case. His sixth is a miscellany comprehending the use of the article with a noun followed by a possessive pronoun, an adjective, a participle, or a substantive; treating of the place of the article and its reduplication; and entering into some discussion respecting the nature of the participle, and of the relative and its right to the title of subjunctive article. His seventh case is when the article is used, as some suppose, indefinitely, or, as Dr. M. calls it, hypothetically; that is, in such general expressions of action, or character, as ὁ περιπαίων, ὁ συκοφαντης,

ondaws, &c. The eighth, or last, is that of the article prefixed to adjectives in the neuter gender, without a substantive, to denote some attribute, quality, or property in the abstract; 35 το ωφέλιμον, το καλον, το αγαθον, &c.

From the investigation of these eight cases, Mr. Veysie concludes that the Greek article is either purely demonstrative, or demonstrative with relation, or demonstrative with attribution." Under the first of these divisions, are comprehended his first two cases; under the second, his three next; and under the third his last three. He adds that he is not at present aware that the Greek writers furnish any example which is not redu cible to one of these cases.'

When Mr.V. calls the article a demonstrative,-if by that ap pellation he means to say nothing more than that it limits and restricts' those words to which it is prefixed, giving a determinate sense' to their significations which without the article would be vague' and indeterminate, (and this appears, more particularly from what he says in pages 11 and 12, to be his meaning, at least so far as the use of the article is confined to

In treating on the subject of Regimen, Mr, Veysie mentions and seems to acquiesce in the decision of Apollonius, which Dr. Middleton had adopted before him, viz. that we must either say - λεοντος σκυμνίον without any article, or το τα λεοντος σκύμνιον with two, Of this Dr. M. is so positive that, as we noticed, (Rev. Vol. Ixii, p. 165.) he says it would be false Greek to write teorios xuvion with only one article. This assertion, however, we shewed to be unfounded; (Ibid. pp. 150, 151. and 159-165.) and Dr. M, ad, mits that it is contradicted by the practice of Philo Judæus: but then his style, he says, is florid, oratorical, and by no means correct. Joseephus he adds, is not liable to the same censure.' Yet in this last writer we find, τα δε εσαι το κατοικητήριον των λεονίων, και Η uning oxuya; with only one article; (Antiq. lib. 9. cap. 11. sub fin. Vol. i. p. 501, edit. Haverc, 1726, folio.) and so in Job we read, mas o Bios aos e olid. (cap. 15. 20.); and in Herodotus, πολλοί δε ανήξων εχθρών τας δεξιας χέρας νεκρων εονίων αποδειρανίες αύλοισι αυξι, καλυπίρας των φαρείξεων παρευνίαν. (Lib. iv. $ 64. Ρ. 31. edit. Wesseling, 1763.)

appellatives)

appellatives) we see no difference, except in the name, between his notion of the article being a demonstrative and the common

*Mr. Veysie seems to think that the article is used somewhat dif ferently with an appellative and with a proper name, and says of the latter that its latitude cannot be circumscribed by the article.' (p.12.) We see no difference in the two cases. Among the Greeks and the Hebrews, whose proper names consisted commonly of a single word, which was given as an appellation to many different individuals, these names often stood in great need of having their latitude circumscribed by an article, without which they were little better than common names. (See Rev. Vol. lxii. pp. 389 and 390.) We, who live in times in which the memory of all perhaps but a single individual, of those multitudes who bore the same name among the antients, is swept away, are not properly sensible of that necessity for the article which the people themselves felt in these cases: but we can see a reason in the nature of their proper names for their using them so frequently with the article. The nature of those names will also supply us with a reason for another practice, not uncommon among the Hebrews, which was that of annexing the pronoun he (1) to their proper names, and saying Isaiah-he, Jeremiah-he, &c. which resembled the practice, more frequently adopted in later times by the Chaldees and the Syrians, of adding a letter to the end of their nouns in order to make them emphatic, and had the same effect as the Greek custom of using their article xxx. It is not impro. bable, indeed, that the Greek personal pronoun of the third person neuterő, which is now commouly considered as the relative, may have been derived from the Hebrew ; and hence we may go one step farther back in tracing the origin of the Greek article than we went before, and may deduce it from the Hebrew. We will take this opportunity of adding that the neuter het, sometimes written 't, of the Dutch article de, from which Johnson and others derive our English article the, seems to be the same as our neuter pronoun it, with the addition of an aspirate; and the same likewise as the Greek, T, with its final vowel made mute, and an aspirate prefixed; that is, the same as T. It is to be remembered, also, that the Germans and the Dutch often gave to the letter o a sound scarcely distinguished from that of our e. A desire of shewing when they did this seems to have been the reason for their invention of their letter o, or ö; which they commonly substituted for the thus sounded. Might they not sometimes substitute the simple e for the same sound? In these languages, too, the final e, though sounded, is always sounded softly, in a way which makes it approach very near to a mute. Hence we have a farther confirmation of what we formerly said about the origin both of the Greek and the English definite articles; and also of the iden tity of the two, and of the great affinity of all these particles to each other all which becomes still more evident when we recollect that ,, and 9, are, as the grammarians observe, litera ejusdem organi, and as such very easily changed for one another. (See Rev. Vol, lai. pp. 282, 283. note.)

