outs; an in, ins; an if, ifs; a hum, hums, &c. And, in fhort, Every word, or affemblage of words, used as a bare word or indivifible fubject, becomes a fingular noun regularly pluralif able as this forty, these fortyes or forty's; one them, two thems; one fays, two fayfes; a how, hows; a by, byes or by's; an and, ands; an alas, alaffes; fo a fays-he, fays-hees or he's; a be fays, be-fafes; a has-been, has-beens; a very-well, very-wells; a stay-alittle, flay-a-littles; a what-d'ye-call-it, what-d'ye-call-its, or whatdye-call-them, &c. Thus it is that a title or other specifier, prefixed to a name, is held a conjunct part of it; and fo the name alone is plura lifed :. Not two Lord-Gods; or two Jefus-Chrifls; but two St. Jamefes (for Saint-Jameses). the Mufler-Wefts and the Mifs-Wefts. If the Reader requires farther information of this work, we refer him to the book itfelf; the method and defign of which are too vague and confused to admit of any regular abstract. We cannot omit, however, the following fhort praxis on interiection, as a farther fpecimen of the ftyle and execution, and as it bears fome relation to the nature and fuccefs of the recent attacks that have been made on English Grammar. So impetuous affailants fall on pal-mal or flap-dash, make the heart of the furprifed go pit-a-pat, or their tongue cry hey-day, hoity-toity, &c. But now to the burry all fly in a furry. In the hub-bub or hurly-burly fome ftand hill-I, fhall-1? or move will they, nill-they; while others run helter-fkelter, throw all things biggledy-piggledy, or turn them topsy-turvy, &c.' K-n-k The philofophical Dictionary for the pocket. Written in French by a Society of Men of Letters, and tranflated into English from the laft Geneva Edition, corrected by the Authors. With Notes,. containing a Refutation of fuch Paffages as are any way exceptionable in regard to Religion. 8vo. 5 s. Brown*... HE infidelity of tranflations is become fo trite a subject of T complaint, that we are heartily weary of repeating it. In juftice, however, to the Authors of valuable originals, we must A fictitious name:-the bookfellers having been intimidated from openly engaging in any tranflation of this book, by certain measures taken (though ineffectually) to prevent its appearing in an English dress. not forbear expofing, and remonstrating against, the injury donė them, nowever ineffectual may be our endeavours to prevent it. It is well for many of the ingenious foreigners, whole writings are thus horribly traveftied, that they are not fo well verfed in our language as to be fenfible of the indignity put on them; by which means they avoid much of the mortification they would otherwife feel, at fuch unmerited difgrace. It would redound greatly to the honour of good writers, as well as to the advan tage of the republic of letters in general, if authors of reputation, in different languages, would engage in the friendly office of tranflating the works of each other. It is, indeed, high time to rescue this branch of literature, from the merciless and mercenary hands of fuch precipitate and indifcriminate undertakers, as at prefent engrofs it. We do not take upon us to fay, whether the charge of venality be more properly brought against the tranflators them felves, or their employers. If we are rightly informed, the former, poor as their performances are, work nearly as well as they are paid. To extenuate the fault of the latter, alfo, it is to be obferved, that we cannot always expect them to be competent judges of the merit of a foreign book, or the abilities of those whom they engage to tranflate it. Add to this, that, their beft hands being generally too much employed, they are obliged to take up with fuch as have nothing to do. Their jealouly of each other, alfo, if not their avidity, will hardly permit them to give their workmen time to perufe the original before they expect the copy of the tranflation. Nay, we have heard of a certain tranflation-monger, undoubtedly a genius in his way, who, to fave time, paper, pens and ink, used to dictate to the printer's compofitor, without furnishing any written copy at all. A piece thus manufactured muft doubtlefs turn out a faithful and elegant verfion! As to the work before us ;' if the proof pofitive did not immediately ftare us in the face, we fhould hardly have thought it poffible that fuch a spirited and entertaining piece, in the original, could fo totally lofe its diftinguishing qualities, by means of any verfion or paraphrafe whatever. The greater part, if not the whole, of this dictionary, was undoubtedly written by Mr. de Voltaire, one of the most fprightly and agreeable writers of the