increased, these places of worship, would be improved and rendered more magnificent, and to trees would succeed pillars of stone, coarsely fhaped, to imitate their form; imposts of stone would be laid across these uprights, and constitute circular temples after the manner of Stonehenge *.

In process of time these uprights would be formed by the chisel to the beautiful taper of the smooth barked tree, the imposts would be channelled and grooved, to cast deep and distinctive fhadows, and last: of all, the obolo, and other members of the fhaft and capital, would be superadded. The ornaments of the capital and the architrave, pedestals, and other refinements in architecture, belong to the age of high refinement, caprice, and vanity, which we are afterwards to describe.

In the columniation of a temple, we behold the ori ginal grove; and the adoption was natural, since, as we are informed by Herodotus, that to the temple of Diana, one of the most magnificent in his age, the ap proach was by an avenue of lofty trees, aspiring to heaven +."

"trees.

*This temple of the Belge in Britain, is propably alluded to in a fragment of Hecatæus, where it is recorded that certain Tyrian navigators, visited, in the plains of North Britain, a huge temple dedicated to the In the epistle of Quintus to his brother Marcus Tullius Cicero, in the fifth volume of this work, a description is given of the manner in which those gigantic monuments were raised without any extraordinary efforts.

sun

This is represented in the structures we are pleased to call Gothic, by the basilicon or nave of the church, that by which the priests ap proached in procefs on to the sanctuary, which was placed at the east end of the build.ng adjoining to the high altar. See the very sensible and .

239 In the ornament of the capital we contemplate the beauty and virtue of the Indian Lotus, which had undoubtedly given origin to the foliage of the pillar idly ascribed to the accident of the tile and the acanthus. In the decoration of the Ionic order we are to reflect on the ornaments of the Delphic altar, and of the Ammonian Jupiter; and for other improvements we are to examine the history and manners of the countries in which they were adopted; and to clafs those of latter ages under that head of architecture, which falls hereafter to be considered, and must occupy several succefsive articles in this miscellany, if, from this specimen of my feeble endeavours to illustrate a subject of so much importance, your readers fhall exprefs any desire that they fhould be continued. I am, Sir,

Your humble servant.

B. A.

GRAMMATICAL DISQUISITIONS.

AGREEABLE to my promise, Bee vol. vii. p. 171. I now beg leave to offer a few remarks on "the philosophy of grammar.”

The radical principles of language being the same in all nations, one would naturally imagine that grammar would be an easy, a simple, and of course a pleasing study. The reverse of this is found in practice to be the case. If every language must have words of the same kind to exprefs the ideas that ocaccurate essay on Gothic structures, Bee, vol. ii. p. 247, &c. This mode of architecture, I apprehend to have been of Scythic or Persic origin, and so introduced by the Hellenic Goths, afterwards called Greeks.

Aug. 22% cur to the human mind, which cannot be denied, it would seem that nothing could be more simple or easy than the translating from one language into another, because nothing more would be wanted than to substitute one word in place of another; yet, when we come to attempt this in practice, it is found to be an intricate and a difficult task. It would be an useful enterprise to attempt to account for this seeming contradiction.

The fundamental principles of grammar are doubtlefs the same in all languages, and admit not of any variation. But in the primary formation of words, in their combinations, and modifications, the possible variations are almost infinite. Grammar, therefore, in the abstract, can only be one, and if the essential circumstances alone are adverted to, it must be both simple and easy: but in practice it may be infinitely various and, if casual variations, and unefsential modifications, be not carefully distinguished from essential principles, it will become an intricate study, a complicated chaotic mass, in which nothing but darknefs and confusion appear.

:

This has, in fact, been too much the case; and those who have attempted to explain the principles of grammar, especially in modern times, have usually set up some one language as a standard of perfection, all the anomalies of which, they have considered as essential principles, which has introduced a confusion into that study that renders our ideas respecting it indefinite and obscure.

It would greatly exceed the bounds of an essay in a miscellany of this nature to enter fully into this

247 discussion. All that can be with propriety attempted, is to select a few cases by way of illustration, that may serve as exercises for those who wish to acquire definite ideas on this interesting subject.

Of nouns.

THE names of the different objects of perception,, form nearly half the words of every language; and, as nearly the same objects occur in all nations, wordsdenoting the most common objects in nature are found in almost all languages. A man, a tree, a rock, water, earth, fire, and so on, are known every where, and have in every language an appropriated, name. These names, therefore, must constitute a radical part of universal grammar. Wherever grammar has been attended to at all, this clafs of words has been discriminated, and a name has been appropriated in all civilized nations to denote them. The Latins, with much propriety, distinguished this clafs of words by simply calling them NAMES; so that the very word itself serves instead of a difinition; in English we call the same clafs of words NOUNS, a word which, till it be particularly explained, conveys no idea at all to a mere English scholar. Here, at the very threshold of our enquiry, we meet with a ma-terial difference in the two languages..

>

The Latins, however, included more under that title than with propriety belonged to it. They in-cluded not only the objects themselves, but the qua-lities also which might be accidentally combined with these objects. They, therefore, divided this clafs of words into two parts; the first they called NAMES

substantive, and the last they denominated, NAMES adjective; of this last we fhall at present say nothing, but proceed in our analysis of the first.

If the Latin language was beautiful in the original choice of the word for denoting the clafs, we are now led to perceive that it was not only imperfect, but erroneous, in as far as the same word was employed. to denote qualities as well as substances. This led. them into another error, by denominating substantives the whole clafs of names properly so called. The, word substantive was evidently adopted, because a great many of the objects for which these names were invented consist of solid matter, called substance; but under this class is included a prodigious variety of ideal objects, that have neither form nor substance.. This, therefore, misleads the mind; so that here our unmeaning NOUN has the preference to it; but we have been so fond of the Latin as even to adopt this word, and indifferently say noun or substantive.

It would be tiresome to go farther in this kind of parallel; and we only went thus far to give an idea. of the manner in which the mind is imperceptibly misled in all languages, by the very terms that are made use of in that language; and to show in what way a particular idiomatic expression in one language may convey a sensation of pleasure or disgust to the mind, that cannot be felt when it is translated into the nearest equivalent words of another language. The above only exhibits one instance in its simplest form; but when we advert to the infinite diversity of latent ideas, to adopt a new phrase, that must be annexed to particular words, by a kind of reflection