Slike strani
PDF
ePub

allegorical veil, the recent history of fome public tranfaction, or the principal features of fome diftinguished character, reprefented in fuch a ludicrous light as reflects on thofe concerned, unexpected, and often unmerited, but not therefore the less striking, flashes of infolent ridicule. Such was the nature, and fuch the materials of the ancient comedy, which, in its form, agreed entirely with tragedy, having borrowed from this entertainment (which was already in poffeffion of the theatre) the diftribution of the whole, as well as the arrangement of the feveral parts; the mufic, the chorus, the dreffes, decorations, and machinery; all of which were fo modified and burlefqued as fuited the purposes of the comic writer, and often rendered his pieces little elfe than parodies of the more fashionable tragedies of the times.

This fingular fpecies of drama, which, in its lefs perfect ftate, had long ftrolled the villages of Attica, was fimply tolerated at Athens, until the profution of Pericles, and his complaifance for the populace,

firft fupplied from the exchequer the neceflary expences for the reprefentation of comedies, and propofed prizes for the comic as well as for the tragic poets and actors. But, by this injudicious encou ragement, he unwarily cherished a ferpent in his bofom. Aristrophanes and his licentious contemporaries having previoufly ridiculed virtue and genius, in the perfons of Socrates and Euripides, boldly proceeded to avail themselves of the natural malignity of the vulgar, and their envy againft whatever is elevated and illuftrious, to traduce and calumniate Pericles himfeif; and though his fucceffors in the adminiftration justly merited (as we fhall have occafion to relate) the fevereft lafhes of their invective, yet, had their characters been more pure, they would have been equally expofed to the unprovoked fatire of thofe infolent buffoons, who gratified the grofs appetites of the vulgar, by an undiftinguished maís of ridicule, involving vice and virtue, things prophane and facred, men and gods.'

[ocr errors]

PARALLEL of the GREEK and ROMAN HISTORIANS.

[From YOUNG'S HISTORY of ATHENS.]

UINCTILIAN hath light

that the Greeks account of the Per

"Qly sketched a compariton fian wars, is equal to the famous

between the Greek and Roman hiftorians: he mentions Herodotus and Livy, as having equal pretenfions; but furely the tales in the first book of Herodotus are not of a merit to conteft the prize of hiftory with those books of Livy which afforded a text for the famous comment of Machiavel; nor do I think

Decad of the Punic invafion: Polybius would, in my opinion, afford a more appofite parallel; his having written on Roman fubjects no ways vitiates the propriety of comparing them, and in doing so, thofe who are not led away by the quaint phrafe of lactea ubertas' applied to Livy, will admit his pretenfions

ΤΟ

to energy as well as eloquence: fubiect for conteft and criticifm: the pretenfions of the Roman and Greek are refpectively ftrong, and their different merits my afford fcope to the advocate of either language or writer,

their ftyle is undoubtedly different, and in this the Latin hath the better of the comparison; in other refpects, to ufe a phrase of Quinctili, an, they arepares magis quam fimiles. Quintilian doubts not to oppofe the merits of Salluft, to thofe of Thucydides; on this head I have my doubts; independent of his emphatic ftyle and air of accuracy throughout, the introductory book of Thucydides is a mafterpiece of recapitulation, and may be placed in parallel with the firit book of Machiavel's Hiftory of Florence, the best epitome (I think) of the kind; but the preambles of Salluft, though cloquent and ingenious, are fomewhat forced and inapplicable. The hitories of Xenophon I read with pleasure, but cannot admit them to vie with the above authors, either of his own country, or of the Romans: I am rather inclined to allow to the latter the general palm of hiftory. What doubts I may have, the annals and hiftories, and particularly the detached pieces of Tacitus are calculated to remove,-if language and fentiment fuitable to each action, and concisely explanatory of motive and event, if in the words of Salluft, factis dicta exæquanda,' conftitute the merit in this branch of literature, who is the writer that hath given policy, facts, and character more force, and in fewer, and in better words, than Tacitus? To a proper and able reader, Tacitus explains whilft he appears fimply to relate a mystery; and developes the reccffes of policy and character, whilst he profeffes to recite merely effects and conduct.

"The military memoirs of Cafar and of Xenophon may be confidered as a distinct and new branch of literature, and may afford freth 1786.

