Origin and Progress of Language, which appeared not long afterwards, and gave another opportunity for the Reviewers to attack his Lordship; and they according opened their whole artillery upon him on this occasion.

On occasion of this review, however, the critics themselves fell into a capital blunder. In the interpretation of a passage of DIONYSIUS of Halycarnassus on Composition, which Lord MONBODDO had quoted in the work then under their review, by unaccountably having recourse to the Latin translation, not of HUDSON, for he has rendered the passage without ambiguity, but to some older editor, who had rendered a Greek expression by what is called in Latin the ablative absolute, and therefore left to the judgment of the reader the application of this disjointed Latin construction, either to what precedes or what follows, as he thinks best. The reviewers had the misfortune to apply this ablative the wrong way: and by this means converted their own blunder into a matter of triumph over the reputed knowledge of Lord MONBODDO in Greek and Latin.

Ir is a certain fact, that these severe criticisms on the Origin and Progress of Language were the cause of the downfall of the Edinburgh Magazine and Review; and Mr SMELLIE very candidly acknowledged this to Lord MONBODDO, whose friendship and attachment to his learned printer continued uninterrupted till the death of Mr SMELLIE, notwithstanding the continual and illiberal abuse of his Lordships works, which issued from Mr SMELLIES press.

MR SMELLIE used sometimes to read his juvenile essays to Lord MONBODDO, who was much amused and delighted by them; particularly with his Theory of Sleep and Dreaming, and with what he called his Tangible Theory, which was a curious Essay on Shaking Hands, &c.

MANY very severe criticisms appeared in the Edinburgh Magazine and Review against the Origin and Progress of Language; but none of them gave the ingenious and rather paradoxical author nearly so much uneasiness as the following paragraph at the end of a Review of the Philosophical Arrangements by HARRIS, which was written by Mr SMEL

LIE.

"UPON the whole, Mr HARRIS, even in his present volume, with all its imperfections, has an elevation of sentiment that rises above the ordinary reach of mere classical scholars. He may be considered as a singular exception to a general and well founded observation, that those who have been remarkable for their skill in Greek and Latin have seldom discovered a good taste, or any talents for philosophical discussion. He gives a value to classical learning, unknown alike to the pedant and the pedagogue. He tires not his reader with verbal criticism; and it will not be disputed, that his efforts tend to illustrate the dark glimmerings of ancient philosophy."

LORD MONBODDO took the allusions of this paragraph in great dudgeon, as levelled against himself particularly; and often teazed Mr SMELLIE ineffectually to inform him who was the author of this offensive review, in warding off which inquiries, Mr SMELLIE was often put to considerable difficulty.

IN the year 1773, the late laborious and ingenious Dr HENRY, then one of the ministers of Edinburgh, brought out the second

volume of his History of Great Britain. Dr HENRY applied on this occasion to the late celebrated DAVID HUME, earnestly entreating him to write an account of that volume for the Review in the Edinburgh Magazine; Mr HUME consented to gratify his wishes. When the manuscript appeared, and was read to the club of reviewers, the praises it contained were considered so overstrained, as to have been actually meant by Mr HUME to burlesque the author. It was therefore committed to the farther consideration of one of their number, who still continued of the same opinion, and who accordingly raised the encomiums to so high a pitch of extravagance, that no person could possibly have mistaken the meaning of the reviewer. In this state of exaltation, a proof was sent to Mr HUME for his perusal and corrections; who, to the astonishment of the members, sent them an angry letter, complaining loudly of the freedoms they had used with his manuscript, and declaring that he was perfectly sincere in the account which he had given of Dr HENRYS History. Upon this Mr HUMES altered review was cancelled; and a new one was written by a member of the society, condemning the book in terms per

haps too severe; so that Mr HUMES intention of serving Dr HENRY proved not only abortive, but was the occasion of inducing a severe criticism on his work.

In the course of the Edinburgh Magazine and Review, a person took it into his head to publish a book on Falconry; but found himself unable to write a preface, and applied to Mr SMELLIE for assistance, who accordingly wrote a preface for him, in which he turned the whole work into complete ridicule. The poor Falconer thought the preface a perfect masterpiece, and prefixed it to his work exactly as written by Mr SMELLIE. It was afterwards reviewed in the Edinburgh Magazine and Review in the most whimsical and ridiculous style, which effectually put the sale of the book to a stand. In the review, the preface is particularly taken notice of. This transaction occasioned the following letter to Mr. SMELLIE from the Reverend A. GILLIES, a gentleman of great abilities, one of the first rate reviewers in that Magazine, and author of an essay in the same publication, whimsically entitled a Modest Defence of Blasphemy. The letter has no date, but must have been written before the appearance of the review of the Treatise on Falconry, in the number VOL. I. Dd