cussing my theory of the Hebrew verb. I have affirmed, and I do so still, that the ground form of the verb is nothing more than a noun of one form or other; and that the Hebrew grammarians, David Kimchi, and De Balmes, have said the same thing. M. de Sacy remarks,

ou פָּקֵד פָּקַד formes

II (Mr. Lee) appuie ce paradoxe sur l'autorite de Kimchi, qui ne dit rien de semblable; car autre chose est de dire, comme ce ce grammarien Hébreu, que les verbes viennent des noms, et que le nom est comme le corps, et le verbe comme l'accident, ou de dire comme M. Lee, que le verbe n'est rien qu' un nom, que la troisième personne du singulier du prétérit du verbe simple nommép kal, est toujours un nom primitif de l'une des ip, et que pour le présent (ou aoriste), le fond de ce temps est un nom du nombre des noms primitifs qui ont pour signe charactéristique le ségol, et de l'une des formes p, Tp ou T. Dans ce système, l'impératif aussi est un nom... et il ne faut pas oublier que ces prétendus noms primitifs pp, TP, TP, ne sont que les créations d'un esprit systématique, desquelles on peut dire, quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. D'ailleurs, si les temps personnels du verbe n'étoient dans la réalité que des noms joints à des pronoms, pourquoi tous les temps, tous les modes n'auroient-ils pas pris pour base le même nom? Pourquoi le nom qui, dans le prétérit, forme la troisième personne du singulier, n'auroit-il pas conservé sa forme dans toutes les personnes du même temps, et de Д, par exemple, auroit-on fait ? C'en est assez sur cette doctrine."

T: "T

This is making short work of it, truly. But let us see how all this is founded: and first let us review the sentiment of Kimchi on this subject. In the Michlol, fol. 3rd verso, we have,

דקדוק הפעלים בתחלה ואף כי שהשם קודם לפעל כי הפעל יצא מהשם ואמרו כי השם כמו הגוף נושא המקרים והפעל כמו מקרה וגו'

I first proceed to write the chapter on the grammar of verbs, although a noun precedes the verb: for the verb proceeds from the noun. And they say that the "noun is as the body, the subject of accident; but that the verb is the accident." (Gramm. p. 189.) I repeat the whole passage, i , in order that no mistake may arise as to the sentiment of this grammarian, and, as it should seem, of others also, who had preceded him. Now, M. de Sacy thinks that it is one thing to say all this, and another that the verb is nothing more than a noun with a pronoun attached to it. I answer, if M. de Sacy means that Kimchi has not delivered his sentiment in exactly the words which I have used, he is perfectly right; and I certainly do not intend to argue such a question with him or any other man: but I will contend that I have correctly advanced the sentiment of Kimchi, and that he did intend to inculcate the doctrine, viz. that nouns present the body, or ground form on which the verb is constructed; that the noun receives the accidents whereby the verb is framed;

and that the verb itself, when so framed, may be termed the accident, and the noun the body or root: and, I will further maintain, that if Kimchi did not mean this, there is no meaning whatever discoverable in what he has said. Again: fol. NYP verso, YT

ישכילך האלהים כי השמות שנים חלקים יש מהם שם שהוא נגזר מהפועל או הפועל ממנו כמו ראובן' שמעון' זבולן שהוא שם נגזר מן הפועל חכם' רשע' צדיק' חרב' שלג והדומים להם נגזר

On 1 Syn. Know, may God give thee intelligence, that nouns are of two sorts: of some the noun is deduced from the verb, or the verb from it; as Reuben, Simeon, Zebulun, where the noun

and שלג חרב צדיק רשע חכם is deduced from the verb. In

the like, the verb is deduced from the noun. He adds, NWTW DV Vn

שם דבר ואיננו נגזר מן הפועל ולא יהיה פועל נגזר ממנו כמו איש' אשה' אבן גפן' סוס פרד' חמור' גמל' שור' עץ ברזל והדומים

D. There are nouns, however, which are names of things, which are neither deduced from verbs, nor are verbs deduced from them; as, UN, TUN, &c. And again, fol. under the form of the

