Page images
PDF
EPUB

gree of merit, if correctly applied; and by which he even yet retains and deserves the admiration of posterity. These blended tints of truth and misrepresentation are calculated to awe or to seduce into an agreement with his general conclusions the mind which is not qualified by habit or inclination for a regular analysis.

Thave heard that "brevity is the soul of wit ;" and in the following remarks concerning his strictures on Pope's epitaphs, have quoted no more of the text than was absolutely necessary.

There are few who entertain a higher idea of his character and his powers than the present writer; and those in whom admiration has not superseded the use of reason, will allow that a dissent from several of this great man's opinions may be perfectly consistent with a sincere veneration for his memory. July 7, 1803.

Epitaph I.

T. HILL.

Dorset, the grace of courts, the muses' pride, Patron of arts, and judge of nature, died.

"If by nature is meant what is commonly called nature by the critics, a just representation of things really existing and actions really performed, nature cannot be properly opposed to art; nature being, in this sense, only the best effect of art."

Much penetration is hardly necessary to discover, that nature is not here introduced as a contrast to arts, but as implying the possession of real taste. A patron is not infallibly skilled in the comparative merit of those productions that he generally encourages; but the knowledge of a critic, as the poet tells us, was united, in Dorset, to the munificence of a benefactor.

II.

On Sir William Trumbul. "In this epitaph, as in many others, there appears, at first view, a fault which I think scarcely any beauty can compensate. The name, it is true, may be read upon the stone; but what obligation has it to the poet, whose verses wander over the earth, and leave their subject behind them, and who is forced, like an unskilful painter, to make his purpose known by adventitious help ?" Why the omission of the name must be regarded as so fatal an error, I am unable to conceive: since the "adven

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

mov'd,

At length enjoys that liberty he lov'd.""

"The thought in the last line is impertinent, having no connexion with the foregoing character, nor with the condition of the man described."

As the subject of the epitaph has been represented, in the former part, to be a promoter of civil freedom, there can be no impropriety in observing, that his sphere of contemplation and utility is now cularged in another world, even in this life. That one who is consithough he did not "know restraint" dered as a model of religious piety should not perceive the contracted limits of our present existence, in opposition with the future, is a circumstance to be only accounted for by the stubbornness of wilful prepossession.

It may be also requisite to notice the assertion, that an honest courtier cannot bui be a patriot." The intrigues of placemen and pensioners bear no universal relation to the welfare of a country; and an honest courtier may be exempt from the influence of corruption, without any active and palpable exertions in favour of national prosperity.

cere,

IV.

On James Craggs, Esq. Statesman, yet friend to truth! of soul sinIn action faithful, and in honour clear! Who broke no promise, serv'd no private end, Who gain'd no title, and who lost no friend:

Respecting this epitaph it is inquired, What connexion exists between gaining no title and losing no friend.

There is none intended; but each clause evidently refers to the preceding line. By avoiding individual honours, Mr. Craggs must be allowed to have served no private end; and, because a statesman is in most danger of displeasing his friends, by the necessity of neglecting some out of the many promises that intimacy frequently extorts, the possibility of retaining, in both instances, a becoming degree of constancy, is undoubtedly worthy of notice. "Quand je donne une place," said Louis XIV. je fais cent inécontens, et un ingrat."

[ocr errors]

Pope has introduced these lines by a Latin inscription; on which we are given to understand "the absurdity of joining, in the same inscription, Latin and English. If either language be preferable to the other, let that only be used."

Our own tongue must, of course, be admitted as more proper, since we are not to be deprived of its employment by the total usurpation of any other. Allowing thus far, with what degree of elegance can a privy councillor take his place in an English verse? This absurdity will excuse the mixture of Latin and English: and to have expressed no more in the former than the obnoxious words, would have been justly liable to the charge of abrupt

ness.

VI.

On Mrs. Corbet.

