ing them conjointly, they mutually throw much illustration on one

another.'

If to this passage any objection will be made, it is in that part which so decidedly pronounces against the opinion, that mankind owe the origin of language to inspiration; we find nothing in the book of Genesis to justify such a suggestion, while the diversity of languages serves completely to refute it. We may with equal reason attribute to this source the origin of music, dying, printing, spinning, &c.

The next lecture considers Inversions, which form such a prominent feature in the Greek and Latin languages, and is on the whole tolerably correct.

Mr. Barron presents us with three lectures on the Principles of Grammar; and one on Adverbs, Prepositions, Conjunctions, and Interjections, which correspond with those of his predecessor on the Structure of Language.

While the following extract from the fourth lecture will manifest the confused reasoning in which the author is frequently bewildered when he loses sight of his guide, it will also furnish a favourable specimen of his style:

The elegant languages of Greece and Rome employed the male and female genders to denote real difference of sex ; but by an arrangement somewhat extraordinary, they constituted a third or neuter gender, altogether without foundation in nature. Powerful as the inBuence of custom is over language, it seldom deviates very far from nature without necessity; and by a little attention to the structure of these languages, we perceive a reason for this phenomenon. One of two expedients seems to have been necessary; either to confine the genders of language to the two of nature,-to allow two terminations to adjectives, suited to these genders, and consequently to arrange all the substantives expressive of substances destitute of sex, under those of male or female; or, to place the males under one gender, the females under another, to form a third of those substantives which were naturally neither male nor female, and to allow three terminations to adjectives, adapted to this classification of substantives. These circumstances, it is obvious, rendered the deviation from nature necessary, and it is difficult to determine which of these expedients was the least exceptionable. The latter was thought preferable by the Greeks and Romans; the former has been adopted by the Itallians, the French, and the Spaniards. In the languages of Greece and Rome, accordingly, three genders are introduced, and almost all their adjectives are formed with their terminations corresponding to these genders; in which they have been followed by the modern Greeks. In the languages of Italy, France, and Spain, two genders only have been admitted; all their neuter nouns have been made either masculine or feminine, and two genders have been allotted to their adjectives, suited to the classification of their substantives.

The English language possesses the merit of being an exact copy of nature in respect of gender; and it has acquired this merit, by allow

F4

ing

ing no distinction of gender to its adjectives. Though the rejection of gender in our adjectives may appear to impair the concord and relations of our words, and, consequently, to circumscribe the variety of our arrangements, yet the propriety of our practice in this respect is founded on reason. What are adjectives? They are a class of words which explain and ascertain the signification of substantives, by de noting some qualities or properties which belong to them. The ad. jectives black, white, great, little, round, square, express attributes only of the substantives to which they are conjoined, and have no useful or communicable meaning abstracted from their principals.'

In treating of Articles in the succeeding lecture, the Professor attempts to establish a curious distinction:

In respect of articles, our own is, perhaps, the most perfect lans guage in the world. The Greek. the French, the Italian, and the Spanish, possess only the definite article. The Greeks, indeed, supplied the place of the indefinite article, by the absence of the definite; the Italians, the Spaniards, and the French, by the adjective one.'

Here the advantage in avoiding occasionl ambiguity, which our forefathers gained by dividing their ane into one, a, or any as they wished to designate an object with a greater or less degree of numerical strictness, is magnified into the exclusive possession of the ind finite article; an absurdity into which it might have been suppesed that no one in the least acquainted, with these languages would have fallen. It is fortunate for the German grammarians that Mr. Barron was apparently unac quainted with their Lnguage; since the great and little E, with which they endeavour to distinguish their Ein, adjective, and ein, article, would scarcely have saved the latter from this extensive proscription.

Professor B. has entered rather largely into the theory of modes, tenses, &c. respecting which he affords as much (or, more properly speaking as little) information as the most part of his predecessors. Perhaps we have no greater desideratum in philosophical grammar than a just account of the origin and formation of the modes and tenses of verbs; with respect to which, a simple and rational theory would be equally gratifying to the philologist and the practical linguist.

The succeeding Lectures are distinguished from their prototypes in Blair chiefly by their arrangement, one peculiarity of which consists in regularly introducing an important subject towards the end of one Lecture, and finishing it at the beginning of another; a mode of distribution which appears with as little grace as in the broken narrative of Scheherazade, and without offering the same excuse.

It not unfrequently happens that the author places the opinions of others in a false or obscure point of view, and then pronounces them to be unsatisfactory and absurd:

All the ancient rhetoricians have treated of the nature of periods but there is either something uncommonly relined in the topic, or they have been less successful in this quarter than in any other department of their subject. Even Aristotle's definition, which has been adopted and applauded by Demetrius Phalereus, must be acknowledged to be obscure and unsatisfactory. "What I call a period," says he, in his third book of rhetoric, "is a portion of composition, which has a beginning and an end, and fills a space which may be comprehended in one view."

That a period is a portion of composition, will readily be admitted; but what information concerning its specific properties is to be derived from the predicate of the definition, which acquain's us, that it has a beginning and an end, and fills a space comprehensible in one view? There are many objects in nature, to which this definition may be applied with equal propriety. It may describe a word, a line, a page, as well as a period; and it will communicate equal information about them all. It is to be regretted, that this profound critic and philosopher was sometimes more ambitious to advance what was uncommon, than what was instructive; more intent to ex. cite the admiration of his reader, than to extend his knowledge.'

