of almost all Greek words likewise *. Now in our pronunciation of Latin words, whatever be the quantity of the first syllable in a word of two syllables, we always place the accent on it: but in words of more syllables, if the penultimate be long, we place the accent on that, and if short, we accent the antepenultimate.

The Rules of the Latin accentuation are comprised in a clear and concise manner by Sanctius within four hexameters :

Accentum in se ipsâ monosyllaba dictio ponit.
Exacuit sedem dissyllabon omne priorem

Ex tribus, extollit primam penultima curta :
Extollit seipsam quando est penultima langa.

• These rules I have endeavoured to express in English verse:
Each monosyllable has its stress of course;
Words of two syllables, the first enforce :
A syllable that's long, and last but one,
Must have the accent upon that or none:
But if this syllable be short, the stress

Must on the last but two its force express.'

The only difference that scems to obtain between the pronuncia tion of the Greek and Latin languages is, that in the Latin ti and si, preceded by an accent, and followed by another vowel forming an improper diphthong, are pronounced as in English, like sh or zh, as natio, nation; persuasio, persuasion, &c.; and that in the Greek, the same letters retain their pure sound, as φιλαυτίας, αγνωσίας προβάτια *... This difference, however, with very few exceptions, does not extend to proper names; which, coming to us through, and being mingled with, the Latin, fall into the general rule. In the same manner, though in Greek it was an established maxim, that if the last syllable was long, the accent could scarcely ever be higher than the penultimate; yet in our pronunciation of Greek, and particularly of proper names, the Latin analogy of accent is adopted: and though the last syllable is long in Demosthenes, Aristophanes, Theramenes, and Deiphobe, yet as the penultimate is short, the accent is placed on the antepenultimate, exactly as if they were Latin.'

The most important object of the present work is the settling the English quantity with which we pronounce Greek and Latin proper names. These are points in a state of great uncertainty; and, as Mr. W. justly observes, they are to be settled not so much by a deep knowlege of the dead languages, as by a thorough acquaintance with the analogies and general usage of our own tongue.

We think that Mr. Walker has in this, and in his other works, explained, in a more satisfactory manner than most of his predecessors, the essential distinctions between reading and

That is, in the general pronunciation of Greek; for let the written accent be placed where it will, the quantitative accent, as it may be called, follows the analogy of the Latin.'

REV. MAY 1799.

E

singing,

singing. The sound which composes the note of speaking is, he observes, in continual motion; the sound which composes the note of singing is for a given time at rest. To illustrate this position, he has recourse to the eye, the most distinct and definite of all our senses. Musical notes, he says, may be compared to horizontal lines, rising one above another, from low to high by distinct intervals; and speaking tones, on the other hand, resemble oblique lines sliding upward and downward in uninterrupted succession.

The English accent, therefore, is an elevation of voice; whether we consider it in words pronounced singly, or compared with the other words or syllables. Considered singly, it rises from a lower to a higher tone in the question Nó? which may therefore be called the acute accent, and falls from a higher to a lower tone in the answer No, and may therefore be called the grave. When compared with the preceding and succeeding words or syllables, it is louder and higher than the preceding, and louder and lower than the succeeding syllables in the question, Satisfactorily did he say? and both louder and higher than either the preceding or succeeding syllables in the answer-He said satisfactorily. Those who wish to see this explained more at large may consult Elements of Elocution, vol. i. page 112; or Melody of Speaking Delineated, page 7.

This idea of accent is so evident upon experiment, as to defy contradiction; and yet, such is the general ignorance of the modifications of the voice, that we find those who pretend to explain the nature of accent the most accurately-when they give us an example of the accent in any particular word, suppose it always pronounced affirmatively and alone; that is, as if words were always pronounced with one inflexion of voice, and as if there were no difference, with respect to the nature of the accent, whether the word is in an affirmation or a question, in one part of the sentence or in another; when nothing can be more palpable to a correct ear than that the accents of the word voluntary in the following sentences, are essentially dif ferent :

His resignation was voluntary.

