to energy as well as eloquence: fubject for conteft and criticism: their ftyle is undoubtedly different, the pretenfions of the Roman and and in this the Latin hath the better Greek are refpectively ftrong, and of the comparifon; in other re- their different merits may afford fpects, to ufe a phrafe of Quinctili- fcope to the advocate of either lanan, they arepares magis quam fi- guage or writer. miles.' Quinctilian doubts not to oppofe the merits of Salluft, to thofe of Thucydides; on this head I have my doubts; independent of his emphatic ftyle and air of accuracy throughout, the introductory book of Thucydides is a mafterpiece of recapitulation, and may be placed in parallel with the first book of Machiavel's Hiftory of Florence, the best epitome (I think) of the kind; but the preambles of Salluft, though eloquent and ingenious, are fomewhat forced and inapplicable. The hiftories of Xenophon I read with pleasure, but cannot admit them to vie with the above authors, either of his own country, or of the Romans: I am rather inclined to allow to the latter the general palm of hiftory. What doubts I may have, the annals and hiftories, and particularly the detached pieces of Tacitus are calculated to remove;-if language and fentiment fuitable to each action, and concifely explanatory of motive and event, if in the words of Salluft, factis dicta exæquanda,' conftitute the merit in this branch of literature, who is the writer that hath given policy, facts, and character more force, and in fewer, and in better words, than Tacitus? To a proper and able reader, Tacitus explains whilft he appears fimply to relate a myftery; and developes the receffes of policy and character, whilst he profeffes to recite merely effects and conduct. "The military memoirs of Cafar and of Xenophon may be confidered as a diftinct and new branch of literature, and may afford fresh 1786. "I mean not to enter into a minute enquiry, but rather as a key to fuch difquifition, obferve, that in the Latin work, we have the com mentaries of a general, vested with a legitimate command: in the Greek, the journal of an officer in fubordinate authority, though of high estimation; the fpeeches of the one are replete with imperatorial dignity; of the other, delivered with the conciliatory arts of argu ment and condefcenfion: the ora tory put into the mouth of others, is by either author happily intro duced, and fuited to party and to circumftance; with exception, how ever, to a fpeech of Cyrus, in the Memoirs of Xenophon, who, though in queft of the defpotic crown of Perfia, is made to harangue for Greece and liberty. Accounts of the face of the country, of the characters of the inhabitants, and even of very families, were collected and tranfmitted to the great leader in chicf; and thence from Cæfar we have a curious and well authenticated detail relative to the Gauls, the Britons, and every other enemy: Xenophon is fuperficial with refpect to any peculiarities of the nations he paffed through, his mind was abforbed in the care of thofe under his command; but thence we are better acquainted with the Greek army than with that of Cafar's: Cæfar's attention was ever directed to thofe he was to attack, to counteract, or to oppofe; Xenophon', to thofe he was to conduct: Cæfar is often circumftanti al, but never diffufe; Xenophon, were he lefs eloquent, I fhould call E proix, Memoirs. It may be obferved, that Xenophon hath in this work artfully interfperfed every circumstance which might conduce to the giving a favourable idea of his own character; one Phalinus is introduced, deriding him for his virtue and philofophy; his happy temper and mo. deration are hinted at in the obfer. prolix, without being particular. Cæfar gives the characters of men in a difplay of their actions and of their fpeeches; it became not the dignity of the great Roman general to minutely difcriminate the private merits and demerits of an individual; but Xenophon might properly defcant thereon, with the nice obfervation of a by-ftander, follow-vation," that he never had a difing the bent of philofophic enquiry: the character of Cyrus was indeed worthy the pen of Cæfar, but a detail of the virtues of Proxenus and vices of Menon, were a more proper fubject for the more private writer in his portraiture of thefe men, and of that of Clearchus, Xenophon has difplayed the most nervous and pointed eloquence; the energy of which is a fine contrast to the eafy rhetoric of the fpecches, and elegant fimplicity of diction in the narrative, which fo fingularly characterise these most beautiful pute with any other captain but once, and that a trivial one, with Cherifophus" the general idea of his bravery, his religion, and his eloquence, is ftrongly marked throughout; every fpeech himself makes (if I rightly remember) is evincive and effectual: the certain Athenian called Xenophon, is thus in fucceffion vefted with every accomplishment, and, through the well-wrought veil of modeft phrafe, is at length difcoverable the arrogance of a brave and virtuous, but vain man.” "IN Of the ENGLISH CONJUNCTIONS. B. I do not mean to divert you into an etymological explanation of each particular word of other languages, or even of the English, and fo to change our converfation from a philofophical inquiry concerning the nature of language in general, into the particular bufinefs of a polyglot lexicon. But, as you have faid that your principles will apply univerfally, I defire to know whether you mean that the conditional conjunctions of all other languages are likewife to be found, like if and an, in the original imperatives of fome of their own or derived verbs, meaning to Give? 