and Cyrus, to the Medes and Persians. That government continued two hundred and thirty-three years, till Darius Codomanus. The empire was then transferred to the Greeks by Alexander. It continued fluctuating till the time of Cleopatra and Antony; and when the fatal battle of Actium had been lost, the world came under the dominion of Augustus. From these principles, it might be presumed, that an extended government was beneficial to the countries, over which it prevailed. The Roman government was of this description. In forming the comparison, however, it ought not to be forgotten how powerful a patronage, and what extraordinary encouragement were afforded by the Imperial government to the fine arts, and literature. But where was the encouragement to either, under the feudal system? Perhaps it would be urged, that the hungry bards, who occasionally visited the castles of the feudal lords, were always certain of a welcome reception. But had literature been cherished by no kindlier friend than the haughty baron, and her sickly infancy been destined to contend with the storms of military despotism, she must have pined away, and quenched with tears the incense of the Camænian fane. Under the genial influence of an Augustus, the illustrious names of a Horace, a Virgil, a Propertius, a Manilius, a Tibullus, a Livy, a Phædrus, a Strabo, or a Dionysius, could appear; but amid the anarchy of the feudists, the dreaming monk, or the half-witted alchymist, were the only sparks which sometimes shewed the surrounding gloom of ignorance, and barbarity. Yet, this latter was the state of government, which had been so highly extolled,-this it was, which was to be preferred to the Roman greatness. But before we could consent to this, we must forget the state of intestine war, which constantly prevailed under the feudal system; we must forget the taxes, which bowed the necks of the unhappy vassals to the ground; we must forget the scutages to be levied, if, by chance, the inferior did not with punctilious exactness, attend the person of the lord; we must forget the aid, for the knighthood of the lord's eldest son, his eldest daughter's portion, the ransom of his person, or any other purpose, the tyrannical caprice of the lord might invent; we must forget the robbery of his first emoluments, by way of relief, and primer seisin; we must forget the robbery of wardship, by which, the profits of the whole of his estate, during infancy, were engulphed in the avaricious coffers of the guardian; we must forget that he was to pay half-a-year's profits for suing out his livery of seisin we must forget the value of his marriage to be paid, unless he chose to wed the woman selected by the lord; we must forget the expensive order of knighthood, which seemed contrived to render his poverty completely splendid; we must forget that, when his shattered fortunes rendered it indispensable that he should part with his estate, then the lord, with cormorant voracity, was to step between him and the purchaser, and exact a fine of alienation. Upon what grounds could we applaud a system of tyranny so complicated? It was concluded generally, by the advocates of the Roman despotism, that it appeared, first, that the excellence of that government was founded on principle; next, that the fine arts and literature flourished under it, while they were unknown and despised beneath the feudal association; and lastly, that the miseries of the feudal system were of so enormous a character, as far to outweigh any slight disadvantages attending the Roman government. IN REPLY, the Opener observed that he had abstained from any minute detail relative to the Roman government, because its constitution and history were so generally known; and its defenders had not thought fit to supply the deficiency. His opponents had urged the facility afforded by the Roman system, of protecting the different countries under its sway, from the attacks of a common enemy. If there was any strength in this argument, how was it that the provinces were not protected from the different barbarians who, in the latter age of the empire, attacked its various members; besides, the power to defend was also the power to oppress, and when once it was vested in an arbitrary monarch, what security had the people, that it would be only exerted for their good? Another point was, the power possessed by the Emperor of preventing discord, and civil war. Since such great power was in the hands of the Roman government, to repress the effects of civil, and other war, it was strange, that from the moment Romulus collected his band of shepherds, till the sack of Rome by the Ostrogoths, the Temple of Janus was closed but twice-during the reign of Numa Pompilius and Augustus. The next argument had been drawn from Augustin, and clearly proved the truth of the old observation: "quos Deus vult perdere prius dementat," for a more unfortunate author for the purpose, could not have been selected. If the gentlemen would have the goodness to look at the same author, lib. 5, de Civitate Dei, they would find the remark, that nations, when under the government of their respective kings, were much happier than when they were subjected to one head. How, indeed, was it possible, that countries with different religions, customs, morals, and laws, could be properly governed by a nation whose system was one. If they attempted to alter their government, was not that much * more likely to produce the misery of the inhabitants than to promote their happiness? That the Romans did endeavour to alter, and did, in most instances, actually