Art. 35. The Proteftant Preacher, being a felect Collection of Sermons and Difcourfes, by the most distinguished British Divines, from the Reformation to the present Period, on the most important and interefting Subjects, to the Exclufion of all Speculation and Controverfy: with several valuable Originals now first published the Whole comprehending a complete fyftem of Prac12. bound tical Divinity. 8vo. ванд 2 Vols. Richardfon and Urquhart. +2* I bound 1780.

r

Λ

In the prefent collection, the fermons are given without methodical arrangement, and at full length. The Authors from which these two volumes are extracted are, Clark, Sherlock, Tillotson, Doddridge, Butler, Atterbury, Evans, Fofler, Swift, Blackall, Seed, Sterne, Farqubar, Price, Leechman, Jennings, Leighton, Fleetwood, Willis. From this lift of names the Reader will eafily perceive, that little care has been taken, in the felection, to preferve a confiftency of character either refpecting doctrine, fentiment, or ftyle in thefe Difcourfes. The valuable originals announced in the title will, we fuppofe, appear in fome future volumes. E. Art. 36. Sermons fur divers Textes de l'Ecriture fainte: par feu Monfieur Cefar de Miffy un des Chapelains Francois de fa Majesté Britannique. 8vo. 3 Tom. Imprimes à Londres en 1780. Sermons on feveral Texts of Scripture, by the late Rev. Cefar de Miffy, one of his Majefty's French Chaplains. La Vols. 8vo. 15 s. boards, Sold by Sewel, Elmfly, and the Printing Society in St. James's Street, 1780.

Moft of thefe difcourfes were delivered by the Author extemporé, and are preferved by one of his hearers, who copied them from his memory, immediately after he had heard them. The manufcripts came afterwards into the hands of the Preacher, who was fo well fatisfied with the judgment and fidelity with which they had been taken down, that he formed the defign of reviewing them for the prefs. This defign he in part executed, but was prevented from completing it by illness and death. In this prefent imperfect ftate, however, they are a faithful tranfcript of the Author's fentiments and manner. They every where abound with that animation which the French writers ftyle onction, and bear evident marks of a ready invention, lively feelings, and an honeft heart. But thofe who have formed their taste for fermons on the English model, will probably think them too diffufe and declamatory, and perhaps too much tin&tured with enthu fiafm. There are in the collection nine fermons on Evil-speaking, drawn up at length by the Author, which discover much ingenuity and knowledge of the world. E.

CORRESPONDENCE.

WE have been honoured with a Letter of confiderable length from Mr. Capel Lofft, concerning the account we gave in the last month's Review of his Principia Juris Univerfalis. That Gentleman, we hope, will not impute to us any want of respect for him, or for the fubject, if we beg leave to decline entering into a controversy relating to it: nor will he imagine it is a matter of great surprise to us, if our opinion of the merits of a publication (either as to the plan or the execution), and the opinion of the Author himfelf, do not always

happen

happen exactly to coincide. Of a work like Mr. Lofft's, not afpiring to originality, but extracted from other writers, the principal merit must arife from the judgment that is fhewn in the selection, and the order obferved in the difpofition of the materials. In the latter of thefe articles Mr. Lofft appears to us to have failed, and to have failed confiderably; and we doubt not that, in a little time, when the paternal tenderness of an author has abated, Mr. Lofft himself will contemplate his Principia with less complacency than he feems to do at present. He has indeed gotten together inuch good stone from the quarry, but we find no traces of the skill of an architect; nothing of that lucidus ordo; of that masterly arrangement, which cafts light and grace on the different parts of a fyftem, while it ftrengthens the force and impreflion of the whole. If this be thought full as much an object of taste as of judgment, we anfwer that they may both have their fhare. Except the elegant Commentator on the Laws of England, few writers of Mr. Lofft's profeflion have attended to this point, and though Mr. Loft has adopted Sir William Blackftone's arrangement in one part of his work (which perhaps was fufficiently extenfive for the whole), yet he has crouded together fuch a variety of other general titles and divifions, and all are fo ftrangely connected by their flender relation to an alphabetical diftribution (which is in fome letters ftriatly, in others very laxly purfued), that the whole appears to be a molt confufed and embarraffed fyftem, if it has any pretenfions to the name of one (for it looks more like four or five fyftems inartificially pieced together), or at best it comes forth under a very aukward and ungainly shape,

MILT.