Here rests a woman, good without pretence,
Blest with plain reason and with sober sense:
No conquest she but o'er herself desir'd,
No arts essay'd, but not to be adınırʼd.

This epitaph receives a tribute of approbation; but Johnson has missed a better objection against the fourth line, than what he has advanced, on the word of a " lady of great beauty and excel lence." Instead of an unnatural and incredible panegyric, it may be affirmed, with more truth, to contain none. Positive faculties cannot be employed for a negative purpose, in the frank intercourse of polished life: and the lady whose art is brought into action, that she may be not admired, is even a more absurd character than the one represented by a powerful satirist,*-who

"For her own breakfast would project a scheme,

Nor take her tea without a stratagem."

[blocks in formation]

these are mild affections: whether or not his manners were therefore gentle, fet those reply who best knew him.

To the Editor of the European Magazine.

SIR,

AROM the last number of your Ma

gazine, I find, that Mr. Hall, who published Travels in Scotland last year, and of whom some account is given in your Magazine for December, 1805, has pointed out a number of economical uses, to which the prunings of the vine may be applied. Since the arrival of your useful and widely circulating miscellany, on the 2d instant, I have tried a variety of experiments, and am now convinced that much advantage may arise to the country from Mr. Hall's discovery. The tea of the vine leaves is by no means disagreeable, though it requires a good deal of sugar. The want of flavour is much more than made up by the fine tone it gives to the nerves. I took but little of it at first, and but weak; but now I begin to like it, and to feel myself the better for it. The juice of the prunings, when well bruised, I find, makes excellent vinegar. Beer made of the fermented liquor I have also tried, which to me appears like a fine small claret. How it will do when distilled into brandy, I know not; though a friend, who has tried it, tells me it will do very well. As several acquaintances are trying experiments, and have promised to send me the result, you shall hear from me again. In the mean time, I remain, Your constant reader, and most humble servant, JOHN BOND.

Deptford, July 7, 1808.

The leaves of the VINE are, in SwitzerJand, applied to many medical purposes; they are looked upon as a sovereign remedy in cuts and green wounds: their juice is taken in decoctions, they are formed into poultices, &c. In dress they are frequently used to decorate the nymphs of the vintage. They have some mystical properties, by plucking them, to discover to the girls the truth or falsehood of their lovers, the good or ill fortune of their matrimonial connections: but these are secrets into which we do not mean to penetrate, or, indeed, to publish all that we at present know of those mysterious rites. -Editor.

OBSERVATIONS ON GRAMMAR.

BY WILLIAM JASE.

tition of the same word," &c. &c. the essential character remains precisely the same; we might shew that these addi

(Continued from Fol. LIII. page 266.) tions are not strictly just, and that they

[blocks in formation]

Then set us right, if clearer notions thine;
If not, be candid, and approve of mine.

F we consider grammatical classificathe classification of some other sciences, we shall regard it as very imperfect; but when we reflect that the grammarian has not those criteria, to guide him in this department, which the botanist, the zoologist, &c. possess, and, consequently, that he cannot expect equal advancement, he will estimate it at a higher rate. This paucity of universal and definite character renders the established maxims of this science doubly sacred; and, from the variety of the materials, every attempt to regulate the system must inevitably be attended with doubt; experience only can determine if alteration be improvement, and whether order is not acquired in one part at the expence of confusion in another. The grand principles of this science are fixed on the broad basis of antiquity; so that although a more simple system might be desired, it would, perhaps, be to desire unattainable perfection: but the parts may be altered with success by a skilful hand, for they are certainly capable of improvement. From a want of the discriminative principles we adverted to above, different opinions upon some of the parts of speech have obtained, but together with a few other divisions, the pronoun, which is the subject of our present inquiries, has received general and unqualified approbation.

