tained by the practice of political conclufions; a conduct which fcarce ever fails of being afcribed to corruption, weakness, or pufillanimity. Criticisms on the Diverfions of Purley. In a Letter to Horne Tooke, Efq. By 1. Caffander. 8vo. 2s. Cadell. THE HE Epea Pteroenta, or the Diverfions of Purley, we noticed in our Review for July 1786. The purpose of the letter now before us is to put Mr. Tooke upon his guard, in his future publication, against a difpofition to inaccuracy, with which he is charged by the prefent author. Caffander begins his remarks with exhibiting this defect in a variety of inftances, chiefly relative to Mr. Tooke's divifion of language, and fome obfervations made by him on Mr. Locke and Mr. Harris. His explanation of the word That is thus criticised by Caffander. Except what relates to politics, which, though ever fo found, cannot with any propriety be introduced into a work of this kind, the whole of this chapter deserves attention. The light in which it represents the ftructure of language is curious; and if you go on folving in fo plaufible a manner this intricate bufinefs, you will make ample amends for the little recreation we have met with hitherto in the Diverfions of Purley. I beg leave, however, to make a few remarks on the word THAT. There are inftances in which it does not feem fufceptible of the fenfe into which you refolve it: fuch are those where it is connected, in one and the fame phrafe, with the pronoun perfonal IT; as for inftance, It is reasonable that we should do by others, as we should be done by ourfelves; It is not to be expected that in a fate of tryal like the prefent, we should meet with no diffi culties; Be it known, that, &c. Again, when it is preceded immediately by the word intent in the dative cafe, as, To the intent, that when they come up, they might teach their children the fame. It feems as if in the preceding inftances the word THAT could not admit of your refolution, without introducing both redundancy and confufion. Whatever, fay you, be the name which is given to it, whatever be its fituation and appearance, it is one and the fame word, namely, the article, and stands for THAT THING. But is not the fenfe of this laft expreffion implied already in the pronoun IT, which begins the two first of the preceding phrafes? And if fo, is there not a kind of awkwardness and redundancy in the article which follows? It is very potfible, however, that it will admit of your refolution, without my being aware of it. I am far, therefore, from alledging thefe inftances as proofs that you are wrong. I give them only as difficulties which may be thrown in your way.' VOL. LXX. 08. 1790. E e Mr. Mr. Tooke fuppofes the word unless to be the imperative of the Anglo-Saxon verb unleran, to difmifs: but the author of the pamphlet objects to this derivation, as not confiftent with analogy. It must be acknowledged, that the inftances produced by Caffander to expofe the impropriety of fuch a conjunctive fignification of the word difmifs, feem fully to authorife the rejection of it, as an aukward expreffion; yet, if we exclude this circumftance, the word appears to correfpond very closely with the fenfe afcribed to it by Mr. Tooke. In refpect of this word, however, our author makes the following obfervations: If there be fuch a verb in the Anglo-Saxon, it must be the fame with onleron, a compound of on and leran, and the Dutch ontlofen: but neither leran in the Anglo-Saxon, nor LOSSEN in the Dutch fignifics to difmifs. Leran, in its primary fignification, means to unbind, in its fecondary, to redeem, to unload, to fet at liberty. Solvere, redimere, liberare, fays the dictionary. In the firft fenfe it answers to the English, to loofen, i. e. to make loofe; in the second, the Dutch ontloffen. Skinner, indeed, tranflates onleran, or rather aleran, to difmifs. But Skinner is often ignorant, fays Dr. Johnfon*; and I reject his tranflation, because I am certain the equivalent in Dutch ontlossen is not fufceptible of it.