or thus ; Come penfive nun, devout and pure, Hail thou goddess fage and holy, Yet so true is his remark also, that "the difference between this (latter) and the complete four-footed me fure, is fuch, in recitation, that it appears of quite another character," that probably few perfons would divide them into feet otherwise than by putting the accented fyllable uniformly at the beginning of a foot, and leaving the fingle fyllable at the end; thus, or these, Pénfive | nún delvóut and | púre Táke Otáke thy lips alway That fo fweetly were fortsworn. This gives a kind of fcazontic or limping effect to the meafure, which, though not unpleasant, is certainly peculiar. It is not obferved by Mr. M., but we believe it is certainly true, that this kind of metre never admits any change of place in the accents. In the feventh fection the author fketches out the hiftory of English verfification; it is traced, however, chiefly in an inverted order, beginning with the lateft, and going back to the earliest English and Saxon writers. Much of curious remark certainly occurs in this fection, yet we cannot think that it is equal in perfpicuity or arrangement to its predeceffors. The eighth and following feftions, ending with the fourteenth, take up a more learned fubject, the hiflory, pronunciation, and peculiarities, as to harmony, of the Greek and Latin languages. On thefe difficult points Mr. M. treats with perfpicuity and learning; and we are much inclined to think that he is generally right in his pofitions. Nor have we ever feen the difficulties of accent and quantity fo cleared up in any other work. Mr. M. proves, as indeed others have proved, and as is clear and undeniable, that our accuflomed pronunciation of the learned languages is faulty in the highest degree; even with refpect to the quantities, which we pretend to obferve. To the reader perhaps, who is not pre pared by the previous matter in the book, the affertions in the following paffage may feem paradoxical, yet we have no doubt that that they are ftrictly true; as they will be acknowledged to be by every candid reader of the work. "The truth, let it not offend, is, that the harmony produced by Italian, and English scholars in their pronuntiation of Latin verfe, however pleafing, is riot harmony of quantity but harmony of accent; the verfe, as they fpeak it, is not metrical, but like their vernacular verfe, accentual. A Latin hexameter is, in the pronuntiation of English scholars, not a verse, of fix feet of the even rhythmus, and that rhythmus decided by fimple meafure of time, or arrangement of quantities, but it is a verse of five feet of the triple rhythmus, and the rhythmus indicated by arrangement of accents. A hexameter verfe, to please us, must have five ftrong accents: the three former whether on long or fhort fyllables matters not: the two laft must be on fyllables long by rule. But the modern ear is carelefs about length of fyl lables in pronuntiation: the fyllables on which the two laft ftrong accents fall may be fhort in pronuntiation, without offence to the modern ear; which requires them on fyllables long by rule, not through any regard for length of fyllables, but because the antient rule of verfe requires long fyllables where the modern ear requires the two last strong accents." P. 240. If we are thus unhappy in fpeaking the Latin verfe, what are we with the Greek? Evidently much worfe. We pronounce it like the Latin, we force it by our pronunciation to take the fame cadence, which we give improperly to the Latin; and having thus driven it out of all relation to the original principles of its construction, we are totally unable to reconcile its own accentuation, either with the cadence we compel it to take, or with the measure which we acknowledge it to have. This we cannot here explain. We have seldom indeed met with a book more difficult than the prefent, to be represented in an abridged account; we have, however, en deavoured to take out fome of the leading points, which if the reader would wifh to fee fully proved and illuftrated he can only have recourfe to the book itself. In the fifteenth fection the author proceeds to modern languages, and in fix diftinct articles or fubdivifions, gives an account of the principal among them, with refpect to har mony and the mechanifm of Verfe. The obfervations on the modern Greek, in the fourth article of this fection (p. 318.) are particularly interefting and curious. With the fixteenth fection, on euphony or cacophony, properly ends the subject of the book. But though the feventeenth which treats on graminar, and the eighteenth which is a good deal miscellaneous, are not ftrictly a part of the work, they are, on many accounts, extremely valuable. We cannot more fully prove this than by extracting the rules Cc s for for diftinguishing the auxiliaries fhall and will, of the origin of which Mr. M. gives the following candid account. "A manufcript treatife on English grammar, unfortunately little more than begun, by the late Mr. Thomas Whateley, fe cretary of the treafury under Mr. George Grenville, was feve ral years ago, but not till after the author's death, put into my hands. It promised to have been, had it been finished, the com poteft analyfis extant of any language. I have often regretted that I did not profit more from it while I had the means; I made no notes from it, but his explanation of the English future has remained in my memory. Auxiliary verbs, he faid, are non of them meer auxiliaries; all have their proper powers as principal or fubftantive verbs. To will is yet in English a complete verb, declaring the act of volition in general. Shall is no longer a complete verb, but its independent meaning is neverthelefs clear; it declares volition alfo, but volition directed to a particular object, indicating the intention to compel. English