begins with attempting to prove that there is a natural affinity between the fimple elements of a language and the ideas they were meant to convey. The following is a fpecimen of his reasoning.

"In more than one Celtic dialect bru fignifies a womb; ad, repetition or the fame, and ur a man. Bruad, then, is an offspring, or produce of the same womb, and bruadur. a man, produced by the same womb. This Celtic word, through different modes of inflexion, and compofition continues nearly the fame in a great variety of languages, as Latin, frater; Ital. fratello: French, frere; Eng. brother; Germ. bruder; Gueld. bruyr; Belg. broeder; Goth. brothar; Dan. brodre; Swed. broder; Welch, brawd; Corn. bredar; Armor. breur; Irish, brathair; Manks, bryer; Russ. brate; Sclav. and Pol. brat; Dalmat. brath; Lusat. bradt; Bohem. bradr."

The refemblance between thefe alledged derivations appears to us in various cafes very fanciful; but were it ever fo exact it would prove no affinity between the elements of language and the idea they are to convey. Let us reduce the compound Celtic word to the fimple words of which it is compofed. What affinity is there between the found bru and the fubftance womb, the found ad and the relation of fameness, the found ur and the fubftance man. This is mere fancy, or at least fiction, it having no foundation in nature or truth..

In the second section, our author proeeeds to the nature of the pri mitive language; and he exercifes his ingenuity in Jupposing the mode in which Adam muft have proceeded in beftowing names on the various kinds, fpecies, or individuals, which he had occafion to diftinguish; and really his conjectures on the formation of language are fufficiently amufing, though fome of them have been made before. It is very probable that objects connected with found might be expreffed by terms imitative of thefe founds, fuch as cows, fheep, and other animals hacknied in illuftrations of this fort. Sounds, however, conftitute but a small clafs of the objects which in his intercourse with his fellows, irrational animals, or inanimate beings, a man has occafion to defignate; and this fection really conveys no new knowledge concerning the formation of language. The third fection traces material accidents which affect elementary founds in primitive words. From the confent of old languages our author infers that man's first efforts to exprefs by vocal figns were attended with ftrong afpirations; and that the force of his articulation enabled him to mark various kinds of action.-The fourth fection illustrates the power of the vowels, and the resemblance between their different powers and certain fimple kinds of movement. He confiders also the power of the confonants, and, taking the various combinations of vowels and confonants, he supposes certain of the fmalleft combinations or fylJables to exprefs certain fimple modes of action, and more complicated combinations, more compound modes. For instance, the letter M makes the lips clofe together, the cheeks fwell into the imitation of capacity; M, therefore, is a natural expreflion of "comprehending, including, and containing." D expands or unfolds, and fo forth. Having inveftigated the pronunciation of the various vowels and confonants, and ftated the modes of action which he prefumes them

best

best fitted to exhibit, he applies his principles to words in the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Celtic languages. Quotation, unless detailed at confiderable length, in this place, would not illuftrate, and if prolix, from the exceffive drynefs of the subject, would be extremely tedious. From the whole of his theory and illuftrations our author endeavours to prove that these four ancient languages fpring from the fame primitive language, and are formed on the fame principles. Thence he infers that all mankind are sprung from one parent. To this conclufion we moft heartily fubfcribe, because in its favour there is the attestation if infpired writers; but we do not fee it is one whit the clearer from this philological effsay.

We have thus waded through a performance, on which we really wish we could beftow more unqualified praise than will fuit the impartiality of reviewers. It bears every mark of indefatigable industry, whenever the fubject requires it; manifefts found and just principles of natural and revealed religion; and, on the only occafion where political notions could be properly introduced, it manifefts correct ideas of the diverfity of rank, the neceffity of fubordination, the antiquity and advantage of monarchy. Such principles fhall always have our commendation. Induftry is a quality that we must abftractly deem praife-worthy. Even fhould it be exerted without any evident advantage, in purfuits that are at least harmless, we must commend the habit and effort, though we may regret the application. Were we to estimate the literary value of this work by the intentions of the author, we fhould certainly rate it highly. We entertain no doubt he conceives these researches to be powerfully conducive to the information and inftruction of mankind. Nothing, indeed, but fuch a conception could account for the immenfe labour this work muft have employed. We highly refpect the patience and perfeverance that could go through fuch a tafk, for fo very laudable a purpose. We reviewers have unfortunately adopted fuch a criterion refpecting books, that we rather confider the entertainment, pleafure, ufeful information, or inftruction, which they convey to readers, than the pains they may have coft the writer. In that view we cannot altogether think fo highly of the production before us. Still, however, it is not devoid of amufement; and as to information, fome may be gleaned amidst a very wide field of conjecture. There is a clafs of readers to whom fuch researches are extremely gratifying, and by these this book will, we doubt not, be as much relifhed as any other fyftem of conjectural antiquities. We are happy alfo to obferve, that a very numerous lift of fubfcribers has fecured to the writer a much greater portion of emolument than conld have arifen from the fale of any fingle volume, however able and popular in such a short time. We really with the author well, because he deferves fuch wishes from every friend of Church and State.