These strictures are neither candid nor well founded. The passage in question is, Λέγω δε περίοδον λέξιν ἔχουσαν αρχην καὶ τελειν καθ' αυτήν, καὶ μέγεθος εντύνοπλον *; the sense of which must be understood to be, "I call a period a portion of speech possessing a complete meaning within itself, and presenting an object which is discernible at one view." Cicero, and particularly Quintilian, are also objects of animadversion: but indeed their explanations are less satisfactory than that of the Stagyrite.

The doctrine of figures is on the whole correctly treated: but, like the rest of the work, it suffers from defective method.

An

In his Lectures on style, the author nearly follows the divisions of Blair, but is not so happy in defining his terms. elegant style he describes as follows:

Elegance of style is a combination of all those qualities which are most generally approved in writing. It assumes different qualities, or larger portions of the same qualities, according as the performance is addressed to the understanding and the imagination, or to the understanding, the imagination, and the passions, in conjunction. I consider all elegant compositions which attempt not to affect the passions, as addressed to the understanding and the imagination, on account of the important information they contain, and the ornaments with which they are embellished; for without embellishment the elegant relapses into the concise or the simple, which, renouncing the grati fication of the imagination, solicit only the attention of the under

Aristot. Rhet. Lib. III. Cap. 9.

standing.

standing. I consider all elegant compositions which interest the passions as addressed to the understanding, the imagination, and the passions in conjunction: the matter, as before, engaging the un lerstanding, and the matter and the embellishments captivating the imagination and the passion'

After this the author proceeds to adduce examples of elegant composition, and to point out the faults to which an attempt to attain that style is most liable.

The arrangement observed in the second divison of this work, which treats of public speaking, is formed still more closely on Blair; though a variety of minute details are added, some of which may be found valuable in practice. In this class we do not include the instruction for a whining delivery, which is held out as rather a captivating manner, notwithstanding the general dissuasive that follows:

Singing is perhaps derived from the same causes as the cadencies of oratory. Fatigue and loud speaking give it birth; ease, and perhaps the reputed sanctity of it, tempt its continuance. Of all expedients to render loud speaking easy, a song seems to be the most successful. It consists of a short musical cadence, and every sentence is delivered nearly in the same circuit of sound. The speaker resigns every variety of elocution, to conform all his tones to the music of the same short song. The apparent melody, however, of the song, not to mention the sincerity and piety of which the vulgar generally account it a characteristic, recommends it to unpolished ears, and makes them often prefer it to a manner more natural and expressive. All the speaker has to do, is to pause regularly at the termination of his note, and to commence it with a full respiration. It is, besides, an effectual preservative against all improper rapidity in pronunciation which is extremely fatiguing to the speaker, is very consumptive of his matter, is an error into which he is extremely apt to fall when he warms with his subject, and has not committed to writing all he has to speak. In a word, let a preacher possess a good song and a firm confidence, and he will, with little trouble to himself, satisfy the most insatiable audience, both in point of loudness and length. I need not, however, observe, that the speaker who indulges in this manner has bid a final adieu to eminence. He may captivate the vulgar, but the utmost allowance he can expect is to be tolerated by men of taste.'

Volume II. commences with the 3d and last part of the Lectures on Belles Lettres, which embraces written Language. Here also the author seldom quits the footsteps of his predecessor, and his deviations are still more seldom successful. Instead of pointing out as the peculiar province of epic Poetry the narrative of some heroic enterprize with appropriate dignity of style, he supposes, with Bossu, that the chief object in all legitimate compositions in this class is to inculcate some important moral lessons to which purpose every other part of the poem is subordinate. An attentive observation of the conduct

of

of men, actuated by powerful interests, and under the influence of violent passions, is undoubtedly well calculated to suggest many important reflections; and when the genius of the poet has enabled him to paint warm from nature, the lesson is scarcely less instructive: but this appears to be the sole ground of the hypothesis in question.

In examining the respective merits of the principal writers in this department, Mr. Barron again does little more than copy Blair. The character assigned to the Orlando Furioso betrays a very superficial acquaintance with that wild but splendid performance.

Since the Lectures on Belles Lettres are not calculated to create any high idea of the powers of the author as a correct reasoner, it was with much surprize and pleasure that we found in the Lectures on Logic a great degree of ease and perspicuity of language, united to simplicity and regularity of plan. We however, occasionally recognized the writer of the preceding Lectures. The following passage was probably intended to convey a different precept from that which the words seem to imply. Having remarked the unreasonableness of drawing universal conclusions from our observation of human actions, which are frequently dictated by passion and caprice, he adds:

A man, who wishes to gain real influence in the world, will never rest resolutions on speculation. He will mix with mankind, and accommodate his opinions to characters and circumstances, and if these lead not to decision, he will patiently suspend judgment, and remain inactive; or he will act so ambiguously, that he may avail himself of better information when it shall occur.'

The last five Lectures might perhaps have been shortened without much inconvenience. Their minute details respecting the syllogistic mode of reasoning, though interesting and instructive, belong rather to the history of the science than to the science itself, from which they are now discarded; while the prolix enumeration of all the branches of knowlege appears to be altogether superfluous.

From an advertisement prefixed, we learn that these lectures were read during twenty-five sessions in the University of St. Andrew's; and that a sudden illness, which about three years ago put a period to the author's existence, prevented him from superintending their progress through the press. -Had the Professor lived, it seems hardly probable that he would have permitted the Lectures on Belles Lettres to meet the public eye without acknowleging the assistance derived from Dr. Blair, and without revising if not new modelling the whole work.An Index should have been subjoined by the Editor.

ART.