« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
between them will remain fluid for three hours.' The blood therefore, he adds, fhews the property of life, by preferving itfelf in its fluidity, while confined in the velfels:-but if we take the blood out of the blood veffel, it will coagulate in a minute or two.'-The reafon affigned is too curious to be paffed over. In this cafe, it seems, the blood, on finding the air endeavouring to enter it, ftoutly refifts its intrulion, and, by its power of life, contracting its parts together, as a muscle does when pricked, exhaufts its vital power, and coagulates ;'i. e. dies, or gives up the ghost, in the conflict.
Here instead of looking up to the air, and its obvious chemical qualities, for the caufe of this difference, thefe gentlemen choose rather to call in the ghoftly principle of life to explain the events. It has been asked whether a jelly too is alive while it continues fluid in the jelly-bag?-No, the Author triumphantly anfwers; -the cafes are not parallel; the jelly is a mere pifive body, and will coagulate when even inciofed in a vefiel: whereas the blood refifts coagulation by its living principle of contraction. — The reader will be puzzled which to admire moft-the logic, or the philofophy of this argument.
ART. XI. De Arthritide P. imigeniá & Reguları, Gulielmi Mufgrave, M. D. apud Exonienies olim Pra ic, Opus Pofthimum: Quod nunc primum publici juris facit Samuel Mufgrave, M. D. Auctoris Pronepos. 8vo. 2s. 6d. Londini, Elmily. Oxonii, Prince. 1776. HE Author of this work was well known to the learned, and especially to the medical world, by various publications; particularly by two differtations on the gou', one of which, entitled, Differtatio de Arthritide Symptomatica, was publifhed in 1703; and the other, Diff'rtatio de Arthritide Anomala, was published in 1707. Dying in 1721, he left behind him the present work, which was fome time afterwards printed at the Clarendon prefs. The death of his only fon, about that time, prevented the publication; and it is now for the firft time brought to light by the prefent Editor.
In the firft chapter the Author defcrioes the difeafe, and divides it into three fpecies; the primegenial or regular, the fymptomatic, and the anomalous gout. In the fecond, he enters into a critical inquiry relative to the various names given to this disease by the ancients; enriched with numerous quotations from the Greek and Roman writers. In the third chapter he defcribes the flate and progress of the regular gout; and in the fourth treats of the different feats of the diforder. He enumerates the various caufes of this difeafe in his fifth chapter. One of these is too fingular to be pafled over without notice. He affirms that a female may contract the gout by the following particular mode of inoculation. The operation is of fuch a
nature as renders it abfolutely neceffary for us to defcribe it in his own words:
Utero corpus intrare miafma arthriticum, ex eo liquet, quod fæ. minæ pure, integræque, folo complexu arthritocorum, (id quod fæpiffime notavi) fiant arthritica. Semine nimirum mafculina contentum, una cum eo infunditur, & fanguine feminino receptum in e more fuo debacchatur. Complures hujufce tribus apud nos arthritices funt; unde miafmatis arthritici vehiculum, femen mafculinum effe non infrequens, exiftimandum eft.
We cannot help thinking that the Author muft be mistaken in this obfervation. Were it well founded, the number of gouty couples would furely be much greater than we find it to be; and the poor arthritic, who is far from being cool towards the fex, would long ago have been marked and avoided by them as a contagious animal.
In the remaining chapters the Author treats of the prognoftics, and of the method of cure; fubjoining feveral hiftories to exemplify and illuftrate the doctrines laid down in the preceding chapters. In the laft of thefe cafes, the benefits of temperance and exercife in this difeafe are fo ftrongly exhibited, that we think it meritorious to abridge it:
A Devonshire gentleman, during a courfe of many years gluttony and good fellowship, was haraffed with long and frequent fits of the gout; which had befides loaded his joints with tophaceous concretions, confiderable both with respect to number and bulk. He had acquired however this great quantity of chalk at the expence of his whole fortune; fo that he was obliged to work daily at a brick kiln, in order to obtain a fcanty livelihood. He now acquired a good appetite, but had nothing to eat. The change nevertheless was wonderful. He loft his corpulence, but became athletic; and during this course of la bour and want his chalky concretions totally difappeared.