"I mean not to enter into a mi nute enquiry, but rather as a key to fuch difquifition, obferve, that in the latin work, we have the com‐ mentaries of a general, veited with a legitimate command: in the Greek, the journal of an officer in fubordinate authority, though of high eftimation; the fpeeches the one are replete with imperatorial dignity; of the other, delivered with the conciliatory arts of argument and condefcenfion: the oratory put into the mouth of others, is by either author happily introduced, and fuited to party and to circumstance; with exception, how. ever, to a fpeech of Cyrus, in the Memoirs of Xenophon, who, though in queft of the defpotic crown of Perfia, is made to harangue for Greece and liberty. Accounts of the face of the country, of the characters of the inhabitants, and even of very families, were collected and tranfmitted to the great leader in chief; and thence from Cæfar we have a curious and well authenticated detail relative to the Gauls, the Britons, and every other enemy: Xenophon is fuperficial with refpect to any peculiarities of the nations he paffed through, his mind was abforbed in the care of thofe under his command; but thence we are better acquainted with the Greek army than with that of Cæfar's: Cæfar's attention was ever directed to thofe he was to attack, to counteract, or to oppofe; Xenophon', to thofe he was to con duct: Cæfar is often circumftantis al, but never diffufe; Xenophon, were he lefs eloquent, I fhould call

[blocks in formation]

Memoirs. It may be obferved, that Xenophon hath in this work artfully interfperfed every circumstance which might conduce to the giving a favourable idea of his own character;

one Phalinus is introduced, deriding him for his virtue and philofophy; his happy temper and mo. deration are hinted at in the obser

prolix, without being particular. Cæfar gives the characters of men in a difplay of their actions and of their fpeeches; it became not the dignity of the great Roman general to minutely difcriminate the private merits and demerits of an individual; but Xenophon might properly defcant thereon, with the nice obfervation of a by-ftander, follow-vation, "that he never had a difing the bent of philofophic enquiry: the character of Cyrus was indeed worthy the pen of Cæfar, but a detail of the virtues of Proxenus and vices of Menon, were a more proper fubject for the more privare writer in his portraiture of thefe men, and of that of Clearchus, Xenophon has difplayed the most nervous and pointed eloquence; the energy of which is a fine contrast to the easy rhetoric of the fpeeches, and elegant fimplicity of diction in the narrative, which fo fingularly characterise these most beautiful

pute with any other captain but once, and that a trivial one, with Cherifophus :" the general idea of his bravery, his religion, and his eloquence, is ftrongly marked throughout; every fpeech himfelf makes (if I rightly remember) is evincive and effectual: the certain At enian called Xenophon, is thus in fucceffion vefted with every accomplishment, and, through the well-wrought veil of modest phrase, is at length difcoverable the arro gance of a brave and virtuous, but vain man."

Ν

Of the ENGLISH CONJUNCTIONS.
[From HORNE TOOKE'S EILA IITEIOENTA.]

"B. 'N English, then, it feems thofe two words (IF and AN) which have been called conditional conjunctions (and whofe force and manner of fignification, as well as of all the others, we are directed by Mr. Locke to fearch after in "the feveral views, poftures, ftands, terms, limitations, and exceptions, and feveral other thoughts of the mind, for which we have either none, or very deficient names") are according to you, merely the original imperatives of the verbs to Give or to Grant.

"Now let me understand you.

I do not mean to divert you into an etymological explanation of each particular word of other languages, or even of the English, and fo to change our converfation from a philofophical inquiry concerning the nature of language in general, into the particular bufinefs of a polyglot lexicon. But, as you have faid that your principles will apply univerfally, I defire to know whe ther you mean that the conditional conjunctions of all other languages are likewife to be found, like if and an, in the original imperatives of fome of their own or derived verbs, meaning to Give?

"H. "No. If that was my opinion, I know you are ready inftantly to confute it by the conditionals of the Greek and Latin and Irish, the French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguefe and many other languages. But I mean that thofe words which are called conditional conjunctions, are to be accounted for in all languages in the fame manner as I have accounted for if and an. Not indeed that they must all mean precifely as these two do,-Give and Grant; but fome word equivalent: fuch as,-Be it, Suppole, Allow, Permit, Put, Suffer, &c. which meaning is to be fought for from the particular etymology of each refpective language, not from fome un-named and unknown "Terms, Stands, Poftures, &c. of the mind." In fhort, to put this matter out of doubt, I mean to discard all fuppoed mystery, not only about thefe conditionals, but about all thofe words alfo which Mr. Harris and others diftinguish from prepofitions, and call conjunctions of fentences. I deny them to be a separate fort of words or part of fpeech by themfelves. For they have not a feparate manner of fignification: although they are not devoid of fignification. And the particular fignification of each must be fought for from a mongst the other parts of fpeech, by the help of the particular etymology of each refpective language. By fuch means alone can we clear away the obfcurity and errors in which grammarians and philofophers have been involved by the coruption of fome common words, and the ufeful abbreviations of confiruction. And at the fame time we fhall get rid of that farago of useless ditlinctions into Conjunctive, Adjunctive, Disjunctive, Subdisjunctive, Copulative, Continuative, Sub

