Table showing the specific gravity of various kinds of wine-and the proportion of alcohol per cent. by measure contained in each, estimated by a reference to the tables of Mr. Gilpin; the specific gravity of the standard alcohol, being 0.825 at 60° Faht.-also the equivalent of pure brandy in each the brandy containing 53.39 per cent. by measure of alcohol of the above strength. WINE. Madeira (purchased in this city.) Madeira (Farquahar-supposed to have Madeira-(old wine-sent to Indiathen bottled and brought to this country-probably 20 years old-from Delavan.) Madeira (purchased in this city.) Madeira (made from the late Mr. Clark's vineyard in Madeira, in 1806, being the pure unmixed juice of the grape, received from Mr. O. Kane.). In many points of view this subject is deserving of most serious consideration. Much which is drank for wine at the communion table, is a vile mixture of alcohol, and every thing else rather than the juice of the grape. The drinking of it is no more compliance with the injunction of our Saviour, than to drink tar-water, or a decoction from the beet root. It is very manifest also that the drinking of wine is a great obstacle to the advance of temperance. But can it be imported free from an intermixture with alcohol? And if it can be, what would then be the effect of its general use: or in other words, what is the moral condition of the inhabitants of wine-growing countries, and how is that condition affected by the use of wine? The principal writers on this subject are Mago, 550 B. C., Columella, Du Halde, Lebat, Bacci, Sir Edward Barry, 1775, Dru, Dussieux, Clemente, Tavernier, Bowditch, Gay-Lussac, Jullien, Inglis, Brande, Chaptal, and particularly Dr. Henderson, who gives in one volume quarto, 1824-an able view of the whole subject. Mr. Redding's book is in most respects a good one. The wood cuts, and some other things in respect to "the good fellowship," produced by drinking wine, are dishonorable to it. It is also entirely destitute of information in regard to vineyards and wine in America. ARTICLE X. CRITICAL NOTICES. 1.-Elements of Rhetoric. By Richard Whately, D. D., Archbishop of Dublin. Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, & Co. 1833. pp. 347. IN the introduction to this work, we are told, that rhetoric, at the present day, embraces, in its widest acceptation, "all composition in prose," and, in its narrowest sense, “persuasive speaking." The author proposes to himself a middle course, and treats of " argumentative composition generally and exclusively, considering rhetoric as an offset from logic." We cannot help thinking it unfortunate for this department of education, that so great indefiniteness exists as to the objects and limits of the rhetorical art. Many are ready to conclude, that if even the teachers of the art are not in themselves agreed upon its extent, and the points of instruction which it offers, it cannot, as a branch of education, lay claims to much practical utility. Those, however, familiar with the history of rhetoric, can well account for this indefiniteness in the use of the term. They know, that in those early ages of the world, when the power of eloquence was the sway of the orator over the assembled multitude around him, it was in the schools of the rhetoricians that this power was acquired. They know, that, in ages of greater refinement, to awaken emotions of taste, became the leading object of writers and speakers, and that these tropes and figures, and the various elegancies and ornaments of style, were cared for by the rhetorician. They know, also, that, at a later period, the term rhetoric was extended, so as to embrace the whole circle of the liberal arts and sciences;-thus Quinctilian professed to take the child ab incunabulis and train it up for the forum. And further, they have seen that in modern times, as the principle of division of labor has been introduced into our systems of education, it has been attempted to circumscribe the limits of the art, and thus indefiniteness has arisen. We shall not of course attempt to decide a question, on which our rhetorical Rabbis disagree, and to determine, what rhetoric is, or what are its limits. We have the general notion, that it is an art, whose design is to aid the writer and speaker in the communication of their thoughts. And if we look at Dr. Whately's division of his work, we find that he has the same impression, though he has told us that the peculiar province of rhetoric is the invention and exhibition of arguments. This division is fourfold. 1. Conviction. 2. Persuasion. 3. Style. 4. Elocution. We propose to tell our readers, very briefly, what course the author has taken in treating on each of these divisions, or, as he calls them, parts of his book. 66 Part 1, on Conviction, treats on the invention, arrangement and introduction of propositions and arguments. After a few judicious remarks on the nature of propositions, a classification is made of arguments according to the relation of the subjectmatter of the premises to the conclusion." This classification is twofold. The former embraces such arguments, as might have been employed to account for the fact or principle maintained, supposing its truth granted. The other class comprehends all other arguments. A description of the different kinds of arguments follows, with directions as to their various uses and the order of their introduction. That the knowledge conveyed in this first part of Dr. Whately's rhetoric, should be possessed by every student, is without question highly important. It has however occurred to us, while reading, or rather studying this portion of his work, that the same views might be presented in a more obvious and simple manner. As a text-book, it should have less technicality, and more of illustration. Part 2, on Persuasion, is in our view by far the most valuable portion of the work. Persuasion, according to Dr. Whately, "depends on, first, argument to prove the expediency of the means proposed, and secondly what is usually called exhortation, i. e., the incitement of men to adopt those means by representing the end as sufficiently desirable." Men not only need to have the right path pointed out to them; they need to be urged to walk therein. So far as persuasion depends on argument, what is said in the preceding part of the work is applicable here. Hence this part is occupied with some miscellaneous rules, relating to whatever in composition is designed to influence the will. There is a rich vein of