ART. XII. The Philofophy of Rhetoric. By George Campbell, D. D. Principal of the Marifchal College, Aberdeen. Continued from our laft.
HE firft book of this judicious and ufeful work chiefly confifts, as we have seen, in observations and inftructions concerning ideas and the art of thinking. In what remains, the Author treats concerning language and the art of speaking. And though a large fhare of his remarks in this part of the work properly comes under the head of verbal criticism, which many affect to defpife, they appear to us to discover much accuracy of judgment, and to be capable of the most ufeful application; we beg leave therefore to recommend them to the attentive perufal of fuch writers as do not look upon
purity and correctnefs of ftyle as objects wholly beneath their regard.
As the general ground of our Author's obfervations concerning grammatical propriety, he lays down this principle, that language is purely the offspring of fashion or custom, and that it is not the bufinefs of grammar to give law to the fashions which regulate our fpeech, but to collect and methodize the modes of fpeech previously and independently eftablifhed and from hence he infers, that to the tribunal of use as the fupreme authority and laft refort, we are in every grammatical controverfy entitled to appeal from the laws and decifions of grammarians. In order to afcertain what that use is which must be made the ftandard of language, he remarks, that it must be reputable, as diftinguished from the vulgar terms and idioms of the illiterate, and including all fuch modes of fpeech as are authorised as good by the writings of a great number, if not the majority of celebrated authors ;-that it must be national, as opposed both to provincial and to foreign;-and that it must be prefent, or not obfolete. Becaufe ufe thus qualified, which he calls good use, is not always uniform in her decifions, and becaufe every mode of fpeech, favoured by good ufe, is not on that account worthy to be retained, he has thought it neceffary to lay down certain general rules on these heads, to Thefe canons are as which he gives the name of Canons. follow;
• Canons. When ufe is divided as to any particular word or phrafe, and the expreflion ufed by one part hath been pre-occupied, or is in any inftance fufceptible of a different fignification, and the expreffion employed by the other part never admits a different fense, both perfpicuity and variety require, that the form of expreffion which is in every inftance ftri&tly univocal, be preferred. 2. In doubtful cafes, regard ought to be had in our decifions to the analogy of the language. 3. When the terms or expreflion are in other refpects equal, that ought to be preferred which is most agreeable to the ear. 4. In cafes wherein none of the foregoing rules give either fide a ground of preference, a regard to fimplicity (in which I include etymology when manifeft) ought to determine our choice. 5. In the few cafes wherein neither perfpicuity nor analogy, neither found nor fimplicity, aflifts us in fixing our choice, it is fafest to prefer that manner which is most conformable to ancient ufage. 6. All words and phrafes which are remarkably harsh and unharmonious, and not abfolutely necefiary, fhould be laid afide. 7. When etymology plainly points to a fignification different from that which the word commonly bears, propriety and fimplicity both require its difmiffion. 8. When any words become obfolete, or at least are never used, except as conflituting part of particular phrafes, it is better to dif penfe with their fervice entirely, and give up the phrafes. 9. All thofe phrafes, which, when analyfed grammatically, include a folecifm, and all those to which ufe hath affixed a particular fenfe, but
which, when explained by the general and established rules of the language, are fufceptible either of a different fenfe or of no fenie, ought to be difcarded altogether.'
The propriety of thefe canons are made fufficiently evident by pertinent inflances.
Having laid this foundation, the Author proceeds to treat of the feveral violations of grammatical purity, under the heads of barbarifm, Julecifm, impropriety. The charge of barbarifm, he obferves, may be incurred by the ufe of words entirely obfolete, or entirely new, or by new formations and compofitions from words in ufe: all deviations from the idiom of the language in conftruction, he includes under the head of folecifm, and enumerates feveral inaccuracies not noticed by former writers and the use of wrong words or phrases to exprefs our ideas, he terms impropriety. The examples under each of thefe heads are chofen with judgment, and the Author's remarks are fenfible and accurate; but, as from the nature of the fubject they do not admit of abridgement, we must content ourfelves with giving our readers a fpecimen of the manner in which this part of the plan is executed, in the following extract concerning the ufe of new words.
