blies, were opened with the goblet in others the sun, the moon, or the stars, as their hand. They were strangers to the centre whence all their blessings parade and luxury; and their proudest were dispensed. The immortality of the trapping consisted in the high polish of soul, and the rewards and punishments their weapons. of a future state, were objects of their Necessity alone compelled the ancient firm belief. The priesthood was held in Gerians to cultivate their soil, which great reverence: the maintenance of was barren; rather from the want of silence and order at public assemblies, tillage, than from the niggardliness of and the expounding of signs and tokens, nature. Agricultural pursuits were left by which ihey were influenced on the to the care of old or infirm people, and most momentous occasions, formed a part of slaves: nor was any other culture at of the priestly functions. tended to by these, but that of oats and Rome itself recognized freedom as an harley. They lived in the wost profound liereditary property of the ancient Gerignorance of those objects, which con- mans and Scythians. Every free-born stitute the brightest charms of civilized German was the lord, the priest, and the life. The arts and sciences were totally judge of his household. He could punish unknown to them. It appears that they and eject his wife, with the concurrence were unacquainted with writing: their of her relatives, for a breach of the mar'whole knowledge of poetry and music, riage vow: he had the power of life and consisted in war-songs, and national death over his slaves. Many of the Ger- Decius. On DUELLING, N France, the example of Francis I. each one attended as his convenience dictated, without regard to any appointed hour. Wo lancholy consequences. Being charged men were excluded from them, though they with a breaeh of faith, hy the Emperor were generally consulted by their husbands Charles V. he gave him the lie in form, at home, on the most important affairs. and challenged him to single combat. When all were met together, the king, or, The difficulty of providing for two such where there was none, their chief, or some combatants a suficient security of the other distinguished and eloquent spokesman, field, and adjusting other circumstances, propounded the objects for deliberation. The prevented the meeting; but the mischief people expressed their disapprobation by mur of the example was coin hapmurs and clashing of swords, whilst their atter approbation was signified by huzzas and pened in the year clashing of shields, At these assemblies, part of the same ce ince kings or leaders were chosen ; peace, war, was torn by the me alliances, and embassies were resolved upon, the rage of duellit and heinous public crimes were punished. animosity of th Cons. Posselt. Geschichte der Teutschen, parties, and co Gesch, d. T. vol. i. p. 13. the country; nr TULY Mag. No. 186. 4 E the cessation of the civil commotions. It seems even to have increased not a little, in the reign of Henry IV. It has been computed, (according to Sully's Memoirs), that from his accession, to the year 1607, a period of eighteen years, no fewer than four thousand French gentlenien were killed in duels. "In 1578, a combat was fought by six French noblemen, three against three. Two of them were killed on the spot, two died of their wounds, and a fifth was severely wounded. In 1600, a private combat was fought between twenty French, and as many Flemish. Voltaire informs us, that the combat of the La Frettes, four against four, in 1663, determined Louis XIV. to pardon duelling no longer. "Duelling with small swords was first introduced into England, 29th Elizabeth, 1587. In the reign of James I. it became an object of attention to government; and afterwards a proclamation was issued by Charles II. 1679, that no person should be pardoned who killed another in a duel.” The preceding facts I have extracted from a valuable recent publication, Essays on the Art of War," a work essentially necessary to every officer in the British army. There have been in England many trials for killing in a duel, and many verdicts for manslaughter; but there appears only one trial on record, where killing in a fair duel has produced a capital verdict that was the case of Major Oneby, who prevented a public execution, by suicide. In the late case of Major Campbell, in Ireland, there is no doubt but the jury who found him guilty, did so, under the impression that he shot his adversary unfairly. No small check has of late been given to the practice of duelling, from the great number of respectable individuals, who have had the Courage, instead of meeting their challengers in the field, to prosecute them in courts of justice; nor does it appear, that in any such cases the public have deemed it a stain on their character, but the reverse. The judicial trial by battle was established in England, France, and various parts of Europe. The reason for its continuing so long, seems to have been, that the lord in most districts had the appointment of the ordinary judge, who, (either himself, or his