of Logic; on each of which we fhall proceed to offer a few obfervations.

By far the greater part of the work is devoted to the fubject of Belles Lettres, or Polite Literature, as it is otherwise called by the Profeffor; a fubject which has confiderably exercifed the ingenuity of modern as well as of ancient writers. This branch of knowledge may be contemplated under two afpects: either as an art or as a fcience. As an art, it profeffes no more than to lay down a certain set of practical rules, by the judicious application of which, a writer or fpeaker may avoid thofe inaccuracies into which uninftructed genius is ever prone to fall; and may even attain no inconfiderable fhare of praife for merit of execution: as a fcience, it profeffes a nobler and more difficult object. It endeavours to analyse the hidden fources of our difguft or approbation, refpecting the various fpecies of compofition; it fearches into the human mind for the caufes of our delight or difpleafure; and it deduces its maxims and precepts from an investigation of the peculiar objects to which the different species of compofition are properly addreffed, and an examination of the genuine principles of human nature.

The writings of the ancients on the fubject of compofition, however high their merit confeffedly is, belong rather to the first than to the fecond of these claffes. They contain more of practical rules than of philofophical fpeculation; they abound rather with maxims fitted for the immediate ufe of the writer or speaker, than with theoretical inquiries concerning the foundation of thefe maxims. Ariftotle, the father of this interefting branch of knowledge, has given us many admirable rules for the conduct of the two great fpecies of poetry, the Epic and Dramatic; but has feldom inquired into the principles of human nature, upon which his rules are founded. Cicero has left many valuable precepts for the conduct of an oration, which will always be of peculiar eftimation, as coming from one who was himself the prince of orators. Quintilian has handled this fubject in a yet fuller and more fatisfactory manner; but in both writers, we find rather a variety of ufeful rules, than a philofophical investigation of the foundation of thofe rules. Even Longinus can fcarcely be confidered as a philofophical Critic, although a treatife concerning the Sublime was fo naturally fitted to prompt to philofophical inquiry.

The philofophy of criticifm may therefore be confidered as a branch of fcience referved for the moderns; and it is a branch of fcience in which doubtlefs much yet remains to be done; although we are ready to admit that much has been accomplished. The French critics feem to have fet us the

example of introducing philofophical inquiry into the Belles Lettres. In the writings of Boffa, of Du Bos, of Fontenelle, of D'Alembert, and of Marmontel, are to be found many ingenious fpeculations of this kind, in which it is attempted to trace the various fources of our pleasure or displeasure; to afcertain the caufes of the gratification which accompanies the emotions of pity, terror, admiration, and the like; and to lay down precepts founded upon this interefting analysis of the principles of human nature. Among English writers, Addifon led the way, in his Effays on the Pleafures of Ima gination, published in the Spectator; and he was followed by Mr. Burke, who, to much philofophical acumen, united the fineft tafte in writing; though the fubject was by no means exhaufted in his Inquiry into the nature of the Sublime and Beautiful.

Many of Mr. Barron's more immediate countrymen have, of late years, devoted their talents to the elucidation of criticifm, as a branch of the philofophy of the human mind. Such was the object which Lord Kaimes feems to have proposed to himfelf in his Elements of Criticifm. It was the more profeffed intention of Dr. Campbell's Philofophy of Rhetoric, and of Dr. Gerard's Effays on Tafte and Genius, It does not, however, seem to have been much aimed at in Dr. Blair's wellknown Lectures; nor does it appear to us that the prefent author will be confidered as having greatly advanced in this interefting field of inquiry.

66

Mr. Barron's firft Lecture is introductory, and is intended to prove the great utility of the ftudy of criticifm, both to the profeffed author or speaker, and to thofe who are to be amed or inftructed by the labours of others. His Lec. tures, he informs us, are defigned, in the first place, to affift those whofe genius and ambition may prompt them to become orators, or writers; and, in the fecond place, to improve the difcernment and feelings of thofe who wish to derive from reading an elegant amufement, or an increase of knowledge. They will be ferviceable," he thinks," to the orator and writer, by cultivating their tafte and their judg ment, the chief inftruments of eminence in compofition. They will improve tafte, by inveftigating and illuftrating the principles of criticifm, and by examining the accuracy, the propriety, and the elegance of expreffion.'

He takes notice of an objection, which has been often ftated against the ftudy of criticifm, viz, that its rules tend rather to embarrass than to affift the genius of a writer; and that though they may render a compofition regular, they can never infufe into it that vigour and warmth which can alone procure the praise of fuperior excellence. This objection

A a 2

ought

ought to have received a fuller refutation than Mr. Barron has bestowed upon it; for it is fupported by many plausible arguments. This author difmiffes it with a fingle fentence, and merely informs us, that those who defend this opinion, argue from imperfect views of the fubject. He is likewife rather unfortunate in felecting Shakefpeare, as an example of an author whose works furnishan argument for the uselessness of the critical art. For furely there are few writers who might have been more truly benefited by fome knowledge of the rules of compofition than our immortal bard. The inimitable effufions of his genius, his intimate knowledge of the human heart, and the irrefiflible impulfe with which he affects the pallions, will always call forth the rapturous ap plause of every reader of tafte. But fuch a reader must ever regret, that the exuberances of this firft of geniufes were not fomewhat pruned by the hand of cultivation; that his quibbles and ribaldry were not entirely lopt off; and that he had not been taught to offer lefs violation to probability, by fhowing more regard to the unities of time and place.

