lative of persuasion as perspicuity is of information, argument of conviction.

3. Wit and humour both arise from the incongruity of the conjoined things. The former considers only the imagery, the latter the character. Wit is the quality of a discourse by which it excites surprise and is addressed to the imagination. Humour is the quality by which a discourse is adapted to excite laughter and is addressed to the passion by which we laugh at incongruities-contempt. Accordingly it is easy to see that wit is sometimes necessary as a subordinate quality in humorous discourses and there is a distinction of manner between the witty and the humorous as is between the imaginative and the pathetic. It is also to this distinction between their subjects and objects that we are to attribute the importance of humour in Comedy which is necessarily conversant with character.

4. In the first quotation the wit consists in the incongruity of ideas between "bench" and " saddle" and between "bind over" and "swaddle." Though "bench" is a good emblem of a magistrate, a "saddle" is a ludicrous contrast for it. The homliness of the expression "swaddle" and the inadequate sign "bind over" of a magistrate's duty is the source of the wit in the second line. The simile with "rats of amphibious nature" is witty and the wit lies in debasing things seemingly great by the comparision.

As for the humour of this quotation it is evident that besides the incongruity of the imagery there an incongruity of character and a sort of mimicry discourse which forms the distinction of the humorous.

In the second quotation there is a contrast between the "fights" and the "well soled boots" and a cunning hit at Homer. The quotation therefore comes under the class of witty as well as ridicule.

In the third quotation the wit consists in the contrast between spirits, meaning the spiritual part of our nature and wines and between flesh, meaning the animal part of our nature and beef. There is likewise a pun between spirits and wine and between flesh and beef. The double meanings of the words spirit and flesh is also the ground for attributing the following characteristics to each which are incongrous with their nature and is an another source of wit. The characteristics are humo

rous, especially the “ 'game at leap frog," "a rider" with "huge spurs." 5. Our author gives four grounds of distinction between Scientific and Moral Evidence.

(1.) They differ in their subjects; the subjects of demonstrative or Scientific evidence are the properties of abstract notions of space and number; and the subjects of moral evidence are the actual and variable relations of things. The first is founded on the truths of intellection and the second on those of consciousness and common sense improved by experience. (2.) They differ in the extent of their evidence. Scientific Evidence is all certainty. Moral Evidence admits of degrees from possibility to probability and moral certainty.

(3.) They differ from in this that Scientific Evidence admits of no contrariety of proofs which the Moral Evidence does. In the former one demonstration is true and the rest false. In the latter there contrary presumptions, contrary experiences and contrary testimonies.

(4.) They differ in the nature of their evidence. Scientific Evidence consists of single chain who seperate link are intimately connected with

one another: Moral Evidence consists of " a bundle of proofs." Each proof proves some part of the truth and the probability or evidence of the whole consists of the probability of the seperate proofs.

6. In every syllogism the conclusion is necessarily involved in one of the premises. This will appear from the following syllogism.

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man

Therefore Socrates is mortal.

This is a syllogism_correct in mood and figure and in fact one with which all works on Logic are illustrated. Now let is see wether this conveys to us any new knowledge or not. If we analyse the major premises we see that, the expression "all men stands for an indefinite number of men and includes Socrates. The major therefore is only a cirquitous way of saying that Socrates is mortal.

Now suppose that the truth of the major is beyond doubt. Let us analyse the minor premises. Here man is but a periprasis for a mortal creature so that if one for arguments to doubt if Socrates is a man it is imposible for the antagonist however he may vary the syllogism to shew that Socrates. For this he must have recourse to experience or Moral Evidence. On these grounds Dr. Campbell considers the syllogism to involve a petio principii.

It will be not superfluous to mention that the judicious author of a system of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive, has in his great work come to the same conclusion and says that in all syllogisms the conclusion is implied in the premises and its use is only in "interpreting our memorandum" and shewing that the new case is included under it.

Both these authors and many others, agree in asserting that all reasoning is from particulars to particulars. It therefore follows that the inference is concluded when we assert the major and is in effect of this form. A, B, C are mortal, Socrates resembles them and therefore Socrates is mortal. There is no reason then to doubt that in a syllogism the inference is included in the Premises and that our author is right in charging it with begging the question.