lord) was interested in favour of one of the parties litigant; which might, perhaps, drive the other party, from a suspicion of this prejudice against him, to appeal to the chance by combat. There is a story in Grafton's Chronicle, which must have made this trial infinitely ridiculous. A citizen of London, in the time of Henry VI. was of a strong make, but of a faint heart. He happened to be obliged, by this kind of decision, to enter the lists against an aptagonist, who was both weak and puny. The friends of the citizen, to give him courage, plied him with wine and aqua vitæ, so that he was drunk when he began to engage, and fell an easy prey to his adversary. The last instance but one, of trial by battle, in England, is that of Lord Rea and of David Ramsden, in the reign of Charles I. when the court was held by the constable, and the earl marshal of England. Of this case, Rushworth gives an ample account, and the legal pleadings and proceedings of the appeal; it being in the arbitrement of the court, whether it should be granted, or not. In his answer, the defendant, Ramsden, alledges that the bill and appeal (which was for having had treasonable intentions) was and is false, and that the appellant Lord Rea did lie falsely; which is by some, supposed to account for the lie direct being followed by duels to this day. In Rushworth's account, we find farther, that the court, on the petition of Lord Rea, permits him to have, whilst in the lists, counsel, and a surgeon with his ointments; they likewise allow him a seat, or pavilion, to rest himself, and wine for refreshment. He is besides, to have iron, nails, ham mer, file, scissars, and bodkin, together with needle and thread. After two or three adjournments, the king superseded his commission to the constable and marshal, so that the combat did not actually take place. Shortly after a trial by battle was brought on a writ of right, but set aside for irregularity. In France, the form of proceeding was this:-The accuser and the accused threw down a gage, usually a gauntlet, which the judge took up. The two combatants, on this, were taken into custody, after which the affair admitted of no accommodation, but by the judge's consent. The chief judge, having fixed the day, named the field, and furnished the weapons, which were carried to the spot, preceded by fifes and trumpets. Here a priest blessed them with a multitude of ceremonies. The action began by giving the lie to each other, till gradually they they grew calm, when, with much devo-, Lie General-the Lie Special-the Lie tion, they threw themselves on their, Hypothetical the Lie Direct. This sysknees, said some prayers, inade a pro- tematic nousense is admirably ridiculed fession of their faith, and then proceeded by Shakespeare's Touchstone, in his to engage. The victory decided the in-, definition of finding the quarrel, on the nocence of the victor, and the justice of seventh cause:-"We quarrel, (says this his cause; the penalty of the vanquished motley disciple of Mutio,) in print, by was that due to the crime in question. the book, as you have books for good His unfortunate champion underwent manners. I will name you the degrees. the same fate: he was ignominiously The first, the Retort Courteous-the dragged out of the field, together with second, the Quip Modest-the third, the the principal, and hanged, or burned, Reply Churlish the fourth, the Reaccording to the crime. proof Valiant the fifth, the Countercheck Quarrelsome-the sixth, the Lie Circumstantial-the seventh, the Lie Direct." There is an engraving in Montfaucon, of a combat between the Chevalier Macaire and a dog, in the year 1371, expressly ordered by Charles V. of France, to determine whether the Che valier had been guilty of a murder, of which he was accused. See Antiq. de la Monarchie Françoise, where the story is related at length, and the issue is stated to have been, that, after being nearly strangled by the dog, he confessed his guilt. To return to voluntary duels, it has been mentioned above, that during the reign of James I. they attracted the attention of government. James, in fact, published many proclamations against the practice. In one of them, he declares, that "we do protest on our part, that we will never account of them but as of cowardes." Fynes Morrison, who wrote about this time, says, "Let me add one thing of corrupt custom in England, that those who are not grown men, never have an opinion of their valour, till in their youth they have gained it with some single fight, which done, they shall ever after five free from quarrels.” In the barbarous and frozen region of Greenland, affairs of honour are decided in a manner very different from that of civilized nations. When a Greenland gentleman is insulted or injured by another, he composes a satirical poem, which he repeats and sings before his friends, and domestics, male and female, till they have all got it by heart. Ile then every where challenges the other to meet him, and to refuse such challenge would be dishonourable in the extreme. The opponents having met in an encircled