dustry deserved to have been better employed, and his perfeverance better rewarded with difcovery; let us hear what he fays.

"According to the true philofophy of speech, I cannot conceive this kind of words" (he fpeaks of Adverbs and Conjunctions) "to be properly a diftinct part of fpeech, as they are commonly called. But until they can be diftributed into their proper places, I have fo far complied with the Grammars of instituted languages, as to place them here together."And again, "For the accurate effecting of this [i. e. a real character] it would be neceffary that the theory itfelf [i.e. of language upon which fuch a defign were to be founded, fhould bo exactly fuited to the nature of things. But upon fuppofal that this theory [viz. of language] is defective, either as to the fulness or the order of it; this muft needs add much perplexity to any fuch attempt, and render it imperfect, And that this is the cafe with that common theory already received, need not much be doubted.

"It appears evidently therefore that Wilkins (to whom Mr. Locke was much indebted) was well convinced that all the accounts hitherto given of language were erroneous, And in fact, the languages which are commonly ufed throughout the world, are much more fimple and eafy, convenient and philofophical, than Wilkins's fcheme for a real character; or than any other scheme that has been at any other time imagined or propofed for the purpose. Mr. Locke's diffatisfaction with all the accounts which he had feen, is too well known to need repetition.

"Sanctius refcued QUOD particularly from the number of thefe

myfterious Conjunctions, though he left Ur amongst them.

"And Servius Scioppius, G. J. Voffius, Perizonius, and others, have explained and difplaced many other fuppofed Adverbs and Conjunctions.

"Skinner (though I knew it not previoufly) had accounted for 15 before me, and in the fame manuer; which though fo palpable, Lye confirms and compliments. Even S. Johnfon, though mistakenly, has attempted AND; and would find no difficulty with THEREFORE.

"In short, there is not fuch a thing as a Conjunction in any language, which may not, by a fkilfull herald, be traced home to its own family and origin; without having recourfe to contradiction and mystery with Mr. Harris: ar with Mr. Locke, cleaving open the head of man to give it fuch a birth as Minerva's from the brain of Jupiter.

"B.

"Call you this authority in your favour? When the full stream and current fets the other way, and only fome little brook or rivulet runs with you? You know very well that all the authorities which you have alleged, except Wilkins, are upon the whole against you. For though they have explained the meaning, and traced the derivation of many Adverbs and Conjunctions; yet (except Sanctius in the particular inftance of Quov,

whofe conjunctive ufe in Latin he too ftrenuoully denies) they all acknowledge them still to be Adverbs or Conjunctions. It is true, they diftinguished them by the title of reperta or ufurpata: but they at the fame time acknowledged (indeed the very diflinction itself is an acknowledgment) that there are

others

"True. Because there are fome, of whofe origin they were totally ignorant. But has any philofopher or grammarian ever yet told us what a real, original, native, pure Adverb or Conjunction is? Or which of thefe Conjunctions of fentences are fo? Whenever that is done, in any language, I may venture to promife you that I will fhew those likewife to be repertas and ufurpatas, as well as the reft: And till then I fhall take no more trouble about them. I fhall only add, that though abbreviation and corruption are always bufieft with the words which are most frequently in ufe; yet the words most frequently ufed are leaft liable to be totally laid afide. And therefore they are often retained,-(I mean that branch of them which is moft frequently ufed) when most of the other words (and even the other branches of thefe retained words)—are, by various changes and accident, quite loft to a language. Hence the difficulty of accounting for them. And hence (because only one branch of each of thele declinable words is retained in a language) arifes the notion of their being indeclinable; and a feparate fort of words, or part of fpeech by themselves. But that they are rot indeclinable, is fufficiently evident by what I have already faid. For LIF, An, &c. certainly could not be called indeclinable, when all the other branches of thofe verbs, of which they are the regular impe ratives, were likewife in ufe. And that the words IF, AN, &c. (which ftill retain their original fignification, and are used in the very fame manner and for the fame purpofe as formerly) fhould now be

from the ignorance of those who could not account for them; and, who therefore, with Mr. Harris, were driven to fay that they have neither meaning nor inflection: whilft notwithstanding they were ftill forced to acknowledge (either directly, or by giving them different titles of conditional, adverfative, &c.) that they have a "kind of obfcure meaning."

"How much more candid and ingenuous would it have been, to have owned fairly that they did not understand the nature of these Conjunctions; and, instead of wrapping it up in mystery, to have exhorted and encouraged others to a farther fearch. "B.

"You are not the first perfon who has been mifled by a fanciful etymology. Take heed that your derivations be not of the fame ridiculous caft with theirs who deduced Conftantinople from Conflantine the noble,-Breeches from bear-riches,Donna from Dono-and King Pepin from org.

"H.

