filled with Particles of all kinds and with Conjunctions in particular; while in the modern polite works, as well of ourselves as of our neighbours, scarce such a word as a Particle or Conjunction is to be found. Is it that where there is connection in the meaning, there must be words had to connect; but that where the connection is little or none, such connectives are of little use? That houses of cards without cement may well answer their end; but not those houses where one would chuse to dwell? Is this the cause? Or have we attained an elegance to the antients unknown?

Venimus ad summam fortunæ,'" &c.

What will you say to Lord Monboddo, who holds the same opinion with Mr. Harris?1

2

H.-I say that a little more reflection and a great deal less reading, a little more attention to common sense, and less blind prejudice for his Greek commentators, would have made Mr. Harris a much better Grammarian, if not perhaps a Philosopher. What a strange language is this to come from a man, who at the same time supposes these Particles and Conjunctions to be words without meaning! It should seem, by this insolent pleasantry, that Mr. Harris reckons it the perfection of composition and discourse to use a great many words without meaning !-If so, perhaps Master Slender's language would meet with this learned Gentleman's approbation :

"I keep but three men and a boy yet, till my mother be dead; but what though yet I live a poor gentleman born."

"This abundance of Conjunctions and Particles," says he, vol. 2. p. 179, "is, in my opinion, one of the greatest beauties of the Greek language, &c. For I am so far from thinking that that disjointed composition and short cut of style, which is so much in fashion at present, and of which Tacitus among the antients is the great model, is a beauty, that I am of opinion it is the affectation of a deformity; nor is there, in my apprehension, any thing that more disfigures a style, or makes it more offensive to a man of true taste and judgement in writing,"

&c.

66

'I shall only add at present, that one of the greatest difficulties of composing in English appears to me to be the want of such connecting particles as the Greeks have," &c.

2

The author would by no means be understood to allude to the cOMMON SENSE of Doctors Oswald, Reid, and Beattie; which appears to him to be sheer nonsense.

Now here is cement enough in proportion to the building. It is plain, however, that Shakespeare (a much better philosopher by the bye than most of those who have written philosophical Treatises) was of a different opinion in this matter from Mr. Harris. He thought the best way to make his Zany talk unconnectedly and nonsensically was to give him a quantity of these elegant words without meaning which are such favourites with Mr. Harris and Lord Monboddo.

B. This may be raillery perhaps, but I am sure it is neither reasoning nor authority. This instance does not affect Mr. Harris: for All cement is no more fit to make a firm building than no cement at all. Slender's discourse might have been made equally as unconnected without any particles, as with so many particles together. It is the proper mixture of particles and other words which Mr. Harris would recommend; and he only censures the moderns for being too sparing of Particles.

:

H.-Reasoning! It disdains to be employed about such conceited nonsense, such affected airs of superiority and pretended elegance. Especially when the whole foundation is false for there are not any useful connectives in the Greek, which are not to be found in modern languages. But for his opinion concerning their employment, you shall have authority, if you please; Mr. Harris's favourite authority: an Antient, a Greek, and one too writing professedly on Plato's opinions, and in defence of Plato; and which if Mr. Harris had not forgotten, I am persuaded he would not have contradicted.

Plutarch says "Il n'y a ny Beste, ny instrument, ny armeure, ny autre chose quelle qu'elle soit au monde, qui par ablation ou privation d'une siene propre partie, soit plus belle, plus active, ne plus doulce que paravant elle n'estoit; là où l'oraison bien souvent, en estans les conjonctions toutes ostées, a une force et efficace plus affectueuse, plus active, et plus esmouvante. C'est pourquoy ceulx qui escrivent des figures de Retorique louent et prisent grandement celle qu'ils appellent déliée; là où ceulx qui sont trop religieux et qui s'assubjettissent trop aux règles de la grammaire, sans ozer oster une seule conjonction de la commune façon de parler, en sont à bon droit blasmez et repris; comme faisans un stile énervé,

sans aucune pointe d'affection, et qui lasse et donne peine à ouir," &c.1

I will give you another authority, which perhaps Mr. Harris may value more, because I value it much less.

"Il n'y a rien encore qui donne plus de mouvement au discours que d'en óter les liaisons. En effet, un discours que rien ne lie et n'embarrasse, marche et coule de soymême, et il s'en faut peu qu'il n'aille quelquefois plus vite que la pensée même de l'orateur." Longinus then gives three examples, from Xenophon, Homer, and Demosthenes; and concludes-" En égalant et aplanissant toutes choses par le moyen de liaisons, vous verrez que d'un pathétique fort et violent vous tomberez dans une petite afféterie de langage qui n'aura ni pointe ni éguillon; et que toute la force de votre discours s'éteindra aussi-tost d'elle-mesme. Et comme il est certain, que si on lioit le corps d'un homme qui court, on lui feroit perdre toute sa force; de même si vous allez embarrasser une passion de ces liaisons et de ces particules inutiles, elle les souffre avec peine; vous lui ôtez la liberté de sa course, et cette impétuosité qui la faisoit marcher avec la mesme violence qu'un trait lancé par une machine."

Take one more authority, better than either of the foregoing on this subject.

