a future retribution, feems to prove, that he was fo far in earnest with regard to this matter, as to believe, that it was not, as the Epicureans affirmed, either abfurd or improbable.

Let it be remarked, in the third place, that no poet ever thought of fo prepofterous a method of pleafing and inftructing his readers, as first to employ all his skill in adorning his fable, and then tell them, that they ought not to believe a word of it. The true poet's aim is very different. He adapts himself to the opinions that prevail among the people for whom he writes, that they may the more easily acquiefce in his narrative: or he is careful, at least, to make his fable confiftent with itself, in order to give it as much as poffible the appearance of ferioufnefs and truth. We know, that the fcenery of the fixth book is wholly fictitious; but the Romans did not certainly know how far it might be fo: founded as it was on ancient tradition, which no hiftory they had could overturn; and on philofophical opinions, which they had never heard confuted, and which, where Revelation was unknown, might feem refpectable,. on account of the abilities of Pythagoras, Plato, and other great men who had taught them.

To which I may add, 4thly, as an argument decifive of the prefent queftion, That if Virgil wished his countrymen to believe him to have been not in earnest in what he had told them of a preexiftent and future ftate, he must also have wished them to underftand, that the compliments he had been paying to the most favourite characters among their ancestors were equally infincere; and that what he had faid of the virtues of Camillus, Brutus, Cato, Scipio, and even Auguftus himself, was altogether vifionary, and had as good a right to a paffage through the ivory gate, as any other falfehood. Had Octavia understood this to be the poet's meaning, he would not have rewarded him fo liberally for his matchlefs encomium on the younger Marcellus. Had this indeed been his meaning, all the latter part of the fixth book would have been a ftudied infult on Auguftus, and the other heroes there celebrated, as well as on the whole Roman people. Strange, that the most judicious writer in the world fhould commit fuch a blunder in the most elaborate part of a poem which he had confecrated to the honour of his country, and particularly to that of his great patron Auguftus!

We must therefore admit, either that Virgil had loft his fenfes, or, which is more probable, that, in fending Eneas and the Sybil through the ivory gate, he intended no farcaftic reflection either on his country or on his poetry. In a word, we must admit, that, in this part of his fable, he was just as much in earnest as in any other; and that there was no more joke in Eneas's afcent through the gate of ivory, than in his defcent through the cave of Avernus. How then are we to understand this adventure of the gate? I answer, By making the poet his own interpreter, and not feeking to find things in his book which we have no good reafon to think were ever in his head.

In the nineteenth book of the Odyffey, Penelope, fpeaking of dreams, fays to her nurfe, that there are two gates by which they

are

are tranfmitted to us; one made of horn, through which the true dreams pafs, and the other of ivory, which emits falfe dreams. This thought Homer probably derived from fome Egyptian custom or tradition, which one might difcufs with many quotations and much appearance of learning; and this, no doubt, gave Virgil the hint of the paffage now before us. But Virgil's account differs from Homer's more than the commentators feem to be aware of. Homer does not fay in what part of the world his gates are; Virgil's are in Italy, not far from Cumæ, and are faid to be the outlet from Elyfium into the upper world: a wild fiction, no doubt, but not more wild than that of making the cave of Avernus the inlet from the upper world into the nether. Homer's gates are the gates of dreams; Virgil calls his the gates of fleep. The former are not faid to tranfmit any thing but dreams; of the latter, one tranfmits dreams, and the other real ghosts or fhades. For thus, though all the commentators are against me, I must understand the words umbris veris; because in Virgil umbra often fignifies a ghoft, but never in him, nor in any other good writer, (fo far as I know) a dream. If it be asked, what ghosts they were that used to pafs this way; the anfwer is eafy: they were thofe who, after having been a thousand years in Elyfium, and taken a draught of Lethe, were fent back to the upper world to animate new bodies. If again it were asked, whether fuch beings might not be of fo fubtle a nature as to work their way into the upper world without paffing through a gate; I fhould anfwer, that visible fubftances, which might be purified by fire, or washed in water, and could not get over the river Styx but in a boat, must be so far material at least, as to be capable of confinement, and confequently of being fet at liberty.'

