize to the happiest of purpofes, and told them, they were in the greatest danger if they continued in that place five minutes longer, that in all probability they would be dead men': they were already † dead in trefpaffes and fins. I begged by all that was dear to them, that they would follow me, which they did, with the greatest expedition; I verily believe that I drew them out of the pit in less than half the time above mentioned. This was a pious fraud, you must acknowledge: and when I had got them out, I brought fnch arguments from fcripture againft their cruel paftime, that they thewed evident figus of remorfe. Have you no bowels of compaffion, faid I, or do you think thefe fubjects of your mirth have no feeling, that you thus riot in their wounds, wantonly provoking and firring them up to ftrife? A righteous man regardeth the life of his beaft fof Solomon faid: and of his bird too, I fay. Recollect, I pray you, that pathetic addrefs of your Saviour, § "O Jerufalem, Jerufalem, which killeft the prophets, and ftoneft them that are fent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a ben doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not !" And was it for this, that the hen gathered her chickens under her wings, that their blood fhould be fpilt for your recreation? That with artificial wea pons (O diabolical invention!) they should tear and mangle each other, and die ten thoufand deaths-Did not Peter weep bitterly hen the cock crew?-For it reproached him with the denial of his Malter: and you deny Chrift, you act in oppofition to his gofpet, which requires that you' fhould be tender-hearted. In fhort, my expoftulations had the defired effect upon then, they went away with difpofitions totally changed, fo that not one of them would have trod on a fpider if he had feen it. This was a glorious converfion, I should be glad to hear that the regular divines did any thing like it." Thofe who wish to fee his notions of jockeyfhip, and how he treats his black legged auditors, will not repent purchafing the fermon; though one of the Author's jokes has been to charge three-pence ext traordinary, with a view, no doubt, to preforve a refemblance to the odd prices of Moorfields divinity he understood fun too well to take off a penny or two pence, on that account.

[ocr errors]

II. In Lambeth Chapel, at the Confecration of Dr. Thomas, Bishop
of Rochester, Nov. 13. By William Bell, D. D. Prebendary of
Westminster, Treafurer of St Paul's and Chaplain to the Princess
Amelia. 4to.rs. Robfon.

Never was a more unfortunate erratum than the omiffion of the little particle the, in our account of The Cobler Worthy of imita tion,' is (in this inftance) nonfenfe. Read the paffage thus:-If the French piece, from which the prefent is faid to be taken, is in ftyle and conftruction, in any degree a model worthy of the imitation, the English Author is doubly criminal, not only for fealing, but for robbing the Spital.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

THE

MONTHLY REVIEW,

For FEBRUARY, 1775.

ART. I. Of the Origin and Progrefs of Language. 8vo. Vol. II. 6 s. 6d. Boards. Edinburgh, Balfour; London, Cadell. 1774

[ocr errors]

N the first volume of this work (of which our Readers will find an account in our Reviews for September and November 1773) the Author employs much learning and ingenuity in fupport of the opinion that the faculty of speech is not the gift of nature, but the work of art, or of habit acquired by cuftom and exercise; and that we are truly by nature the mutum pecus that Horace reprefents us. In order farther to establish this favourite hypothefis, he now proceeds to examine the nature, and analyfe the structure, of language, in its present form; in full expectation of convincing his readers, that fuch a regular and artificial fyftem, could not have been produced from the rude materials furnished by the first favages who learned to articulate, without the defigned and affiduous exertion of much ingenuity and fkill for this purpose.

In executing this part of the defign, our Author adheres to the fcholaftic divifion of his fubject, which he had before adopted, into matter and form; and first treats of the form of language, or words confidered as fignificant. And here, though he frequently expreffes his approbation of Mr. Harris's Hermes, his fervile attachment to the ancients will not fuffer him to follow that judicious and natural divifion of words into principals and acceffories, on which that truly philofophical writer has grounded the beft analyfis of language which has ever been formed. Inftead of this divifion, our Author makes choice of that which is given by his magnus Apollo, Ariftotle, into noun and verb; and adds, my reafon for preferring this divifion is, that it refers, as I understand it, to that grand divifion of things contained in the categories, or predicaments (the doctrine of which I hold to be the foundation of all philofophy) into fubREY. Feb. 1775.

H

Barice

ftance and accident. Under one or other of these two heads he has endeavoured to bring all the parts of fpeech; but few of his readers will, we apprehend, be of his opinion, that he has done it without any training or difficulty. One might have expected that Mr. Harris's analyfis, fupported by the authority of the ancients, as well as by its own intrinfic merit, would have paffed with this enthufiaftic admirer of ancient learning; but he could not find it in the categories. However, though this work is too exactly formed on the model of antiquity to promife much improvement in the general theory of Grammar, we meet with many curious obfervations on the several parts of fpeech, with fome of the most material of which we shall prefent our Readers.

'

Concerning pronouns he fays, The pronoun is undoubtedly to be ranked under the noun; for it ftands for the noun; but it exprefles fomething more; for the pronouns of the first and fecond perfon mark a reference to the fpeaker and hearer, as if it were faid, "This man here who fpeaks to you:"" This man here to whom I fpeak." The demonftrative pronoun of the third perfon refers alfo to an object prefent: thus, "this object which is here prefent." But the other pronouns of the third perfon always refer, not to objects then known for the first time, but to fuch as the hearer had been informed of by the preceding part of the converfation, fo that they denote objects recognised or known the fecond time, and having been before mentioned."

