rated: the Celtic ftamina are visible, and remain a monument of the Celtic parentage of the renowned Grecian and Roman people.'

After all the refemblances which our Author has fo ingenioufly traced out between the Greek and Galic languages, we must, however, remark, that we fee much reafon for deriving the Greek language from the ancient Teutonic rather than the Celtic.

The affinity between the Saxon and the Greek tongues has been fhewn by many writers. It is very manifeft in the words, arg, air; pron, moon; a'sne, star; oxia, sky; pavis, rain; warng, father; uubos, mouth; xon, call; &fag, udder; avan, hall; spain, street; wáros, path; air, ax; pun, rag; ía, hay; and in many others, which writers on this fubject have collected. These refemblances afford ground for fuppofing that the Greek and the Saxon languages are derived from one common fource; and this is farther confirmed by their agreement, in the manner of terminating the infinitive prefent active, in the ufe of negatives and of articles, in their forms of comparison, and in the ftructure of compound words. We have, moreover, the teflimony of Ovid, who lived fome years in Pontus, where the Greek and the Getic or Gothic languages were fpoken, and could himfelf speak and write in both (Vid. Trift. ver. 7, 8. 51. & 10. 35. Eleg. ii. 68. De Ponto, iii. Ep. ii. 4. iv. 13. 17. 19.) that the Getic tongue was from the fame fource with the Greek. To this we might add the authority of Henry Stephens, Scaliger, Salmafius, Francis Junius, Cafaubon, and other great names, in fupport of the opinion that the Greek and Gothic languages have a common origin. Now, it appears from ancient hittery, that the Greeks and Thracians were from the fame ftock, and that Thrace was the fource of the Goths and Germans, of whom the Saxons were a branch. From all which it follows, that the Greek and Saxon languages are of Teutonic origin, and confequently that Mr. Grant is mistaken in deriving the former from the Galic or Celtic *.

Having dwelt fo long on this part of the work, we have only time to remark in general, concerning the reft of thefe Effays, that they contain feveral ingenious obfervations, which will repay the attention of the philofophical Reader.

ART. VI. Critical Effays on fome of the Poems of feveral English Poets by John Scott, Efq. With an Account of the Life and Writings of the Author, by Mr. Hoole. 8vo. 55. 3d. Boards. Phillips. 1785.

M

R. Scott, the author of this pofthumous publication (as we learn from the fenfible and well written account of

• See this fubject treated at large in Clarke on Roman, Saxon, and English Coins.

his life prefixed by the editor) was a citizen of London, and by religious profeffion a Quaker. He very early difcovered a propenfity to the ftudy of poetry, and made feveral fuccefsful attempts in verfification. His firft excurfions into the region of the Mufes were made in the Gentleman's Magazine, and other mifcellaneous publications. In the year 1760 he published, with his name prefixed, Four Elegies, which were well received, and introduced him to the notice of feveral eminent characters in the literary world. After an interval of nine years, he publifhed his defcriptive poem entitled, Amwel*. He also wrote an epiftle called, The Garden, and fome other pieces. These were af erwards collected into a volume, of which we have formerly expreffed our approbation +. He was likewife the author of a pamphlet, On the Prefent State of the Parochial and Vagrant Poor. See Rev. vol. xlviii. p. 322.

Though Mr. Scott was a diffenter, and a whig, his poetical talents and his amiable character procured him the friendship of Dr. Johnson, who meant to have become his biographer, had not death prevented him. In this inftance we obferve with pleasure, that this great man made an uncommon facrifice of his prejudices to his judgment, though after what we have heard and feen of his general conduct in this refpect, we cannot, with the Editor, confider this fingle fact as a proof, that he had a mind fuperior to the diftinction of party.

The poems examined in thefe Effays are, Denham's Cooper's Hill; Milton's Lycidas; Pope's Windfor Foreft; Dyer's Grongar-Hill, and Ruins of Rome; Collins's Oriental Eclogues; Gray's Elegy; and Thompfon's Seafons.

