aversion. We do not easily pardon those who wish to impose upon us by this air of consequence and selfsufficiency.

The duke of Rochefoucauld said, "Gravity is a mysteriousness of body assumed in order to conceal defects of mind." Without investigating whether the phrase "mysteriousness of body" is natural and judicious, it is sufficient to observe that the remark is applicable to all who affect gravity, but not to those who merely exhibit a gravity suitable to the office they hold, the place where they are, or the business in which they are engaged.

A grave author is one whose opinions relate to matters obviously disputable. We never apply the term to one who has written on subjects which admit no doubt or controversy. It would be ridiculous to call Euclid and Archimedes grave authors.

Gravity is applicable to style. Livy and de Thou have written with gravity. The same observation cannot with propriety be applied to Tacitus, whose object was brevity, and who has displayed malignity; still less can it be applied to cardinal de Retz, who sometimes infuses into his writings a misplaced gaiety, and sometimes even forgets decency.

The grave style declines all sallies of wit or pleasantry if it sometimes reaches the sublime, if on any particular occasion it is pathetic, it speedily returns to the didactic wisdom and noble simplicity which habitually characterise it: it possesses strength without daring. Its greatest difficulty is to avoid monotony. A grave affair (affaire), a grave case (cas), is used rather concerning a criminal than a civil process. A grave disease implies danger.

GREAT-GREATNESS.

Of the Meaning of these Words.

GREAT is one of those words which are most frequently used in a moral sense, and with the least con

* Shaftesbury, still better, calls "gravity of the essence of imposture."

sideration and judgment. Great man, great genius, great captain, great philosopher, great poet; we mean by this language "one who has far exceeded ordinary limits." But, as it is difficult to define those limits, the epithet great is often applied to those who possess only mediocrity.

This term is less vague and doubtful when applied to material than to moral subjects. We know what is meant by a great storm, a great misfortune, a great disease, great property, great misery.

The term large (gros) is sometimes used with respect to subjects of the latter description, that is, material ones, as equivalent to great, but never with respect to moral subjects. We say large property for great wealth, but not a large captain for a great captain, or a large minister for a great minister. Great financier means a man eminently skilful in matters of national finance; but gros financier expresses merely a man who has become wealthy in the department of finance.

The great man is more difficult to be defined than the great artist. In an art or profession, the man who has far distanced his rivals, or who has the reputation of having done so, is called great in his art, and appears, therefore, to have required merit of only one description, in order to obtain this eminence; but the great man must combine different species of merit. Gonzalva, surnamed the great captain, who observed that "the web of honour was coarsely woven," was never called a great man. It is more easy to name those to whom this high distinction should be refused, than those to whom it should be granted. The denomination appears to imply some great virtues. All agree that Cromwell was the most intrepid general, the most profound statesman, the man best qualified to conduct a party, a parliament, or an army, of his day; yet no writer ever gives him the title of great man; because, although he possessed great qualities, he possessed not a single great virtue.

This title seems to fall to the lot only of the small number of men who have been distinguished at once by virtues, exertions, and success. Success is essen

tial, because the man who is always unfortunate is supposed to be so by his own fault.

Great (grand), by itself, expresses some dignity. In Spain it is a high and most distinguishing appellative (grandee) conferred by the king on those whom he wishes to honour. The grandees are covered in the presence of the king, either before speaking to him, or after having spoken to him, or while taking their seats with the rest.

Charles the Fifth confirmed the privileges of grandeeship on sixteen principal noblemen. That emperor himself afterwards granted the same honours to many others. His successors, each in his turn, have added to the number. The Spanish grandees have long claimed to be considered of equal rank and dignity with the electors and the princes of Italy. At the court of France they have the same honours as peers.