The fourth memoir contains Remarks on certain Analogies obferved by the Greeks in the Ufe of their Letters; and particularly of the Letter Zyua; by Mr. Dalzell, Profeffor of Greek in the Univerfity of Edinburgh.

Mr. D. learnedly pleads the caufe of the letter ayμa, and calls to his affiftance, as might be expected, the wit of Lucian, who had treated the fame fubject.

Memoir V. contains an Account of the German Theatre; by Henry Mackenzie, Esquire.

Mr. M. obferves:

That the German language has not attained, as thofe who know it inform us, that perfection and regularity neceffary to stamp the highest value on the productions compofed in it. Its currency, for the fame reafon, is far from extenfive; and therefore the original German works are scarce read at all beyond the circle of the empire. French and English translations, particularly the former, have made up to ftrangers the lofs which this would otherwife have occafioned; and few books of any merit now appear in

*The third memoir will be confidered in another article.

Germany, that are not published in the French language by the bookfellers of Paris.'

From this citation, it appears that Mr. Mackenzie is qualified for judging of the German theatre, only through the medium of French tranflations. We cannot therefore, in justice, say, that he has difcovered much judgment in the choice of his fubject. He is miftaken, likewife, in what he calls the currency of the German tongue; which (he fays) is far from extenfive; and therefore the original German works are fcarce read at all beyond the circle of the empire.' This is incorrect, both in language and in reafoning. It is well known, that many countries, comprehended under the name of Germany, are not contained within the circle of the empire. Befide, the German language is univerfally read by men of learning or fashion in all countries of the North, particularly in Ruffia, where it is much spoken at court. Mr. M. is equally mistaken in thinking that moft German books of any merit are republished at Paris in French. The truth is, that ten French books, at leaft, are tranflated into German, for one German book, that is tranflated into French; although of the two, the German prefs is by far the most prolific. Notwithstanding these observations, Mr. M.'s paper may be read with fatisfaction by the lovers of light literature: but the German dramatifts, who may think themselves injured by his fentence, will appeal from a judge, who has neither vifited their country, nor ftudied their language. They may cite, with much authority, the example of Voltaire; who, though he had vifited England, and read English, yet appreciated the merits of English poets, and particularly Shakspeare, with very little fuccefs; as all Europe knows, and as even France herself, now emancipating from fhackles of every kind, does not blush to acknowlege.

The fixth article is an elaborate and learned difcourfe, by Dr. Gregory, Profeffor of Phyfic in the University of Edinburgh, containing a Theory of the Moods of Verbs.

In philology, Dr. G. is the pupil of Lord Monboddo; and in philofophy, of Dr. Reid: but a pupil, who, inftead of blindly following, ftrives to furpass his mafters. His theory of the moods of verbs difcovers as much folidity as acuteness of un derstanding; and the principles, which he establishes, are illuftrated with great aptnefs of quotation, and uncommon juftnefs of tafte. Thefe principles may be reduced to the fix following propofitions:

I. That the energies, or modifications of thought, expreffed by the moods of verbs, are fuch as may be expreffed feparately by other verbs, and chiefly by active verbs; or, in the phrafeology of the author of the effay on the Origin and Progrefs of Language, That

the

the energies of the mind of the speaker, denoted by the moods of verbs, are truly accidents, and chiefly actions.

This perhaps the learned author was not fully aware of, else he would not have used, in his definition of a verb, a phrafe which may be fairly tranflated, "A verb is a word chiefly fignificant of being and of action, of the action of the mind of the speaker relative to that action," e. Or, if he had been aware of this, he muft, I think, have been led to examine more accurately the nature of the energies, actions, or accidents denoted by the moods of verbs.

Yet, from his uniformly employing the term energy to denote the general import of all moods, we may prefume, that he had fome conception of that intimate relation between the import of the accidents of fome and that of the moods of all verbs. For he mutt have known, that energy, though a compound Greek word, and action, though a fimple Latin word, when applied to the operations of mind, are perfectly fynonymous; and he very properly mentions action as one of the chief accidents denoted by verbs.

