1409.] 
-for these I have not been able to find in 
the Commentaries. But what does the 
critic mean by the words terminating the 
preceding quotation ;—* That they were 
more properly to be considered as verbal 
nouns?” More properly thun what ? Nei-* 
ther the critic nor the author has either 
_ Stated or hinted at any other mode of 
considering them. Here, theretore, is 
comparison without Comparison. Fron 
the reviewer’s half-formed insinuation, 
aided by the line quoted from the West- 
winster Grammar, 1t might be supposed 
that the author kad not considered them 
as verbal nouns; that such a charye is 
false, any one may discover, who takes 
the tronble of looking into the work, 
pp. 70, 238, 239, &c. 
The chief, and indeed the only, end in 
view, in giving rules for the formation of 
the tenses, is, to enable the scholar to 
derive from the four radical parts of the 
verb all the rest of the verb.. Now, let 
me ask the British Critic, what are the 
tour radical parts as given in every dic- 
tionary? The present, the pretente, the 
stipine, and the infininve; and the rules 
given are to enable the scholar to form 
all the tenses, &c. from them. This is 
an easy and a natural procedure. <“ No, 
no, (says the British Critic) this is the 
old-fashioned way—the supine must be 
formed from the participle.” In other 
words, Mr, Editor, he is for teaching the 
scholar to form the supine, already told 
him in bis dictionary, from the participle, 
which is not told him at ali. The pro- 
ductions of the British Critic abound in 
examples of the kysteron proteron; but 
this is one of the finest samples of his 
dexterity in this way, that he has ever 
exhibited. Who can refrain from laugh- 
ing at the idea of forming what is ‘al- 
ready known, from a thing which is not 
known? 
The second. charge made by the re- 
viewer against the author, is, his not 
acknowledging the taking, from a small 
grammar by Dr. Valpy, a few verses 
respecting the gender of nouns. This is 
truly a foolish objection. Dr. Valpy in- 
troduces, in these lines, no new mode of 
ascertaining the genders. ‘This is onlya 
correction of Lily’s rules, which he is, by 
ho means, original in attempting; wit- 
ness, the Annotations of the Oxford 
Grammar, Johnson’s Commentaries, Dr. 
Whittenal’s Grammar, &c. all of which 
have anticipated the chief corrections 
adopted by Dr. Valpy. “* But, with 
respect to compilation,” you will allow 
me also (to use the reviewer's words.) “ to 
Malignity of the British Critic. 
(143 
have a word or two more tosa What 
is Dr. Valpy’s Graminar? aietity a 
compilation; a work in which there is 
not a single page of original matter. 
Dr. Valpy has hinself borrawed, both in 
prose and verse, without either ‘acknow- 
ledginent, or metited censure; indeed, 
the notes to his syntax, which constitute 
the best part of the book, are nothing 
but compilation. That gentleman, i am 
confident, never mtended his grammar 
to be considered as an original. And, 
yet, the Gfficious reviewer has the auda- 
city, or the ignorance, to talk of * taking 
lines from this original,” Indeed, it is 
evident, that the reviewer has emda 
selected the mame of Dr. Valpy, solely 
forthe purpose of paying him a little at. 
tention, or of doing him an act of pre- 
tended justice, at the expence of the au- 
thor. But this he has done in a manner . 
so bungling and impotent, as clearly 
Bee fim utterly incapable of gratify- 
ing his wishes, either by benefiting an ac- 
quaintance, or injuring a stranger. An 
injudicious friend is often the worst of 
enemies. 
The last and not the least foolish 
charge, is, “ the not having specified, in — 
every instance, to whom the world was 
originally obliged for the information.”— 
“ To what absurdities will the childisla - 
speculations of the readers of black fet-. 
ter lead us?” Such an antiquarian re- 
search for authorities would have been , 
an arduous undertaking, indeed; since 
the same portions of information may be | 
often found in one hundred different 
grammars. What grammarian, ex. ef. 
I would ask the reviewer, was the origi- 
nal author of the first concord ?+-Whe 
the original author of every part was, it 
would, i suspect, puzzle even the British 
Critic to ascertain in every instance; 
and, if he could effect it, wherein would 
consist the utility of his labour? The | 
truth is, that most of the topics, usually 
introduced into Latin Grammars, have 
long ceased, individually or separately . 
considered, to be known as personal pre- _ 
perty; — they are generally regarded,” 
chieily as matters juris communis. 
So much for the grave puerilities and the ° 
petulant cavils of the British Critic. 
That the work may have faalts’ and im- 
perfections, the author has ingenuously 
confessed, at the same time, stating, that 
he will gratefully avail himself of every 
judicious sugvestion offered for its inte” 
provement. But, after the reviewer hag 
(apparently, much against his will) be-— 
stowed on it the epithets “ learned,” 
“ laborious,” 
