« PreviousContinue »
cations, the sense of the words is established, and that we should not now depart from it. The advocates for the latter contend, that it is a rule of interpretation wholly subservient to the teftator's intention; a merely technical construction of words, which yields to the intention whenever they are opposed to each other. -But, in borh, Mr. Hargrave professes to observe one common
He considers the rule to be • A conclusion of law upon certain premises, fo absolute as not to leave any thing to intention, if those premises belong to the case ; and those premises,' he insists, • are, an intention by heirs of the body, or other words of inheritance, to comprehend the whole line of heirs to the tenant for life, and so to build a succession opon his preceding estate of freehold.' The genuine source of the role he considers to be an ancient policy of our law, the aim of which was co guard against the creation of estates of inheritance, with qualities, incidents, and restrictions foreign to their nature ; namely, annexing to a real descent the qualities and properties of a purchase; an estate of freehold with a perpetual succession to heirs, without the other properties of an inheritance; in other words, an inheritance in the first ancestor, with the privilege of vesting in his heirs by purchase ; the succession of heirs to an ancestor without the legal effe&ts of descent.
This discovery of the real principle and ground of this very important rule, the theory of which is as (plendid as the application of it is useful, though the subject of it has often exercised the talents of the most eminent sages of the law, appears to have been left to the penetration of the present editor. He places bis fyftem in a very striking view, and his conclusions will moft probably have the affent of every intelligent reader.
Longis laboribus, ---tamen dubiis,-forsan adversis, is the plaintive motto prefixed by the editor to his publication. But we cannot think it poflible that there could have been any ground to entertain a doubt of its favourable reception with the public, Noihing con be more true than the observation, that “ useful diligence will always prevail, and that there never can be wanting those who diftinguith desert.”
But... Art. III. A Differtation on Virgil's Defcription of the antient Roman
Plough; which, although mysterious, and hitherto undiscovered by any of the Commentators, yet is now entirely illucidated, by a clore Comparison between the above, and a Representation on the Reverse of an undoubted Unique*. To which is added, critical Objections against the Ploughs of Mesirs. Spence and Martyn, manifeftly thewing them to be entirely erroneous. "By A. I. Des CarTieres. 8vo. is. Gardner. 1788. TR.
• The following sheets clearly prove that the plough on the * This unique is supposed by the author to have been a weight; by others, a coin. It is in the posieflion of Mr. Canton, master of the academy in Spiral Square.
reverse of the unique, hereafter investigated, is undoubtedly that described by Virgil in his Georgics; at the same time overturning the opinions of those critics who þave hitherto treated on the same subject.'
From this exordium, it was natural for the reader to expect something like demonstration that the object represented on this unique was really a plough, and nothing else; but after all the labours of this foi disant critic, it does not appear to us that there is the smallest reason to think it ever was intended to represent a plough of any fort: what it was intended to represent, we cannot say; but we think it would be as easy to prove that it was meant to exhibit the figure of a law-mill or a wheel-barrow.
This unique is said to be a Roman weight (of what metal, we are not told), which weighs four penny weights four grains, and is about half an inch in diameter; it has a very fine head of Roma on one side, and, on the reverse, this curious plough; an engraving of which is annexed to the pamphlet. To several paris of this machine the author has annexed the names of the parts of the plough that are mentioned by Virgil, viz. the buris, temo, Siva, vomer, dentalia, aures; but there are many other parts of this machine to which no names are annexed, and for a very good reason, because Virgil has furnished him with no more, except the duplex dorfum, concerning which, though the author can offer no satisfactory explanation, he speaks with confidence, as if he had removed every difficulty, and treats the conjectures of others on this intricate subject with the most supercilious contempt.
It would be idle to enter on a refutation of the various conjece tures of this author, as any person who is at all acquainted with the subject will at once see how absurd they are, by the mere inspection of the figure, with the names which he has given to the parts. But we shall transcribe a short specimen of his manner of demonftrating:
" The following I imagine to be the dentalia ; a piece of wood, fafened to the cross bar that joins the two sides of the plough together, which Virgil calls the double back, reaching almost from the ploughhead santing to the tail, on the lower end of which there are three points of iron,' &c.
But what authority has Virgil given us to say, that the plough had twò fides, or that they were joined together by any kind of beam? He says, that the dentalia was fixed to the buris; but in the machine represented on this unique, there is a straight bar, with three points, lying in a diagonal direction, from what the author takes to be the fore part of the machine: and this, for no other reason, that we can see, but that it has three points, which he has chosen to denominate dentalia.
But though Mr. Des Carrieres grounds his whole reasoning on the accuracy of the figure here delineated, he is forced, in the
next page, to acknowlege, that the figure, as it stands, cannot represent Virgii's plough:
Perhaps (says he), the chief reason we cannot so clearly understand the work at the side, is from the plough being represented in such bad perspective; for if we take a right view, not only of this plough, but also of their paintings and sculpture in general, we shall clearly fee that the Romans were almost totally ignorant of that science-For the dentalia, which is represented perpendicularly in the plate t, was certaini; iqrended to be horizontally.
Tous does he acknowlege that the figure cannot convey a distinct not on of the plough, and yet, by his own uniform declaration, it is this figure on the truly wonderful unique, which alone constitutes the important discovery that he has made.
It would be an easy matter to shew, by attending to the words of Virgil, and other ancient authors, that neither the dentalia, 'the buris, por temo, nor aures, vomer, nor piva, could posibly be piired as here represented; but this would lead to a length of discuiñon on which it would be quite improper for us to enter. We cannot, however, avoid taking notice of some other striking particulars that occur in this extraordinary performance.