theatre, the challenger sings his satire, accompanied by beat of drum, and every line is re-echoed, in chorus, by his party. When he has thus discharged. his taunts, and raised the laugh against his adversary, the latter steps forth, answers in the same manner, and, cheered by the chorus of his party, retorts the laugh. The accuser renews the combat, and tries to baffle his antagonist a second time: in short, he that maintains the contest best, receives the laurel from the whole auditory, who constitute a very candid jury. These savages, level their wit with all possible keenness and severity, but without either rudeness or passion; and when the contest is determined, they become fast friends." Look here upon this picture, and on this!!!" Your's, &c. J. BANNANTINE. But it was not alone in England, and France, that duelling prevailed. In Sweden, in Flanders, and in different parts of Germany, it was very common. In Italy, it was carried to a pitch of refinement beyond all others. It is stated by Giannone, (vol. iii. p. 482,) that Paris de Putio, a Neapolitan advocate, professed chiefly this branch of the law, and was consulted on cases of this sort, referred to him from all parts of Europe. To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. And in 1566, there was published at Venice, Il Duello de Mutio, a treatise, in which the cases of honour were collected with such minuteness, that lies were distinguished into thirty-two dif ferent sorts, and the precise satisfaction suited to each, was marked out. On each of them, Mutius has a distinct chapter: the heads of some of them are as follow: Of the Lie Immaterial-the I SIR, APPREHEND the epitome of the most voluminous treatises on Logic, which have been handed down to us from the days of Aristotle to the present time, would not furnish clearer or more concise notions respecting that liberal art, than the following short dissertation, which embraces the ground of all that is usually usually held necessary for academical discussion in the public schools of our universities. OF THE STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT OF SYLLOGISMS. A syllogism may be defined to be a sentence made up of three propositions, so disposed, that the last is necessarily inferred from those that precede. EXAMPLE. Our Creator must be worshipped. Therefore God must be worshipped. The three propositions are called the Major, the Minor, and the Consequence. The theory of all syllogisms is the same, two ideas are compared by means of a third; as the ideas of God and worship are by the intervention of the idea of Creator, for at first we see no connection between them. The kinds of syllogisms now in use, are reduced to three, viz. the hypothetical, categorical, and disjunctive. The hypothetical is that wherein the major includes some condition or supposition, and is known by its beginwing with if. The Major affirms something conditionally, The Minor confirms that supposition; and The Consequence affirms peremptorily what the Major affirms only conditionally. EXAMPLE. Major-If Cæsar be a King, he must be honoured. Minor. But Cæsar is a King; Cons. Therefore Cæsar must be honoured. In hypothetical syllogismis sometimes the Minor, and sometimes the Consequence is to be denied: the Minor, when the second proposition is false; the Consequence, when the second proposition is true, yet the Consequence does not necessarily follow from it. A categorical or positive syllogism is that in which the Major includes a positive assertion; thus the Major asserts or denies the agreement between two ideas. EXAMPLE. Major. Every creature possessed of reason and liberty is accountable for his actions. Minor.-Man is a creature possessed of reason and liberty. Cons.-Therefore man is accountable for his actions, In the disjunctire syllogism, the Major contains two or more assertions one of which is true.The Minor denies the truth of the rest. The Consequence af firms that one to be true. FXAMPLE. Major. The world is either self-existent, or tramed by chance, or the workmanship of an infinitely powerful and wise being. Minor. But it is neither self-existent, nor formed by chance. Cons.Therefore it is the work of an infinitely powerful and wise being. In disjunctive syllogisms, sometimes the disjunctive and sometimes the minor may be denied; the former when all the possible suppositions are not enumerated; the latter, when any of the suppositions, are true which are denied to be so. An Argument is a series of syllogisms, when each succeeding syllogism proves what was denied in the preceding one. Suppose the question, to be defended by the respondent, was this: Duo latera cujuscunque trianguli sunt majora tertio. Argument against this: Major.Si quadratum hypothenusæ trianguli rectanguli, summo quadratorum laterum sit equale, cadit questio Minor.-Sed quadratum hypothenusæ, &c. Here, as the Minor is true, the Consequence must be denied; the opponent therefore proceeds to prove the consequence in the following manner in the next syllogisın. Major.