many other Languages. But I mean, that those words which are called conditional conjunctions, are to be accounted for in ALL languages in the same manner as I have accounted for IF and AN. Not indeed that they must all mean precisely as these two do,-Give and Grant; but some word equivalent : Such as,-Be it, Suppose, Allow, Permit, Put, Suffer, &c. Which meaning is to be sought for from the particular etymology of each respective language, not from some un-named and un-known "Turns, Stands, Postures, &c. of the mind." In short, to put this matter out of doubt, I mean to discard all supposed mystery, not only about these Conditionals, but about all those words also which Mr. Harris and others distinguish from Prepositions, and call Conjunctions of Sentences. I deny them to be a separate sort of words or Part of Speech by themselves. For they have not a separate manner of signification : although they are not devoid of signification. And the particular signification of each must be sought for from amongst the other parts of Speech, by the help of the particular etymology of each respective language. By such means alone can we clear away the obscurity and errors in which Grammarians and Philosophers have been involved by the corruption of some common words, and the useful Abbreviations of Construction. And at the same time we shall get rid of that farrago of useless distinctions into Conjunctive, Adjunctive, Disjunctive, Subdisjunctive, Copulative, Negative copulative, Continuative, Subcontinuative, Positive, Suppositive, Casual, Collective, Effective, Approbative, Discretive, Ablative, Presumptive, Abnegative, Completive, Augmentative, Alternative, Hypothetical, Extensive, Periodical, Motival, Conclusive, Explicative, Transitive, Interrogative, Comparative, Diminutive, Preventive, Adequate Preventive, Adversative, Conditional, Suspensive, Illative, Conductive, Declarative, &c. &c. &c., which explain nothing; and (as most other technical terms are abused) serve only to throw a veil over the ignorance of those who employ them."

1 "Non, Non, non minus disjungit, quam Nec, Nec. Quanquam neutrum ego Disjunctivum appello, sed copulativum potius negativum.”Aristarchus Anti-Bentleianus. Pars secunda. Pag. 12.

Technical terms are not invariably abused to cover the ignorance only of those who employ them. In matters of law, politicks, and Government, they are more frequently abused in attempting to impose

B.-You mean, then, by what you have said, flatly to contradict Mr. Harris's definition of a Conjunction; which he says, is-" a Part of Speech devoid of signification itself, but so formed as to help signification, by making two or more significant sentences to be one significant sentence."

H.-I have the less scruple to do that, because Mr. Harris makes no scruple to contradict himself. For he afterwards acknowledges that some of them-"have a kind of obscure signification when taken alone; and appear in Grammar, like Zoophytes in nature, a kind of middle Beings of amphibious character; which, by sharing the attributes of the higher and the lower, conduce to link the whole together."

Now I suppose it is impossible to convey a Nothing in a more ingenious manner. How much superior is this to the oracular Saw of another learned author on Language (typified by Shakespeare in Sir Topaz) who, amongst much other intelligence of equal importance, tells us with a very solemn face, and ascribes it to Plato, that-" Every man that opines, must opine something the subject of opinion therefore is not nothing." But the fairest way to Lord Monboddo is to give you the whole passage.

"It was not therefore without reason that Plato said that the subject of opinion was neither the To ov, or the thing itself, nor was it the то un ov, or nothing; but something betwixt these two. This may appear at first sight a little mysterious,

upon the ignorance of others; and to cover the injustice and knavery of those who employ them.

1 These Zoophytes have made a wonderful impression on Lord Monboddo. I believe (for I surely have not counted them) that he has used the allusion at least twenty times in his Progress of Language; and seems to be always hunting after extremes merely for the sake of introducing them. But they have been so often placed between two stools, that it is no wonder they should at last come to the ground.

2 "As the old Hermit of Prague, that never saw pen and ink, very wittily said to a niece of king Gorboduc,-That that is, is: So I being Master Parson, am Master Parson. For what is that, but that? And is, but is?"-Twelfth Night, act 4. scene 3.

John Lily's Sir Tophas monboddizes in the same manner.

"Sir Tophas. Doest thou not know what a poet is?

Epiton.

No.

Sir Tophas. Why, foole, a poet is as much as one should say—a poet."-Endimion, act 1. scene 3.

and difficult to be understood; but, like other things of that kind in Plato, when examined to the bottom, it has a very clear meaning, and explains the nature of opinion very well:1 For, as he says, every man that opines, must opine something; the subject of opinion therefore is not nothing. At the same time it is not the thing itself, but something betwixt the two."

1

"Lucinde. Qu'est-ce que c'est que ce galimatias?

Frontin. Ce galimatias! Vous n'y comprenez donc rien?

Lucinde. Non, en vérité.

His

Frontin. Ma foi, ni moi non plus: je vais pourtant vous l'expliquer si vous voulez.

Lucinde. Comment m'expliquer ce que tu ne comprends pas?

Frontin. Oh! Dame, j'ai fait mes études, moi."-L'Amant de luiméme. (Rousseau,) scene 13.

2

Origin and Progress of Language, vol. 1. p. 100. "Il possède l'antiquité, comme on le peut voir par les belles remarques qu'il a faites. Sans lui nous ne sçaurions pas que dans la ville d'Athènes les enfans pleuroient quand on leur donnoit le fouet.-Nous devons cette découverte à sa profonde érudition."

