of the respected individual whose life forms the subject of its pages. John Mason Good was born May 25, 1764. He was the second son of the Rev. Peter Good, a Dissenting minister, and of the niece of the celebrated John Mason, author of the "Essay on Self-Knowledge." At that time they were residing at Epping, but, Mrs. Good dying, and the father having again married, the family removed to Wellingborough, in Northamptonshire. From this place they shortly after went into Hampshire, where Mr. Good, in consequence of his brother's death, became possessed of some property. While residing here, he was persuaded to take pupils; and it was under his care that his son early imbibed that taste for classical literature which afterwards so eminently distinguished him. Mason continued under the care of his father till he was about fifteen, when he was apprenticed to Mr. Johnson, a surgeon, at Gosport. While here, amid the studies of his profession and many varied pursuits, he found leisure to gratify the growing propensities of his mind for literary employment; and it is curious to see, from the subjects which it appears engaged his attention, how early that character for method and research was developed, which formed the most distinguished feature in Dr. Good's mind. Thus, we find him engaged in taking a view of the principal tropes and figures of rhetoric, in their origin and powers; in illustrating it with notes of the most varied description; in selecting and arranging passages from Italian and other authors, and, lastly, in making a dictionary of poetical endings-all which works were manifestations of that patient and persevering disposition of mind to which, rather than to genius, Dr. Good owed his subsequent celebrity, and his power of being extensively useful. While with Mr. Johnson at Gosport, he became acquainted with Mr., afterwards Doctor, Babington, who was engaged as the assistant of the former gentleman. This connection gave a new impetus to his mind, and would probably have been of important benefit to him, had it not been speedily interrupted by the death of Mr. Johnson, at whose decease he removed to Harvant, where his father then resided. Shortly after this event, an opportunity having offered of his getting into immediate practice, he hastened to London to complete his professional education, and on his return entered into partnership with a gentleman of the name of Deeks, residing at Sudbury in Suffolk. Mr. Good was here so successful in his exertions, that his partner shortly entrusted him with the whole of the practice: soon after which he married. His happiness, however, in this state was of short continuance, his wife dying in six months after their union. In the course of four or five years he again married; his second wife being the daughter of Mr. Fenn, a banker, at Sudbury. It was a few years after this that the events occurred which greatly influenced the future course of Mr. Good's life, and to which may be ascribed the popularity which he enjoyed as a professional, as well as a literary man. Having become embarrassed by some unfortunate pecuniary engagements, and determining to free himself from them by his own increased exertions, he set diligently to work with his pen; wrote plays, pamphlets, and poems; and watched every avenue that might open a prospect into the literary world. His success, however, was not sufficient to lure him too far on this dangerous track; and, an opportunity having offered of his entering into partnership with a London surgeon, he removed thither in the early part of 1793. Unfortunately the associates were either unfitted for each other by great contrariety of disposition; or, as appears to have been the case, the elder partner became jealous of Mr. Good's growing reputation; and the consequence was an irregularity of attention in the practice, which soon ended in a total loss of business. Again thrown upon his own private exertions, he again redoubled his efforts, which were at length rewarded with considerable success. He obtained connections; practice flowed in upon him; and he in a little time began to be regarded by his fellow-practitioners as a rapidly rising member of the profession. He had the satisfaction also about this time, to obtain a prize, offered by Dr. Lettsom, for an essay on the question "What are the diseases most frequent in work-houses, poor-houses, and similar institutious; and what are the best means of cure and of prevention?" About the same period, also, he was made a member of the Pharmaceutic Society, and at its request drew up a History of Medicine, which was published in 1795. All these circumstances contributed to make him generally known; and as he was still anxious after literary reputation, although thus deeply immersed in pros fessional pursuits, he had the pleasure to find himself welcomed into the society of the most celebrated men of the day. Among his intimate acquaintances he shortly numbered Drs. Disney, Rees, Hunter, Geddes, Messrs. Maurice (the author of the Indian Antiquities), Fuzeli (the Royal Academician), Charles Butler, Gilbert Wakefield, and other literary men of the day. In the year 1797 Mr. Good commenced his translation of Lucretius, his greatest work, but of which we shall speak when we come to consider his literary