7. The circumstances which are chiefly instrumental in operating on the passions are the seven following.

(1) Probability which invigorates belief. Belief makes our ideas lively which excites the passion.

(2.) Plausibility which though it does not impart positive belief is necessary for preventing doubts and affording an easy access to the mind for which the speaker says.

(3.) Importance which arises either from the greatness of the action or from the dignity of the actors or sufferers, or from the influence of the consequences as they affects a great many persons or are felt to a remote age. (4.) The proximity of time which must be understood of what is past as well as what is future.

(5.) Connexion of place which includes in it vicinage, being under the same government, being in alliance &c.

(6.) Relation with the actors or the sufferers, of which one favours one speaker and the other his antagonist. In this is included affinity consanguinity, having the same occupation, having the same religion and the like circumstances.

(7.) Interest in the consequences which as it touches the efficent principle of self love, imparts the passion directly.

Besides these our mortal sentiments effectually impel us to action and rouse the passions. It is observed that all the circumstances besides the last operate on the passions by affording to us more or less facilities to sympathise with persons in whose favour the discourse is delivered.

In Antonys speech over the body of Ceasar the speaker artfully insinuates the probability of Ceasars not being ambitious. In the last part by shewing that Ceasar had bequeathed money and lands even by his will, the speaker makes of the last circumstance of interest in the consequences and touches the feelings of the people.

8. Our author says that plausibility is derived from experience as well as probability. They differ from one another in this, that plausibility arises from the consistency of the subject with our former experience and probability from the direct evidence of experience. In probable reasoning we say that it is probable that such an event happened and we have experience to prove it. In the plausible we have not evidence but only assert that if such had been the case such would have been the possible result. There evidently grounds of difference between these two qualities but they are allied to each other. In fact they are different degrees of the same evidence of experience. Our other says analogy is indirect experience. I say that plausibility is indirect probability. In other words if probability is built of experience, plausibility is founded upon Analogy.

Afternoon Paper.

1. The distinguishing qualifications of such use as is the sole standard of Style are: First, the use must be reputable, that is sanctioned by the authority of the best writers in the language: Secondly, the use must be national by which is to be understood that it must not be provincial or used only in some parts of the country, nor confined to certain professions nor formed according to foreign signification and construction. Third, the use must be such as has obtained in the present age, that is neither obsolete nor occurring only in recent or new authors and writers. It will help to understand the import and extent of the qualifications to see how they originated. It is certain that use is the Standard of Language. But is every use entitled to an equal authority? Certainly not; on the other hand some use is not entitled to any authority. Now how are we to distinguish it from such which is entitled to have an authority in language? For answering this question it is necessary to remember the ultimate aim of language, which is to convey our thoughts to others. It is certain therefore that the fitness of a language will depend on the copiousness with which it conveys knowledge as well as on the number of people using the same language to whom it can convey knowledge. The last qualification of language is violated (1) by using foreign words and arrangments, (2) by using provincialisms, (3) by using words in the senses they take in particular professions, (4) by using such as have been used by those who, being uneducated and conversant with few Ideas, cannot be expected to use them with propriety, (5) by using vulgarisms which are nothing more than the misapplications of words or phrases by the uneducated classes from an affectation of imatating their superiors, and (6) by using words and phrases which are obsolete or

according to our author, whose use has been dropped for a period above the length of mans life, or which are of recent use in both which cases they are not generally known. It is know easy to see into the import of our author's limitations.

With regard to the extent, all ordinary writings and speeches must adapt itself to above manner. But there is some liberty allowed to scientific terms and to poetry specially. Thus Foreign words when the science is foreign, may be used by the writers on that science. Some obsolete words add variety to the numbers of poetry. Some vurgarisms and cant phrases are appropriate in burlesque because there the object is to convey the Ideas of meanness with which such words or phrases are associated in our minds.

2. Here by consequence, is preferable to of consequence, to mean, consequently; because the latter also means, of importance. By confining ourselves to the former in sense of consequently we avoid an ambiguity and thereby improve the language.

Scarcely should according to the analogy of the languge be used as an adverb and scarce as an adjective. By this usage we avoid an equivocation.

