« PrejšnjaNaprej »
allegorical veil, the recent history first supplied from the excheques of fome public transaction, or the the neceffary expences for the reprincipal" features of fo.ne distin- presentation of comedies, and proguilhed character, represented in pored prizes for the comic as well such a ludicrous light as reflects as for the tragic poets and actors. on those concerned, unexpected, But, by this injudicious encouand often unmerited, but not there- ragement, he unwarily cherished fore the less striking, flashes of in. a serpent in his bosom. Aristrosolent ridicule. Such was the na- phanes and his licentious contemture, and such the materials of the poraries having previously ridiculed ancient comedy, which, in its virtue and genius, in the perfjas form, agreed entirely with tragedy, of Socrates and Euripides, boldiy having borrowed from this enter- proceeded to avail themselves of the tainment (which was already in natural malignity of the vulgar, poffeffion of the theatre) the dif- and their envy against whatever is tribution of the whole, as well as elevated and illustrious, to traduce the arrangement of the several and calumniate Pericles himse.fi parts; the music, the chorus, the and though his successors in the dresses, decorations, and machinery; adminiitration juftly merited (as all of which were so modified and we shall have occasion to relate) burlesqued as suited the purposes the feverest lathes of their invective, of the comic writer, and often ren- yet, had their characters been more dered his pieces, littlc elfe than pure, they would have been equally parodies of the more fashionable exposed to the unprovoked fatire tragedies of the times.
of those infolent buffoons, who * This singular species of drama, gratified the gross appetites of the which, in its less perfect state, had vulgar, by an undistinguished mais long ftrolled the villages of Attica, of ridicule, involving vice and was fimply tolerated at Athens, virtue, things prophane and sacred, until the profution of Pericles, and men and gods." his complaisance for the populace,
PARALLEL of the GREEK and ROMAN HISTORIANS.
(From Young's HISTORY of AruLNS.)
UINCTILIAN hath light- that the Greeks account of the Per.
ly sketched a comparison fian wars, is equal to the famous betaten the Greek and Roman hito Decad of the Punic invasion : Polytorians : he mentions Herodotus bius would, in my opini n, afford and Livy, as having equal preten- a more apposite parallel; his har. fions ; but surely the tales in the ing written on Roman subjects no firkt book of Herodotus are not of ways vitiates the propriety of coma merit to contest the prize of hif- paring them, and in doing so, those tory with those books of Livy which who are pot led away by the quaint afforded a text for the famous com- phrase of lactea ubertas' applied ment of Machiavel; nor do I think to Livy, will admit his pretensions
to energy as well as eloquence : subiect for content and criticisin :
“ The military memoirs of Cæ. nophon', to those he was to con. far and of Xenophun may be con- duct : Cæfar is often circumstantis lidered as a distinct and new branch al, but never diffuse; Xenophon, of literature, and inay afford freth were he lets eloqucnt, I Nould call 1786.
prolix, without being particular. Memoirs. It may be observed, that Cæfar gives the characters of men Xenophon hath in this work arttul. in a display of their actions and of ly interspersed every circumitance their speeches; it became not the which might conduce to the giving a dignity of the great Roman general favourable idea of hisown character; to minutely discriminate the private --one Phalinus is introduced, demerits and demerits of an individu- riding him for his virtue and philoal; but Xenophon might properly fophy; his happy temper and mo. descant thereon, with the nice ob- deration are hinted at in the obser. fervation of a by.stander, follow. vation, “ that he never had a dis. ing the bent of philofophic enqui. pute with any other captain but ry: the character of Cyrus was in- once, and that a trivial one, with deed worthy the pen of Cæsar, but Cherifophus :" the general idea of a detail of the virtues of Proxenus his bravery, his religion, and his and vices of Menon, were a more eloquence, is strongly marked proper subject for the more private throughout; every speech himself writer : in his portraiture of these makes (if I rightly remember) is e. men, and of that of Clearchus, vincive and effectual: the certain Xenophon has displayed the most Ari enian called Xenophon, is thus nervous and pointed eloquence; the in fucceffion vesud with every ac. energy of which is a fine contrast complishment, and, through the to the easy rhetoric of the speeches, well-wrought veil of modeft phrafe, and elegant fimplicity of diction in is at length discoverable the arrothe narrative, which so fingularly gance of a brave and virtuous, bui characterise these most beautiful vain man."
Of the ENGLISH CONJUNCTIONS. .
