cations, the fenfe of the words is eftablifhed, and that we fhould not now depart from it. The advocates for the latter contend, that it is a rule of interpretation wholly fubfervient to the teftator's intention; a merely technical conftruction of words, which yields to the intention whenever they are opposed to each other. -But, in both, Mr. Hargrave profeffes to obferve one common error. He confiders the rule to be

A conclufion of law upon certain premifes, fa abfolute as not to leave any thing to intention, if thofe premifes belong to the cafe ; and thofe premifes,' he infifts, are, an intention by heirs of the body, or other words of inheritance, to comprehend the whole line of heirs to the tenant for life, and fo to build a fucceffion upon his preceding eftate of freehold.' The genuine fource of the rule he confiders to be an ancient policy of our law, the aim of which was to guard against the creation of eftates of inheritance, with qualities, incidents, and restrictions foreign to their nature; namely, annexing to a real defcent the qualities and properties of a purchase; an estate of freehold with a perpetual fucceffion to heirs, without the other properties of an inheritance; in other words, an inheritance in the first ancestor, with the privilege of vefting in his heirs by purchase; the fucceffion of heirs to an ancestor without the legal effects of defcent.'

This discovery of the real principle and ground of this very important rule, the theory of which is as (plendid as the application of it is useful, though the fubject of it has often exercised the talents of the most eminent fages of the law, appears to have been left to the penetration of the prefent editor. He places bis fyftem in a very ftriking view, and his conclufions will moft probably have the affent of every intelligent reader.

Longis laboribus,tamen dubiis,-forfan adverfis, is the plaintive motto prefixed by the editor to his publication. But we cannot think it poffible that there could have been any ground to entertain a doubt of its favourable reception with the public, Nothing can be more true than the observation, that "ufeful diligence will always prevail, and that there never can be wanting those who diftinguish defert." But...

ART. III. A Differtation on Virgil's Defcription of the antient Roman Plough; which, although mysterious, and hitherto undifcovered by any of the Commentators, yet is now entirely illucidated, by a clofe Comparison between the above, and a Reprefentation on the Reverse of an undoubted Unique. To which is added, critical Objections against the Ploughs of Meffrs. Spence and Martyn, manifeftly fhewing them to be entirely erroneous. By A. I. Des Carrieres. 8vo. Is. Gardner. 1788.

MR. Des Carrieres fets out with affuring his readers, that

The following fheets clearly prove that the plough on the

This unique is fuppofed by the author to have been a weight; by others, a coin. It is in the poffeffion of Mr. Canton, mafter of the academy in Spital Square.

reverse

reverfe of the unique, hereafter investigated, is undoubtedly that defcribed by Virgil in his Georgics; at the fame time overturning the opinions of thofe critics who have hitherto treated on the fame fubject.'

From this exordium, it was natural for the reader to expect fomething like demonftration that the object reprefented on this unique was really a plough, and nothing elfe; but after all the labours of this foi difant critic, it does not appear to us that there is the smallest reafon to think it ever was intended to reprefent a plough of any fort: what it was intended to reprefent, we cannot fay; but we think it would be as easy to prove that it was meant to exhibit the figure of a faw-mill or a wheel-barrow.

This unique is faid to be a Roman weight (of what metal, we are not told), which weighs four penny weights four grains, and is about half an inch in diameter; it has a very fine head of Roma on one fide, and, on the reverse, this curious plough; an engraving of which is annexed to the pamphlet. To feveral parts of this machine the author has annexed the names of the parts of the plough that are mentioned by Virgil, viz. the buris, temo, ftiva, vomer, dentalia, aures; but there are many other parts of this machine to which no names are annexed, and for a very good reafon, becaufe Virgil has furnished him with no more, except the duplex dorfum, concerning which, though the author can offer no fatisfactory explanation, he fpeaks with confidence, as if he had removed every difficulty; and treats the conjectures of others on this intricate fubject with the most fupercilious contempt.