He made a voluntary resignation.

In both, the accent is on the first syllable. In the first sentence, the accented syllable is higher and louder than the other syllables: and in the second, it is louder and lower than the rest. The same may be observed of the following question:

Was his resignation voluntary or involuntary?

where the first syllable of the word voluntary is louder and lower than the succeeding syllables; and in the word involuntary, it is louder and higher. Those who have not ears sufficiently delicate to discern this difference, ought never to open their lips about the acute or grave accent, as they are pleased to cail them; let them speak of accent as it relates to stress only, and not to elevation or depression of voice, and then they may speak intelligibly.”

This

This key to classical pronunciation, we think, is well calculated for the purposes of general utility; and we particularly recommend it to those who have occasion to speak or read in public.

ART. VII. Dr. Coote's History of England.

[Article concluded from the Rev. for March, p. 288.]

IN
N our last article respecting this work, we accompanied Dr.
Coote to the end of the reign of James I.; and we now pro-
ceed with him to a period full of memorable events. CHARLES
lived at a very unfortunate time, and had early imbibed unfor
tunate prejudices: "he had been brought up," as he expressed
himself, at the feet of Gamaliel."-The Commons began to
feel their own importance, and were unwilling to bear a stretch,
perhaps some of them even a continuance, of monarchical
power. The king was equally unwilling to relinquish that
which he considered as his birth-right; and, from the influence
which weak and bad advisers (we allude to his Queen and the
Duke of Buckingham) had on his mind, he treated the oppo-
sers of his measures with indignity and contempt, and was
precipitated into the most unguarded conduct, which termi-
nated in his ruin.-As the spirit of party ran so high during this
reign, it is difficult to arrive at a precise knowlege of the occur-
rences which led to so important a catastrophe as the overthrow
and execution of the sovereign; almost every narrative receives
a colour from the prejudices of the writer; and the judicious
reader must not give implicit credit either to the studied and
delusive panegyric of Hume, or to the violent representations
of Mrs. Macaulay. We have often wished that the candid,
diligent, and impartial Dr. Henry had brought down his His-
tory to this period: but the present author has not been un-
mindful of the difficulty of his task, and he has surmounted it
with considerable ability.

Gil...s.

We now enter (he says) upon a reign pregnant with memorable incidents. We shall behold a contest between a king and his parliament, commenced by each party under the ostensible, and perhaps the actual, idea of merely preventing the encroachments of the other. The generous spirit of liberty will appear, in many instances, degraded by the pernicious mixture of bigotry and faction; and the proud pre-eminence of royalty will be seen to overleap the boundaries of the constitution, and deviate into occasional exertions of tyrannic power. In the delineation of the turbulent scenes of this reign, it will be extremely difficult for any writer to secure a general approbation of his labors. By a warm defence of the proceedings of one party, he will arouse the strong disgust of the other; and, if he should, in compliance with the indispensable duty of an historian, pursue the paths

E 2

of

of unbiassed moderation, he will perhaps be considered, by the ad vocates of the unfortunate Charles, as lukewarm in the cause of injured majesty, while the partisans of popular resistance may be inclined to reproach him with want of zeal for the glorious interests of liberty and the inalienable rights of man. Regardless of such attacks, the present author will steadily aim at the discovery of truth; and, if its full lustre should not always illumine his page, the candid, he trusts, will impute the defect to the dificulty of developing it amidst the discordant narratives of party, not to the delusions of prejudice, or to the contemptible arts of evasion and disguise."

The events of this calamitous reign are detailed with minuteness, and the author appears to write with an unprejudiced mind. He censures both the king and the parliament, as the conduct of each deserved reprehension; and he considers the behaviour of the Scots in delivering up their royal prisoner, (who had confided in their honour,) for the payment of their arrears, as a base and disgraceful sale of his person to his inveterate enemies.