"If shape it may be called, that shape has none "Diftinguishable in member, joint, or limb." Mr. Lofft's allusion to the method obferved in Cyclopaedias where the fyftematic and alphabetical arrangements are blended, is certainly very inapplicable, unless he can fhow that in a dictionary of that fort, all that relates to the fciences is comprized under the letter S (verbo SCIENCE), or all that relates to the arts under the letter A (verbo ARTS), in the fame manner, as he hath allotted full two-thirds of his work to the word REGULE under the letter R, and to the word jus under the letter I. There is this further defect in Mr. Lofft's arrangement, that all that appears under each of these titles might change places without any apparent confufion for all that comes within the scope of the former, or Regula, might be referred to the latter as Regule JURIS; or vice verfa, the latter might, as far as they are really connected with a work of jurifprudence, be included under the word jus: and both titles have been abforbed in the letter P, in verbo PRINCIPIA, as being Principia Juris. So loofe and ill compacted is this fame alphabetical order! of which Mr. Lofft was too font, totally to reject, even when he felt its inconveniences; or mutt we repeat our infinuation, that the bufinefs of new modelling his work, was too mortifying to be fubmitted to; and yet it might not have been beneath his abilities, any more than the humble and dull office of fuperintending the prefs in its progrefs to publication, which would have faved the neceffity of fubjoining one of the longest lifts of Errata we ever remember to have feen in a work of this fize.--We were perhaps guilty of a little inaccuracy in applying the phrafe

of

of an heap of maxims to Mr. Lofft's book, if confidered in refpect of its bulk; but we did it (with fome impropriety we confefs) in respect of the confufion in which they were prefented to the Reader, without any lights to fhew their dependance upon each other. or any friendly aid to reconcile difagreeing, or any telt to decide between contradictory, pofitions.

Mr. Lofft appears to be equally indignant at our commendations and our cenfure. When we ufed the epithets of learned and laborious, we had none of thofe infidious meanings which Mr. Loft has difcovered by the help of his own ingenuity. We rather defcribed (if we held up any defcription) a ftudent of the laws eager in his pursuit of letters, reforting, with a generous enthufiafm, to the principles of jurifprudence; and laying up in his common-place-book the thining or ufeful paffages he meets with, for future fervice. Did this imply cenfure? or where is the ridicule? But it is certainly advancing a step further, when the fruits of these studies are to be made the maté rials of publication; and we apprehend fome skill is neceffary to bring thefe fplendid fragments into one uniform, coherent fyftem, where the relation and dependence of the parts is to be obferved, what is obfcure is to be illuftrated, and what is defective fupplied : for this, we infinuated more time is neceffary than Mr. Lofft feems to have employed; not greater abilities than he appears to poffefs. He himself beft knows, quid ferre recufent, quid valeant humeri."

We pronounced the work was protruded in a ftate of immaturity, and we had his own authority for faying it was unfinished, and that he meant to complete his defign in a future work. We have no intention to depreciate Mr. Lofft's merit: we are not confcious of mentioning him with difrefpect: we only with he would not defraud himfelf of the reputation he might otherwise acquire, by precipitate ing his writings too haftily into the world.

T

Mr. Roberts's Letter concerning the rot in sheep, muft, in course, be referred to the Gentleman who reviewed the agricultural papers of the Bath Society, who is at prefent at fo great a distance from the capital, that his opinion of Mr. Roberts's obfervations could not be obtained foon enough for a more particular acknowledgment of this correfpondent's favour in this month's Review.

+++ The Volunteer Review of Mr. H.'s book did not arrive foon enough to prevent an account of that well-approved work from being drawn up by one of our affociates, who had been applied to for that purpose. We are, nevertheless, obliged to Impartialis (for fo this correfpondent ftyles himself) for his very proper remarks.- -Our article, on the fubject here referred to, is intended for the next Num ber of the Review.

