« AnteriorContinuar »
and Mr. Wordsworth; but as usual has proved only his utter ignorance of the idiom, on which he pretends to write. He says, p. 88.. the Article which precedes the first Noun, must be supplied by Ellipsis before the second :" and on this axiom he founds a sort of reductio ad absurdum. But where did he learn that a second Article was thus to be supplied by Ellipsis ? In such a phrase as ó Kuços xai owinię a second Article is not to be supplied; for then it might as well be expressed ; and if it were expressed, ó Kúpsos xoè 'O owing, then we should have two Pronouns, and consequently two different Subjects with their distinct attributes, instead of one Subject, to whom two attributes are assumed to belong. This writer seems still to have had floating in his mind his English illustration of "the King and Queen." See on Ephes. v. 5. To that this reasoning may, for any thing that I know, apply : that it has nothing to do with the Greek idiom he might possibly have disa coyered, had he taken the pains to inquire. But what absurdities were not to be expected in a philological discussion which sets out with the principle, that what is true of one language must be equally true of ano ther?
We need not.apologize for having made this last part of our review an article of extracts. What we have cited, will, we doubt not, be more acceptable to our readers than if we had occupied auy part of the space in disputing some of the author's reasonings, in pointing out what might be thought mistakes in applying his rules, or in excepting against some of his remarks as theologically faulty. It would have been more gratifying to us, though indeed quite unnecessary, to dilate on the instruction and pleasure which we have in general received from the perusal of these Annotations. Rigorously divesting ourselves of national partiality, and of any other feeling capable of inclining our judgement, we regard Dr. M.'s Second Part as a more original and a more serviceable accession to the treasures of Biblical Philology, than the confessedly meritorious labours of Bos, Elsner, and Raphelius.
We shall only add the subjects of some of the more remarkable notes, most of which are, indeed, expanded to the size of a Disquisition; they are subjects, to which the attention of the Christian student is particularly due.-On the phrase, Son of God; p. 179, 229, 262,-On the phrase, Son of Man; p. 349,--On the punctuation of the Scriptures and the Classics ; p. 233,-On the appellative, Christ; p. 272.-On the Dates of the Four Gospels; p. 285-On Dr, Herbert Marsh's Hypothesis on the Origin of the first Three Gospels; p. 288.--- On the use of the words Lord and God in the N. T. p. 292,--On the epithet, the Just One ; p. 391.-On the reading of Acts xx. 28.-On Romans ix. 5.- On the supposed lost Epistle to the Corinthians; p. 469.-On the Address of the Epistle to the Ephesians ; p.509.-01 Heb, i. 8. and ix, 1. On the è 'EN of 1 John v.8.-On the hypothesis of a Hebrew Original of the. Apocalypse ; p. 664, 670.–And the large Dissertation, which is thrown into an Appendix, on the charge of Latinizing against the Coder Beze, which Dr. M. revives and powerfully supports: Art. III. An Elementary Course of the Sciences and Philosophy. Con
tained in a Series of Lectures delivered by the Author to his own Pupils, upon the principal branches of Elementary Mathematics, Mechancs, Astronomy, and Cosmography. Vols. I. and II. Containing Arthmetic, and the Elements of General Calculation; Elementary Geonetry, and Plane Trigonometry. By J. B. Florian-Jolly, A. M. 8vo. p.
xlviii: 648, 23 plates. Stockdale. M. FLORIAN-JOLLY is not content with offering himsef
as a candidate for public favour, as a teacher of the rudiments of mathematics; but he utters pretty loud claims » the honour of being considered as a reformer of education in general, and the inventor of a scheme for making men wisei and better by a more philosophical though not a shorter process than any that has been hitherto adopted. He sets out with enjoining his reader not to run his eye cursorily over his volume,” and with intreating him “not to be discouraged at. the seeming immensity of the system until he has reflected profoundly on the Introduction which is printed with it.” With all the docility peculiar to the critical order, we prepared ourselves for the patient discharge of our funetions, by turning coolly to the author's Introduction; where we were a little startled with the appearance of an extra page stuck in, agreeably to the printed direction, “ to face Introduction," and containing the opinions of some of our seniors in the critical fraternity. One of them speaks of M. Florian-Jolly,
a man of genius, and learning,”. possessing love and spirit of philosophy, guided by the laws of just and legitimate investigation." Another says, “with a considerable degree of philosophical precision, he has traced out an analytical arrangement of the sciences, under the three leading heads of man in his relations to natural beings, to himself, and to other men. This arrangement he has made the basis of a new system of general education which may deservedly claim the attention of the public.” And a third talks about the Greek and Roman languages, and scientific pursuits, in a way which we need not quote.
As we have lived long enough in the world to know the advantage of judging for ourselves, and have also found reason to believe that muddy streanis are not always deep; we shall venture, with the greatest deference to these authorities, to sound, if we can, to the bottom of the author's profound discussions. And perhaps we shall facilitate the prosecution of this design,
by exploring his “ genius and learning," first, as a metaphysician and logician ; secondly, as a theologian; and thirdly, as a mathematician.