In his preface, the author obferves, that " The modern plough, which turns up the earth, rows and harrows at the jame moment, effe As merely what the Romans knew and prace tised long before!' Here, we presume, he alludes to the modern machine which we call a drill, and which never can be properly called a plough. But what are his proofs that this branch of rural economy was practised by the Romans? Lo! here they are In the figure described on this unique, and which our author choles to call the figure of Virgil's plough, many parts, as we have already faid, remain to be explained, alter all Virgil's terms have been exh:utted. Among these, is one that stands above on the figure, which Mr, De Carrieres calls at the side, and of which hethus speaks: 'As for the work at the side, it must be undoubted. by for the purpose of throwing the seed into the earth.' Was ever a more satisfactory demonstration given of any doubtful fact? The force of this demonftration is much heightened by what immediately follows: • But in what manner I will not positively affert, it not being mentioned by Virgil, Varro, Servius, or by any of the poets or commentators.'- Yet, although none of them have mentioned this circumstance, it must, undoubtedly, have been fo: the purpole of throwing the feed, and that alone.
But what our author wants in clearness of description, he fupplies by the number and boldness of his affertions; by which every
But how is it poffible for us to take a right view of this plough if it be not rightly delineated, and if we have no original by wbich the errors can be corrected ? + It is, however, represented diagonally.
difficulty is at once solved. His criticisms 100, on the performances of former commentators on Virgil, mark, in every line, the over-forwardness of this discoverer. Any man, we might have imagined, who had turned his attention to this subje&, would have been forced to acknowlege that, on account of the imperfect description which Virgil has given of his plough, difficulties occur that cannot be easily removed; in which case, conjcctures, when delivered with becoming diffidence, though they may perhaps appear to us rather ill founded, ought nevertheless to be treated with respect; especially when we feel that we cannot supply their deficiencies but by other conjectures that may not be less improbable. But this unassuming mode of conduct is not that of Mr. Des Carrieres, who, wherever he thinks he perceives an error, exults with an air of triumph.-His crisic:sms are generally of this caft. For inftance, on the subject of that part of the plough which Virgil ftyles duplex dorsum (concerning which no commentator has yet been able to give a satisfactory account), Mr. Martyn hints, that some have thought shat the term duplex might poflibly here denote an augmentation in breadth, and not a plurality of number. This, indeed,' says Mr. Des Carrieres, ' seems to me to be one of the most ri. diculous opinions that ever was promulgated, and a disgrace to those who endeavour to defend it; for one back, let it be ever so broad, can never signify more than one; the width will never increase the number, and consequently double must fignify two.'Doubtless, one can never fignity more than one; nor will the width increase the number; but it seems to be a strange sort of consequence, from these premiles, that double muft always figo nify two. Does not Mr. Des Carrieres know, that the word doublé, both in Latin and English, is on many occasions employed to denote an augmentation of the strength or size of particular objects, as well as number? Thus Virgil, G. 3. 87. At DUPLEX agitur per lumbos spina; and Horace, Sat. 3. 63.-Du. PLICIS per noscere juris Naturam.-Milton says, Par. Loft, 4. 102. Short intermission bought with DOUBLE smart; and Shakespeare, Hen. VI. Here's a pot of good DOUBLE *, neighbour, drink, and fear not your man.-We have also double tin, double pins, &c. &c. And although we are not disposed to agree with Mr. Martyn in regard to the particular instance before us, yet there is surely nothing in the nature of the conjecture which can entitle it to the epithets- ridiculous or disgraceful.
• Double Ale is the Warwickshire and Staffordshire name (which Shakespeare was well acquainted with) for that liquor when brewed with double its usual strength; and which ię usually sold at double its common price.
We shall only farther remark, that it appears to us not a little fingular, that among the illustrators of Virgi), on this subject, our balty author should have overlooked the very ingenious disfertation on Virgil's Plough, by Mr. Dickson *, in his account of the Husbandry of the Ancients lately published, as we think he has thrown more light on the subject than all the other commentators put together ;-not excepting Mr. Des Carrieres him, felf! * See Rev. for March, p. 193.
ART. IV. Julia de Gramont. By the Right Honourable Lady H***,
12mo. 2 Vols. 75. sewed. While. 1788. HE world of letters is a kind of Elysium, the various mem
bers of which are ever ruminating or dreaming of scenes of unutterable bliss. Without inquiring whether those dreams are likely to be realized, we will only observe, that in the former eftate as in the latter, there is no distinction of persons. We therefore hope that Lady Hawke + does in no sort think to fland upon her gentility, as Master Stephen expresses it: or even upon her nobility if that has a more pleafing found, when the appears before the public in the character of an author. The “ eternal blazon” of Right Honourable, as many may be inclined to think it, dazzles us not in the least : we mean in the common acceptation of the words.-Virtue alone is true nobility, says the Poet; and we will venture to give it as our opinion, from a perusal of the present volumes, that the writer of them is perfectly sensible that the adage (for so it may be termed) is just and true.
This novel reflects particular honour on its author. It is moral, pathetic, and interesting. The fable is made up of a pleasing diversity of incidents; and is so artfully constructed, that attention is kept alive till the close of the work. The narrative is generally animated; but the style is in some places rather too flowery and poetic. The noble writer appears to have derived her manner from an intimate acquaintance with the novelists of France. But what is pleafing in them, and such indeed as the genius of their Janguage demands, is considered as affected and fantastical with us. The characteristics of the English tongue, it lould be remembered, are nervousness and fimplicity.
The following extract will serve as a specimen. The Marquis de Soissons speaks. He is married to a woman who negle&ts all the duties of a wife. The Duchefs de Gramont, on whom be lavishts so many praises, was the obje&t of his first and unal. terable love.
t For this, according to report, is the name of the fair writer.