It would be idle to enter on a refutation of the various conjec tures of this author, as any perfon who is at all acquainted with the fubject will at once fee how abfurd they are, by the mere infpection of the figure, with the names which he has given to the parts. But we shall tranfcribe a fhort fpecimen of his manner of demonftrating:

The following I imagine to be the dentalia; a piece of wood, faftened to the cross bar that joins the two fides of the plough together, which Virgil calls the double back, reaching almoft from the ploughhead flanting to the tail, on the lower end of which there are three points of iron,' &c.

But what authority has Virgil given us to fay, that the plough had two fides, or that they were joined together by any kind of beam? He fays, that the dentalia was fixed to the buris; but in the machine reprefented on this unique, there is a ftraight bar, with three points, lying in a diagonal direction, from what the author takes to be the fore part of the machine: and this, for no other reason, that we can fee, but that it has three points, which he has chofen to denominate dentalia.

But though Mr. Des Carrieres grounds his whole reasoning on the accuracy of the figure here delineated, he is forced, in the

Kk 4

next

next page, to acknowlege, that the figure, as it ftands, cannot reprefent Virgil's plough:

Perhaps (lays hc), the chief reafon we cannot fo clearly underftand the work at the fide, is from the plough being reprefented in fuch bad perfpective; for if we take a right view, not only of this plough but alfo of their paintings and fculpture in general, we fhall clearly fee that the Romans were almost totally ignorant of that science-For the dentalia, which is reprefented perpendicularly in the plate †, was certainly intended to be horizontally.'

Thus does he acknowlege that the figure cannot convey a diftinct not on of the plough, and yet, by his own uniform declaration, it is this figure on the truly wonderful unique, which alone conftitutes the important difcovery that he has made.

It would be an eafy matter to fhew, by attending to the words of Virgil, and other ancient authors, that neither the dentalia, the buris, nor temo, nor aures, vomer, nor fiva, could poffibly be placed as here reprefented; but this would lead to a length of difcuffion on which it would be quite improper for us to enter. We cannot, however, avoid taking notice of fome other ftriking particulars that occur in this extraordinary performance.

In his preface, the author obferves, that The modern plough, which turns up the earth, fows and harrows at the fame moment, effects merely what the Romans knew and prac tifed long before!' Here, we prefume, he alludes to the modern machine which we call a drill, and which never can be properly called a plough.-But what are his proofs that this branch of rural economy was practifed by the Romans? Lo! here they are! In the figure defcribed on this unique, and which our author chootes to call the figure of Virgil's plough, many parts, as we have already faid, remain to be explained, after all Virgil's terms have been exhufted. Among thefe, is one that ftands above on the figure, which Mr. De Carrieres calls at the fide, and of which he thus fpeaks: As for the work at the fide, it must be undoubtedby for the purpofe of throwing the feed into the earth.' Was ever a more fatisfactory demonftration given of any doubtful fact? The force of this demonflration is much heightened by what immediately follows: But in what manner I will not pofitively affert, it not being mentioned by Virgil, Varro, Servius, or by any of the poets or commentators.'-Yet, although none of them have mentioned this circumftance, it muft, undoubtedly, have been for the purpole of throwing the feed, and that alone.

6

But what our author wants in clearness of defcription, he fupplies by the number and boldness of his affertions; by which every

*But how is it poffible for us to take a right view of this plough if it be not rightly delineated, and if we have no original by which the errors can be corrected?

It is, however, reprefented diagonally.