'N English, then, it feems thofe two words (IF and AN) which have been called conditional conjunctions (and whofe force and manner of fignification, as well as of all the others, we are directed by Mr. Locke to search after in "the feveral views, poftures, ftands, terms, limitations, and exceptions, and feveral other thoughts of the mind, for which we have either none, or very deficient names") are according to you, merely the original imperatives of the verbs to Give or to Grant. Now let me understand you. 1 "H. continuative, Pofitive, Suppofitive, Caufal, Collective, Effective, Approbative, Difcretive, Ablative, Prefumptive, Abnegative, Completive, Augmentative, Alternative, Hypothetical, Extenfive, Periodical, Moti val, Conclufive, Explicative, Tranfi tive, Interrogative, Comparative, Diminutive, Preventive, Adequate Preventive, Adverfative, Conditional, Sufpenfive, Conclufive, Illative, Conductive, Declarative, &c. &c. &c. which explain nothing; and (as most other technical terms are abufed) ferve only to throw a veil over the ignorance of those who employ them. No. If that was my opinion, I know you are ready inftantly to confute it by the conditionals of the Greek and Latin and Irish, the French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguefe and many other languages. But I mean that thofe words which are called conditional conjunctions, are to be accounted for in all languages in the fame manner as I have accounted for if and an. Not indeed that they must all mean precifely as thefe two do,-Give and Grant; but fome word equivalent: fuch as,-Be it, Suppofe, Allow, Permit, Put, Suffer, &c. which meaning is to be fought for from the particular etymology of each refpective language, not from fome un named and unknown "Terms, Stands, Poftures, &c. of the mind." In fhort, to put this matter out of doubt, I mean to difcard all fuppofed mystery, not only about thefe conditionals, but about all thofe words alfo which Mr. Harris and others diftinguish from prepofitions, and cali conjunctions of fentences. I deny them to be a feparate fort of words or part of fpeech by themfelves. For they have not a feparate manner of fignification: although they are n t devoid of fignification. And the particular fignification of each must be fought for from a mongst the other parts of fpeech, by the help of the particular ety. mology of each refpective language. By fuch means alone can we clear -away the obfcurity and errors in which grammarians and philofophers have been involved by the corruption of fome common words, and the ufeful abbreviations of conftruction. And at the fame time we fhall get rid of that farago of ufelefs diflinctions into Conjunctive, Adjunctive, Disjunctive, Subsisjunctive, Copulative, Continuative, Sub "B. "You mean, then, by what you have faid, flatly to contradict Mr. Harris's definition of a Conjunction; which he fays, is a part of fpeech devoid of fignification itfelf, but fo formed as to help fignification, by making two or more fignificant fentences to be one fignificant fentence." "H. "I have the lefs fcruple to do that, because Mr. Harris makes no fcruple to contradi&t himself. For he afterwards acknowledges that fome of them have a kind of obfcure fignification when taken alone; and appear in grammar, like zoophytes in nature, a kind of middle beings of amphibious character; which, by fharing the at tributes of the higher and the low... er, conduce to link the whole together." Now I fuppofe it is impoffible to convey a Nothing in a more ingenious manner. How much fuperior is this to the oracular faw of another learned author in Language (typified by Shakspeare in Sir Topaz) who, amongst much other intelligence of equal importance, tells us with a very foleinn face, and afcribes it to Plato, that Every E 2 man "found fignificant." Then he defines Conjunctions to be words (i. e. funds fignificant) "devoid of figni man that opines, muft opine fomething: the fubject of opinion therefore, is not nothing." But the faireit way to Lord Monboddo is to fivation."