common sense in the two short chapters which follow, and which make up this part of the book. The views given are we think philosophical and practical, and we commend them to the attention and observance of those, who at the bar, or in the pulpit, or the deliberate assembly, would persuade their fellow-men. Part 3, on Style, is occupied in pointing out what is conducive to perspicuity, energy and elegance, as traits of style. Most of the rules and illustrations are those of Campbell, with the occasional introduction of some pertinent remarks and new examples. The view which the writer takes of style, relates only to argumentative compositions, and, though not sufficiently minute and extended for a system of rhetoric, corresponds to his design. In Part 4, on Conviction, Dr. Whately advances opinions, to which we are not prepared to yield our assent. He lays down but one rule in elocution-be natural; think not of the manner but of the matter, and be accommodated in all respects to the circumstances around you. Our common systems of instruction in elocution, he calls artificial, and he objects to them, that from the nature of the case, they can but partially effect their proposed design-that they would lead us in a circuitous road to the desired end-that they result in offensive affectation. He then considers and obviates some objections to his own proposed system, if it may be so called, and closes with a few practical deductions, one of which is, that declamations, and the usual course of instruction in this branch, are useless, or rather injurious, and may be dispensed with. Were we permitted to give but one direction to the pulpit in elocution, it should certainly be that of Dr. Whately; and if what he has in view could be effected, if the pulpit-orator could be led to speak naturally, accommodating his manner to the thoughts he delivers, and the circumstances in which he is placed, we should ask nothing more. But our experience as an instructor, and it is of some years' continuance, and has brought us in contact with some hundreds of pupils, tells us, that this is not enough. In fact, the old system of instruction in this department, was too nearly that of Dr. Whately. The general remark was made to the pupil-" Your manner of speaking is faulty. You must amend it. Be natural." And the result most frequently was, no improvement was made. The student knew, as well as his instructor, that his manner of speaking was faulty, but he did not know what his faults were, and what remedies were to be applied; and it is precisely in these points, where he needs assistance, that Dr. Whately's system fails him. In reading Dr. Whately's objections to a more minute course of instruction in elocution than he proposes, we think, that there is an important distinction, which is kept out of sight; and which, if seen, would have relieved him from some of his apprehensions and removed his objections. He does not distinguish between rules, as they are applied for the correction of faults, and as they are designed to form speakers. We should expect consequences, such as he has stated, to follow attempts to make speakers by rule. But this is not the design of the rules found in our modern systems of elocution; they aim rather at the correction of faults -they would lead the pupil to see wherein he has departed from nature, and how he may return. One branch of the art-gesticulation-offers a pertinent illustration of this design. The gestures of a child are natural-there is ease, and gracefulness, and propriety, and every good trait about them. But this child becomes an awkward boy. He is called upon to declaim in school, or at a more advanced period of life, to address an assembly. He gesticulates, and he is to the extreme, awkward, unnatural, and ungraceful. What is to be done? Shall we simply say to him, be natural, or shall we endeavor to show him wherein his manner is faulty, and how these faults may be remedied. We think that the latter is the proper course, and that the rules of elocution have this purpose in view. One remark upon the subject of declamations, to which our author objects. We know and we feel the difficulties and objections which exist on this subject. But what substitution can be made? Young men have faults in reading and speaking, which it is important they should see and amend, and that too before the power of habit has come in to establish and confirm them. Real life, from the nature of the case, affords no opportunity for the needed discipline. Is it not better then to retain the present plan of declamations, with all its objections, than to lose the benefits it offers ? With these exceptions, we look upon Whately's Rhetoric, or, as it might perhaps with more propriety be styled, his treatise on argumentative composition, as a valuable work, and as an important accession to this department of study. 2.-Review, Historical and Political, of the late Revolution in France, and of the Consequent Events in Belgium, Poland, Great Britain, and other parts of Europe. By Caleb Cushing. In two volumes. Boston Carter, Hendee, & Co. Newburyport: Thomas B. White. 1833.. pp. 410 and 350. THE last week of July, 1830, forms a memorable epoch, and deserves, above any equally short period in the annals of the modern world, to be styled, as it has been by the French, La grande Semaine. Its scenes in themselves compose a tragedy, perfect in all the unities of time, place, and action, to which history furnishes no parallel. The world gazed upon it, as its several acts passed in rapid succession before them, with astonishment; tyrants trembled; freemen exulted; and the hearts of the oppressed, that had long been sick with "hope deferred," revived. In this country the spectacle was viewed with mingled exultation and fear. Americans rejoiced at the downfall of the selfish, bigoted, impotent tyrant; they trembled for France. Had she thrown off the vampire that was gorging himself upon her bosom, only to tear open her vitals with her own hands, and scatter them bleeding to be rent and trampled under foot by the swinish multitude? or was she sane enough to invite to her arms some constitutional protector and lord, who should cherish, defend, and love her "as his own body"? Would France renew the horrors of '89, or had she learned by her bitter experience, that order, subordination, and law, are quite as essential to happiness, as liberty itself,-nay, constitute, not limit or define, the only liberty, that can have any objective existence ?-These |