he was utterly a stranger to the languages of the East, the source of our own, and the other European dialects; and, of course, was essentially unqualified to pursue his researches in etymology. When, therefore, we bear in mind, that many of his derivations are fanciful analogies; that many are absolute conjecture; and that the Oriental tongues, the fountain of ancient and modern languages, have been found by Sir William Jones and others, to abound in close affinities with the Greek, and with the very peculiarities of tense which he affects to despise, we cannot feel prepared to throw away written and spoken English, and build upon mere hypothesis a system of language and grammar for the benefit of our children, where undoubted facts should be the only foundation.

Not the least remarkable feature in the book before us is its egotism throughout. While it affects to make a very formal acknowledgement of its obligations to its predecessors, it plainly aspires to be thought the most original grammar extant. If the praise of originality be due to the spirit of the following sentences, its claims may be fairly allowed.

"As to the policy of changing the prevailing system, now that it is so comfortably established in all our schools, it may be observed, that because an error is popular and extensively propagated, it is not the less an error; and he trusts that he is not alone in despising that policy which sacrifices truth and propriety to prescription and expediency." "Had not grammarians fixed absurdity, verbs would have had no variation."-"The infinitive mood has perplexed us more than any other absurdity of English grammarians."-"We have not arrived at any certain conclusion in regard to the accompanying word to."- "It is remarkable that, in their anxiety to create moods, grammarians have never thought of an interrogative mood."—"Their first labor was to consecrate and confirm all the perversions which they found actually existing, and thus they prevented our language from righting itself."-"With the view of inducing influential writers and speakers to set the example of banishing irregularities from the verbs, we shall present them with the following distributions."-"We have already remarked, some suspect the word to to be the verb do, d being changed into t, as was often the case before our authority was absurdly fixed."-"I propose to reform grammar." ."—"Thirdly, verbs whose regular form would so offend the delicate ears of modern grammarians, that there is little prospect of any reform. We shall, however, insert the proposed regular form, that the eye of the rising generation may gradually become accustomed to it, and be prepared for its adoption."-" But we have so far bowed to usage, that idol of grammarians, as to allow a present and past tense of verbs, with the mental reservation that we only allow two forms of the verb without any reference to time."

All this would be intolerable enough, if the book contained any thing new. But, we apprehend, that, with a few exceptions, too trifling for his predecessors to notice, even the recommendation of novelty is wanting to redeem this grammar. It is, in reality, an abridgment of Horne Tooke, together with such modifications as he was able to pick up from works of Mr. Noah Webster, published years ago, and some grammarians of the present day. Now it is a fact sufficiently well known to scholars, that Horne Tooke was not the author of the theory of language usually ascribed to him.

"The same theory had been established and applied on the continent of Europe to the Greek, before Horne Tooke published his work in England." Mr. Fowle seems to have read Tooke much in the same way as Mr. Webster did originally; his eyes are opened for the first time, and he fancies that much was unknown before, because he knew it not himself. If our readers will be at the pains of referring to Webster's Philosophical and Practical Grammar of the English Language, we doubt not that they may trace many of the whimsies of the "True English Grammar" to that source. It is well known, that Mr. Webster substituted what he considered a more philosophical nomenclature, for the old one of articles, nouns, &c. Noun and substantive he called name. Pronoun he termed substitute, and adjective, attribute. Adverbs he called modifiers, being, in his opinion, "well formed like magnifiers, and happily expressive of their use." Conjunction he called connective. The old name of verb he retained for want of a better, although not sufficiently descriptive of its use. These improvements were promulgated in 1807. The spirit of the age has doubtless led to other and greater discoveries than these; but they will still be found, in many respects, to be the "principium et fons" of Mr. Fowle's grammar, the very fountain-head of his reforms.

For instance, to ascertain that the indefinite article, a, an, and the adjective, one, are the same word, he needed but to turn to the "Philosophical and Practical Grammar," (pp. 19, 20) where we have the whole history of the abuses of that long-suffering part of speech. So with respect to the definite article, the (p. 28). And if he had looked back a little farther, he would have found, that Johnson, in the grammar prefixed to his Dictionary, had given the same explanation long before Mr. Webster wrote. Likewise, as regards the possessive case of pronouns, Mr. Webster (pp. 34, 35) rejects the notion that ours, yours, &c. are possessive cases; although our author does not coincide with him in admitting them to be pronouns.

Again; Mr. Fowle's derivation of more and most from the Anglo-Saxon, may be found more fully unfolded by Webster (pp. 66, 67). So for the term, pluperfect, which has encountered the sneers of our author, is substituted the more intelligible one of prior past (p. 73).

For Mr. Fowle's observations on shall and will, see Mr. Webster (pp. 80, 81).

And so for the perfect participle (Mr. Fowle's verbal adjective); the etymology of the verb, to be; also for adverbs, conjunctions, and prepositions, see Webster passim.

These, and many other instances, which are not casual coincidences, prove, at least, that the "True English Grammar" is not quite so new a thing as its writer would have it thought. The main difference between it and Mr. Webster's is, that Mr. Fowle has adhered more implicitly to Horne Tooke than Mr. Webster did after a little experience, and has adopted a more general division of words.

The doctrine, which rejects the moods and tenses of verbs, is by no means a new one; and, although long ago suggested, its advantage and expediency have ever been doubted by the judicious.