Another tribe of barbarifms mach more numerous, is confituted by new words. Here indeed the hazard is more imminent, as the tendency to this extreme is more prevalent: nay, our language is in greater danger of being overwhelmed by an inundation of foreign words, than of any other fpecics of destruction. There is, doubtlefs, fome excufe for borrowing the affiitance of neighbours, when their affiflance is really wanted; that is, when we cannot do our bufinefs without it; but there is certainly a meannefs in chooling to be indebted to others, for what we can cafily be fupplied with out of our own ftock. When words are introduced by any writer, from a fort of neceffity. in order to avoid tedious and languid circumlocutions, there is reafon to believe they will foon be adopted by others convinced of the neceffity, and will at length be naturalized by the public. But it were to be wifhed, that the public would ever reject thofe which are obtruded on it merely through a licentious affectation of novelty. And of this kind certainly are moft of the words and phrafes which have, in this century, been imported from France. Are not pleasure, opinionative, and fally, as expreffive as
lupty, opiniatre, and fortie? Wherein is the expression last resort, inferior to dernier refort; liberal arts, to beaux arts; and polite litera ture, to belles lettres? Yet fome writers have arrived at such a pitch of futility, as to imagine, that if they can but make a few trifling changes, like aimable for amiable, politeffe for politeness, delicateffe for delicacy, and hauteur for haughtiness, they have found fo many gems, which are capable of adding a wonderful luftre to their works. With fuch, indeed, it is in vain to argue; but to others, who are not quite fo unreasonable, I beg leave to fuggeft the following remarks. First, it ought to be remembered, that the rules of pronunciation and orthography in French, are fo different from thofe which obtain in Eng
lih, that the far greater part of the French words lately introduced, conftitute fo many anomalies with us, which, by loading the grammatical rules with exceptions, greatly corrupt the fimplicity and regularity of our tongue. Nor is this the only way in which they corrupt its fimplicity; let it be obferved further, that one of the principal beauties of any language, and the most effential to fimplicity, refults from this, that a few plain and primitive words called roots, have, by an analogy, which hath infenfibly established itself, given rife to an infinite number of derivative and compound words, between which and the primitive, and between the former and their conjugates, there is, a refemblance in fenfe, correfponding to that which there is in found. Hence it will happen, that a word may be very emphatical in the language to which it owes its birth, arifing from the light that is reflected on it by the other words of the fame etymology; which, when it is tranfplanted into another language, lofes its emphafs entirely. The French word eclairciffement, for inftance, is regularly deduced thus: eclairciffement, eclairciffe, eclaircir, eclair, clair, which is the etymon, whence allo are defcended clairement, clarté, clarifies, clarification, eclairer. The like may be obferved in regard to connoiffeur, reconnoitre, agrémens, and a thousand others. Whereas, fuch words with us, look rather like ftrays than like any part of our own property. They are very much in the condition of exiles, who, having been driven from their families, relations, and friends, are compelled to take refuge in a country where there is not a fingle perfon with whom they can claim a connexion, either by blood or by alliance. But the patrons of this practice will probably plead, that as the French is the finer language, ours muft certainly be improved by the mixture. Into the truth of the hypo thefis from which they argue, I fhall not now inquire. It fufficeth for my prefent purpofe, to obferve, that the confequence is not logical, though the plea were jutt. A liquor produced by the mixture of two liquors of different qualities, will often prove worfe than either. The Greek is, doubtlefs, a language much fupcrior, in riches, harmony, and variety, to the Latin; yet, by an affectation in the Romans of Greek words and idioms, (like the paffion of the English for whatever is imported from France) as much, perhaps, as by any thing, the Latin was not only viciated, but loft almoft entirely, in a few centuries, that beauty and majefty which we difcover in the writings of the Augullan age. On the contrary, nothing contributed more to the prefervation of the Greek tongue in its native purity for fuch an amazing number of centuries, unexampled in the history of any other language, than the contempt they had of this practice. It was in confequence of this contempt, that they were the first who branded a foreign term in any of their writers with the odious name of barbariim. But there are two confiderations which ought efpecially to weigh with authors, and hinder them from wantonly admitting fuch extraneous productions into their performances. One is, if thefe foreigners be allowed to fettle amongst us, they will infallibly fupplant the old inhabitants. Whatever ground is given to the one, is to much taken from the other. Is it then prudent in a writer, to foment a humour of innovation which tends to make the language of his country fill more Rev. Nov, 1776. C¢ changeable,