-Si ubi quadrata quantitatum sint æqualia quantitates ipsæ sint æquales valet consequentia. Minor. Sed ubi quadrata quantitatem, &c. This syllogism being true, he proceeds in his argument thus: Major. Si ex præmissis sequatur hypothe nusam trianguli rectanguli duobus lateribus æqualem, valet consequentia et argumen tum Minor. Sed ex præmissis sequitur, &c. tum. shew that this last deduction is not fairly Here we must deny the Minor, and drawn from the premises before granted, by distinguishing between the square root of the sum of the squares, aird the sum of the square roots of the two quanties. Thus, if a2h2+d2, then a÷Vh2 + d2 and not b+d, which is the square root of b2+d2+2hd. Suppose the question to be, Status futurus patet ex lumine naturæ. The following argument, consisting of one one disjunctive and two hypothetical syllogisms may be used against it: Major,-Aut status futurus non patet ex lumine naturæ, aut justitia Dei patet ex lu mine naturæ. Minor. Sed justitia Dei non patet ex lumine naturæ. Cons. Ergo status futurus non patet ex lumine naturæ. The Minor being false, the respondent denies it, therefore the opponent procecds in the next syllogism to prove it; thus, Major.Si in statu rerum præsenti stepe mumero bonis miseria impertiatur, malis vero felicitas, tum justitia Dei non patet ex lumine naturæ. Minor. Sed in statu præsenti sæpenumero bonis miseria, malis vero felicitas, impertitur. Cons.-Ergo justitia Dei non patet, &c. Here the Consequence must be denied, and therefore the opponent must endea vour to prove in the following syllogism: Major. Si justitiæ Dei consentaneum sit bonos præmiis remunerari, malos vero affici, tam justitia Dei non patet ex lumine naturæ. Minor Sed justitiæ consentaneum est,&c. Cons. Ergo justitia Dei non patet ex lumine naturæ, et proinde neque status futurus. This is the conclusion of the argument, but for conciseness sake it is usual in the schools to read it in the following man ner: Au: cadit questio, aut justitia Dei patet etiam ex lumine naturæ. Sed justitia Dei non patet ex lumine naturæ. Ergo cadit questio. Si in statu rerum præsenti bonis miseria impertiatur, malis vero felicitas; valet Minor, Sed in statu, &c. Ergo valet Minor. Si justitiæ Dei consentaneum sit bonos premiis remunerari, malis vero premiis affici; Valet Consequentia. Sed justitia Dei, &c. Ergo valet Consequentia et Argumentum. The argument being concluded, the respondent proceeds to refute it; to do which, he examines, whether the conclusions be fairly deduced from the premises, and if so, whether it affects the question; how far it affects it; and whether the opponent does not suppose more to have been granted than really was in the former syllogisms. Thus, in the last argument, we may grant, that it is agreeable to the divine justice to reward the goodand to punish the bad, but then we should add, either in this world or a future one; for the divine justice does not necessarily require, that it should be done in the present state; as this attribute of the Deity may be deduced in general from his infinite power, wisdom, and benevolence, which may be from the works of the creation, and the abundant provision made by him for the happiness of mankind. Rules to he observed by the Respondent. 1. To understand the syllogism before he denies it; and if it be not intelligible, to ask the opponent for an explanation. 2. To deny the Minor, in preference to the Consequence, if the truth of it be at all suspicious. 3. If wint is asserted in the Minor generally be only true in particular cases, to restrict it to those cases, 4. If authorities against the question be quoted by the opponent, to quote other authorities in favour of it. 5. If at the conclusion of the argument any of the foregoing steps be forgotten, or their connection be not preserved, to require the opponent to enumerate and explain them. Rules to be observed by the Opponent. 1. To see that the arguments be drawn up distinctly and intelligibly. 2. To be able to explain the several parts of tirem clearly and precisely. 3. To have in readiness a proof for the Minor, in case it should be denied, when the next syllogism is in proof of the Consequence. 4. In quoting authorities, to give the true meaning of the authors. 5. At the conclusion of the argument, to be able to sum up the several steps in clear and concise terms; to explain their connection; and to shew how the arguments affect the question. To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. SIR, THE request of your correspondent, TH under the signature of "Common Sense," having drawn forth the cominunications of several popular remedies, as detailed in your Magazine for March, I beg leave to offer a few observations on such remedies, and how far a reliance upon them may be attended with success, or disappointinent. From the present advanced and diffused state of general science, with the more just and accurate reasoning, as applied to almost all the concerns of life, the almost universal belief in the efficacy of nostrums in the cure of diseases, which prevailed in the more unenlightened periods of our history, has very much abated; yet there is a large portion of |