notion of its being a definitive. He says, indeed, that he does not assent to this last opinion,' because the article does not itself define; its office being rather to demonstrate or point out' (p.10.)-but nobody, we believe, ever supposed that the article gave a definition of the word to which it is prefixed. All that is intended by calling it a definitive is to say that, by prefixing it, words are limited, defined, and circumscribed in their latitude. Limited and defined' are here used as synony mous terms, in the same way as Mr. Veysie himself uses them in page 28. line 5.

If Mr. V. means any thing more than this, when he calls the article a demonstrative; if he intends to say that it demonstrates, or points out, in any particular way, in some such way for instance as the words this, or that, or any of those words which are commonly called demonstratives, point out their object; we think that he mistakes the nature, use, and office of the article. Demonstratives, properly so called, are words which are accompanied either by some bodily action used, or some description given, at the time; or which contain within themselves some indication of nearness, or remoteness, of time, place, &c.:-but the article contains nothing of this sort in its

The writer of a treatise on Grammar, (§ 27.) in the Encyclopadia Britannica, says, "there are few instances in which the place of the definite article might not be supplied by this or that ;" and that he "believes there, is not a single instance in which the place of the indefinite article might not be supplied by the numeral one." This assertion he attempts to prove by producing a few examples in which the demonstratives, or the numeral, may be substituted for the article without making much difference in the meaning: but for one example of this sort, ten may be produced which will not admit of the substitution. When Paul calls himself "the least of the apostles," (1 Cor. *v. 9.) we cannot substitute this or that; nor when he adds that he was not "meet to be called an apostle," can we substitute one ;-and such phrases as these occur constantly, by thousands. (See also a subsequent note marked (), which will appear in the second part of this article.) Indeed, such a mode of arguing is no more conclusive against the utility of articles to a language, than it would be against the utility of what are called synonymous words, to a language. Of such words, one may often be substituted for another, because that which the writer wishes to express is something common to both but other cases occur in which, of all these synonymous words, however numerous they may be, only one will suit his purpose. The same thing is true with respect to demonstratives, numerals, and articles. They have each their separate uses, which neither of the others can supply; and the language which is possessed of them all three has a great advantage over that which is possessed only of the two first mentioned.

nature

nature or use. It is much more general and unconfined, takes a much wider range, is applicable to a much greater variety of objects, and touches those objects in a much more slight and delicate way than any demonstrative can do *.