"If I have been mifled, it most certainly is not by etymology of which I confefs myfelf to have been fhamefully ignorant at the time when theie my notions of language were firit formed. Though even that previous ignorance is now a circumstance which confirms me much in my opinion concerning these Conjunctions: for I knew not even the character of the language from which my particular proofs of the English Conjunctions were to be drawn. And (notwithstanding lord Monboddo's difcouraging fneer), it was general reafoning a priori, that led me to the particular inftances; not particular inftances to the general reafoning. This etyE 4

mology,

importance from knowing them. But the regularity thereby established, though highly proper, is by no means the first requifite in a dramatic compofition. Even waving all confideration of thofe finer feelings which a poet's imagination or fenfibility imparts, there is, within the colder provinces of judgment and of knowledge, a fubject for criticism, more worthy of attention than the common topics of difcuffion: I mean the diftinction and prefervation of character, without which the piece is at best a tale, not an action; for the actors in it are not produced upon the fcene. They were diftinguifh ed by character; all men are; by that we know them, by that we are interested in their fortunes; by that their conduct, their fentiments, their very language is formed; and whenever, therefore, the proper marks of it are milling, we immediately perceive that the perfon before our eyes is but fuppofititious. Experience has fhewn, that how ever rigidly, and however rightly, the unities of action, time, and place have been infifted on, they may be difpenfed with, and the magic of the fcene may make the abfurdity invifible. Most of Shakefpeare's plays abound with inftances of fuch a fafcination. It is certain, too, that it is not always neceffary ftrongly to affect, in order warmly to interest, the fpectators: for many tragedies, which are not pathetic, are yet very engaging; and many comedies are amuting, though almost deftitute of humour: and as to the beauties of poetry and of fancy, in fome very fit fubjects for a theatrical exhibition, they cannot be properly admitted; and very few abfolutely require them. But variety and truth of character are indifpenfably neceffary to all,

both to comedy and to tragedy; and none of them deferve their name any farther than this merit belongs to them. Incidents, images, pallions, language, and numbers, are common to dramatic and to other compofitions; they might all be introduced into the relation of an affecting ftory; but characters can never be perfectly exhibited, except in a drama. When they, therefore, are wanting, the want cannot be fupplied, nor can it be concealed; the delufion fails, and the intereft ceafes; the performers can only recite, they have nothing to act: for the performance is but a dialogue, not a reprefentation; and must be received by the dif appointed fpectators, at the best, with indifference.

"By the feeble attempts which every dramatic writer makes to characterize his perfonages, and by the rude fketches which fome critics have drawn of a few dramatic characters, the truth of these principles is acknowledged, but the extent of them is not illuftrated; for general marks of distinction do not denote the individual, but only fhew the clafs he belongs to. Men differ as much in their minds as in their faces; and to each man belong fome general marks of di. ftinction in both: his complexion is brown, or it is fair; his features are hard or foft; and there is an expreffion of vivacity of fenfibility or of vacancy, in the construction and motion of his eyes. But faces, agreeing in many fuch circumftances, are not therefore, upon the whole, like to each other: nor would a picture be the portrait of any individual, to whom, in all thefe, and in many more particu lars, it were fimilar, unless the painter had alfo caught thofe peculiarities of countenance, which di

ftinguish

ftinguish that perfon from all others who have the fame caft of features, and the fame tint of complexion. In like manner do the minds of men differ from each other. There are in thefe alfo general marks of diflinction; quickncis, or clearnefs, or want of apprehenfion; a feverity or a mildness of temper; tendernefs or violence in the paffions. But no affemblage of thefe will together form the character of any individual: for he has fome predominant principle; there is a certain proportion in which his qualities are mixed; and each affects the other. Thofe qualities check that principle, though at the fame time they are themfelves controuled by it for nothing is abfolutely pure and fimple in his compotition; and, therefore, if his peculiarities do not appear, no refemblance of him can be seen.

"The force of character is fo Strong, that the most violent paffions do not prevail over it; on the contrary, it directs them, and gives a particular turn to all their operations. The most pathetic expreffions, therefore, of the paffions are not true, if they are not accommodated to the character of the perfon fuppofed to feel them; and the effect upon the fpectators will be weak, when fo much of the reality is wanting in the imitation. Such general expreffions of the paffions are, in poetry, like thofe which in painting are called Studies; and which, unless they are adapted to the features, circumftances, and difpofitions of the feveral perfonages, to whofe figures they are applied, remain mere ftudies ftill, and do not connect with the portrait or hiftory-piece into which they are introduced.

"Yet the generality of dramatic writers, and more efpecially of

thofe who have chofen tragedy for their fubject, have contented themfelves with the distant refemblance, which indifcriminate expreffions of paffion, and imperfect, becaufe general marks of character, can give. Elevated ideas become the hero; a profeffed contempt of all principles denotes a villain; frequent gufts of rage betray violence, and tender fentiments fhew a mildnets, of difpofition. But a villain differs not more from a faint, than he does in fome particulars from another as bad as himself and the fame degrees of anger, excited by the fame occations, break forth in as many feveral fhapes, as there are various tempers. But thefe diftinguishing peculiarities between man and man, have too often efcaped the obfervation of tragic writers. The comic writers have, indeed, frequently caught them; but then they are apt to fall into an excefs the other way, and overcharge their imitations: they do not fuffer a character to fhew itself, but are continually pointing it out to observation; and by thus bidding the fpeétator take notice of the likenefs, tell him all the while that it is but a representation. The former is commonly the defect of the French tragedies, which are therefore inlipid, even when they abound with poetry and paffion: and the latter is a fault common in the English comedies, which makes them difgufting, though they are full of wit, good fenfe, and humour. The one falls fhort of character, the other runs into caricature; that wants refemblance, and this is mere mimickry.

"Shakespeare has generally avoided both extremes; and, however faulty in fome refpects, is in this, the moft effential part of the drama, confidered as a repre

fentation,