Subtraction is preferable to substraction because in the former the etemology is manifest as well as similiar to that of other words formed from the Latin tongue. This regard to manifest etemology promotes the simplicity of the language. Contemporary is preferable to cotemporary because according to the analogy of the language we only drop the n of con before words beginning with a vowel or silent h. Though the word co-partner is not formed according to this analogy yet, as our author justly observes, we ought not to multiply exceptions. For the same reason we should prefer, though it be ever so great, to, though it be never so great. By using accept instead of, accept of we promote brevity without violating any other rule.

3. The following are the canons: (1.) All words and phrases remarkably unharmonious and not absolutely necessary should be discarded.

A word is absolutely necessary when we cannot express its signification without a circumlocution and the unharmoniousness may arise either from the nature of the compound as in the words, shamefacedness, tenderheartedness and the like; or from the difficulty of pronounciation, either because there are too many consonants without a vowel between, as in the word, concupiscence, or because too many unaccented sylables follow the accented one as in the word péremptoriness; or lastly it may arise because two similar unaccented sylables follow each other as in the words holily, silily. (2.) Words whose manifest etemology points to a different signification from what is in use should undergo the same fate. An instance we have in the word unloose whose should mean the opposite of loose wheras it has the same signification and means to untie.

(3.) All words which are obsolete except so far as they are retained in particular phrases should be dropped. Such are the words lief, dint, whit moot and pro and con, in the following phrases: "I had as lief go" -"He convinced him by dint of argument". "He is not a whit better""This is a moot point"- -" He discussed it pro and con."-which

have all an air of vulgarity and cant.

(4.) All phrases, which when analyzed according to the rules of the grammar and language either contain a solecism, or convey a different

meaning or have no meaning at all should be discarded. Such is the phrase would to God, where nothing is wished to God but rather that God is expected to will some thing and is therefore a solecism. So the expression he sings a good song-for he sings well should convey according the usage of the language a different meaning. And the expression there were seven ladies in the company every one prettier than the other has no meaning.

4. The words state and estate, property and propriety import and importance were formerly used in the same signification. They have now been distinguished. The word state means a large government, estate, landed property. The allied signification of property and propriety has been retained in the word proprietary when applied to rights. Import now means, meaning.

The word decompound now means to analyse compounds whereas it formerly meant to form new compounds of compounds. The word affect now means to influence wheras it formerly meant to like. So in Bacon affecting freewill &c.

66

5. The purity of language may be violated in three ways. First by using words that do not belong to the language: Secondly by using construction that have not currency in the language: Thirdly by words in their wrong signification. These three classess of faults are denominated barbarism, solecism and impropriety respectively.

6. Idiotism means the use of a word in the signification of a foreign language as the use of the word intend for mean in a passage which from Bolingbroke which our author has noticed. Such is also the use of take for understand in the expression "you take me."

The

7. The object of perspicuity according to the celebrated Latin Critic is to present our thoughts through such language that those whom we address may have not difficulty in understanding them and therefore will not have their attentions diverted by the words from the sense. relation of language to our apprehension is analogous to the relation of the medium, through which light is transmitted to our eyes, to our sight and as the one cannot be too transparent so cannot the other be too perspicuous.

8. In (1) there a solecism in the use of the plural in connection with the comparitive and an impropriety from the use of "all others." The quotation may be corrected thus-This noble nation has admitted the fewest corruption of all- or fewer corruptions than any other. I have substituted has for hath for the last is pretty near obsolete since the time of Campbell who finds no fault with it.

In (2) the word among is improperly used and the latter part of the sentence should be-from one another.

In (3) we have improper use of the word conscience in its obsolete sense of on consciousness. This will therefore make a correct sentence by substituting the word consciousness for conscience.

In (4) the sense is ambiguous for the use of the phrase nothing less and may mean-he aimed at nothing less than he aimed at the crown, that is, he aimed the least of all at the crown--or he did not aim at any thing less than the crown. These two expression according to the different may be used as occasion requires them.

In (5) I think the sentence will be simple by substituting, to beguile, for, beguiling. Some grammarians are for rejecting the use of the