verbs then, not having, as thofe of fome other languages, the convenience of an appropriate form to indicate futurity, are af fifted by the expedient, common in other languages for other tenfes, of introducing an auxiliary verb. The verb to will prefented itself, marking futurity clearly, and, for the fecond and third perfons, commodioufly; becaufe, as we can exercife no vo lition for others, its power of indicating volition introduces no ambiguity; it can imply futurity only. But for the first perfon it is far from equally commodious; because it cannot there mark futurity exclufively of volition. Refort therefore was had to the verb hall, which indicates futurity equally as will; and, as we cannot exercife volition for others, fo neither do we exercife compulfion upon ourselves. In the first perfon, therefore, fball indicates fimple futurity, as clearly as will in the fecond and third. The proper English future tenfe then is not, as it ftands in all our grammars. I hall or will go, they shalt or wilt go, and fo forth. The phrafes I will go, thou shalt go, be shall go, we will go, you shall go, they shall go, are not future tenfe; the the verbs will and ball, in thofe phrafes, are not auxiliary but principal verbs, declaring volition concerning the action indicated by the verb go. The proper English future runs fimply, I fhall go, thou wilt go, he will go, we shall go, you will go, they will go. P. 377. Though this ftatement is perfectly correct, Mr. M. is ap prehenfive that he may not have done full juftice to the clearnefs and precifion of Mr. Whateley; however this may be, we cannot but regret that a work which contained things fo excellent fhould be loft to the public. We are willing to hope that after being thus pointed out, it may even yet prove to be recoverable. We cannot hesitate to pronounce the prefent treatife alto getber gether one of the most curious we have ever feen. But it is a work for the ftudious and scientific, not for popular admiration. The peculiarities of the ingenious author's ftyle have been remarked we believe in his other writings, but they cannot be any where more confpicuous than in fome parts of this book; particularly in the opening of the fe venth fection. He has alfo a few peculiarities of orthography, but not enough to give much offence, even to a faftidious reader. We have not often been more amufed than by the lines which this author produces, as written by Monf. Girardin, at Ermenonville, on a monument erected to the memory of Shenftone. "This plain stone To William Shenstone. In his writings he difplay'd A mind natural. At Leafowes he laid Arcadian greens rural." P. 253. Mr. Girardin, who could read and tranflate English with fa cility, fuppofed thefe lines to contain not only English phrafe but English verfe. How far they are remote 'trom either, every Englishman muft feel; and they are properly introduced to show how difficult it is for a foreigner to catch the idioms and harmony of a language not native to him. Mr. Mitford regrets, as other learned men have done, that the English nation never formed an academy, like that of the French, to polifh and to fix their language; and this regret introduces a teftimony in favour of our great lexicographer, amply overbalancing many cavils urged against his noble work. "But the fpirit of trade," fays Mr. M. " among its extraordinary operations in this country, has done that for literature, which the fpirit of literature itself feems rather to have fco:ned. A fociety of bookfellers, employing SAMUEL JOHNSON, produced that highly valuable work, imperfect as it is, a ftupendous work for a single man, his ENGLISH DICTIONARY." P. 376. Mr. Mitford is well qualified to pronounce this, having ftudied his native language, as well as many others, with care and accuracy. Nor will the prefent treatife on its harmony, compared with that of others, be ever confidered by found judges as a trivial proof of his merit. ART. III. Comicorum Græcorum Fragmenta, &c. (Concluded from p. 143.) WE refume our account of this publication. P. 28. v. II. " aliquando notat feneftram." Pierfon. ad Marin."-So alfo the Etymol. Mag. v. own, fays, "oh nugíms σε ἐπὴ κυρίως τόπος τετρήμενος ἀφ ̓ ὅ τις δύναται ἀπήσασθαι, καὶ περιβλεψάσθαι· ἔτως ̓Αριςόνικος ἐν σημείοις. Suidas probably gave a fimilar explanation. We now, indeed, find in him οπὴ, νύκτερις, ἢ διάτρησις. But νύκτερις is evidently a grofs blunder of fome copyift: and we effeem that conjecture to be not far from truth, which would fubftitute for it Begis, i. e. feneftra. Ρ. 28. ν. 16. σε καὶ τῶδ ̓ ἕκασην ἐςὶν ἀδεῶς, εὐτελῶς. Mr. W. propofes ἔχειν τιν' for ἑκάςην (for fo it fhould be accented). We prefer, ΩΝ ἔς ̓ ἔχειν ἑκάσην ἀδεῶς, εὐτελῶς. Ρ. 30. 1. 3. σε όψοφάγον· εἶτα πολύποδα σηχῶν δυεῖν, In his obfervations on this paffage, Mr. W. very confidently fays, Ne metrum claudicaret, recte refcripfit Grotius πολόποδα pro πολύποδα"; we, on the contrary, befitate not to pronounce weλuroda to be inadmiffible. Grotius, as a tranflator, is unrivalled; but with the niceties of the Attic ftage he does not feem to have been fully acquainted. Hence it is, that on this and fome other occafions, he has attempted to falve the metre at the expence of propriety. On a very fimilar alteration proposed by the fame fcholar, the eminent Dr. Bentley writes thus: • Πολύς inquit Grotius pro πολὺς ob verfum pofui. Nollem equidem hoc viro magno excidiffet. Neque enim eus Ionicum in Comico Attico locum habet, neque verfus eâ medicinâ eget, &c." BENT. ad Phal. 116. So alfo Toup, fpeaking of an emendation propofed by Upton, remarks, "Sed in fcena Attica res agitur: quare nullus locus Ionico illo se." To thefe confiderations we may add, that the common form wehúzod occurs in this very fragment a few *So alfo fays Hemfterhuis in a paffage quoted by Mr. W. in his preface. |