or should not have been believed, forms a different and distinct consideration. In page 329, " Pro-consule, this is the first mention made in Livy of a Pro-consul." For this assertion the editor certainly has high authority, yet it may be objected, that the phrase is itself too indefinite to establish a fact, that it is unsupported by any known passage in Livy or any other author; that beyond all doubt, the person here spoken of, fell far short of the regularly chosen and commissioned Pro-consul of after times; and that the passage does not compel us by its internal evidence to receive this meaning, but simply asserts, that the Consul was obliged to remain at Rome, and that Quinctius was sent to fill his place abroad. A mistake, we presume, of the printer, in p. 359, in the note on Utensilibus gave our nerves a momentary thrill. We thought for an instant that some of the O's had emerged from obscurity in the shape of an authoritative editor, and had acquired a dignity for that vowel prefix, which would confer some lustre on the poorly twinkling O'Connor Dons and O'Connells, and id genus omne: but a recollection of our old friend Oberlin, dissipated the pleasant illusion. We entirely concur with the editor in his explanation given in note 13, chap. 41 of book 3. In chap. 37 of the same book, note 8, we prefer Dujat's conjecture as given by Crevier — plebis res fortunasque quidquid; cupitum foret, potentioris esse. Chap. 5, note 3 of same book, Peregrinis copiis. The note on these words does not meet our approval. 1.The words, if intended to be in opposition, should be placed immediately after cum or after Hernicis. 2.The sense of the words contradicts the notion of their being in opposition with Latinis et Hernicis. These latter were allied troops soci. 3.The copiis peregrinis, appear to us to be by no means "the interpolation of some transcriber," but the dative case in relation with subvenisset; and we take the meaning to be, that "the Consul together with the Hernici and Latins, came upon the stronger army of Equi," and attacked it. This construction and rendering remove the necessity of supposing an interpolation. The only objection that can be made is, that dictionaries do not give this translation to subvenio. We reply, that any use of that word is purely figurative, as cum Latinis et Hernicis subvenire, to aid in conjunction with, &c. &c. The rendering of subvenire here arises from the idea of one oppressed by a load, and another in aid putting himself under the load. So we do not depart from the force and applicable meaning of the word, when we would apply it to signify, attacking, setting upon, coming upon an enemy." For in this instance we are to consider the Roman army encamped, as usual on somewhat of an eminence, the Æqui busy in attack, and the joint forces of the Romans and their allies from without, marching up under the qui and assaulting them.

66

Stephens in his Latin Thesaurus, adopts the word intervenire to express a signification of subvenire, sufficient by corresponding with the view here presented. He acknowledges certainly, that he cannot produce authority for such a use of the word; but it is plain, that the impression had been made on his mind, and that could have proceeded only from having met with some instance of the use,

which, however, he had forgotten. Had he noticed or recollected this passage, there can be little doubt, but that he would have deemed it sufficient in authority, and that he would not have consented to the expulsion of the honest, well-meaning copiis peregrinis.

--

But enough, perhaps. We take leave of the Editor, with an earnest wish for his success in his literary pursuits, which have already produced such results, and with a hope as earnest, that he will consider what we have said latterly as perfectly consistent with a high opinion of his talents. He will allow us to congratulate him on his good fortune in a printer; the type is clear, the paper good, and the general execution singularly correct. To the form of the book we decidedly object, and would recommend a greater length and breadth in the page, that the book may not be so thick. We should suppose that the edition will soon be exhausted; for this event the Editor will do well to wait, and he may then adopt the change we recommend. It would be advisable too, that the lines of the Livian text should be a little farther asunder. The classical books published by Duncan, of Glasgow, we would recommend as models for the distribution and arrangement of words on a page. And now farewell to Rome's sweet romancer, who has stolen us from many an unpleasant hour, in the luxurious enjoyment of his delightful fable. How exquisite must those powers be, which could have thrown such an air of life and truth over fiction, that it should pass as good history and true for ages and generations !The spell is broken-the magician stands revealed-the jejune and frigid realities have been selected from the gorgeous envelopments. Still the story will interest, and the eloquence enchant, and the practical wisdom interwoven in the tale will be profitable to the reader.

On the Use and Abuse of Literary and Ecclesiastical Endowments.-By Thomas Chalmers, D. D.-1827. pp. 194.