ובא שם התאר על משקל זה כי לא אֵל he says פָּעַל preterite There is a verbal noun חָפֵץ רֶשַׁע אתה' לא תאכל עליו חָמֵץ:

And in the same

of this form: as, Ps. v. 5. and Deut. xvi. 3. page, speaking of the preterite of the form by, he says, D

And the verbal nouns .התאר על משקל זה גָּדוֹל קָטן' רָחוֹק' קָרוֹב

of this form are, bia, jo, &c. Extracts from what he has said under the form by, in the same page, will be found in my Grammar, p. 198, in the note. Now, I say, if Kimchi did not mean to affirm that the noun is the root of the verb in the first extract, and to show in the others that no form of verb occurs to which a noun of a similar form is not to be found (I mean in kal), and hence to inculcate that in every case the noun is the body or root, and the verb the accident; it is quite out of my power, and I think of that of M. de Sacy himself to say, why Kimchi has thus expressed himself. It will not be necessary to cite De Balmes on this subject, because no objection has been made relating to him; and perhaps I may now say, that is enough on this subject. "C'en est assez," &c.

The next objection is to the form of the present, or what M. de Sacy terms the aorist. I had stated that one or other of the forms 1p9, 72 or Tp will be found to be the ground form of this tense, and that these are forms of the segolate noun. objection is: in this system, the imperative also is a noun; and

The

that it ought not to be forgotten, that these pretended primitive

are nothing more than creatures of a פְּקֵד פְּקַד פְּקֹד nouns

theorizing imagination. To the first I answer, I see no reason why the imperative of a verb might not be a noun, especially as we occasionally find the verbal noun or infinitive of the form of Tip used imperatively; as, Ti go, Jer. ii. 2; Wy, observe, Deut. v. 12: for if the verbal noun was pronounced with energy, as Schroderus has judiciously remarked, it could not be understood in any other sense, than that of giving a command. M. de Sacy, therefore, need not have been surprised at this. In the next place,

-are not creatures of the imagina פְּקֵד and פְּקַד פְּקַד the forms

tion, but are found both as nouns, and as the imperatives, as well as infinitive or verbal nouns used in the state of construction. It would be a work of supererogation to exemplify a thing, of which every tyro in Hebrew is well acquainted; but I doubt whether any sort of proof would suffice to convince my learned reviewer.

The last question on this subject is, why is not the form of this noun, if it be such, preserved through its proper tense, i. e. why does in the third person masc. of the preterite become AYE, and not FD of the second? I reply, if M. de Sacy

T: "T

he

had condescended to turn over one leaf more of my Grammar, would have seen, (p. 200.) "Hence in the second form, exemplified by Y willing, the (..), when made imperfect, becomes (-) instead of (*), by what has been termed an oblique correspondence, (art. 102. 2.): as in Den," &c. I will now add, when the terminating consonant happens to be, this vowel (...) is always retained; as, NT, NT, &c.; and, in the Arabic univer

sally, plc, wls, cs, &c. I am a good deal surprised,

وعلمت و علم

therefore, that M. de Sacy should have made a remark so silly and unfounded.

One remark more on this subject. Is it not an extraordinary thing, that in the Chaldaic we have confessedly a participial noun conjugated with the pronouns, and used as a preterite? as, TRE. ATRE, ATRE, &c. See De Dieu's Grammar, Hebrew, Chaldaic, and Syriac, p. 212. Jahn's Elementa Aramaicæ Linguæ, p. 104. And in the Syriac, the participial noun of the present tense

&c. Now, I might ask, if the Syrians and Chaldeans have acted so unphilosophically, according to M. de Sacy's views of this subject, as to have conjugated a participial noun, and thus made it into a verb; why might not their equally unrefined neighbors, the Hebrews, have done the same thing, and supposed with Kimchi and myself, that the noun is really the body on which this verbal character has been grafted? I certainly see nothing impossible in this; and from what has been advanced by some very able writers on this subject, such as Court de Gebelin, and others, as well as the nature of the case, I must confess I am inclined to believe that the things called verbs are mere creatures of the imagination; that they have no existence in nature; while, like many other technicalities which might be named, they are useful enough in detailing the elements of technical grammar. I am disposed, therefore, to dismiss the cool remark, "C'en est assez sur cette doctrine," with which this paragraph closes, as being rather more remarkable for the self-complacency with which it has been made, than for either its philosophy or its candor.