The distinctive character of this part of speech may be conceived merely from its name for pronoun is derived from the Latin pronomen, which signifies literally, for the noun. In the language of Dr. Lowth, "A pronoun is a word used instead of a noun, as its substitute or representative." We have selected this definition in preference to any other, because, while it conveys the concurring sentiments of grammarians on the word, it does it in the spirit of definition, "which," says Dr. Johnson, "is a concise description of a thing by its properties." When other grammarians add," to avoid the too frequent repeEurop, Mag. Vol. LIV. July, 1808.

take from the simplicity of definition.

Pronouns are divided by grammarians into three sorts; personal, relative, and adjective. Lowth says, that "the personal have the nature of substantives, and, as such, stand by themselves; the rest have the nature of adjectives, and, as such, are joined to substantives, and may pronominal adjectives."" We need not examine the propriety of the last clause, to prove that this remark is without foundation; for very little consideration will be sufficient to convince us, that the relative pronouns have a much nearer relation to the substantive than to the adjective nature.

Lowth, Crombie, Murray, and others, have rejected my, thy, her, our, your, their, as the possessive cases of the personal pronos, and distinguished them by the name of "possessive pronouns.' In doing this, it should appear from their own words, that they were directed by a very fallacious principle; for they conceived it indispens able to the nature of the personal pronoun, that it stand alone. This method of considering these words, by forming a class applicable to their nature, does not add to convenience; and the following remarks will, we hope, demonstrate to the reader, that it involves a material error.

A pronoun, being a word used instead of a noun, must, in order to convey the meaning of the noun, be in similar accidents of case, number, &c. and agreeably to this assertion it will be found, that a noun in the nominative case is represented by a pronoun in the same case; and cæteris paribus. Thus, in the sentence, "Eliza is come," if the personal pronoun were used instead of the noun, it must be put in the nominative case, or it would not represent it: we cannot say, "Her is come," because her is not the nominative case; but the sentence should be," She is come," that the pronoun may agree with its antecedent, Eliza. If the reader will admit the principle upon which we have argued, a principle drawn from the nature of the subject, and sanctioned by the practice and example of Dr. Lowth and other grammarians of eminence, he will certainly conclude, from the observa tions we are about to make, that my, her, our, your, their, are really the

possessive cases of personal pronouns. Example: "This is Sarah's book." Every one will admit, that Sarah's is a noun in the genitive case; and as it can be represented only by a pronoun in the like case, it must follow that her is in the genitive case, in the sentence, "This is her (Sarah's) book." In confirmation of what we have advanced, it may be also observed, that as the genitive case of a noun, as "man's happiness," may be rendered "the happiness of man," so, in exact correspondence, the same relation exists between this possessive case of a pronoun, his (man's) happiness," and a similar sentence, " the happiness of him." We hope sufficient bas been said on this subject, to convince the reader that "the best may err," and that the words in question, my, thy, her, our, your, their, are the true possessive cases of their respective pronouns, I, thou, she, we, you, and they.

[ocr errors]

Keeping the principle in mind upon which our arguments are founded, the following extract from L. Murray's Etymology will not fail to surprise us :— "When the possessive pronouns are prefixed to substantives, they admit of no variation, whatever be the number or case of the noun; as, My cousin is dead." If Mr. Murray had reflected, that pronouns are used in the stead of nouns, he would have seen that my represents the name of the person who speaks, in the genitive case, and that it is governed so, by cousin, in the same manner as the name would be if it were expressed. This extract mistakes the possessive case for the nominative, or theme, and shrewdly tells us, that when one of this sort of nouns (which is really but a possessive case) is joined to another noun, it admits of no variation, whatever be the number or case of that

noun.

There needs no ghost to tell us this, my lord."