The plan which Mr. Barron lays down for his critical dif quifitions, after this prefatory matter, is, to treat-I. Of the ftructure of language, and the properties of ftyle. II. Of fpoken language, or eloquence, as proper for deliberative aflemblies, courts of juftice, and the pulpit. III. Of written language, or the moft eminent kinds of compofition in profe and verse.

In the profecution of this plan, the author proceeds to offer some remarks refpecting the progrefs of language from rudeness to refinement; the origin of words, and the changes to which they are naturally fubject. At the outlet of this inquiry, we obferve a fingular inaccuracy refpecting the meaning of the word articulate, which certainly has no etymological reference to man, although the Profeffor writes as if it had. The founds of spoken language, he fays, "are called articulate, on account of the diftinétnefs and variety with which they are pronounced, and becaufe they are in a great meafure confined to the human fpecies." This, however, we país by, to animadvert on fome paffages in which we think the Profeffor by much too dogmatical and unguarded.

"Some inquirers," Mr. Barron informs us, aftonifhed at the fingular artifice with which language has been conftructed, and impreffed with admiration at this remarkable effort of ingenuity, "have been tempted to confider it as fupernatural, and have ventured to affign infpiration as the only fuppofeable origin of language. But," adds he, "the whole hif tory of its progrefs, and the refult of daily obfervation,

oppole

oppofe this fuppofition, if they do not even expofe it to ridicule." Now, Mr. Barron ought to have confidered, that the fuppofition which he is thus inclined to hold up to ridicule, is greatly countenanced by the book of Genefis; and that it was by no means incumbent on him to impress his pupils with any difrefpect for that work.

We take this opportunity of obferving, that we can see no difficulty whatever in reconciling the fcriptural account of the origin of language with thofe ingenious philofophical fpeculations refpecting the fame fubject, which have of late interefted the public, and which, in a great many particulars, we certainly think well founded. The fecond chapter of Genefis informs us,-"That out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam, to fee what he would call them; and whatfoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field." From this we may infer, either that the names which Adam gave to the different objects of creation were the refult of the immediate infpiration of God, or that he was endowed with fuch organs of utterance by the Almighty, as to be able to give appellations at once, and of his own accord, to all thefe objects.

It is well known, that to speak articulately, is a piece of education which we at prefent acquire only at the expence of much time and labour. It is the chief employment of the child during the first years of its exiftence; and if we may judge from the few examples of favage men, who have been brought into fociety when paft the age of childhood, it is a work of almoft infuperable difficulty to the human organs when fully formed, and can only be attained when they are in their most flexible ftate. Hence there appears a fort of neceffity for an immediate interpofition of the divine power, to enable man firft to make use of articulate founds, and to overcome thofe difficulties which at prefent render this task almost infurmountable at an age of maturity. But it does not follow, from this fuppofition, that language was revealed to man in its complete and finifhed ftate. According to the information of fcripture, the original language of Adam may have confifted of nothing more than a fet of names, or appellatives; and it might be left to the ingenuity of himself, and his pofterity, to model these names into a fet of words, which fhould be fuitable to all the purpofes of life. The inveftigations of our philofophical grammarians are in perfect conformity to these conclufions. The moft ingenious of them

have been able to trace the various parts of fpeech to a few fimple roots; and to fhow in what manner, and by what modifications thefe roots have given birth to forms of words, which, at first fight, appear altogether remote from them. But they have gone no farther than this; and do not pretend to inform us by what happy infpiration it was that men were firft led to invent their original flock of words.

After fome curfory obfervations upon the figurative and animated flyle, in which a rude people are prone to indulge, Mr. Barron proceeds to inquire into the revolutions to which language is naturally expofed in refpect to melody, or found, "It is commonly fuppofed," he fays, "that the pronunciation of the ancient languages was more mufical than that of the modern; that the Greeks and Romans fpoke in a kind of recitative; at leaf, that they poffeffed the art of introducing into their fpeech much more modulation, and many more mufical tones, than are employed by any modern nation.' This doctrine, Mr. Barron is by no means difpofed to admit, chiefly, it would feem, for this reason, that he cannot understand it. "The tones of mufic," he fays,

are not the natural language of paffion, and the language of nature is the fame in all ages and countries." He even thinks he has made it plain-" that there is no connection between fpeaking and mufic, other than between speaking and the noife of a bell, or the roaring of the fea, namely, the general relation of their being all founds."

But did not Mr. Barron know, that the different nations, even of modern Europe, ufe very various degrees of modulation of voice in their cuftomary way of fpcaking? To an Englishman, the diverfitics of tone which a Frenchman employs in common converfation, and ftill more in reading or reciting, appear ftrange and unnatural; and the language of an Italian to an Englifh ear, approaches nearer to finging than to fpeaking. It is not then frictly true, that "the language of nature," in refpect at leaft of tones, "is the fame in all ages and countries."

It may be admitted, according to Mr. Barron, that the fulμès of the Greeks, and numerus of the Romans, related merely to the length of fyllables, and the measurement of poetic feet. It is not upon the employment of thefe terms by the ancient Critics, that we reft the principal evidence for the musical recitation of the Greeks and Romans. That fuch a recitation was adopted in all their theatrical performances, there is at Icaft the higheft probability, as has been amply fhown by the Abbé du Bes, and other critics. It is to this that the modos fecit and the tibiis dextris et finiftris, prefixed to the

common