It is, Fide

The science of reviewing seems to have partaken of the en avant spirit of the times, and a comparison of the meagre announcement of a work in No. I. of the Monthly Review with the last Number of the Quarterly, or of the British Critic, would furnish an interesting object of consideration. The former gives a slender analysis of the work which it presents to the public notice, and limits itself almost exclusively to a detail of its contents. in truth, little more than an expanded table of contents. lity in detail is its principal, perhaps its sole merit; and the thought of passing sentence on the merits or demerits of the analyzed production does not appear to have entered into the plan. It is merely a review. The latter are far unlike their parent: we may indeed fairly doubt whether they can properly be called REVIEWERS. Each Quarterly publication might more appropriately be looked on as a series of essays on different subjects, and the announcement of the books at the head of each article has not unfrequently as little connection with the subjoined dissertation, as the signs

of the Blue Boar or the Red Lion have with the pleasant refreshments to be had at the bar within.

Their system too sometimes differs from that of the former in the laboured judgments and minute dissertations of the articles reviewed. There are other material differences in their respective constitutions: but some of them belong to the reviewing rather as a mystery of trade. We care not to meddle with secrets of the editorial state, nor would we attempt to justify the system on which publishers seem to have thought the establishment of a Review, concurrently with their publications, a necessary appendage. Without touching further on these mysterious points, we may infer, from the superior acceptance modern Reviews have found, that the later system is the better. Certainly, by means of it, the public mind is more effectually roused and interested, and, on many important matters, better informed, and the public taste more enlightened and better directed.

The publication now before us, on which we intend to offer a few observations, has suggested this train of thought. The work is distinguished by all the peculiarities of its learned, able, and worthy author. The singularities of his style, mannerism, and frequent repetition of the same figure, require no notice now.They have been frequently, and we would say justly, the subject of animadversion. But he is more pleasingly distinguished by the amiable feeling he displays, and yet more by the soundness and irresistable force of reasoning with which he encounters and puts to flight a rank and spreading heresy in the literary world.

An opinion, sanctioned by the high authority of Doctor Adam Smith, and most unfavourable to the higher departments of lite. rature and science, has gained rapid currency. Smith's doctrine on free trade and open competition has recommended itself to the judgment of all thinking men, has won their assent, and has thence issued into life and practice. On this Dr. Chalmers ob

serves:

"The same exceptions have been taken against an endowment on behalf of learning, which are now taken by every sound economist against a bounty. It is held to be an interference with the free operation of that demand, to which it is imagined that the whole supply of a nation's scholarship may be left.— Thus it is that Dr. Adam Smith has by an unlucky generalization transferred his masterly argument for freedom in trade (and transferred it in all its secularity,) to the question of literary and religious establishments. It is needless by any artificial encouragement to stimulate the supply of commodities beyond what the nation may spontaneously require. And by many it has been held alike needless to stimulate by artificial encouragement the supply either of literary or Christian instruction beyond what the nation shall spontaneously require."

This is the principle on which Smith's ecclesiastical endowments is founded. ive, because built on an analogy that part.

opposition to literary or This reasoning is defectdoes not apply in every

Smith's reasonings, however, were plausible enough to obtain considerable currency, and the well-known spirit of economy, which is distinctive of the commercial world, assisted in bearing

them forward. Arithmetic was brought to bear on the illustrious and venerable endowments of the empire; interest of money calculated, competition measured, and the mercantile man and those of his spirit could see nothing to justify the abstraction of so much wealth from the general stock, nor the statutary distribution of instruction through the land. In the discussion, he who would support the cause of literature, in its lofty excellence, labours under the most serious disadvantage. No discussion can be effectually conducted, if the disputants are not both acquainted with the subject, and do not avowedly present themselves on the same ground of general principles. The fit or unfit application of these principles is the question to be determined.

The illiterate person rails at the nonsense of learning Latin and Greek-acquiring, as he has it, mere words! He has no experience of the mighty power which is exerted on society by the lever of classical learning. He cannot be aware how intimately this knowledge is conjoined with that which, under the guidance of God's good providence, pours the light of day in upon the darkness of error. He scarcely knows how to believe, that these acquirements, which he so much despises, are the means through which the good tidings have been sent forth into a dark and erring world. Yet for proof of its importance we may turn his attention to the uneasiness and irritability manifested by the late and. the present opponents of the Christianity of the Bible, in their sneers at "verbal criticisms," and "minute distinctions."