Dr. Crombie's opinion upon these words falls under similar objectious; and as he is more decided and more explicit, it is necessary to examine his observations with the greater attention. His words evince a strange misconception of the nature of the pronouns in question; and if we received his remarks on this subject as the test of his opinion, we should add, of pronouns in general. He observes, that "we may indeed say, Ith my book;' but the addition of

[ocr errors]

the substantive is necessary. This shews that mine is a genuine pronoun, whereas my cannot be deemed a pronoun, because it requires the presence of a noun." This method of proof israther novel, and, however confidently brought forward, is without foundation; indeed, it expressly confirms au observation we made before, that those grammarians decided on false grounds; each seems to have forgotten the definition he had given of a pronoun, and considered with Crombie, that if a word be joined to a substantive, it cannot be a genuine pronoun. It was unquestionably upon this principle, that they proceeded to cousider mine, thine, hers, ours, yours, &c. as the real possessive cases. They are truly pronouns in the possessive or geuitive case," says Crombie; for they always may, and frequently do, stand alone." After the observations that have been made, we will only remark, that though, in philosophical strictness, these words are not in the possessive case, convenience will justify us in considering them as variations of it, used only absolutely when the noun is understood; as, "Whose book is this?" "It is mine." We cannot express the substantive, and say, "It is mine book;" for we must, in that case, make use of my instead of mine. This is another circumstance which goes to confirm our remarks; for the governing substantive", will not associate with mine, but only with my, the true possessive case. Mine and thine, indeed, sometimes form an exception: they were formerly, as Dr. Jobison observes, used before a substantive beginning with a vowel or silent ; but in this situation they are synonymous with my and thy. Crombie's remarks on Johnson's observation are not only fallacious, but uncandid. In the disposition which Johnson alleged (my arm; mine arm), these words are in every respect synonymous; and we do think, that Crombie finds fault too eagerly, when he introduces irrelative disposition, and asserts they are not mutually convertible. That they are not similar in all acceptations cannot be doubted; for, as Dr. C. observes, “we cannot say, It is my,' in answer to the question, Whose is it?' but, It is mine."" This cannot be denied but when he adds, that it is this which shews. that mine is a genuine pronoun, we must object to the inference. We shaй conclude our critical examination of the personal pronouns with this remark,

that thought we consider the great authorities we have cited, in a few solitary instances, to have erred, we wilingly close with the impulse we must always feel to applaud them, and to admire, in their works, the taste, the judgment, and the erudition of the scholar. Lower Sloane-street, Chelsea,

June 11, 1808.

By a recurrence to the date of our last paper, the reader will perceive, that it was sent before the challenge of N. R. appeared: we can only invite that gen tleman to a liberal consideration of our opinion, trusting we are able to defend a truth which it was otherwise presumption to advance.

To the Editor of the European Magazine.

SIR,

Mthe History of England, mentions the circumstance of Edward the VIth's whipping boy. As I cannot find such a person noticed by Hume or Ra pin, I shall be obliged by some of your correspondents informing me from whence Mr. B. dorivês his information; as no circumstance, however trifling, ought, in my opinion, to be mentioned in any work professing to be a history of England, but what is authentic. Bishop Burnet mentions one Murray as acting in a like capacity to Charles I. I am, sir, yours, &c.

́R. E. Baldwin, in his Sketch of

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

QUID BIT PULCHRUM, QUID TURPE, QUID UTILE, QUID NON.

[blocks in formation]

rinth of erudition, and exploring, as it may be termed, the sources of truth in the caverns of science, would never acquire sufficient elasticity to bound from the earth, and expand itself in the volatile regions of fancy, or luxuriate in the flowery paths of fiction; yet the converse of this hypothesis has been fully proved by the effusions of our author. His former works erected a pile in which art and labour were equally conspicuous, while his latter have added elegance and grace to its architectural solidity; and therefore they may with propriety be termed literary festoons, which he twined to adorn his own monument.

We have already reviewed the first of the posthumous publications of the works of Mr. S. The present, which is, as the title expresses, a romance, in near four volumes, is formed upon a very singular plan: this, therefore, with the leave of our readers, we will briefly investigate.

« PreviousContinue »