"Partes orationis similes nexu indigent, ut inter se uniantur; et iste vocatur Conjunctio, quæ definitur vocula indeclinabilis quæ partes orationis colligit. Alii eam subintelligi malint, alii expresse et moleste repetunt: illud, qui attentiores sunt rebus; hoc, qui rigorosius loquuntur. Omittere fere omnes conjunctiones Hispanorum aut vitium aut character est. Plurimæ desiderantur in Lucano, plurimæ in Seneca, multæ in aliis authoribus. Multas omitto; et, si meum genium sequerer, fere omnes. Qui rem intelligit et argumentum penetrat, percipit sibi ipsis cohærere sententias, nec egere particulis ut connectantur: quod, si interserantur voculæ connexivæ, scopæ dissolutæ illæ sunt; nec additis et multiplicatis conjunctionibus cohærere poterunt. Hinc patet quid debuisset responderi Caligulæ, Senecæ calamum vilipendenti. Suetonius: Lenius comp

tiusque scribendi genus adeo contempsit, ut Senecam, tum maxime placentem, commissiones meras componere, et ARENAM SINE CALCE, diceret."-" Caligulæ hoc judicium est, inquit Lipsius in judicio de Seneca; nempe illius qui cogitavit etiam de Homeri carminibus abolendis, itemque Virgilii et Titi Livii scriptis ex omnibus bibliothecis amovendis. Respondeo igitur meum Senecam non vulgo nec plebi scripsisse, nec omni viro docto, sed illi qui attente eum legeret. Et addo, ubi lector mente Senecam sequitur, sensum adsequi: nec inter sententias, suo se prementes et consolidantes pondere, conjunctionem majorem requiri."-CARAMUEL, cxlii.

And I hope these authorities (for I will offer no argument to a writer of his cast) will satisfy the "true taste and judgement in writing" of Lord Monboddo; who with equal affectation and vanity has followed Mr. Harris in this particular : and who, though incapable of writing a sentence of common English, (defuerunt enim illi et usus pro duce et ratio pro suasore,) sincerely deplores the decrease of learning in England;1 whilst he really imagines that there is something captivating in his own style, and has gratefully informed us to whose assistance we owe the obligation.

CHAPTER IX.

OF PREPOSITIONS.

B.-WELL, Sir, what you have hitherto said of the Conjunctions will deserve to be well considered. But we have not yet entirely done with them: for, you know, the Prepositions were originally, and for a long time, classed with the Conjunctions and when first separated from them, were only distinguished by the name of Prepositive Conjunctions.1

1 See Mr. Boswell's Tour to the Hebrides, p. 473.

The philosophers of Hungary, Turkey and Georgia at least were in no danger of falling into this absurdity; for Dr. Jault, in his preface to (what is very improperly, though commonly, called) Menage's Dictionary, tells us--"Par le fréquent commerce que j'ai eu avec eux [les Hongrois] pendant plusieurs années, ayant tâché de pénétrer à fonds ce que ce pouvoit être que cet idiôme si différent de tous les autres d'Europe, je les ai convaincus qu'ils étoient Scythes d'origine, où du moins

H.-Very true, Sir. And these Prepositive Conjunctions, once separated from the others, soon gave birth to another subdivision; and Grammarians were not ashamed to have a class of Postpositive Prepositives." Dantur etiam Postpositiones (says Caramuel); quæ Præpositiones postpositive solent dici, nulla vocabulorum repugnantia: vocantur enim Præpositiones, quia sensu saltem præponuntur; et Postpositiva, quia vocaliter postponi debent."

B. But as Mr. Harris still ranks them with Connectives, this, I think, will be the proper place for their investigation. And as the title of Prepositive or Preposition "only expresses their place and not their character; their Definition, he says, will distinguish them from the former Connectives." He therefore proceeds to give a compleat definition of them, viz.

—“A Preposition is a part of speech, devoid itself of signification; but so formed as to unite two words that are significant, and that refuse to coalesce or unite of themselves."—Now I am curious to know, whether you will agree with Mr. Harris in his definition of this part of Speech; or whether you are determined to differ from him on every point.

H.-Till he agrees with himself, I think you should not disapprove of my differing from him; because for this at least I have his own respectable authority. Having defined a word to be a "Sound significant;" he now defines a Preposition to be a word "devoid of signification." And a few pages after, he says, "Prepositions commonly transfuse something of their own meaning into the word with which they are compounded."

Now, if I agree with him that words are sounds significant; how can I agree that there are sorts of words devoid of signification? And if I could suppose that Prepositions are devoid

que leur langue étoit une des branches de la Scythique; puisqu'à l'égard de l'inflexion elle avoit rapport à celle des Turcs, qui constamment passoient pour Scythes, étant originaire du Turquestan, et de la Transoxiane; et qu'outre cela les PREPOSITIONS de ces deux langues, aussi bien que de la Georgienne, se mettoient toujours après leur régime, contre l'ordre de la nature et la signification de leur nom."

Look at the English, i. e. The language we are talking of: The language we deal IN: The object we look To: The persons we work FOR: The explanation we depend UPON; &c.

1 Buonmattei has still a further subdivision; and has made a separate part of speech of the Segnacasi.