difficulty

difficulty is at once folved. His criticifms too, on the performances of former commentators on Virgil, mark, in every line, the over-forwardness of this difcoverer. Any man, we might have imagined, who had turned his attention to this fubject, would have been forced to acknowlege that, on account of the imperfect defcription which Virgil has given of his plough, difficulties occur that cannot be eafily removed; in which cafe, conjectures, when delivered with becoming diffidence, though they may perhaps appear to us rather ill founded, ought nevertheless to be treated with refpe&t; especially when we feel that we cannot fupply their deficiencies but by other conjectures that may not be lefs improbable.-But this unaffuming mode of conduct is not that of Mr. Des Carrieres, who, wherever he thinks he perceives an error, exults with an air of triumph.-His crivicifms are generally of this caft. For inftance, on the fubject of that part of the plough which Virgil ftyles duplex dorfum (concerning which no commentator has yet been able to give a fatisfactory account), Mr. Martyn hints, that fome have thought that the term duplex might poffibly here denote an augmentation in breadth, and not a plurality of number. This, indeed,' fays Mr. Des Carrieres, feems to me to be one of the most ridiculous opinions that ever was promulgated, and a disgrace to those who endeavour to defend it; for one back, let it be ever fo broad, can never fignify more than one; the width will never increase the number, and confequently double must fignify two.'Doubtless, one can never fignify more than one; nor will the width increase the number; but it feems to be a strange fort of confequence, from thefe premiles, that double muft always fignify two. Does not Mr. Des Carrieres know, that the word double, both in Latin and English, is on many occafions employed to denote an augmentation of the ftrength or fize of particular objects, as well as number? Thus Virgil, G. 3. 87. At DUPLEX agitur per lumbos fpina; and Horace, Sat. 3. 63.-DuPLICIS pernofcere juris Naturam.-Milton fays, Par. Loft, 4 102. Short intermiffion bought with DOUBLE Smart; and Shakespeare, Hen. VI. Here's a pot of good DOUBLE *, neighbour, drink, and fear not your man.-We have also double tin, double pins, &c. &c. And although we are not difpofed to agree with Mr. Martyn in regard to the particular inftance before us, yet there is furely nothing in the nature of the conjecture which can entitle it to the epithets ridiculous or difgraceful.

Double Ale is the Warwickshire and Staffordshire name (which Shakespeare was well acquainted with) for that liquor when brewed with double its ufual ftrength; and which is ufually fold at double its common price.

We

We fhall only farther remark, that it appears to us not a little fingular, that among the illuftrators of Virgil, on this fubject, our hafty author fhould have overlooked the very ingenious differtation on Virgil's Plough, by Mr. Dickfon *, in his account of the Husbandry of the Ancients lately published, as we think he has thrown more light on the subject than all the other commentators put together;-not excepting Mr. Des Carrieres himfelf!

*See Rev. for March, p. 193.

An.....n.

ART. IV. Julia de Gramont. By the Right Honourable Lady H****, 12mo. 2 Vols. 75. fewed. White. 1788.

TH

HE world of letters is a kind of Elyfium, the various members of which are ever ruminating or dreaming of scenes of unutterable bliss. Without inquiring whether thofe dreams are likely to be realized, we will only obferve, that in the former eftate as in the latter, there is no diftinction of perfons. We therefore hope that Lady Hawke + does in no fort think to stand upon her gentility, as Mafter Stephen expreffes it: or even upon her nobility-if that has a more pleafing found, when the appears before the public in the character of an author. The "eternal blazon" of Right Honourable, as many may be inclined to think it, dazzles us not in the leaft: we mean in the common acceptation of the words.-Virtue alone is true nobility, fays the Poet; and we will venture to give it as our opinion, from a perufal of the prefent volumes, that the writer of them is perfectly fenfible that the adage (for so it may be termed) is just and true.

This novel reflects particular honour on its author. It is moral, pathetic, and interefting. The fable is made up of a pleafing diverfity of incidents; and is fo artfully conftructed, that attention is kept alive till the clofe of the work. The narrative is generally animated; but the ftyle is in fome places rather too flowery and poetic. The noble writer appears to have derived her manner from an intimate acquaintance with the novelifts of France. But what is pleafing in them, and fuch indeed as the genius of their language demands, is confidered as affected and fantastical with us. The characteristics of the English tongue, it should be remembered, are nervoufnefs and fimplicity.

The following extract will ferve as a fpecimen. The Marquis de Soiffons fpeaks. He is married to a woman who neglects all the duties of a wife. The Duchefs de Gramont, on whom he lavishes fo many praifes, was the object of his first and unalterable love.

For this, according to report, is the name of the fair writer.

• One