alter the government of the provinces was clear, from an authority, which must be considered unexceptionable. Sigonius said, the mode of changing a country into a province was, to deprive that country of its own domestic laws, and then govern it by those of Rome, through the medium of a prætor, annually appointed. This was very likely to secure the happiness of the people! Next, as to the remark of the fine arts and literature being more encouraged by the Romans than the Feudists, it had no weight, since it was blaming the latter for a defect, which was caused by their circumstances, and not their government. Men, who had but lately been redeemed from a state of savage nature, were but little disposed for such refined enjoyments. The monuments of classical learning, had long since been destroyed in the whirlwind of barbarity, which burst on the Roman empire, and it was not easy for men, without an example to acquire all the refined taste of the Augustan age. It would hardly be contended, that the Roman people were unhappy when Cincinnatus could be regarded as worthy the dictatorship, and yet the fine arts and literature, were not much encouraged, during that period. Most of the feudal incidents which had been alluded to, had been mentioned in the opening. With regard to the receiving the order of knighthood, that was peculiar to tenants in capite of the king. Thus the general assertion made upon this subject, only applied to particulars. With regard to the Roman government, the Opener would content himself with putting to his opponents two or three questions : Did they forget the characters of a Tiberius, a Caligula, a Nero, a Domitian, or a Commodus? Did they forget the miseries caused to Rome by their crimes? Did they also forget that the Romans had not the advantage of trial by jury? Here was a bulwark in the power of the feudists, by which they could always oppose the unjust attempts of * Redigere verò in provinciæ formam nihil erat aliud nisi leges domesticas adimere, et Romanas dare ac prætorem qui quotannis provinciam ex legibus datis administraret instituere. Sigonius, lib. 1, de antiquo jure Italiæ, p. 56, a. Should it be thought tautologous to use the phrase of "in capite of the King," it must be remembered, that a tenant in capite was often a tenant, who held of a noble immediately inferior to the king as well as a tenant of the king himself. This phrase and necessary distinction are remarked in Spelman voce Caput. their superiors. If they were sometimes subjected to the arbitrary demands of their lords, they could not be greatly aggrieved, while they possessed this privilege. THE MINUTE GUN. There came a deep and awful sound At solemn intervals it roll'd Betwixt the lengthen'd peals of thunder; It seem'd to rive the heart asunder, And they who sent its vain appeal Were on the distant billows shrieking; It pour'd upon the listening ear And wreck they could not shun. It came perchance from those who thought But rend the breasts that grief had shaken, Aboard the wreck, from which it sped, Perchance were husbands, friends, or brothers; Too young to number with the dead, And boys who long'd to clasp their mothers ; It came like an expiring groan Over the chafed and whelming surges; Half thro' that night of woe and gloom B. 80 ON THE ETYMOLOGY OF ENGLISH NOUNS. PART THE SECOND. HAVING already treated of proper names, we proceed to inquire into the nature and inflections of common names or substantives. "Common names," says Murray," stand for kinds containing many sorts, or for sorts containing many individuals under them;" to which Bosworth makes this just addition, "and the name is common or applicable to every individual of the sort." Substantives, in all languages, must be either primitive or derivative. By primitive substantives is not meant words which constituted a part of the original language spoken by mankind, but such as cannot be reduced to any simpler words in the language" of which we treat. 66 Derivatives greatly contribute to the perspicuity of a language, without which numberless circumlocutions must be employed. Indeed, the necessity of abbreviating verbal signs, the better to keep pace with the progress of thought, accounts for the formation of many words; for it is as true in language, as in science and art, that "necessity is the mother of invention." It is now proposed, first, to make some general remarks on the derivation of our nouns; and, secondly, to observe the inflections to which they are subject. The nouns of our language* are derived from numerous *It is not our province to trace the words, of which our language is composed, to their original source. Camden observes,-"I dare not yet heere affirme, for the antiquitie of our language, that our great-great-greatgrandsires' tongue came out of Persia, albeit the wonderfull linguist Joseph Scaliger hath observed, fader, moder, bruder, band, &c. in the Persian tongue, in the very sence as we now use them. "It will not be vnproper, I hope, to this purpose, if I note out of the epistles of that learned ambassadour Busbequius, how the inhabitants of Taurica Chersonessus, in the uttermost part of Europe eastward, bare these words,-wind, silver, korne, salt, fish, son, apple, waggon, singen, ilanda, beard, with many other, in the very same sence and signification as they now are in vse with vs; whereat I mervailed not a little when I first read it. But nothing can be gathered thereby, but that the Saxons our progenitors, which planted themselves heere in the West, did also to their glorie place colonies likewise there in the East." |