On the subject of the trial and execution of Charles, Dr. Coote is naturally led into a train of political reflections. The passage which contains them, though we do not in an unqualified manner assent to its doctrines, we shall present to our readers; as furnishing a fair specimen of the author's powers of reasoning, and the moderation of his sentiments:

It has been affirmed by many writers, that no community can possess the smallest right to exercise judicial cognisance over a monarch, as, according to them, his power is delegated from heaven, and is superior to all human inquisition. Others, on less superstitious grounds, are inclined to deny the existence of such a right, because the acknowledgment of it would have a bad effect on the injudicious populace, by encouraging them to that frequent and indiscriminate exercise of it which would weaken the reverence due to authority, and lead to anarchy and licentiousness. But, as government was established for the general benefit of society, for the protection of every individual, and for the prevention of those disorders which inevitably attend a state of nature, it necessarily follows, that some remedy should be allowed against the gross injustice and tyranny by which the conduct of the king or chief magistrate may be rendered subversive of the ends of civil polity. When different families, in the infancy of society, submitted to one head, for the increase of order and security, it can hardly be supposed that they would suffer that chief to assume the privilege of tyrannizing over them with impunity. Though the desire of avoiding the dangers of a savage life prompted them to resign a part of that uncontrolled liberty which they before enjoyed, they certainly had no wish to sink into the extreme of slavery, but hoped to acquire that temperate freedom in which the life and pro. perty of each individual would be protected by the terrors of legal punishment, co-operating with the improved morals of a civilised community. In process of time, the chief, or those who were permitted

to

to succeed him, might insensibly attain a greater height of power, which might at length degenerate into tyranny; and, in this case, when it became too flagrant to be patiently endured, that implied contract which, at the first rise of states, imposed on the sovereign the duty of preserving the rights of the people, would justify in the latter the boldness of remonstrance, and, subsequently, the vigor of resist ance. If a prince should be so depraved as to pursue an incessant career of sanguinary and rapacious despotism, and should be so incorrigible as to leave to his subjects no prospect of taming his inordinate passions, the emergency of the case would authorise the body of the nation to bring him to justice for his repeated enormities. Had Tiberius been condemned to death by a representative convention of the Roman empire, few persons, we believe, would have lamented the execution of such a sentence on so infamous a tyrant, or have been apprehensive of ill consequences from the establishment of a precedent applicable only to the most flagitious despots. Had Caligula and Domitian, instead of falling by the poignards of private assassins, been capitally punished by a national sentence, the world would have admitted the expediency of public interposition, and have applauded the justice of the decree. But, in the case of Agis IV. king of Lacedæmon, whose chief offence was an attempt to stem the torrent of luxury which had overborne the ancient frugality and strictness of Spartan manners, we feel a great indignation at the conduct of the Ephori, who, having tried him on a charge of misgovernment, condemned and put him to death; a fate which he did not merit. The same remark is applicable to the catastrophe of Charles, whose delinquency was far from being of that magnitude which could justify the severity exercised against him; and, if he had been guilty of the most nefarious acts of oppression and cruelty, no authority but the general will of the nation, signified by a free and full convention, could justly decree either his deposition or his death. That rule, however, was not adopted in the proceedings against this injured prince; and, if his fate had been committed to the decision of such a council, he would have been restored to the throne on certain limitations, not have been brought to the block. Even of that imperfect parliamentary assembly which, after his adherents had been driven from the legislature, prosecuted the war against him with such acrimony, a majority voted his concessions to be sufficient grounds for a reconciliation with him: how great, then, would have been the appearance in favour of his restoration, had the two houses remained on a constitutional basis! But the leaders of the independents, finding it impracticable to obtain the national concurrence in their bloody schemes, resolved to content themselves with the sanction cf their own partisans, and of a mercenary army, a small and contemptible part of the nation. They therefore reduced the lower house, by the terrors of the sword, to a very diminutive proportion; treated the peers as mere ciphers, who had no right to interfere in the government; and thus, by the most iniquitous usurpation, assumed the whole power of the state. A court of judicature, erected by those who had no shadow of right by which they could justify their proceedings, would have acted in defiance of all law and justice, by presuming to arraign and condemn

E 3

the