continuative, Pofitive, Suppofitive Caufal, Collective, Effective, Approbative, Difcretive, Ablative, Prefumptive, Abnegative, Completive Augmentative, Alternative, Hypothe tical, Extenfive, Periodical, Moti val, Conclufive, Explicative, Tranfi tive, Interrogative, Comparative, Diminutive, Preventive, Adequate Preventive, Adverfative, Conditional, Sufpenfive, Conclufive, Illative, Conductive, Declarative, &c. &c. &c. which explain nothing; and (as most other technical terms are abufed) ferve only to throw a veil over the ignorance of those who employ them.

"B.

"You mean, then, by what you have faid, flatly to contradict Mr. Harris's definition of a Conjunction; which he fays, is a part of fpeech devoid of fignification itself, but fo formed as to help fignification, by making two or more fignificant fentences to be one fignificant fentence." 26 H.

"I have the lefs fcruple to do that, because Mr. Harris makes no fcruple to contradict himfelf. For he afterwards acknowledges that fome of them have a kind of obfcure fignification when taken álone; and appear in grammar, like zoophytes in nature, a kind of middle beings of amphibious character; which, by fharing the attributes of the higher and the lower, conduce to link the whole together."

Now I fuppofe it is impoffible to convey a Nothing in a more ingenious manner. How much fuperior is this to the oracular faw of another learned author in Language (typified by Shakspeare in Sir Topaz) who, amongst much other intelligence of equal importance, tells us with a very folemn face, and afcribes it to Plato, that- Every

[blocks in formation]

man that opines, muft opine fome. thing: the fubject of opinion therefore, is not nothing." But the faireft way to Lord Monboddo is to give you the whole paffage.

"It was not, therefore, without

Το

reafon that Plato faid that the fubject of opinion was neither the ror, or the thing itfelf, nor was it the To un, or nothing; but fomething betwixt thefe two. This may appear, at firft fight a little myfterious, and difficult to be understood; but, like other things of that kind in Plato, when examined to the bot tom, it has a very clear meaning, and explains the nature of opinion very well: FOR, as he fays, every man that opines, mult opine fomething; the fubject of opinion therefore, is not nothing. Ar the fame time it is not the thing itfelf, but fomething betwixt the two." His lordship, you fee, has explained it very clearly; and no doubt muft have fweated much to get thus to the bottom.

"But Mr. Harris has the advantage of a fimilie over this gentleman and though fimilies appear with most beauty and propriety in works of imagination, they are frequently found most useful to the authors of philofophical treatifes: and have often helped them out at many a dead lift, by giving them an appearance of faying fomething, when indeed they had nothing to fay for fimilies are in truth the bladders upon which they float; and the grammarian finks at once if he attempts to fwim without them.

"As a proof of which, let us only examine the prefent inftance; and, difmiling the zoophytes, fee what intelligence we can draw from Mr. Harris concerning the nature of Conjunctions.

"First he defines a word to be a

"found fignificant." Then he defines Conjunctions to be words (i, e. funds fignificant) "devo'd of figni"fication."-Afterwards he allows that they have a kind of fignification.

to the

"But this kind of fignification is —“ob cure," (i. e. a fignification unknown): fomething I fuppofe (as Chillingworth couples them) like a fecret tradition, or a filent thunder for it amounts fame thing as a fignification which does not fignify: an obfcure or unknown fignification being no fignification at all. But, not contented with thefe inconfiftencies, which to a lefs learned man would feem fufficient of all confcience, Mr. Harris goes farther, and add, that they are a-" kind of middle beings"(he muft mean between fignification and no fignification)-"haring the attributes of both”—(i. e. of fignificat:on and no fignification) andconduce to link them both”—(i. e. fignification and no fignification) "10gether."

"It would have helped us a little, if Mr. Harris had here told us what that middle ftate is, between fignification and no fignification! What are the attributes of no fignification! And how fignification and no fignification can be linked toge. ther!

"Now all this may, for ought I know, be "read and admired as long as there is any talte for fa writing in Britain. But with fuch unlearned and vulgar philofophers as Mr. Locke and his difciples, who feek not tafte and elegance, but truth and common fenfe in philofo phical fubjects, I believe it will nëver país as a perfect example of ana lyfs; nor bear away the palm for "acuteness of investigation and per• picuity of explication." For, fparated from the fine writing, (which

22

however

« PrejšnjaNaprej »