age. At the fame time, the tranflation of it is one of the most heavy, dull, and disagreeable performances that ever was read *. One could Another material objection hath been made to this publication; which is, that feveral of the most capital articles of the original are omitted; particularly three of those which we selected and tranflated in, our Review.,, We shall not prefume to hint at the motive of fuch omiffion; but we hardly think the Tranflator will chufe to excufe himself by faying they were not inferted in the edition from which he pretends to have made his verfion, not not have imagined, that, in the mere transfufion of its substance from one language into another, the whole fpirit of it, volatile as it was, fhould fly off and depofit fo infipid a fediment. Had it been fabricated in the laboratory of Dulness herself, not all her leaden inftruments of filtration, diftillation or precipitation, could fo effectually have diffipated its falts, and left fo taftelefs a phlegm, fo mere a caput mortuum behind! The original, it is true, was far from commanding our conftant approbation; yet even the moft exceptionable article feldom failed to engage our attention. And, if at any time the Author provoked our cenfure, it was generally when we found him more ingenious than ingenuous, more witty than wife. Our Having thus freely expressed our fentiments of this tranflation, and given a pretty ample account of the original in a former Review, we fhould here take a final leave of both, were we not in a manner neceffitated to make fome reply to the Translator; who has in effect charged us with having injured the Author and imposed on the public in our former ftrictures. Readers, by turning back to our Review, Vol. XXXI. page 507, may fee the grounds of this accufation. We have there condemned one of the articles contained in this dictionary, as an infamous attempt to palliate, or apologize for, the deteftable vice of pederafty. Now the present fagacious Tranflator enters into a defence of that article; afferting it to be one of the leaft exceptionable in the whole book, and treating our objections with ridicule. He, pious man! appears to be concerned altogether for the irreligious tendency of this work; our ridiculous fcruples lay against the indecency and immorality of it; and we must own it is even now with extreme reluctance, though under the neceflity of our own juftification, that we proceed to any farther eclairciffement on so disagreeable a subject. As the TranЛator, however, hath not thought proper, among his other omiffions, to leave out the article in queftion, the animadverfions neceffary to our own defence may not prove altogether useless to the public. The original title of the article runs thus: Amour nommé Socratique ; tranflated in the prefent verfion Socratic Love, as it is called. On a repeated and confiderate perufal of this article, we thought ourselves bound in duty to fay, that nothing could be more infamous than what is there advanced in palliation of the moft deteftable of all crimes.' In contradiction to this, the Tranflator, or his fcholiaft for him, fays, that nothing can be more falfe, than that the Author attempts to palliate this crime. Does not he,' continues the Tranflator, fet out with affirming it to be deftructive of the human race, a debasement and violation of nature, and the highest degree of corruption? Is this a palliation? or is it not rather a reprefentation of that infamous infamous crime in the light it deferves? We will leave our Readers to answer these questions themselves, after a fair and impartial review of the whole article. It begins thus; 'How could it be, that a vice, which, if general, would extinguish the human fpecies, an infamous crime againft nature, should become fo natural? It appears to be the laft degree of reflective corruption; and yet it is usually found in those who have not had time to be corrupted. Now, we fee, the Author is fo far from affirming that this crime is unnatural, that the very first object of his enquiry is, how it came to be so natural? for that it is fo, he evidently takes for granted. Again, fo far from affirming this vice to be the highest degree of corruption, the Author only fays it appears to be fo, but that it is found in the uncorrupted. It is true, he says, if this practice were general it would extinguish the human fpecies; but he might have faid the fame with greater truth of celibacy t; which is reckoned by many good Chriftians to be a virtue. Ay, but he afterwards expressly calls this an unnatural vice! and here calls it an infamous crime against nature!' He does fo. But then he afks, with the most