Page images
PDF
EPUB

velut equa trima campis ̧

Ludit exultim, metuitque tangi.

The tranquillity of the one people would proceed from a defect, the irritability of the other from an abundance, of sensorial power. The unanimity of the one would be but another word for apathy and ignorance; the animated contentions of the other, the necessary results of intelligence and sensibility. "The dissen ❝tions of a free people are the preventives, and not ، the indications of radical disorder, and the noises ، that make the weak-hearted tremble, are but the "natural murmurings of those mighty and mingling cc currents of public opinion which are destined to fer= ، tilize and unite the country; and can never become "dangerous till an attempt is made to dam them up, "or to disturb their level."* In the beautiful language of De Lolme: "The governing power being « dependent on the nation, is often thwarted, but sa "long as it continues to deserve the affection of the 66 people, can never be endangered. Like a vigorous "tree which stretches its branches far and wide, the "slightest breath can put it in motion; but it ac"quires and exerts at every minute a new degree of "force, and resists the winds by the strength and "elasticity of its fibres, and the depth of its roots." Like one of those monuments of Druidical superstition, known by the name of rocking-stones, the slightest touch can set it in motion; but it would require a very extraordinary power to remove it from its place.

* Edinb. Rev. Vol. XX. P. 345.

ART. XI. A View of the Theories of Particles, and of some Opinions on Questions of General Grammar, contained in Dr. Lumsden's Persian Grammar; and in Tooke's Diversions of Purley.

THE doctrines of Harris and Horne Tooke on the subject of particles may be considered as two extremes, between which the system of Dr. Lumsden holds a middle course. The differences which distinguish them have some analogy with those which are most prominent in the "Tale of a Tub." While Harris, with Jack, protests against the ascription of any meaning whatever to particles; and while Horne Tooke, with Peter, transubstantiates them into verbs and nouns; Dr. Lumsden, with Martin, only ventures to consubstantiate their meaning with that of other contiguous words.

Mr. Harris's definition of a particle, that is to say, a preposition, conjunction, or termination, that it is "a word devoid of all signification; but so formed as "to unite two or more significant words, which refuse "to coalesce or unite of themselves;"is indeed too absurd for argumentative refutation. No reasoning can add force to the self-destructive powers of manifest contradictions. For this is what the definition amounts to: Words significant of our ideas may be placed together without conveying any intelligible sense, until the various relations by which they are connected, (which are no less distinctly conceived by the mind, and no less important in the enunciation of its sentiments, than the objects to which they refer,) shall be clearly expressed by the insertion of appropriate, insignificant particles!

The distinction between the nonsignificant, consig nificant, and adsignificant systems is rather nominal than real. They all agree in representing particles to be separately insignificant, and yet to disclose their own proper significations when used in combination with others. As individuals they signify nothing, and consequently there is no difference between one and another; and yet having assumed their proper places in the ranks according to their different powers, they perform excellent service! Some conjunctions, says Harris, "have a kind of obscure signification when "taken alone; and appear in Grammar like Zoo

phytes in nature, a kind of middle beings of amphibi-. "ous character; which, by sharing the attributes of the "higher and the lower, conduce to link the whole "together." Upon this precious passage Horne Tooke freely indulges his wit (of which he has so much that we could better spare a better writer) against Mr. Harris and his friend Lord Monboddo; and truly they are altogether defenceless against the pelting of the pitiless storm of ridicule that he pours upon them from his text and from his notes. "It would have helped "us a little," says he, "if Mr. Harris had here told

us what that middle state is, between signification "and nonsignification! What are the attributes of non"signification! And how signification and nonsigni"fication can be linked together!"

[ocr errors]

Such are the absurdities with which the opinions of the greater part of Horne Tooke's predecessors are chargeable. And what does he substitute in their room? Having rescued particles from so much confusion and misrepresentation, and having asserted their self-significance, what rank does he assign them? He

Having, by a

identifies them with nouns and verbs! true or false etymology,* derived all particles from nouns or verbs, he maintains that they never cease to be nouns or verbs! The wings that he speaks of, avail them little, for, with him, the butterfly is "merely and "simply" the aurelia from which it sprung. Nouns and verbs are the only sorts of words which ne acknowledges to be necessary for the communication of our thoughts. "What are called its (the mind's) operati❝ons, are merely the operations of language. A "consideration of ideas, or of the mind, or of things "(relative to the Parts of Speech) will lead us no "farther than to Nouns: i. e, the signs of those im

pressions, or names of ideas. The other part of "speech, the Verb, must be accounted for from the "" necessary use of it in communication." Thus even

verbs are unnecessary as signs of ideas; they are only necessary "in communication" (of our ideas!) "The ❝errors of Grammarians have arisen from supposing "all words to be immediately either the signs of things, "or the signs of ideas: whereas in fact many words "are merely abbreviations employed for dispatch, and 66 are the signs of other words. And these are the "artificial wings of Mercury, by means of which the "Argus eyes of Philosophy have been cheated." i. e. as I understand it, all words which are not nouns or verbs, are the signs of other words which are nouns or verbs. But what is this but saying that they are immediately the signs of ideas signified by nouns or verbs? There is nothing intermediate between words and

* Dr. Jamieson has shown that he was mistaken in some of those on which he builds most. See his Etym. Dictionary.

+ Div. of Purley, I, 51.

Ibid. I. 27.

ideas. Words which are said to be mediately signifi cant by being the signs of other words, must be at once, and immediately, the signs of the ideas represented by those other words; for to suggest words and to suggest ideas is an identical operation. What are said to be "merely the operations of language," are simultaneously the operations of the mind. The two are indissolubly associated together. This false distinction seems to correspond with that which he* makes between the signification of words, and the manner of signification of words. The necessary words, nouns and verbs, have their "significations;" and all other words which are "merely substitutes of the first sort,”—“ ab"breviations employed for the sake of dispatch,"-have their "manners of signification." We have seen that the words which are said to be substitutes for, and the signs of, the necessary parts of speech, are thereby identified with those parts of speech: and if so, where is the abbreviation?" and where is the difference in manner of signification?" If adjectives, adverbs, conjunctions, &c. have each (as he admits) a different manner of signification, then they have each a different signification, and are not substitutes for, nor signs of nouns and verbs. Whatever differs modo significationis, must differ significatione.

the "

Having thus removed his illusory, and nugatory distinctions, and given to the statement of his scheme the only sense which it will bear, let us look a little more closely at it by examining one or two of its ex

* And so does Scaliger whom he quotes with approbation. (Vol. II. P. 428.) "Nihil differt concretum ab abstracto, nisi modo significationis, 66 NON significatione."

« PreviousContinue »