character. To this undertaking he was invited, it appears, by the encouragements of his friends, among whom was Gilbert Wakefield, then employed on his edition of the same author. If this undertaking had produced no other good, it would have been of no little value to the author as it concentrated his exertions, and gave a spur to his desire of distinction, which might otherwise have been satisfied with a more ephemeral object on which to support its claims. Another important use that it was of to him, was the inducement it presented for the extensive study of languages, modern as well as ancient ;-a pursuit in which Dr. Good was eminently successful, and which, by the use he made of his acquirements, was of great benefit to others as well as himself. The author of the Memoir has rightly observed, that it is well worth inquiring what means our linguist took to make those extensive acquisitions in this branch of learning for which he distinguished himself. The whole passage which contains a solution of the question is so curious and instructive that we shall extract it. Whenever an individual distinguishes himself by acquiring a correct knowledge of several languages, we cannot but feel desirous to ascertain at least the outlines of the plan which he pursued. Elementary instruction in languages has hitherto been made almost entirely to depend upon the faculty of memory, without an adequate regard to the reflective and the associating principles of the mind; and yet nothing can be more obvious than the essential difference between a series of positive unconnected efforts of memory, and another series which shall be connected by some law of association. If, for example, a student of natural philosophy be informed that the hydrostatic pressure of rain or river water upon a square inch at the depth of five feet is equal to two pounds and three-fifths avoirdupois, the truth, however important, can only be fixed in the mind by a frequent repetition of both numbers; and even then, there is risk of their sliding from the thoughts after a short time, from the want of an obvious connection between the numbers 5 and 2 3-5ths. But if the student be informed that at the depth of thirty feet the pressure upon a square inch is equivalent to thirteen pounds, and it be, at the same time, impressed upon his mind that the first syllable of the words thirty and thirteen is the same, the law of association tends to render the impression permanent, and the scientific truth will recur to his thoughts whenever it is needed. So again, the numbers 1 and 3.141593, which express the relation of the diameter to the circumference of a circle, having no natural connection, can only be remembered positively after frequent repetition; and this would also be the case with the numbers 113 and 355, which express the same relation, unless it should be explained to the student, that these numbers are together constituted of repetitions in pairs of the first three odd numbers, 1, 1; 3, 3; 5, 5; when it will really become as difficult to forget the ratio of 113 to 355, as, without a marked reference to this peculiarity in the sequence of the figures, it would be found to remember it. Now, if this universal attribute of intellect had been understood by our standard grammarians, would they compel the youths who study their works to get by rote five very bad hexameter verses, in an unknown language, in order that they might learn, what all but the veriest dunces knew before, that the names of gods and men are masculine, while those of goddesses and women are of the feminine gender? Or would they, for the purpose of teaching that the nouns funus and sponsalia are seldom used in the singular number, compel them to learn, "Funus justa petit, petit et sponsalia virgo?" to learn, that is, in plain English, that "a funeral requires solemnities, and a virgin requires espousals; " to learn seven Latin words in order that he may recollect two? Certainly, no man who understands many languages ever acquired them thus. When that extraordinary youth, Barretier, learned the French, German, and Latin, at a very early age, he was not, says Dr. Johnson, "taught in the common way, by a multitude of definitions, rules, and exceptions, which fatigue the attention, and burden the memory, without any use proportionate to the time which they require, and the disgust which they create;" but he learned them all in the same manner, and almost at the same time, by conversing in them indifferently with his father. "The other languages of which he was master, he learned by a method yet more uncommon. The only book which he made use of was the Bible, which his father laid before him, in the language that he then proposed to learn, accompanied with a translation, being taught by degrees the inflections of nouns and verbs." This latter method, although open to objection, has the advantage of being founded upon the principle of association. Mr. Good seems early to have caught, and steadily to have pursued and applied, the same principle. Before he was twenty-four years of age, I have every reason to believe that he had attentively studied, and reduced to an intellectual classification, the results collected by Chamberlayne in his "Oratio Dominica in omnium fere gentium linguas versa." From the perusal