And Ist. for M. Florian-Jolly's skill in “ tracing arrangemests” and ir.vestigating the operations of intellect. We fanzy his title page exhibits a few unequivocal tokens of what we may expect to find in the work itself. He calls it a course of he sciences and philosophy, as if one of these terms did - no include the other : yet be means to treat of the mathematica sciences and natural philosophy; and all the world is avare that the mixed mathematical sciences constitute together what is denoted by the general term natural philosophy. In this respect the title is either pleonastic or nonsensical. Again, Vol. I, its author informs us, contains “ Arithmetic and the Elements of general calculation." Now, either arithmetic and the elements of general calculation are synonyms, or they are not. If they are, the word arithmetic alone conveys disinctly the idea the author meant to express. If they are not, we should conjecture that the rules of Algebra constitute “ the elements of general calculation;" yet this cannot be the meaning of our “just and legitimate investigator,” for his first volume is devoted solely to arithmetic. Let us now see how he “ traces arrangements” in his Introduction. Here he professes to contemplate the threefold relations of man which form the basis of all human knowledge; these are, 1. The relation of man to natural beings. 2. His relation to himself. 3. His relation to other men. We suppose that if any of the youths for whom M. Florian-Jolly writes were to be asked, what was the relation of a man to himself, they would say, as soon as they had done laughing, neither father, nor son, nor urcle, nor brother. And if we could talk seriously with this diver into the bathos, we would ask him whether the term relation did not necessarily imply at least two objects, to be examined and compared for the purpose of deducing such relation. Again; are men natural beings? If they are, what ground is there for the distinction between the first and third relations? It would seem indeed, that our anthor often distinguishes where there is no difference, and as often confounds where there is an obvious distinction. Who, for example, would expect to find agriculture, with minerals, vegetables, and animals, under the relation of man to other men ?
We are told that “ the general attributes we remark in every being are quantity, extension, and motion."
So that, in the estination of our author, extension is not a species of quantity; and impenetrability (since it is neither quantity, extension, nor motion) is not a property of natural beings. Our author then states what appears to him a merely hypo
thetical case, saying “ if it were possible that at the first moment of our existence we were possessed of organs capable of receiving true and exact sensations," &c. (here we much deplore our ignorance of what he means by true and exact sensations,)“ our enquiries would be in this order :-Where am I? Who am I? What am I here for ?". Now such a case as this did once occur ; and our great epic poet, who was no very contemptible philosopher, seems to think that the first inquiry then was, “who am I" After the first instinctive gaze, Adam is described as saying,
Myself I then perused, and limb by limb
Knew not. . Milton, however, notwithstanding the fertility of his ge. nius, would never have devised such answers as our learned author to some of his questions: thus, " What am I here for ?" Answer : to learn grammar, eloquence, poetry, music, dancing, &c.!! After such an answer, our readers will not be surprised that M. Florian-Jolly, not only forgets the question “ From what cause,” but another very momentous question, “ Whither am I going ?” This last remark aptly introduces our specimers,
IIndly, Of his qualifications as a teacher of religion. Under this head he tells us, what we should be extremely pleased to find true, that “ Most young persons are naturally well inclined : it is easy to instil into their breasts the love of virtue and a spirit of religion ; they feel for the pains of their fellow-creatures, and cannot think without horror of inflicting pain or doing harm to others.” If such be the children our author has met with, the order of nature must be completely inverted in his favour, and we may cease to wonder at his making a distinction between natural beings and human creatures. He finds out, however, that “ a time comes when those feelings are blunted by an intercourse with the world ; when the virtuous impressions of their youth are overpowered by growing passions, &c.” But he has a remedy at hand; “the plan," indeed, as he remarks," is a vast one ; but it is in its comprehensiveness that its chief utility consists." We . now beseech the reader to prepare his mind for the reception of a most important secret ; a secret, of which the world could never have possessed the advantage, but by the fortunate intervention of a man of genius and
learning. “ Mathematics," says our author,
are not to be studied as an end, but as a mean; as the only true and solid basis for the attainment of moral principles ! !” Again, again, we listen to the dictates of oracu
lar wisdom ; and discover that “ by learning mathematics in early youth, it is not intended we should employ our riper years in algebraical calculations, but that we should enable ourselves to read fluently in the mysterious pages of the human heart.” To demonstrate that the gloomy recesses of a depraved mind may be explored by a quadratic equation, is, in our opinion, to deserve infinitely better of the human race than to have discovered gravitation or disarmed the lightning. We will now oblige the reader with only one more of the apophthegms of this religious instructor: it is this: “ Obedience to the laws, observance of the precepts of morality, and strictness in performing the duties of religion, would not, however, be altogether sufficient to insure happiness.” Granted : what then will insure it? “ the art of behaving with propriety in the world, or politeness !" The result of all which, if we rightly understand this man " of philosophical precision” is, that a person of a pretty good understanding may insure happiness” mathematically, or, as M. Ozanam expressed it, leave “ the Sorbonne doctors to discuss, the pope to decide, and himself go straight to beaven in a perpendicular line;" but that, should the contents of his cranium be 100 heavy for this, if he do but fortunately possess nimble feet
and elastic pumps, he may sneer at Euclid and Archimedes, > and with the assistance of his dancing master pass through a
complete “ course of religious instruction.". But it is more than time for us to quit these staring absurdities, and consider our author's merits,
IIIrdly, As a teacher of the rudiments of mathematics. This is certainly the only department of education which the publication now before us would lead us to think he is in any degree qualified to undertake; and here he might have a chance of success, if he would dismount from his metaphysical stilts. He may be allowed the praise of possessing great zeal for the honour of his profession, and a high feeling of the utility of the science he teaches. His refutation of the opivinions of Johnson and Knox relative to the inutility of mathematics as a discipline of the understanding, his sketch of the advantages of mathematical knowledge to females, his examination of the prejudices against learned women, and his strictures upon teaching the sciences by way of game, are ingenious and in the main correct : and were it not that, by å hopeless endeavour at fine writing, he sometimes approaches the confines of unintelligible confusion and mock sublimity, there is a passage or two on these subjects, that we should not have disdained to quote.
The first volume, setting aside the Introduction, is appropriated entirely, to arithmetic. The arrangement is affected,