Pray, reader, observe the great profundity and accuracy, with which M. Dufief reasons; and how admirably he introduces the logical connection for ;-and with what marvellous dexterity the " crutches, limps, walks, and dancing,"—are coupled with the preceding member of the sentence, consisting of "French translations from English authors, dictionary, and speaking."

Come all, ye, who write without any connection,

Ye will all make a figure in Dufief's collection!

Now if this, and such stuff as this, be philosophy, we beseech the philosophers, in pity, to restore to us the history of Mr. Thomas Thumb, the renowned demolisher of giants ;a delectable history, which we remember to have perused a great while before we ever saw M. Dufief's "Nature Displayed."

After what we have already seen, we are not surprized to find the following note in M. Dufief's book.

"My recommendation of the study of grammar, as useful, when the scholar has made sufficient progress in the language, by no means applies to children, to whose understanding grammar is inaccessible; such, therefore, should commit the examples to memory, but not the rules.”

Upon which we ask, how, then, can children compose, with accuracy, in a language, of whose grammar they are ignorant; since a knowledge of grammar is indispensably necessary to the correct and accurate acquaintance with a language? And yet, if we may believe M. Dufief-" grammar is inaccessible to the understanding of children."

We are, also, told that—“ in fact,”—(from matter of fact, as we perceive, N. G. Dufief never swerves)" the rules of grammar are only observations on the phraseology of language."

Not long since, we were told, that- grammar is a continuation of the science of ideas ;"-then that-" it is metaphysical," and now," that the rules of grammar are only observations on the phraseology of language."-The last definition of grammar is, to the full, as intelligible, and as satisfactory to us as are the first and the second.

But not, now, particularly to press these absurdities and inconsistencies; we would say to M. Dufief;-if your pupils

be not taught grammar, how are they to apply these" observations on the phraseology of language?"-Or have you, Sir, discovered some "new and expeditious method of teaching your pupils to apply rules, which they do not know, and which they have never learned?—Or is the mere jabbering a few phrases, learned by rote, and uttered at hazard, understanding a language, so as to compose in it ;—so as to communicate our thoughts in writing, with correctness and precision, to all those, who are acquainted with the language, in which we write ?

M. Dufief, then, informs us, that "the art of writing is nothing more than the art of speaking, brought to a certain degree of perfection. This definition, as just as it is forcible, points out to us, &c, &c, &c."-

For this infornation, this profound discovery, we feel ourselves highly indebted to M. Dufief; more particularly, for his rendering his definition of—" the art of writing,"—so vevery exact and accurate, that even he, who runs, may read.How admirably are the words-" to a certain degree of perfection,"-fitted to convey to us a definite notion of the art of writing!!!-If any one, hereafter, should ask,-to what degree of perfection?-we shall refer him to M. Dufief, who will look wise, and tell him—“to a certain degree of perfection."

We are, next, let into another new and marvellous discovery, by the learned author, who says,

"I have but few words to say, to those, who are ambitious of excelling in the French, and rivalling the most enlightened natives in the knowledge of their language. They must study the graces of style, and the best models of composition."

Pray can M. Dufief point out to us any other mode that has ever been adopted to acquire an intimate and a superior knowledge of language, than that of studying its best writers in that language?-N. G. Dufief, however, feels himself so inflated by his discovery of this "new and expeditious" method of acquiring a knowledge of a language by studying its best authors, that he bursts out upon us in the following effusion of genius and of modesty :

"Having, I trust, fully satisfied the reader respecting this mode of instruction, I will venture, no longer to resist the powerful voice of reason and experience, to say, that it is the most simple, expeditious, philosophical, and infallible method, that can possibly be made use of!!!

But notwithstanding M. Dufief's confidence in his own talents and the boldness of his assertions, any child can inform him, that Nature does not teach children to speak by phrases, but by single words.—And, furthermore, notwithstanding the terror, with which the approaching prospect of M. Dufief's displeasure must unavoidably fill our minds, and cause our hearts to palpitate within us, we will venture to assert, that whoever attempts to follow Nature's method of teaching a language, shews forth his folly in a much stronger light, than he discovers his wisdom; for Nature teaches by single words, which is only endurable, while the child is so young as to be merely capable of receiving a very few simple ideas;—but it would be an endless task to endeavour to teach a whole language by single words.

Science therefore, steps in to Nature's aid, and, by teaching the child a few general rules, together with their application, enables it to understand all the particulars of that language, so reduced to general rules, and principles. And that science is Grammar.