When illiterate economists have their ignorant prejudices flattered, and their economising propensities apparently justified by a man of high name among the learned and scientific, we should not wonder that they are strongly confirmed in their notions. Such authority will naturally be quoted with triumph. Were we, however, to look through the history of controversy, on whatever subject, or in whatever age, a better example could not be selected, of the facility with which a powerful understanding may mislead itself, and injuriously influence others, than this now in discussion, and fairly brought to the test by Dr. Chalmers. Smith caught at an analogy, and suffered his mind to be daggled and led aside by it. The bare statement of Dr. Chalmer's counter principle will, we think, sufficiently show the fallacy of Dr. Smith's reasoning, and justify us in the surprise we must feel, that the long reigning principle should have ever obtained suffer

ance.

Dr. Chalmers, at p. 25 and sec. 9, expresses himself thus:

Dr.

"Learning is not like an article of ordinary merchandize, or, at least, is not like to it in that only respect, which would make endowments necessary."...." There is an utter dissimilarity between the mental appetite for knowledge, and the physical appetite for those necessaries, or even those luxuries of life, which constitute the great materials of commerce. It is not with the desire of knowledge, as it is with the desire of food. Generally speaking, the more ignorant a man is, the more satisfied he is to remain so. But the more hungry a man is, the less satisfied he is to remain so."...."There is no such appetite for knowledge, as will secure a spontaneous and originating movement toward it. There is such an appetite for food, as will secure a spontaneous movement toward it. In the matter of education the

supply of the article cannot be confided to the operation of demand and supply, for there is not a sufficiently effective demand."...." It is in this difference, truly, in the strength of the desire, or the demand, which forms the real distinction between the cases."...." Government does not need to erect shops for the sale of the necessaries of life, or to help out by a salary to the dealers that price which customers, rather than want the necessaries of life, are willing to give for them."...." It is because of the strength of the physical appetite, and the langour of the intellectual or spiritual appetite, that the same political economy, which is sound in matters of trade, is not sound in matters either of literary or spiritual instruction."...." "A people sunk in ignorance will not emerge from it by any voluntary act of their own, In proportion to their want of knowledge is their want of care for it. It is as necessary to create hunger among them, as it is to make the provision."

Such is the principle advanced by Dr. Chalmers, in opposition to the free-trade advocates in intellectual speculations: the body of the work contains the development and application of it.

In England there is a numerous and influential party, which we may term the Economists. In the "London University" they have commenced an experiment which, whether successful or not within itself, must be productive of good. There is little doubt, but that in competition with many other establishments, and in contact with circumstances of demand and position, it will abundantly furnish such supplies, as popular use will require.

But there is not sufficient ground to hope that it will raise itself to that elevation in literature and science, which will qualify it to support a dignified and beneficial ascendancy, and contribute to sustain in the empire, that noble, that enthusiastic aspiration after knowledge, which is the generation of all, that leads human pursuits to dignified and useful conclusions. We do not found this opinion on the whimsical, and unscientific, and absurd things detailed in sheer ignorance, as experiments, in one of their cheap tracts, (for philosophers have their tracts too,) in science, issued by the managers of the London University, or under their sanction. Our opinion is founded on the prevalence of the calculating principle, thoughout the whole plan, which is too much directed by the utile, in the ordinary affairs of life perfectly applicable and eminently beneficial; but utterly inapplicable as a principle to move to loftier acquirements.

We do earnestly urge on our readers a careful perusal of this work, as it touches on this point. The exhibition of sound principle, by which Dr. Chalmers has proved his position; and the pleasing illustrations with which he has adorned it, cannot but afford satisfaction and conviction. We add a specimen :

"A man without the aid of endowments will gain a livelihood by teaching any thing, that is of obvious application either to an act or calling, which is gainful, But for all that is arduous and sublime in mathematics, for the methods of higher calculus, the uses of which lie far remote, or are wholly invisible to the general understanding, for those lofty devices and inventions of analysis, by which we hope to accomplish solutions hitherto impracticable, or to unravel mysteries in nature, which have yet eluded the keenest search of philosophy-for all these we contend, there is no such public request, as would foster the growth and the production of them to the extent that is at all desirable."...." There have been thousands in our land, the enamoured votaries of science, who never would have felt the gene