notable inconfiftency, how this unnatural vice became fo natural? At the fame time he allows that it is not what it appears to be; for that this confeffedly infamous crime is not the concomitant of corruption but innocence. Is not all this palliative? Is this rather a reprefentation of that infamous crime in the light it deserves ? For fhame, Mr. Scholiaft! what! could you not fee as far into the mill-ftone as you had picked it? Do you build fo much on That this Writer may have no caufe of complaint, we have here made ufe of the words of his own tranflation; which is far from being faithful. That the Reader may not, however, think the Author's words capable of a still more favourable interpretation, than the prefent Tranflator hath given them, we shall point out fome few infidelities, either real or defigned, which now tend to mislead the English reader. The original of the above paffage runs thus: Comment s'eft-il pû faire qu'un vice, deftructeur du genre-humain s'il etait general, qu'un attentat infame contre la nature, foit pourtant fi naturel? il parait étre le dernier degré de la corruption reflechie, et cependant il eft le partage ordinaire de ceux qui n'ont pas eu encor le temps d'etre corrompus.' Whence can it be, that a vice, which, if general, would extirpate the human fpecies, a fcandalous infult on our very nature, fhould be nevertheless fo natural? It feems to be the utmoft degree of studied debauchery; and yet it is ufually practifed by thofe who have not had time, to become diffolute.' We fee here, that the Tranflator, by omitting the English word equivalent to pourtant, and rendering foit, should became, hath greatly foftened the expreffion, and indeed given the fentence an equivocal appearance, which it by no means wears in the original. + The crime of pederafty, however abominable, not neceffarily ex cluding natural procreation, as celibacy does. the the Author's throwing out a few ftigmatizing terms, in the way of parenthefis? Could he do lefs, in public, than to call pederafty a vice? Was it neceffary, in order to render the article in queftion exceptionable, that he fhould have called it a virtue? Was it neceffary that he fhould have exprefsly entitled it an excufe, or an apology, for fodomy? Or, is the mere annexing an opprobrious appellation to any criminal practice, fufficient to testify a real deteftation in the writer, or to excite that abhorrence in the reader, which fuch crime demerits? The accomplice of a pick-pocket is frequently the loudeft in crying flopthief, going fometimes even fo far as to propofe a ducking, when it is neceffary to fcreen the offender from juftice. Are we, therefore, to take his vociferations for the effects of his own integrity, or the innocence of the culprit? What chance would an avowed palliation of a notorious crime ever ftand, of being read? Surely none! The vile advocates, if any there be, for fo unnatural a vice as pederafty, muft therefore take more infinuating and artful methods to inftil their abominable palliatives; which would otherwife be too fhocking to engage the attention of the moft diffolute reader. The Tranflator fays, that the Author's imputing the fource of this vice to the inexperience of youth, is a mere point of fpeculation, not at all tending to immorality.' How! Does not the fuppofition of its arifing from inexperience and fimplicity tend to palliate the crime; and doth not every palliation of vice tend to immorality? And yet on this fuppofition the Author thus expatiates: It makes its way into novice hearts, who are ftrangers to ambition, fraud, and a thirst after wealth; it is blind youth, which at the end of childhood, by an unaccountable* inftinct, plunges itself into this enormity. The inclination of the two fexes for each other declares itfelf very early; but after all that has been faid of the African women, and thofe of the fouthern part of Afia, this propenfity is much stronger in man than in woman. Agreeably to the univerfal law of nature in all creatures, it is ever the male who makes the first advances. The young males of our fpecies brought up together, coming to feel that play which nature begins to unfold to them, in the want of the natural object of their inftinet, betake themfelves to a refemblance of fuch objects. It is nothing uncommon for a boy by the beauty of his complexion, and the mild fparkle of his eyes for two or three years, to have the look of a pretty girl: now the love of fuch a boy arifes from a mistake in nature; the female fex is honoured in * Not unaccountable, Mr. Tranflator! the Author attempts to account for it in the very next paragraph: the original is maldemele. our |