In treating concerning articles, he explains at large the use of the Greek article; and obferves, that it is prefixed to proper names to distinguish one individual from another of the fame name: to intimate that the individual referred to, is the fame which had been before mentioned; or to point him out as being generally known, or of diftinguished eminence. When the Greek article is prefixed to general names, it points out an individual perfon or object, with reference to fome mention which had before been made of it, or fome previous knowledge - which the reader is fuppofed to have of it. It may be defined, the prefix of a noun, denoting fimply that the noun to which it is prefixed, is the fame with that which was before mentioned, or is otherwife well known.-Under this head, after making an apology for condefcending to fpend any time upon modern languages, which he fays have grown out of vulgar ufe, being mongrel dialects, and the corruptions of better languages,' he remarks, that though the French and English languages have a great advantage over the Latin, in making ufe of the article, they have no advantage over the Greek, by having two articles inftead of one for the particles a and an in Englifh, and un in French, are really numerical words. Now,

[ocr errors]

what

what occafion, he afks, is there for a term of number to denote an indefinite individual of any fpecies? We venture to reply, Certainly none. But the inference is, not that these particles are useless, but they are used for fome other purpose than that which the Author fuppofes. They are used, not to exprefs number, but to indicate that we are not speaking of one particular perfon or thing, but of any one of the species indefinitely. The French have doubtless an advantage in their plural indefinite; but they always use it, not numerically, but indefinitely. And that an article of this kind is of real ufe may be feen, by comparing the ambiguity which is obfervable in the ancient languages in fpeaking of individuals and of the fpecies, with the precifion and clearness with which these are diftinguished in modern languages by the help of the articles. Would it be eafy, without this help, accurately to express the different ideas in the two following fentences?" Man, who has the gift of fpeech, must be a reasonable being-A man, who has the power of fpeech, cannot be an idiot." This dif tinction is more happily preferved in English than in French, or perhaps in any other language.

[ocr errors]

In explaining the fubject of cafes of nouns, he has again recourse to the categories. Having obferved that they express connexions between words, and afked what these connexions are, he anfwers, They belong to the category of relation: for I must have recourfe again to the categories, in which, according to my notion, the firft principles of all arts and sciences, and among others of the grammatical art, are contained.' He then proceeds to remark, that cafes fhew the relation of fubftance to fubftance, of fubftance to accident, and of accident to accident; and he illuftrates the obfervation by particular inftances.

Our Author's obfervations concerning tenfes appear to us to be extremely accurate and ingenious: the fubftance of them is as follows:

The fimple divifions of time into past, prefent, and future, may be farther divided into perfect, imperfect, or indefinite. The prefent is by its nature always imperfect. If I have written a part of a verfe, and am ftill continuing to write, I say, fcribo verfum, I write or am writing the verfe: but if I have just finifhed it, I fay, fcripfi verfum, I have written the verfe. As therefore the prefent tenfe neceffarily denotes an imperfect action, the distinction of indefinite, which leaves it undetermined whether the action is completed or not, cannot be applied to it. But the past tense admits of each of thefe diftinctions. 'Eygava, I wrote or did write, is, I think, clearly an aorift, expreffing Simply that the action is past, without determining whether it

[blocks in formation]

was or was not a complete action at that time. The preterperfect yeygapa denotes not only that the action is past, but that it is completed; I have written: the plufquam-perfect, yeyeaper, I had written, denotes that the action was completed at fome paft time. And iyga pov, I was writing, denotes that the action is paft, but was not completed at the time referred to, and therefore is called the imperfect. As to the future; yeaw, or fcribam, expreffes the future action indefinitely; yeypapus iooμas, or fcripfero, denotes the future action perfect, I ball have written; and yeapwv ecopias may be used to denote an imperfect future, I shall be writing. Tenfes may also be confidered as fimple and compound. The fimple are thofe already mentioned; the compound are various combinations of thefe. Thus, the paft combined with the prefent, makes the preter-perfect. This is properly ufed, when the past action is comprehended in any portion of time which is confidered by the fpeaker as prefent; as, this day I have written a letter; or when the effects of the action are ftill exifting; I have built a boufe. The aorift of the past does not determine whether the now is to be taken into that paft time, or is in any respect to be confidered as prefent. In thefe words of Job, "The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away," the tenfes are most properly used. If, inftead of gave, the aorift, the tranflators had ufed the compound tense hath given, it would have been improper, because what the Lord gave was at that time taken away, fo that the action of giving could not in any way be faid to be prefent; whereas the next verb take, is most properly in the compound tenfe, because his wealth then continued to be taken away. But if he had said so after he had got back his wealth, it would not have been proper; he must then have faid, The Lord took away, because the action of taking, with its confequences, were then paft.-The plufquam perfect is a compofition of the paft with the paft; and expreffes that the action is paft, not only with refpect to the prefent now, but also with respect to another action likewife paft: I had written a letter when you came in. The paft is combined with the future, when an action is spoken of as future with respect to the time of the fpeech, but paft with respect to another event likewise future: I fhall have written when he will come in.

This explanation of the Greek tenfes our Author fupports by quotations from the ancient grammarians; and then proceeds to examine Dr. Clarke's fyftem on this fubject. In these strictures he gives us this important piece of information: Dr. Clarke divides all time, as I do, into paft, prefent, and future." We are not furprised to find this zealous advocate for the ancients preferring the method of expreffing the relations of

nouns,

« הקודםהמשך »