-Afterwards he allows give you the whole paffage. that they have-" a kind of figni"It was not, therefore, without fication." reafon that Plato faid that the sub "But this kind of fignification is ject of opinion was neither the To br," obfcure," (i. c. a fignification or the thing itfelf, nor was it the punov, or nothing; but fomething betwixt thefe two. This may appear, at firft fight a little myfterious, and difficult to be underflood; but, like other things of that kind in Plato, when examined to the hot tom, it has a very clear meaning, and explains the nature of opinion very well: FOR, as he fays, every man that opines, muft opine fomething; the fubject of opinion therefore, is not nothing. At the fame time it is not the thing itself, but fomething betwixt the two." His lordship, you fee, has explained it very clearly; and no doubt must have fweated much to get thus to the bottom. "But Mr. Harris has the advantage of a fimilie over this gentleman and though fimilies appear with most beauty and propriety in works of imagination, they are frequently found moft ufeful to the authors of philofophical treatifes: and have often helped them out at many a dead lift, by giving them an appearance of faying fomething, when indeed they had nothing to fay for fimilies are in truth the bladders upon which they float; and the grammarian finks at once if he attempts to fwim without them. unknown): fomething I fuppofe (as Chillingworth couples them) like a fecret tradition, or a filent thunder: for it amounts to the fame thing as a fignification which does not fignify: an obfcure or unknown fignification being no fignification at all. But, not contented with thefe inconfiftencies, which to a lefs learned man would feem fufficient of all confcience, Mr. Harris goes farther, and add, that they are a kind of middle beings"— (he must mean between fignification and no fignification)-"haring the attributes of both"-(i. e. of fignification and no fignification) andconduce to link them bath”—(i. e. fignification and no fignification) gether." "It would have helped us a little, if Mr. Harris had here told us what that middle fate is, between fignification and no fignification! What are the attributes of no fignification! And how fignification and no fignification can be linked together! "Now all this may, for ought I know, be "read and admired as long as there is any taste for fine writing in Britain. But with fuch unlearned and vulgar philofophers as Mr. Locke and his difciples, who feek not tafte and elegance, but "As a proof of which, let us truth and common fenfe in philofoonly examine the prefent inflance; phical fubjects, I believe it will neand, difmiffing the zoophytes, fee ver pafs as a perfect example of anawhat intelligence we can draw lyfis;' nor bear away the palm for from Mr. Harris concerning the na-acuteness of investigation and perture of Conjunctions. fpicuity of explication." For, feparated from the fine writing, (which "Firit he defines a word to be a 22 however however I can no where find in ter nominem, nifi ut laudem; fed nec. the book) thus is the Conjunction peccata reprehenderem, nifi ut aliis. explained by Mr. Harris. A prodeffem.-Indeed you have borne. found fignificant devoid of fignifi- your teftimony for me in very cation, having at the fame time a trying fituations, where few besides kind of obfcure fignification; and yourfelf would have ventured fo yet having neither fignification nor much honesty. At the fame time, no fignification; but a middle fome- I confefs, I fiould difdain to handle thing between fignification and no any ufeful truth daintily, as if I fignification, fharing the attributes feared left it fhould fting me; and both of fignification and no figniti to employ a philofophical inquiry cation; and linking fignification as a vehicle for interested or cowand no fignification together. ardly adulation. "If others, of a more elegant tafte for fine writing, are able to receive either pleafure or inftruction from fuch truly philofophical language, I fhall neither dispute with them nor envy them but can only deplore the dullness of my own apprehenfion, who, notwithflanding the great authors quoted in Mr. Harris's treatife, and the great authors who recommend it, cannot help confidering this "perfect example of analyfis," as an approved compilation of almost all the errors which grammarians have been accumulating from the time of Ariftotle down to our present days, of technical and learned affectation. "I protest to you, my notions of language were formed before I could account etymologically for any one of the words in queftion, and before I was in the leaft ac quainted with the opinions of others. I addreffed myself to an inquiry into their opinions with all the diffidence of confcious igno, rance; and, fo far from fpurning authority, was difpofed to admit of half an argument from a great name. So that it is not my fault, if I am forced to carry inflead of following the lanthorn but at all events it is better than walking in total darkness. : "And yer, though I believe I differ from all the accounts which have hitherto been given of 1nguage, I am not fo much without authority as you may imagine. Mr. Harris himfelf and all the grammarians whom he has, and whom (though ufing their words) he has not quoted, are my authorities. Their own doubts, their difficulties, their diffatisfaction, their contradictions, their obfcurity an all thefe points are my authorities against them for their fyftem and their difficulties vanish together. Indeed unlefs, with Mr. Harris, I had been repeating what others have written, it is impoffible I fhould quote any direct authorities for my own manner of explanation. But let us hear Wilkins, whofe in E 3 dustry |