-But further. As there is an equivalent in the French of the word UNLESS very much refembling it in turn, it is fomewhat extraordinary, that it should never have occured to you, that poffibly the one is a tranflation, or at least an imitation of the other. This equivalent is A MOINS QUE. What word more likely to have given birth to unless; if we may fuppofe the latter to be a compound of on and lefs? And if the Anglo-Saxon dialect admits of onleft, at the laft; onbec, at the back; onbutan, externally; on affe, oppofite; why fhould it not alfo admit of onlefs, for A MOINS QUE? This conjecture is the more probable, as it was not till after the conqueft, when the English became a mixture of the French and Anglo-Saxon, that the word UNLESS was introduced into it; the Anglo Saxon having used till then, as you yourself have obferved, NEMTHE, or NYMTHE, instead of it. And yet you never mention A MOINS QUE; no, not even where you name the words correfponding in other languages to the English word UNLESS. The French SINON, unless you add que to it, which you do not, is by no means of the number. It is fometimes ufed as an adverb in the fenfe of otherwise, or in default. Faites ce qu'il dit, finon, n'efperez nulle grace de fa part; do what he bids you, elfe expect no favour from him. Sometimes as, venia fit verbo, an exceptive conjunction, when it must be tranflated but. Je n'ai autre chofe a vous dire, finon que vous en uferez comme il vous plaira; I have nothing to tell you, but that you are at liberty to do what you pleafe. p. 214. LES. The Imperative of Leran. The orthography of this word, I prefume to fay, is LESS. It is thus Ben Jonfon fpells it in the paffages you here quote from him; and it should feem as if civilized people had no other way of fpelling it. You choose, however, upon the authority of Gawin Douglas, to write it with a fingles; and, truly, I do not wonder at it, as in that garb it will anfwer your purpose imuch better than in the common one. It is poffible that LES fhould be the imperative of Leran; but LESS can have no pretenfions to it: at least not according to your principles; for, if my memory does not deceive me, you have faid fomewhere, or at least given us to understand, that words may lofe, but not acquire, letters, as they recede from their origin.' Caffander continues his remarks on this word through feveral pages; adducing, in fupport of his own opinion, feveral arguments from Saxon etymology, and endeavouring, by a fimilar réfource, to establish a different derivation. A few other words are critici fed by the author in the fame manner; and he seems to trace their origin in the Saxon tongue with great probability. But though we would not depreciate the purfait of fuch philological difquifitions, we fhould be more pleafed to fee Caffander direct his refearches towards elucidating the fenfe and grammatical application of words, than exercifing his ingenuity in the conjectural and unprofitable field of enquiries merely etymological. Before we difmifs this pamphlet, we must take the opportunity of making one obfervation on the Diverfions of Purley, which was purposely omitted in our account of that production. Mr. Tooke had mentioned the literary character of Dr. Johnfon in very difrefpectful terms, which we thought fo unjustifiable that they seemed to merit no refutation. But our filence having been conftrued into an acquiefcence with Mr. Tooke's fentiments, we beg leave to difclaim, in the moft pofitive manner, fo injurious an imputation. If, in a work fo arduous as a dictionary of the English language, many impe:fections should occur, we ought rather to applaud the author for the extraordinary fuccefs with which he has executed that difficult undertaking, than condemn him for not having performed what will ever exceed the capacity of any one man, however great, in the common extent of human life. The abilities of Dr. Johnson will be acknowledged as long as English literature engages the attention of mankind; and his name, as an author, inftead of being vilified, ought never to be mentioned without the highest respect. We with, therefore, that Mr. Tooke, in the next edition of his "Epea Pteroenta," would retract the unbecoming expreffions which he has used in fpeaking of that celebrated writer. E e 2 Travels Travels to difcover the Source of the Nile. By J. Bruce, Efq. (Continued from p. 266.) AFTER having vifited the head of the Nile, our traveller remained for fome time at Geefh, in the feat of his newly acquired government; but he digreffes to anfwer those who fuppofe Egypt was the gift of the Nile, or, in other words, that Lower Egypt was raifed by the accumulated fediment of this river. We formerly faid that we wished, inftead of affertions, he had given arguments; but he is contented with prov. ing that no evident increase of the Nile has occurred fince the period of Herodotus. The bafes of the ftatues, and the planes, to receive the gnomonical shades, are ftill, it feems, uncovered. We may remark, however, that this is only the fecond part of the question. If Lower Egypt were once an arm of the sea, or rather a marsh, drained by the industry of an active race, and raised by a gradually accumulating fediment, there must be a period when this augmentation would ceafe, when the refiftance of the furrounding ground bore its due proportion