The title of great has been always given, in France, to many of the chief officers of the crown-as great seneschal, great master, great chamberlain, great equerry, great pantler, great huntsman, great falconer, &c. These titles were given them to distinguish their pre-eminence above the persons serving in the same departments under them. The distinction is not given to the constable, nor to the chancellor, nor to the marshals, although the constable is the chief of all the household officers, the chancellor the second person in the state, and the marshal the second officer in the army. The reason obviously is, that they had no deputies, no vice-constables, vice-marshals, vice-chancellors, but officers under another denomination, who executed their orders, while the great steward, great chamberlain, and great equerry, &c. had stewards, chamberlains, and equerries, &c. under them.

Great (grand) in connection with seigneur, "great lord," has a signification more extensive and uncertain. We give this title of grand seigneur (seignor) to the Turkish sultan, who assumes that of pacha, to which the expression grand seignor does not correspond. The expression "un grand," a "great man," is used in speaking of a man of distinguished birth, invested with

dignities, but it is used only by the common people. A person of birth or consequence never applies the term to any one. As the words great lord (grand seigneur) are commonly applied to those who unite birth, dignity, and riches, poverty seems to deprive a man of the right to it, or at least to render it inappropriate or ridiculous. Accordingly, we say a poor gentleman, but not a poor grand seigneur.

Great (grand) is different from mighty (puissant). A man may at the same time be both one and the other, but puissant implies the possession of some office of power and consequence. "Grand" indicates more show and less reality: the "puissant" commands, the "grand" possesses honours.

There is greatness (grandeur) in mind, in sentiments, in manners, and in conduct. The expression is not used in speaking of persons in the middling classes of society, but only of those who, by their rank, are bound to show nobility and elevation. It is perfectly true, that a man of the most obscure birth and connec tions may have more greatness of mind than a monarch. But it would be inconsistent with the usual phraseology to say, "that merchant or that farmer acted greatly" (avec grandeur); unless, indeed, in very particular circumstances, and placing certain characters in striking opposition, we should, for example, make such a remark as the following:- "The celebrated merchant who entertained Charles the Fifth in his own house, and lighted a fire of cinnamon wood with that prince's bond to him for fifty thousand ducats, displayed more greatness of soul than the emperor."

The title of "greatness" (grandeur) was formerly given to various persons possessing stations of dignity. French clergymen, when writing to bishops, still call them your greatness.' Those titles, which are lavished by sycophancy, and caught at by vanity, are now little used.

Haughtiness is often mistaken for greatness (grandeur.) He who is ostentatious of greatness, displays, vanity. But one becomes weary and exhausted with writing about greatness. According to the lively re

mark of Montaigne," we cannot obtain it, let us therefore take our revenge by abusing it."

GREEK.

Observations upon the Extinction of the Greek Language at Marseilles.

It is exceedingly strange that, as Marseilles was founded by a Greek colony, scarcely any vestige of the Greek language is to be found in Provence, Languedoc, or any district of France; for we cannot consider as Greek the terms which were taken, at a comparatively modern date, from the Latins, and which had been adopted by the Romans themselves from the Greeks so many centuries before. We received those only at second hand. We have no right to say that we abandond the word Got for that of Theos, rather than that of Deus, from which, by a barbarous termination, we have made Dieu.

It is clear that the Gauls, having received the Latin language with the Roman laws, and having afterwards received from those same Romans the christian religion, adopted from them all the terms which were connected with that religion. These same Gauls did not acquire, until a very late period, the Greek terms which relate to medicine, anatomy, and surgery.

After deducting all the words originally Greek which we have derived through the Latin, and all the anatomical and medical terms which were, in comparison, so recently acquired, there is scarcely anything left; for surely, to derive "abreger" from "brakus," rather than from "abreviare;" "acier" from "axi," rather than from "acies;" "acre" from "agros," rather than from "ager;" and "aile" from "ily," rather than from "ala;"-this, I say, would surely be perfectly ridiculous.

Some have even gone so far as to say that "omelette" comes from "omeilaton," because "meli,” in Greek, signifies honey, and "oon," an egg. In the "Garden of Greek Roots," there is a more curious de