ON THE EPIC POETRY OF THE
ROMANS.

No. II. [Concluded from No. LXXVIII.] BUT another series of years ensued, and brought with it a fatal change. In the republican times poetry had indeed lost some of its importance; and in consequence of the division of intellectual labor enlisted fewer men of genius in its service: still it was awake and active and vigorous, being fostered in part by the stimulus of public applause, but above all by the mysteries and manifold ways in which liberty of action promotes liberty of thought and imagination. But the evil days of Greece were come; the various causes, which had been for ages preparing the decay of Greece, at length fulfilled their work; the Greeks ceased to be a nation, and the Athenians a people. Longinus has observed, in a passage of melancholy beauty, (and his own apparent, and only apparent, disapprobation of the opinion takes nothing from its truth,)-Oi νῦν ἐοίκαμεν παιδομαθεῖς εἶναι δουλείας δικαίας, τοῖς αὐτῆς ἔθεσι καὶ ἐπιτηδεύμασιν ἐξ ἁπαλῶν ἔτι φρονημάτων μόνον οὐκ ἐνεσπαργανωμένοι, καὶ ἄγευστοι καλλίστου καὶ γονιμωτάτου λόγων νάματος, τὴν ἐλευθε

As cited in my Hebrew Grammar, p. 80.

ρίαν, ἔφη, λέγω· διόπερ οὐδὲν ὅτι μὴ κόλακες ἐκβαίνομεν μεγαλοφυεῖς. Let no man, to whom the sacred gift of genius has been confided, for the sake of his own interest, or his use, or any other motive, place himself in a situation where he shall not be at liberty to employ that genius according to the dictates of his reason and his conscience; neither let any man be instrumental in placing others in such a situation: whether temporal retribution follow the offence or not, his own mind will be his avenger; and the more he retains of his original uprightness, the bitterer will be his repentance. The Roman sway over Greece was not more oppressive than that of conquerors has usually been; at times it was even remarkably liberal; and the Greeks were still held in regard, not by Rome only, but by the world in general, as the founders of learning and civilisation. But freedom of action was extinguished; and with it its companion, freedom of speech (in their own favorite and expressive word, πappnoía) disappeared also. The busy and restless spirit of the Greek, excluded from public affairs, wasted itself in petty intrigues δεκασμοὶ, καὶ ἀλλοτρίων θῆραι θα νάτων, καὶ ἔνεδραι διαθηκῶν : and his intellectual activity was confined, at the best, to "shadowy searches and unfruitful cares;" happy, if it could thus escape from more slavish and more uninspiring employments. The poet, of course, shared in the common degeneracy. He felt himself degraded, and he felt that he was addressing a degraded audience; and the haunting consciousness weighed on his spirit, and damped his energies. He was no longer the counsellor of his fellow-citizens, the reprover of their errors, their comforter under national misfortunes, the mouthpiece of the national feeling; the sympathy of the Muse with the living and acting world was destroyed. Meanwhile the debasement of the public character, in the natural course of things, produced a correspondent corruption of taste, and an insensibility to true poetry. In this and other ways, various indeed, but springing from the same cause and tending to the same effect, the revolution was accomplished. Genius indeed existed; but adverse influences were every where at work to prevent its growth. No new` kinds of poetry arose; of the old ones, some, from their very nature, ceased to exist, and others retained but a stunted and shrivelled existence. Still, however, the ancient models remained; less truly appreciated, indeed, than of old, but worshipped with a blind idolatry, on the strength of tradition and custom, and under awe of criticism: in like manner as many among ourselves habitually worship Shakspeare and Milton, although ignorant of the truest and highest excellences of the one, and almost unacquainted with the other. Their faults were justified, the errors and ignorancés contained in them explained away, and the mere accidental moulds in which they were cast regarded as inherently excellent, and made matter of superstitious reverence. Hence, one cause'