In fome parts of this work our author fhews he can reafon logically. Indeed his introductory effay is very fatisfactory, and proves him well acquainted with the hiftory of civil fociety. There he takes his views from unquestionable facts and documents. But when a writer

becomes

becomes an hiftorian upon etymologies, and attempts to prove events from a flight resemblance of names, he perplexes himself in a labyrinth of conjecture, and conveys no folid knowledge to his readers.

From his name we conceive Mr. Davies to be either a Welshman or of Welsh extraction; and we can perceive the prepoffeffions of a Welshman in one great purpose of his book. The genealogical scope of the work is to prove that the Celtæ are fprung from the first born of Gomer, the first born of Japheth, the firft born of Noah. Of the Celts, by his account, there were two branches, of which the Welsh were the eldest. Ergo, the Welth are the lineal reprefentatives of Noah, and confequently of Adam; and this is a piece of genealogical elucidation that must be extremely pleafing to our worthy countrymen, the Cambro Britons. As Foote's Cadwallader fays, "Peter, fetch me the pedigree."

Godwin's Life and Age of Chaucer.
(Continued from p. 350)

N the XVIIIth chapter, Mr. Godwin difcuffes the questions whether Chaucer ftudied at Paris and the Inner Temple. Leland fays that Chaucer, after leaving Oxford, fpent feveral years in France, and acquired much applaufe by his literary exercises in that country." On this affertion of Leland Mr. Tyrwhitt lays no stress; but our author thinks otherwife: and, as it was ufual for Englishmen, at that period, to refort to the University of Paris to finish their education, he fuppofes it probable that Chaucer may have studied there fome time during the truce between the rival monarchs, from Sep. 1347 10 June 1355. Our poet is fuppofed to have been bred to the bar. Leland affirms that he frequented the Courts of Juftice in London, and the Colleges of the Lawyers ;" and Speght fays, " Not many years fince, Mafter Buckley did fee a record in the fame house," the Inner Temple," where Geoffrey Chaucer was fined two fhillings for beating a Francifcane Fryar in Fleete-streete." With regard to the validity of this laft evidence, Mr. G. we think, is unreasonably sceptical. It is certainly, however, of no great importance: but the mention of it powerfully impels us to point out the confcientious care with which it appears that thofe judges of literature, the Edinburgh Reviewers, perufe the authors whom they pretend to criticife. "While Mr. Godwin," they fay, "was thus poring upon a millstone, and proclaiming his difcoveries to the world, we are furprized that he has omitted the famous tradition, that Chaucer, while in the Temple, was fined two fhillings for beating a Francifcan Friar in Fleet-ftreet." They then go on, in their ufual merry mood, to tell us what advantages Mr. G. might have reaped from this tradition. It would have fuggefted the history of Fleet-ftreet, and of Fleet-ditch, and of the Fleetprifon, and of Fleta the law-book, and of the Fleet or Royal Navy. The fine might have introduced a hiftory of the filver coinage, with an abridgment of the Temple records. "It is probable," they faga

ciously

ciously add, "that one or both parties were in liquor. If so, when, how, or with what liquor did they become intoxicated? Above all, the fcuffle, and the drubbing itself, would have led to many a learned differtation. To illuftrate the nature of the beating, Mr. G. might have described

Your souse, your wherit and your doust,

Tugs on the hair, your bob o' the lips, your thump, &c.

All which knowledge is unfortunately loft to the world, perhaps through the ill-confidered interference of Mr. Phillips the publisher." We will not infult the good fenfe of our readers by asking them whe ther they confider this nonfenfe as criticism. But we would feriously advife the Edinburgh Reviewers, before they venture, for the future, to give unlimited scope either to their fpleen or to their merriment, at leaft to read the books which they profefs to analyfe. For fo far is Mr. G. from having, as these directors of the public taste affirm, omitted the tradition with regard to which they are fo witty, that he has accurately given us the authority on which it is founded, and taken fome pains to prove that it is not entitled to much credit.