I do not mean to divert you into an
etymological explanation of each N English, then, it seems those particular word of other languages,
two words (IF and AN) which or even of the English, and so to have been called conditional con- change our conversation from a phijunctions (and whose force and man- lofophical inquiry concerning the ner of signification, as well as of all nature of language in general, in. the others, we are directed by Mr. to the particular business of a polyLocke to search after in “che feve- glot lexicon. But, as you have ral views, postures, stands, terms, li- laid that your principles will apply mitations, and exceptions, and feve- universally, I desire to know whesal other thoughts of the mind, for ther you mean that the conditional which we have either none, or very conjunctions of all other languages deficient names") are according to are likewise to be found, like if and you, merely the original imperatives an, in the original imperatives of of the verbs to Give or to Grant. some of their own or derived verbs, * Now let me understand you. meaning to Give? 5
continuative, Positive, Suppositiven « No. If that was my opinion, Causel, Collective, Effective, ApproI know you are ready inttantly to bative, Difcretive, Ablative, Preo confute it by the conditionals of sumprive, Abnegative, Completives the Greek and Latin and Irish, the Augmentative, Alternative, HypotheFrench, Italian, Spanish, Portu- tical, Extensive, Periodical, Motia guese and many other languages. val, Conclusive, Explicative, Transio But I me.n that those words which tivi, Interrogative, Comparative, Die are called conditional conjunctions, minutive, Preventive, Adequate Preare to be accounted for in all lan- ventive, Adversative, Conditional, guages in the same manner as I Suspensive, Conclufive, Illative, Corhave accoun'ed for if and an. Not ductive, Declarative, &c. &c. &c. indeed that they must all mean pre. which explain nothing ; and (as cifely as these two do,-Give and most other technical terms are ab. Grant; but fome word equivalent: used) serve only to throw a veil o. such as,--Be it, Suppole, Allozv, ver the ignorance of those who emPermit, Put, Suffer, &c. which ploy them. meaning is to be fought for from the particular etymology of each “ You mean, then, by what you respective language, not from some have said, fiatly to contradi& Mr. un-named and unknown “ Terms, Harris's definition of a Conjunction; Stands, Poftures, &c. of the mind.” which he says, is a part of speech In fhort, to put this matter out of devoid of fignification itself, but fo doubt, I mean to discard all suppo:- formed as to help fignification, by ed mystery, not only about these making two or more lignificant fena conditionals, but about all those tences to be one fignificant fentence.” words also which Mr. Harris and
6H. others distinguish from prepositions, " I have the less fcruple to do and call conjunctions of fentences. that, because Mr. Harris makes no I deny them to be a separate fort of fcruple to contrad Et himself. For words or part of speech by them- he atterwards acknowledges that selves. For they have not a sepa. Some of them have a kind of rate manner of signification: although obscure fignification when taken a. they are n t devoid of figcification. lone ; and appear in grammar, like And the particula: signification of zoophytes in nature, a kind of each must be fought for from a- middle beings of amphibious chamongst the other parts of speech, racter; which, by, Maring the ato by the help of the particular ety- tributes of the higher and the lowmology of each respective language. er, conduce to link the whole to. By such means alone can we clear gether.” away the obfcurity and errors in • Now I suppose it is impossible which grammari..ns and philofo- to convey a Nothing in a more in. phers have been involved by the genious inanner. How much supe. corruprion of some conimon words, rior is this to the bracular saw of and the useful abbreviations of con- another learned author in Language di ruction. And at the fame tiine (typified by Shakspeare in Sir Towe shall get rid of that farago of paz) who, amongst much other in, useless ditlinctions into Conjunctive, telligence of equal importance, tells Adjunctive, Disjunctive, Subdisjunc- us with a very folemn face, and tive, Copulative, Continuative, Sub- ascribes it to Plato, that." Every
han that opines, must opine fome. “ found fignificant." Then he dething: the subject of opinion there. fine. Conjunctions to be words (i.c. fore, is not nothing." But the fair- /und, finificant) “ dezod of lignie est way to Lord Monboddo is to fication."—Afterwards heallows give you the whole pallage. that they have—“a kind of figni
“ It wis not, therefore, without fication. reason thar Plato said that the sub- " But this kind of fignification is ject of opinion was neither the toor, --"obicure," (i. e. a fignification or the thing itself, nor was it the unknown): something I suppose to umor, or nothing; but fomething (as Chillingworth couples them) betwixt these two. This may ap. like a secret tradition, or a filene pear, at first light a little myfteri- thunder for it amounts to the ous, and difficult to be underitond; same thing as a signifiation which but, like other things of that kind does not fignify: an obscure or unin Plato, when examined to the bot known fignification being no figni. toni, it has a very clear meanin?, fication at all. But, not contented and explains the nature of opinion with these inconsistencies, which to very
quell : : For, as he fays, every a less learned man would fcem fuf. man that opines, mult opine fome- ficient of all conscience, Mr. Harthing; the subject of opinion there. ris goes farther, and adds, that they fore, is not nothing. At the same are a—“kind of middle beings"?time it is not the thing itself, but (he must mean between signification fomer hing betwixt the two." His and no fignification) - "haring the lordship, you see, has explained it attributes of both-(i. e. of signifivery clearly ; and no doubt must cation and no fignification) audhave sweated much to get thus to conduce to link them bo:}"-(i. e. fig. the bottom.
nification and no lignification) “10“ But Mr. Harris has the advan- ge!her." tage of a fimilie over this gentle- 66 It would have helped us a lit. man : and though similies appear tle, if Mr. Harris had here told us with most beauty and propriety in what that middle state is, between works of imagination, they are fre- fignification and no signification ! quently found most useful to the What are the attributes of no signiauthors of philofophical treatises : fication ! A d how fignification and and have often helped them out at no signification can be linked toge. many a dead lift, by giving them ther! an appearance of saying something, " Now all this may, for ought 1 when indeed they had norhing to know, be “ read and admired as say: for fimilies are in truth the long as there is any talte for fiue bladders upon which they float; curiting in Britain. But with such and the grammarian finks at once unlearned and vulgar philosophers if he at:empts to fwiin without as Mr. Locke and his disciples, them.
who fuek not taste and eczance, but “ As a proof of which, let us truth and com-on sense in philofo. only examine the present infance; phical fubjećis, I believe it will neand, dimiling the zoophytes, fee ver pass as a perfect example of ana. what intelligence we can draw lyfis," nor bear away the palm for from Mr. Harris concerning the na- “ denteness of inc'cftigation and ter ture cf Conjunctions.
Spicuity of cxplication," For, spa“ First he defines a word to be a rated froin the fine writing, (which