In this lightness of its touch, the article sometimes displays great beauty. In the case of Nathan and David, if the prophet had told the guilty monarch in plain terms, without any parable, that he had acted the part of an abominable villain, every one must see that all of that which is now so much admired in the narrative would be lost; and that the prophet's coarseness and

Demonstratives not only declare a thing to be definite, or deter minate, but always add to it more or less of the weight and solidity of the defining circumstances. They turn definiteness, which is but "the airy nothing of the imagination, the form of things unseen, into shape, and give it a body, a local habitation, and a name." This is manifest not only from the use and application, but from the very nature, origin, and etymological composition of them; which, as far as the Greek demonstratives are concerned, may be seen in our 62d Volume, pp. 282, 283,

Of the Latin demonstratives, hic seems to come from o, and from the third person singular of the second aorist of ixw, xw, or ex. whence it derives its signification of approaching, coming near, or adhering to; ille from, and as he that draws off, that which is more or less removed from us; ipse from ' ίσα, he exactly the very same, the initial vowels of the last two words, ' and

, being sunken by the rapidity of pronunciation, and by the emphasis being thrown on the article; and iste from s (which is the same with the Latin, is,) and , he with something more, some addition of time, place, distance, or other circumstance: hence it, denotes something more remote than ille, and is oftener accompanied than either bic or ille with some adjective, or substantive, to shew in what the additional circumstance consists; iste vafer, iste ne bulo. The idea of contempt, which it sometimes includes, seems to be derived from our despising things which are more remote from us, and wishing to remove from us things which we de spise.

The pronoun is, ea, id, is not properly either an adjective or a demonstrative. Use alone, or rather abuse, has made it such. Ori ginally, it seems to have been three distinct substantives, corresponding to our three personal pronouns he, she, it; like the Greek is, n, ô, (see Rev. as above,) from which it is derived. It is rather singular that neither the Greek nor the Latin languages, as they are taught in all the modern grammars, should have any personal pronouns, properly so called, for the third person. A pronoun properly means a word that is substituted for a noun, strictly so called, that is, for a substantive; and must itself, therefore, be a substantive. The defect, however, is in the grammars, and not in the languages.

1

want

want of address would, in all probability, have produced a very different effect from that which he intended. To us it also appears that much of the beauty would have been lost, and the intended effect materially weakened, if the prophet, after having related the parable, had said: "Thou art this man," or had used any other demonstrative, instead of using the article, and saying simply, "Thou art the man." The beauty and the force

*We abstain from printing the article here in italics, lest the reader should be tempted to lay an emphasis on it, which would be as bad as using the demostrative, if not worse. There being no article in Latin, those who have translated the Bible into that language were forced to use the demonstrative, and to make Nathan's touch as hard and as heavy as it would have been in Hebrew if he had said in, or in Greek sang. The original, as it now stands, WINN, is light as air. The touch is that of Ithuriel's spear. The fiend starts forth by magic, as it were, with all the rapidity, and the shock, of an unexpected flash of lightning; and the monarch, sinking into the earth, leaves nothing behind him but his self-condemned and guilty conscience, prostrate at the prophet's feet, without an atom of pride which could possibly be wounded, or a spark of resentment which could be roused, by any thing which Nathan might then choose to say.

None of the versions, antient or modern, that we have seen, (except one perhaps,) are equal in beauty to the original. We will produce a few specimens, which may be the more acceptable to the reader on account of the scarcity of the books from which some of them are taken.

EL

The Septuagint has auang & montes talo :-Jonathan's Chaldee Targum, The Syriac, D002):

-: את גברא,dee

-The old Italic, as pub : انت الرجد الذي فعد ذلك ,The Arabic

lished by Sabatier, in folio, Remis, 1743, Tu es vir qui fecisti hoc and the Vulgate, as it stands in all the editions subsequent to the revisals by order of Sixtus 5th and Clement 8th in 1590 and 1592, Tu es ille vir.

Of these old versions, the Chaldee is inferior to the original from the mere circumstance of using a more descriptive or demonstrative word for man, which the Hebrew has expressed by one of the most undescriptive words in the language; a word that often signifies any one thing in the world, and which therefore has no power of making any application to David but what it derives from the article: by its connection with which it is not rendered demonstrative but merely definite. The Syriac not only uses the same word as the Chaldee, but prefixes the personal pronoun of the third person (he) as a demonstrative, and thus becomes exactly equivalent to the Greek game. Both these versions put the word which they employ for man into the emphatic state; which, though it is often used for the article, is also often used to denote something more, something demonstrative. It