Even the rejection of the whole passive voice, startling as it may appear, is no novelty; and, if we are not mistaken, has been actually reduced to practice in the Grammar of Mr. S. Cardell, of New York, "the ingenious philologer," according to Mr. Fowle, "who ought to be better known in this country."

One word as to the treatment of Mr. Murray and other writers. Mr. Fowle seems to have considered it an essential thing in a true English grammar, to choose such illustrations of his principles, as shall ridicule personally those from whom he may chance to differ. Thus, "He Murray-that Murray (who perplexes)" (p. 21.) "I, Mr. Murray, puzzle children." (p. 160.) It was not to be expected, that the upholders of venerable corruptions, like Dr. Lowth and Mr. Murray, should be entitled to his civilities. The character of the "fearless" reformer, from Brutus downwards, has always implied a contempt of the courtesies, not to say of the decencies of life. Men made of such stern stuff know a regard for the truth alone. It would be too much like betraying the glorious cause of reform, and doing obeisance to error, to omit any expression of rudeness and disregard towards his opponents, or of arrogance and self-sufficiency on his own part. From these principles, we do not perceive that he has swerved; and it is not a little curious to observe, how cleverly he has managed to make his book a tissue of alternate grammatical expositions and personal abuse.

A word with regard to the practicability of these innovations, and we have done.

What should we think of that man's project, who should propose to teach a system of arithmetic, founded on the duodecimal ratio? Yet there are not wanting mathematicians to maintain the superiority of such a system. Will parents consent to teach their children a system of grammar, which treats of words, not as men write and speak them, but as Horne Tooke and Mr. Fowle think that they should be written and spoken? If the rising generation are to

profit by these improvements, they must, for one hundred years at least, cut themselves off from all sympathy with those about them, in whatever is connected with language and letters; until they shall be able to reform learning, and fashion English after the standard of primitive simplicity, "appealing from the authority of Addison and Swift to the woods of Germany." Not merely so. When they commence the study of the French, Italian, and Spanish, (the latter of which has been brought so near to our homes) they will truly have all their labor to begin again. Mr. Webster has assumed as the motto of his Philosophical Grammar, "that the most necessary of all learning is to unlearn that which is naught." From this they surely will not be excused, who, after enjoying the benefit of the grammar before us, turn to the study of the modern languages. They will have forgone the aid of analogy in the study of those languages, and have thrust themselves out of the pale of all the grammatical systems in the world. We would suggest, therefore, as the watchword of his disciples,

"Double, double, toil and trouble."

If, their doctrine is sound, the business of reform must not stand still, until all the dialects on the face of the earth have been made over anew. It is not the English language alone that is in fault, "but," as Mr. Webster formerly avowed, "the grammars and dictionaries of all other languages must be revised and corrected, before their elements and true construction can be fully understood." These men plainly reverse the order of things, and consider grammar the final cause of language, rather than language the final cause of grammar. But if Mithridates, in the plenitude of his power, could not change a single word in all the numerous dialects spoken throughout his empire, how is it to be supposed, that busy and matter-of-fact men, in an age infinitely more practical than his, will be persuaded to sacrifice their familiar forms of discourse, for any notions of wire-drawn philology? Practical usefulness is far better than the semblance of philosophical propriety. Whine as they may, about "straining our language on foreign_racks," and, instead of taking their mother tongue as they find it, flounder about in the misty mazes of their own conjectures, we shall continue to think, that there is much more of philosophism in their doctrines, than of good philosophy. People will call a whale a fish in spite of the zoologists; and we sadly fear, that they will talk of prepositions and conjunctions in spite of the "Diversion's of Purley."

MISCELLANY.

[The following story is translated from the German of Musæus, being one of his Volksmärchen, or Popular Tales, not original productions, but stories common among his countrymen, and taken by him from the lips of individuals, mostly among the peasantry. The collection is popular in Germany. The main incident in this tale has been used by Lewis in the story of Don Raymond, given in "The Monk," The two stories, however, are by no means alike.]

THE ELOPEMENT.

On the banks of the little river Lokvich, in Vogtland, near the borders of Thuringia, stands the castle of Lauenstein. A nunnery formerly stood on the same spot, but it was broken up in the times of the early reformers, and the lands attached to it reverted, of course, to the temporal lords of the soil. The earl of Orlamund, in whose domains they were situated, bestowed them upon a feudal retainer, who built a castle upon the ruins of the convent, and gave his own name to the estate, or else adopted the one which he found belonging to it; he is called in story the lord of Lauenstein. He was not long in learning that the laity never thrive on the spoils of the church, but sooner or later find them a source of grievous vexation.

The holy nuns, whose remains had rested quietly for centuries in the burial vaults of the convent, could not endure this profanation of their sanctuary. The dry bones rattled in the tombs, and, in the middle of the night, up rose the skeletons from their subterranean lodgings, and clattered up and down the still remaining cloisters. Sometimes the holy sisters would sweep in procession across the castle-yard, wander through the apartments, and slam to the doors with such violence, that nobody in the house could close his eyes. Sometimes they made a disturbance in the servants' apartments or in the stables, pinched and pulled about the maids, tormented the cattle, dried up the cows' milk, and made the horses snort, and rear, and break down their stalls.

The activity with which the holy sisters pursued their pranks gave no rest to man or beast; and though the master of the house hired the most famous exorcists, at great expense, to reduce them to order, it was all to no purpose. The most powerful conjurations, before which the whole kingdom of Belial trembled,