But his lordship's philosophical writings are full of information, explanations and observations of equal importance. Vol. 1. p. 136, he informs us, that-Porphyry, the greatest philosopher as well as best writer of his age, "relates that crows and magpies and parrots were taught in his time not only to imitate human speech, but to attend to what was told them and to remember it; and many of them, says he, have learned to inform against those whom they saw doing any mischief in the house. And he himself tamed a partridge that he found somewhere about Carthage to such a degree, that it not only played and fondled with him, but answered him when he spoke to it in a voice different from that in which the partridges call one another: but was so well bred, that it never made this noise but when it was spoken to. And he maintains, that all animals who have sense and memory are capable of reason and this is not only his opinion, but that of the Pythagoreans, the greatest philosophers in my opinion that ever existed, next to the masters of their master, I mean the Egyptian priests. And besides the Pythagoreans, Plato, Aristotle, Empedocles, and Democritus, were of the same opinion. One thing cannot be denied, that their natures may be very much improved by use and instruction, by which they may be made to do things that are really wonderful and far exceeding their natural power of instinct."-So far we are obliged to the greatest of all philosophers that ever existed. And thus far the judgment of the extract can alone be called in question. Now for the further confirmation of this doctrine by their illustrious disciple." There is a man in England at present, who has practised more upon them and with greater success than any body living: "-(I suspect his Lordship means the owner of the learned Pig)" and he says, as I am informed," (Ay, Right, my lord, Be cautious how you take an assertion so important as this, upon your

Lordship, you see, has explained it very clearly; and no doubt must have sweated much to get thus to the bottom.

:

But Mr. Harris has the advantage of a Simile over this gentleman and though Similes appear with most beauty and propriety in works of imagination, they are frequently found most useful to the authors of philosophical treatises: and have often helped them out at many a dead lift, by giving them an appearance of saying something, when indeed they had nothing to say For Similes are in truth the bladders upon which they float; and the Grammarian sinks at once if he attempts to swim without them.

As a proof of which, let us only examine the present instance; and, dismissing the Zoophytes, see what intelligence we can draw from Mr. Harris concerning the nature of Conjunctions.

First he defines a Word to be a "sound significant." Then he defines Conjunctions to be words (i. e. sounds significant) "devoid of signification."-Afterwards he allows that they have "a kind of signification."

But this kind of signification is-" obscure," (i. e. a signification unknown): something I suppose (as Chillingworth couples them) like a secret Tradition, or a silent Thunder: for it amounts to the same thing as a signification which does not signify an obscure or unknown signification being no signification at all. But, not contented with these inconsistencies, which to a less learned man would seem sufficient of all conscience, Mr. Harris goes further, and adds, that they are aown authority! Well, He says? What ?)-" That, if they lived long enough, and pains sufficient were taken upon them,"-(Well, what then ?)" it is impossible to say to what lengths some of them might be carried."

Now if this, and such stuff as this, be Philosophy; and that too, of the greatest philosophers that ever existed; I do most humbly intreat your Lordship, if you still continue obstinate to discard Mr. Locke, that I may have my Tom Thumb again. For this philosophy gives to my mind as much disgust, though not so much indignation, as your friend and admirer Lord Mansfield's LAW.

[Were Mr. Tooke now living, he might have a chance of seeing a revival of Tom Thumb, if we may judge from some things that have lately been said of Mr. Locke at Cambridge and elsewhere.-ED.]

And (page 329) he defines a word to be " a voice articulate, significant by compact."

"kind of middle beings"-(he must mean between signification and no signification)-" sharing the attributes of both"-(i. e. of signification and no signification) and-" conduce to link them both”—(i. e. signification and no signification) "together."

And

It would have helped us a little, if Mr. Harris had here told us what that middle state is, between signification and no signification! What are the attributes of no signification! how signification and no signification can be linked together! Now all this may, for aught I know, be "read and admired as long as there is any taste for fine writing in Britain." But

If common reason alone was not sufficient to keep Mr. Harris and Lord Monboddo from this middle state between the To ov and the тo un ov, and between signification and no signification; they should at least have listened to what they are better acquainted with, Authority.

“Όσα δε των εναντιων τοιαύτα εστιν, ώστε εν οἷς πεφυκε γίνεσθαι, η ών κατηγορειται, αναγκαιον αυτών θατερον ὑπαρχειν;—τούτων ουδεν εστιν ανα μεσον.” -Aristot. Categ.

Inter affirmationem et negationem nullum medium existit.”—J. C. Scaliger, lib. 5. cap. 114.

["When a man is conscious that he does no good himself, the next thing is to cause others to do some. I may claim some merit this way, in hastening this testimonial from your friends above-writing: their love to you indeed wants no spur, their ink wants no pen, their pen wants no hand, their hand wants no heart, and so forth, after the manner of Rabelais; which is betwixt some meaning and no meaning; and yet it may be said, when present thought and opportunity is wanting, their pens want ink, their hands want pens, their hearts want hands, &c., till time, place, and conveniency concur to set them a-writing, as at present, a sociable meeting, a good dinner, warm fire, and an easy situation do, to the joint labour and pleasure of this epistle.-Humble servant, A. POPE." -Parnell's Works.]

2

The truly philosophical language of my worthy and learned friend Mr. Harris, the author of Hermes, a work that will be read and admired as long as there is any taste for philosophy and fine writing in Britain." -Orig. and Prog. of Language, vol. 1. p. 8.

"But I can hardly have the same indulgence for the philosopher, especially one who pretended, like Mr. Locke, to be so attentive an observer of what passed in his own mind, and has written a whole book upon the subject.-If Mr. Locke would have taken the trouble to study what had been discovered in this matter by the antients, and had not resolved to have the merit of inventing himself a whole system of philosophy, he would have known that every material object is composed of matter and form."-Id. vol. 1. p. 38.

"Mr. Locke wrote at a time when the old philosophy, I mean the scholastic philosophy, was generally run down and despised, but no other come in its place. In that situation, being naturally an acute man,