to the expanding force of the river.. The neceffity of canals, and these, the works of early ages, fhow that this maximum has been long fince attained; fo that, though the ground may not be an inch higher than at that æra, Mr. Bruce has not established his pofition. Another view of the subject he has not taken, which is that from all the coaft of Egypt and Syria the fea has certainly retired; and there is not at this time; there has not been fince the records of hiftory, fo great an impediment to the courfe of the river. The caufe which occafioned the accumulation is therefore almoft at an end; and, with the cause, the effect must ceafe. Mr. Bruce allows that the Nile, as it proceeds in its courfe, is more full of fediment, chiefly from fand; that fand islands are raised from it in the Delta; and that the quantity of water is diminishing. Thefe effects always, perhaps, followed the annual inundation of the river; and, when all the mould within its reach was carried away, fand only remained. Our author's fummary we fhall tranfcribe. It is agreed on all hands, that Egypt, in early ages, had water enough to overflow the ground that compofed it. It was then a narrow valley as it is now; having been early the feat of the arts, crowded with a multitude of people, enriched by the moft flourishing and profitable trade, and its numbers fupplied and recruited when needful by the immenfe nations to the fouthward of it, having `grain and all the neceffaries and luxuries of life (oil excepted) for the great multitude which it fed, Egypt was averfe to any communication with strangers till after the foundation of Alexandria. The first princes, after the building of Memphis, finding the 397 the land turn broader towards the Delta, whereas before it had been a narrow ftripe confined between mountains; obferving alfo that they had great command of water for fitting their land for cultivation, nay, that great part of it ran to waste without profit, which must have been the cafe, fince it is fo at this day obferving likewife, that the fuperabundance of water in the Nile did harm, and that the neighbour ng fandy plains of Libya needed nothing but a judicious ditribution of that wa ter, to make ir equal to the land of Egypt in fertility, and furpafs it in the variety of natural productions, applied themselves very early to digging large lakes, that, preferving a degree of level fufficient, all the year long watered the dry deferts of Li bya like fo many fruitful fhowers. Geometry, architecture, and all the mechanic arts of thofe times, were employed to accomplish these defigns. Thefe canals and vaft works communicated one with another to imprifon the water, and set it again at liberty at proper time. We may be fatisfied this was obferved attentively all the time of the dynasties, or reigns of the Egyptian princes. After the acceffion of the Ptolemies, who were trangers, the multitude of inhabitants had greatly decre.fed. There was no occafion for works to water lands that were not peopled; fo far they were neceffary for cities, gardens, and pleafure-grounds, they were always kept up. The larger and more extensive conduits, dykes, and fluices, though they were not used, were protected by their own folidity and strength from fudden ruin. Egypt, now confined within its ancient narrow valley, had water enough to keep it in culture, and make it ftill the granary of the inhabited world.' In the war and confufion which followed the dynasty of the Ptolomies, thefe works were neglected; and restored again by Petronius. The Nilometer, deftroyed by Omar, was replaced by his fucceffors, and divided into peeks: the peek used was that ftyled El Belledy, in our author's opinion, equal to twenty-two inches English. The Nilometer is defcribed, but it is not faid from actual observation, and every circumstance collected refpecting the inundation, which is either of curiofity or importance. That the country of Egypt falls in its level towards the mountains, is a proof, we think, that the ground has been raised by the accumulating mud of the Nile; but, though favourable to our opinion, we muft add, that Mr. Bruce has adduced no fufficient evidence of the fact. All the water does not, it feems, fall back into the river from the ca We have not urged the great uncertainty of this new divifion, and the impoffibility of comparing it with the ancient divifions of the Nilometer, in fupport of the formation and the accumulation of the foil of Egypt, becaufe there is much reason to fuppofe that it has not greatly accumulated fince the days of Herodotus. M. de l'Ifle fuppofes the cubit of the Nilometer equal to about 204 inches. See p. 440. Ee3 nals; |