THE

MONTHLY REVIEW,

For AUGUST, 1781.

ART. I. Elements of Elocution; being the Subftance of a Course of Lectures on the Art of Reading, delivered at feveral Colleges in the University of Oxford. By J. Walker, Author of the Rhyming and Pronouncing Dictionary, &c. &c. 8vo. 2 Vols. 12s. bound. Printed for the Author, and fold by Becket, &c. 1781.

T feems to be a prevalent idea among those who have not paid a particular attention to the fubject of elocution, that fpeech is of too fleeting and unfettled a nature, to be capable of being fubjected to rule; and that, therefore, all attempts to teach the art of speaking by other means than imitation, muft be ineffectual. Some difficulty, it must be confessed, there is in conveying ideas of vocal found by written characters, with fuch diftinctness and precifion as fhall be neceffary to form useful rules for practice. Yet this has been done with fo much fuccefs in mufic, that there appears to be fome ground for fuppofing, that it may be done in elocution. And if the thing be practicable, it is certainly defirable; fince, without this, elocution can never be reduced to any fettled principles as an art; and fince general rules (fuch, for inftance, as, that the reader or speaker should follow nature, or imitate the tones of converfation) can be but of little ufe, without fome certain method of applying them to particular cafes.

For these reasons we cannot but approve of the pains which those who have lately written on this fubject have taken, to teach the art of elocution by plain practical rules, delivered in a methodical form. The Author of these Elements appears to us, to have been particularly fuccessful in his attempt to reduce the principles and rules of elocution into a fyftem; and, in the course of his work, to have advanced many things, which merit attention on account of their originality as well as their uti

VOL. LXV.

Con

Confidering it as the first object in the art of reading, to con vey the fenfe of the writer, Mr. Walker begins his Elements with some obfervations on punctuation, as it is intended to elucidate the meaning of what is written, and as it may direct to fuch pauses, elevations, and depreffions of the voice as fhall communicate that meaning, with clearnefs, in fpeaking. In explaining the nature of punctuation, he nearly follows the judicious theory of Dr. Lowth in his English grammar, and gives examples of the use of the feveral points in fimple and complex fentences. He then remarks, that fimple fentences, or claufes of fentences, are often fo long, that it is impoffible to pronounce them with force and cafe without drawing in the breath; and that therefore a paufe is often neceffary in fpeaking, when the grammatical conftruction does not require or admit of a point. In order to determine where fuch pauses may be best introduced, he lays down this general rule; That the only kinds of words which feem too intimately connected to admit a pause are, the article and fubftantive, the fubftantive and adjective in their natural order, and the prepofition and the noun it governs: thus, a paufe may be introduced after the feveral words marked with Italics in the following fentence:

"A violent paffion for univerfal admiration produces the most ridiculous circumstances in the general behaviour of women of the moft excellent understandings.'

But no paufe can be admitted after the words univerfal, the, of

Farther, to explain the principles of paufe in fpeaking, our Author fays,

It may be observed, that paufing is regulated by two circumflances, one is, conveying ideas diftinctly, by feparating fuch as are diftinct, and uniting fuch as are affociated; the other is, forming the words that convey thefe ideas into fuch claffes, or portions, as may be forcibly and eafily pronounced; for this reafon, when the words, from their fignification, require to be distinctly pointed out, that is, to convey objects diftinguished from each other, however frequent and numerous the paufes may be, they are neceffary; but if words connected in fenfe, continue to a greater extent than can be easily pronounced together, and at the fame time have no fuch diftin&t parts as immediately fuggeft where we ought to paufe, the only rule that can be given is, not to feparate fuch words as are more united than those we do not feparate.

But it may be demanded, how fhall we know the feveral degrees of union between words, fo as to enable us to divide them properly? To this it may be answered, that all words may be diftinguifhed into thofe that modify, and thofe that are modified *; the words that are modified are the nominative, and the verb it governs; every other word may be faid to be a modifier of these words; the noun and

Buffier Grammaire, p. 60.