Our author gives a curious and inftructive view of law in the 14th century, as divided into the Civil, the Canon, the Feudal, and the principles of the English Constitution; of early writers on English law; of the modes of pleading; of the venality of the administration of justice, and of the attempts to reform it. As his obfervations on the feudal laws are uncommonly excellent, we are happy to lay them before our readers.

"The feudal law was a fyftem not inferior in nice correfpondence of complicated parts, and the harmony of a whole, to any invention of man in fociety. It is now the main key for explaining the different codes of civil policy prevailing in almost every country in Europe; and it was still more interefting in the time of Chaucer, as few of its provifions were as yet completely abrogated. It is principally to the feudal fyftem that we owe the diftinguishing features of modern, as contrafted with ancient Europe, that we belong more to our families and lefs to the state, that we are more of men and lefs of machines. The great chain of subordination in the feudal law has generated among and entailed upon us a continual refpect to the combinations and affections which bind man to man, and neighbour to neighbour. We are no longer broken down into one level, and into one mals, under the unfympathizing and infenfible government of inftitutions and edicts; but live in unforced intercourfe one with another, and confult much oftener the dictates of feeling, and promptings of difpofition, than the inventions of legiflators. The confequence of this is, that we remark and treasure a thoufand little fentiments and emotions, which the ancients deemed below or foreign to their confideration; and our characters, cherished by the warmth of a lefs artificial mode of fociety, unfold a variety of minuter lineaments and features, which, under other circumftances in man, have been blighted and deftroyed. The feudal fyftem was the nurfe of chivalry, and the parent of romance; and out of thefe have sprung the principle of modern honour in the best sense of that term, the generofity of difinterested

adventure,

adventure, and the more perfevering and fuccefsful cultivation of the pris vate affections." (Pp. 360, 361.)

Our author indulges himself with fome vifionary conjectures of no fort of value on the occurrences which may be supposed to have happened to Chaucer when practifing as a lawyer. Perhaps Chaucer, in the courfe of his legal life, faved a thief from the gallows, and gave him a new chance of becoming a decent and ufeful member of fociety, &c." This is, furely, moft egregious trifling. If Chaucer practifed as a well-employed lawyer, what happens to other men of that defcription must have happened to him. But Mr. G.'s reflections on the natural tendency of the lawyer's profeffion are worfe than trifling: they are falfe and unjuft. It has," he alleges," an unhappy effect upon the human understanding and temper. The poet, whofe judgment fhould be clear, whofe feelings fhould be uniform and found, whose sense should be alive to every impreffion, and hardened to none, who is the legiflator of generations, and the moral inftructor of the world, ought never to have been a practising lawyer, or ought fpeedily to have quitted fo dangerous an engagement." (P. 37c.) Is Mr. G. yet to learn that no men have ever furpaffed practifing lawyers either in found intellectual exertions, or in transcendent moral honefty and worth?

The year 1258 introduced Chaucer to court, at the age of 30, under the patronage of our magnificent Edward III. who placed him in the immediate fervice of his third and favourite fon, John of Gaunt, and affigned him a respectable habitation at Woodstock, close by the royal refidence. Mr. Godwin argues with fufficient force, but with ftill too little refpect, in oppofition to Tyrwhitt, that Chaucer owed this promotion to his reputation as a man of letters and a poet, to the value of which qualifications Mr. Tyrwhitt, we think, moft unreafonably fuppofes Edward to have been, in a great degree, infenfible. For,

men.

"As to our princes of the Plantagenet race," our author jufily obferves, "whatever vices we may impute to them, and whatever calamities may be traced to their fyftem of policy, they may challenge a comparifon with any dynafty in the hiftory of the world, in the patronage of poets and learned Even our weaker princes, Henry III. and Richard II. if they were not diftinguished for their patronage of letters, were yet munificent in their encouragement of the arts, and in that way contributed to the refinement and progrefs of the human race.-It was not till the unhappy contention of the rival houses of York and Lancaster, cqually hoftile to the favourable influences both of letters and of humanity, that the court of London ceased to be, in the measure which could reasonably be expected, the abode of the mufes." (Pp. 394, 395.)

Of the court of London under Edward III. our author gives a fine and interesting picture. A prominent figure is Philippa of Hainault, whom Edward married when he was about fifteen. The character of this accomplished woman is drawn with equal judgment and feeling. She was, indeed, in every respect, entitled to be regarded as a pattern

to