of the first volumes of the "Asiatic Researches," he derived a confirmation of his own conjecture, that all languages have a common origin. It was but natural, to a spirit so fond of generalizing, of tracing analogies and resemblances, as his, to work out this idea. He sought, and thought that he found, a general unity of principle; that the common divisions and rules of one language are the common divisions and rules of the whole; that, hence, every national grammar is, in a certain sense, a universal grammar; and that there is often a uniform employment of the very same terms, in a great variety of languages, to express the very same ideas. This being completely established in his mind, the principle of association was brought into full exercise, and his classified store, which was augmented almost daily, served greatly to diminish the labour of studying a new language; and, indeed, as may naturally be expected, rendered the attainment of every fresh language easier than that of the preceding. He believed that certain terms, which served to mark the relation of man with things about him, or of man with man-as those indicative of earth, sky, death, Deity, father, brother, man, &c.—would be nearly the same under every change of time, or variety of climate; and he found it so. He was hence led to classify the words which express the numerals, the ordinals, common nouns, the declension of nouns, of adjectives, the conjugations of verbs, &c. and detected affinities and relations which would not fail to surprise those who have not engaged in such pursuits; but many of which, however, are now rendered familiar to men of reading, by the works of Colebrook, Townsend, Adelung, &c. Fearful of rendering an inquiry dry, which I have not the power to make instructive, I shall only present a few of the examples selected by Mr. Good himself, assuming the Sanscrit as the common parent. The following is the present tense of the verb substantive.— Sanscrit Asmi, Greek Latin - smah, st'ha santi. asi, asti εσμι Esm, esi, Sum, Am, al, ast and. aïd', are, are. This verb is defective in many languages. In Latin and in Welsh several tenses are formed from an old verb, which only survives in the Sanscrit in a tolerably perfect form. This is bhavami, bhavasi, bhavati, &c, answering to the German ich, bin, du bist, &c. The preter tense of this verb in Latin, Fui, fuisti, fuit, coincides with the Welsh Bum, buost, bû; and the Latin Fuissem, fuisses, fuisset, &c. with the Welsh Buaswn, buasit, buasai, buasem, buasech, buasent. The future in the Russian agrees with the Welsh, as, Budu, budesh, budet-budem, &c. which, in Welsh, is Byddow (pronounced budhav), byddi, bydd-byddwm, byddwch, byddant. The verb "to eat" coincides almost as closely : Russian iem, iesh, iest εδομεν έδετε ἔδοντι (ol.) iedite, iedyat. German esse, issest, isst essen, esset, essen. Some Sanscrit verbs coincide most with the Greek, others with the Latin: as Jivami, jivasi, jivati-jivamah, jivathah, jivanti, with Vivo, vivis, vivit—vivimus, vivitus, vivunt; Dadami, dadasi, dadate, with Sid, didus, didwos, &c. Possessing such means of exfoliating the affinities of language, and growing collection of classified facts, Mr. Good turned to the study of a new language with delight. A dictionary, a standard grammar, his own tables, and an excellent memory, enabled him to set to work upon one or two of the best authors in the language selected. Perhaps he made but little progress at first; but so soon as he had unveiled enough of the structure and genius of the language to apply to it his principles of generalization, and association, the remaining task was comparatively easy, and he soon accomplished his wishes. This process, it is true, did not make him critically master of every language to which he directed his attention; but it gave him the capacity of detecting and relishing the beauties of the best authors in those which he was most anxious to explore: and it supplied him with views of the general analogies of language, as well as of the diversities and peculiarities which prevented those general analogies from becoming universal, more comprehensive, and more practical, than any other person (except he were a linguist merely) whom I have had the happiness to know. pp. 74-80. Between the years 1797 and 1804 we find Mr. Good a regular contributor to several periodicals-among which were the British and Monthly Magazines, and the Analytical and Critical Reviews; of the latter of which he appears to have been a temporary editor. The translation of Lucretius was going on at the same time, and a variety of other works, of which his biographer has given a long list. In 1810 he delivered a course of lectures at the Surrey Institution, which were afterwards printed, and formed that very useful and pleasing work "The Book of Nature." In 1820 he took out his diploma, and commened practising as a physician; in which line of his profession he had the gratification of finding himself eminently successful. One of the first consequences of his entering on this new sphere of exertion was, the publication of his work entitled "A Physiological System of Nosology, with a corrected and simplified Nomenclature." Another medical work succeeded this, On the Study of Medicine," which was published in |