Mr. Scott difputes Denham's claim to the reputation which, as a defcriptive poet, he has fo long enjoyed. He cenfures his conceptions as cold and unanimated, and his diction as exceedingly obfcure, and often incorrect, even to abfurdity. This charge he brings home, in many particular inftances.

Milton's Lycidas he very judiciou fly vindicates from the cenfure paffed on it by Dr. Johnfon, on account of its paftoral form, its mythological perfonages, and its highly metaphorical ftyle. This latter circumstance, Dr. J. thought inconfiftent with the paffion of grief which the poem was intended to exprefs. To this Mr. Scott replies:

There is an anxiety from apprehenfion of lofing a beloved ob. ject; and there is a grief immediately fubfequent to its actual lofs, which cannot be expreffed but in the fhorteft and fimpleft manner. There is a grief foftened by time, which can recapitulate paft pleafures in all their minutiæ of circumftance and fituation, and can felect fuch images as are proper to the kind of compofition, wherein

* The name of the village where he had his feat, in Hertfordshire, † See Rev. vol. Ixvii. p. 183.

it chufes to convey itself. It was no fudden impetus of paffion, but this mellowed forrow, that effufed the verfes now under confideration.'

Some of the more ftriking beauties of this poem are pointed out; and notice is taken of feveral minute inaccuracies. On the whole, the critic concludes; Lycidas is a noble poem; the author's name is not wanted to recommend it: its own enthufiafm and beauty will always make it pleafe, and abundantly atone for its incorrectness.'

In the critique on the Windsor Forest, we meet with the following juft obfervations on the paffage:

"Not proud Olympus yields a nobler fight,
Though gods affembled grace his towering height,
Than what more humble mountains offer here,
Where in their bleffings, all thofe gods appear.
See Pan with flocks, with fruits Pomona crown'd;
Here blubing Flora paints th' enamell'd ground;
Here Ceres' gifts in waving profpect ftand,
And nodding tempt the joyful reaper's hand;
Rich Industry fits fmiling on the plains,

And Peace and Plenty tell a Stuart reigns."

This paffage is of little value. To defcribe graphically and poetically the difcriminating peculiarities of any particular fituation, requires fuperior abilities; but to compare it to a number of other places, of different character, is certainly no very difficult business. Windfor was before compared to Eden, it is now compared to Olympus; but the man who has never feen Windfor, can receive no idea of its appearance from thefe comparifons. The fimilitude alfo is defective in another part; there can be no proper parallel between a hill fraught with Pagan deities, and fields fraught with fheep, and flowers, and corn. The couplets alfo are not correct; the gods are faid to appear in their bleffings, and are befides introduced in their perfors. The fifth line has an ambiguity; if Pan is only fuppofed to be prefent with his flocks, all is very well; but if he is fuppofed to be crowned with them, as Pomona is with fruits, the metaphor is abfurd, because the literal circumftance is impoffible. Blufbing Flora, in the fixth line, is the quaint and indistinct language of a fchool-boy; for why Flora fhould blush, no good reafon can be given.'

We cannot equally approve the following remark on the poet's addrefs to the Thames:

"Thou too, great father of the British floods!

With joyful pride furvey'st our lofty woods;
Where tow'ring oaks their growing honours rear,
And future navies on thy fhores appear,

Not Neptune's felf from all her streams receives
A wealthier tribute than to thine he gives:

*This is a very common abuse of language; our poets are fo fond of crowning, that they crown every thing,'

No

No feas fo rich, fo gay no banks appear;
No lake fo gentle, and no fpring so clear,
Not Po fo fwells the fabling Poet's lays,
While led along the fkies his current trays,
As thine which visits Windsor's fam'd abodes,
To grace the manfion of our earthly gods:
Nor all his ftars above a luftre show,

Like the bright beauties on thy banks below;
Where Jove fubdu'd by mortal passion still,
Might change Olympus for a nobler hill."