His definition might even be fairly stated thus: "A verb is a word chiefly fignificant of accident, of the accident of the mind of the speaker relative to that accident," &c. For this is only fubftituting the generic term accident for the Specific term energy or action; fo that the propofition, though lefs particular and accurate, would ftill be true.

II. That the energies expreffed by the moods of verbs are chiefly the focial operations of mind, as they have been very properly termed by Dr. Reid; that is to fay, fuch as imply the belief of fome other intelligent being to whom they relate, and which cannot be fuppofed to take place in a folitary being.

III. That the grammatical moods of verbs are concife modes of expreffing fome of thofe combinations of thoughts, which occur moft frequently, and are most important and ftriking.

IV. That the number of grammatical moods is limited by the fame circumstances which feem to limit the variety, precifion, and perfection of language, in other refpects; and particularly by the convenience of those who use it, and who in general will have no more moods to their verbs, and no more words or inflections of any kind, than they have abfolute occafion for; and, of course, must often employ one mood as they do one word, or one inflection, in various fenfes, that is, to exprefs occafionally different thoughts.

V. That grammatical moods contribute greatly to the beauty and perfection of language, by the brevity, animation, and force, which they give to the expreffion of our most familiar and intereft. ing combinations of thoughts, which may indeed be expreffed, in fome meafure, by circumlocution, and the use of additional verbs, but not with the fame advantages.

VI. That grammatical moods of verbs, like other inflections of words, express much better than any fucceffion of words can do, the intimate connection and relation of various thoughts, which are not fucceffive, but fimultaneous or coexiftent, and which appear unnaturally disjointed, and in fome measure altered, when they

are

are expreffed by a series of words denoting each of them separately and in fucceffion.'

Under the first of thefe heads, Dr. G.'s obfervations on the fubjunctive mood are worthy of particular attention:

With refpect to the grammatical mood called the subjunctive, it must be obferved, that it (like many words in common language) has different meanings, or expreffes different energies, combined with the radical meaning of the verb, fuch as, wifh, (already confidered) fuppofition, power, condition, &c. It must be in vain, therefore, to look for any one verb, or any one thought or energy, by means of which the fubjunctive mood may uniformly be refolved, as the indicative may be by dico, the optative by opto, the interrogative by rogo, the imperative by jubeo. It is to be refolved occafionally by means of different verbs, according to the particular energy or mood of thought expreffed in any inftance. Of this indeed there can be no better proof than the number of different auxiliary words which we employ in English to make out what we call the fubjunctive mood in all its tenjes, fuch as, may, can, might, could, would, fhould, which are, by no means, fynonymous and convertible terms, even in this application of them, and yet all correfpond occafionally to the Latin fubjunctive mood, which is fimple, and only marked by inflection.

• Crediderim, poffum credere, I might believe; credidissem, potui credere, I might have believed. Condition, ftipulation, fuppofition, which, though fomewhat different, are very near akin, are among the most frequent meanings of the fubjunctive mood. This meaning, or mood of thought, may be refolved, to a certain degree, into an imperative mood (the refolution of which hath already been fhewn) and the primary verb. An ingenious etymologist has fhewn, that the Greek particle, and the Roman fi, are but contractions of certain parts or inflections of the substantive verbs, i and fum; which parts of thofe verbs have an imperative meaning, Be it fo. The fame author fhows, that our English particle if is juft a contraction of the imperative of the verb give, anciently written and pronounced gif. Si vis me flere. Sit, efto, quod vis, or velis me flere. Fac, pone, te velle me flere, The imperative fac was often ufed by the ancient writers of Latin in this fenfe; pone feldom by them, but often by modern writers; TO was used in the fame fenfe by the Greeks. Indeed, different parts, both of Tidus and of pono, were ufed for this purpofe; the Romans, I prefume, imitating the Greeks. It is worthy of obfervation, that in French, the ufe of the conditional particle fi fuperfedes completely the ufe, either of the fubjunctive or of the conditional mood. Si in French always govern the indicative mood. Si jt peux, fi je pouvois, fi je pourrai; never Si je puisse, si je puffe, in the subjunctive, nor even fje pourrois in the conditional mood.

As to the circumitance of being fubjoined to a preceding member of a fentence, and commonly to a verb in the indicative

Mr. Horne Tooke.'

mood,