Indeed, all sciences rest upon general rules and principles, as their basis; and, thus, not only, render human knowledge more portable, more ready at our call, more easy of application, but, also, enable us continually to increase its limits.— Savages teach their children according to Nature;—that is, by single words:-and what do their languages comprehend; what do they enable their possessors to perform? Why, truly, to count ten upon their fingers,—to give a name to their canoe, -and to distinguish a tree from a hill.

Were it not for the science of grammar; that is, some collection of general rules, M. Dufief would not have it in his power to boast of the great superiority of the French writers over those of other nations. Nature teaches us in detail only ;--science enables us to combine and put those details together, and to climb, as Lord Bacon observes, from particulars, by induction, up to generals.

Indeed, very

All science is Nature's method reversed. little children are taught according to Nature's method,-in detail, and by single words;-but no time is lost by this, as infants are not capable of being taught any other way; yet as soon as the mind begins to open, and is able to rise from details to general rules, the Grammar is taught them, in order to faciliate, and render sure and permanent the acquisition of language.

Notwithstanding all this, however, and notwithstanding that Lord Bacon is not precisely of the same opinion with M. Dufief, and that the venerable Verulam's authority carries some little weight with it, in the scientific world, although, to be sure, he, also, was of "the old school,"-yet N. G. Dufief immediately goes off in another explosion, to the full, as loud, as the one, which we have just noticed,

"What a salutary reformation would education, then, undergo !" (that is, if all men would believe M. Dufief, and follow his "simple, expeditious, philosophical, and infallible," method of instruction,)—" Education, which as it is now conducted, is nothing more than a fashionable way of wasting, in the drudgery of schools, the most valuable part of life, and all this, in many cases, to acquire such languages, as, on our entry into the world, are scarcely of any utility to us.'

"

By "such languages," M. Dufief, no doubt, means the dead languages, and, like all other ignorant pretenders, affects to revile that, which he does not understand. And the author of Nature Displayed has discovered, that the dead languages are "scarcely of any utility to us."!!!

Shall this man be suffered to emit the feeble cry, and to put forth the witling shriek of his puny and uneffectual max lice against those heroes of literature, as Longinus calls them, whose labours have adorned and dignified human nature?

But to leave M. Dufief for a while, sweltering in the slough of his own ignorance, we would remark,—that the cause of sound literature is inseparably connected with that of sound morals;—that with the decline of the study of the Classics a nation has always sunk rapidly into barbarism, and the most degrading, coarse and vulgar sensuality.

Above all, would we most earnestly, and affectionately endeavour to turn the attention of the rising generation to the

intense and ardent study of the Greek language ;—for, in that language, have appeared the highest and the best writers, in every department of philosophy, of history, of poetry, and of oratory; in all that can strengthen, and all that can embellish human society in its most advanced state of cultivation. It is in the Greek language, that the principles of composition are more correctly taught, and more amply illustrated, than in any other tongue; it is to the writers of ancient Greece, that we look, as the legislators in criticism, in taste, and in every species of writing; the sublime, the tender, the pathetic, the argumentative, the familiar, the ludicrous;-from their decision there is no appeal, and their judgment will be found prompt, effectual, and unerring.

Men of learning have always set a high value upon the Greek language, of which the French are, in general, most despicably ignorant. It must not, however, be forgotten, that the French philosophers were so well aware of the 'intimate connection between the study of this language and the power of correct reasoning on our moral and political relations, that they considered its abolition, as a necessary step towards the accomplishment of their horrible scheme of revolutionizing the minds of men, and, in consequence, disorganizing all human society. Accordingly, these philosophers, whose writings all tended to one great object, that of producing the French Revolution, are continually throwing out their jests and sarcasms upon the Greek language.

M. D'Alembert, the most deceitful, the most acute, and the most mischievous of all that gang of brilliant banditti, affects to exclaim, in his well-known work, entitled-"Melanges de Literature et de Philosophie,"—"Ah, si vous saviez le Grec! Ceux, qui sçavent, ou croient savoir, l'Hebreu, l'Arabe, le Syriaque, le Cophte ou le Copte, le Persan, ou le Chinois, pensent et parlent de meme, et par les memes raisons."

Now, it is manifest, that this French philosopher, by endeavouring to confound the Chinese, Persic, Coptic, Syriac, and Arabic, with the Greek, wishes to have it understood, that they are all of equal utility, that is, to the generality of scholars, and to the world at large, of "scarcely any utility," as M. Dufief says.