Thames has really been unfortunate in his poets; Denham unde. fignedly burlesqued him, and Pope has done him no very enviable honours. Cooper's-Hill, that bad original, is here plainly copied, though it must be owned, with fome improvement. Thames might perhaps have been termed, with propriety, the monarch of the Britifh floods, but there can be no foundation for terming him their father; his ftream does not fupply other rivers with water, but, on the contrary, is fupplied by them. The oak's growing honours, is an affected kind of catachrefis, and the future navies, notwithstanding it prefents the mind with a new idea, is in fact but a redundance; oaks are mentioned as oaks in one line, and future navies is but another name for oaks in the next. There is nothing to which the perfonal pronoun her, in the fifth line, can poffibly relate; probably it was an error of the prefs for his. To talk of a river fwelling a poet's lays, is at beft puerile. The expreffion here is alfo too general; we are left to guess whofe lays are welled by the Thames. Mortal pafion inftead of a passion for mortals, is an ambiguous and unwarrantable contraction. Olympus had appeared in fimile before, and now it appears again.'

The oaks rearing their growing honours," exhibits a natural process in fplendid but perfectly correct language: and future navies," as it introduces a new and interefting idea, nearly connected with the former, is certainly no redundancy. "Mortal paffion" is genuine poetical language.

In Grongar-Hill, Mr. Scott, among other defects, remarks the ambiguity of the paffage :

"So we mistake the future's face,

Ey'd through hope's deluding glass."

This couplet,' he fays, 'feems Janus like, to look both ways; we know not whether to join it with thofe which precede, or with thofe that follow; and there is no punctuation that can determine the matter. The fuppofed narrowness of the ftream very well illuftrates the fentiment, that danger in idea is diminished in proportion to its distance; and that fentiment is fimply, forcibly, and fully expreffed in one line:

So we mistake the future's face,

Ey'd through hope's deluding glass.

We have a fuperfluous expatiation on the thought: hope's glass, alfo to bear any relation to the natural circumftance, must be an inverted telescope, which removes and leffens the object. In this cafe the lines fhould have closed the fentence thus;

So we mistake the future's face.

Ey'd through hope's deluding glass.

But here the context, by an improper introduction of the relative which, is rendered abfolute nonfenfe; "As yon fummits which appear brown and rough, ftill we tread, &c." But by fubftituting fill for which, we may obtain propriety of expreffion, "As yon fummits foft and fair, ftill when approached appear brown and rough, fo ftill we tread, &c." This difputable couplet will, however, on the other hand, connect as easily with it's fucceffors :

So we mistake the future's face,
Ey'd through hope's deluding glass;
As yon fummits foft and fair,
Clad in colours of the air,
Which to thofe, &c.

This reading alfo will give us grammatical conftruction:-"We miftake the future's face, as we mistake yon fummits, which are airy and beautiful when diftant, but when near, brown and rough." The thought in this paffage is one that feems naturally to occur to the human mind: we feel the fame kind of fenfation when the eye views a delightful profpect, as when the imagination contemplates fuppofed future happiness: we think the place where we are, lefs pleafant than the place we behold; we think the prefent hour lefs happy than the hours in expectation.'

On The Ruins of Rome the author's remarks are chiefly encomiaftic, and contain little that merits particular notice.

Collins's Oriental Eclogues, Mr. Scott endeavours to rescue from the disrepute into which they have lately fallen; he maintains, that they have all the requifites of a good poem, defcription, incident, fentiment, moral, and melody.

Gray's Elegy, which Mr. Knox cenfures, as a confused heap of fplendid ideas, thrown together without order and without proportion," Mr. Scott thinks perfectly regular, though finple, in its plan. On the ftanza "Perhaps in this neglected fpot, &c." with the two following, he says:

The English language probably cannot boaft a finer fpecimen of poetry than thefe ftanzas. The fuppofition of the powers poffeffed, of the circumstances which prevented their exertion, and the illuftrative comparifons, are all communicated with a grandeur and energy that have feldom been equalled. The Poet calls from the graves before him, the hands that might have wielded the fceptre, or ftruck the lyre, and creates in our imaginations the allegorical beings, who repreffed their progrefs to greatnefs; Knowledge withholding the fight of her roll, and Penury cafting on them a look,