^a/^/^e^ /rnY?^/ny6iy9Zy 
 
 'O/i^ 
 
 University of California • Berkeley 
 
R E M A R K S 
 
 O N T H E 
 
 ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 
 
REMARKS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 
 
 IN THE MANNER OF 
 
 THOSE OF VAUGELAS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 F R E N C Hj 
 
 BEING A DETECTION OF MANY IMPROPER EXPRES- 
 SIONS USED IN CONVERSATION, AND OF MANY 
 OTHERS TO BE FOUND IN AlfTHORS. 
 
 -'_"■' ■'"^'"■■- — — ■ I ■■ I ■ — — .^ 
 
 BY ROBERT BAKER. 
 THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 LONDON; 
 
 FROM THE PRESS OF THE ETHERINGTONS J FOR; 
 
 JOHN BELL, AT THE BRITISH LIBRARY^,. 
 
 IN THE STRAND, 
 
 MDCCLXXIX. 
 
^72 
 PREFACE ''^^ 
 
 TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 JLT feems a matter of wonder, confidering how inc'ir.^i 
 we are to ape the French, that we have never yet had a 
 produdion of this fort, they having feveral f ; the firil, 
 as well as the mofl conliderable of which, viz. The R.e- 
 marks of Vaiigelas, made its appearance about a hundred 
 and ten years ago. I have not his book by me; nor (Jid I 
 ever fee more than one copy of it, which copy I had in 
 my pofTellion for fome time : but, according to what I 
 can recoiled, though there are many interefting, and 
 fome very curious, obfervations ni him, foMie oihers are 
 but trifling, as turning upon the fpelllng of a word. I 
 remember likewife that I thought him too much preju- 
 diced in favour of expreilions ufed at the French court. 
 That courtiers, who'e being continually in the eye of their 
 Prince, induces them to ftudy elegance, have in general a 
 more refined tafte than other men, I am willing to believe. 
 But to prefer an exprefHon ufed at court to another of the 
 fame im)X)rt ufed by ail the if: o^ the nation, when the 
 former k not intriaiically a better than the latter, but is 
 perhaps a worfe, is n-ioft ceriainly wrong. This, Vau- 
 gelas, notvVithtbmding, does throughout his book. 
 
 Among others of the French, who have made attempts 
 of this nature, ^s the learned Menage. But I do not find 
 that his countiymen hold his performance in any great 
 ellhnation : for, though he was a man of immenfe erudi- 
 tion, (beyond companfon greater than that of Vaugelas) 
 he had little or nothing of g ?nlus, and but a poor and . 
 falfe taile. Bouhours, in his Remarks, makes very light 
 of him. 
 
 It may poflibly be expelled that, being the firft Eng"- 
 lifhman vvho has undertaken a work of this fort, I fhould 
 give fome recount of myfelf, and let the public know what 
 ground I have to think myfelf adequate to the taik. 
 
 t At the time of my writing this Preface, I had neirher f<een the 
 'J Introduction to EngUih Crainiiiar," nor heard «f it, 
 
 a 3 Here 
 
 949 
 
^i PREFACE. 
 
 Here I am apprehenfive of fuifering through preju- 
 dice, the world having long entertained a notion that no 
 man can be a .ritic in his mother-tongue, without being 
 a ir. after of the Latin and Greek. Now I confefs that I 
 am entirely 'vrnorant of the Greek, and but indifferently 
 fkilledinthe Latin, where 1 can conftrue nothing but what 
 is cai'y. I quitted ihe fchool at fifteen, and am one of that 
 large number, who, as I have obferved in my Difcourfe 
 to the Kingf, having been injudicioufly infbruded, and 
 not underihinding the Latin well enough, at their leaving 
 fchool, to read an author with pleafure, entirely neglecS 
 the language from that time, and come to lofe a part even 
 of the impcrfe6t knowledge they once had of it. 
 
 Bui why ihould this incapacitate a man for writing his 
 mother-tongue vvitii propriety ? His not being well verfed 
 in the different lan?u;iges, from which it is derived, ren^- 
 ders him, indeed, unfit to compofe a dictionary, as it un- 
 qualifies him for giving the etymology of words. But it 
 by no means renders him incapable of a production of 
 this kind, provided his natural taile be fufliciently good^ 
 nnd h*. have a knowledge of the rules of grammar and of 
 the idioms of the tongue, as it is fpoken by his country- 
 men in general, and an acquaintance with the beft wri- 
 ters in it. 
 
 A man, who is fond of reading, naturally makes an ac- 
 quaintance with the beft writers, unlefs his tafle be bad 
 indeed ; and he mull: be a great dunce, that does not eafily 
 attain to the knowledge of the rules of grammar. But 
 whr:i:er my tafle be lb good as is requilite for what I have 
 und' "scn, us ulfo whether I am fufficiently acquainted 
 with h'^ idioms of the tongue, mull be left to be decided 
 by the wirk itfelf. As, on the one hand, it would ill be- 
 come mc lO affirm that I /jave thefe qualifications, fo on 
 the other, if by a nuufeous affectation of modeily and hu- 
 mility L ihould declare or intimate that I believe I have 
 them r/ot, the queft'on would naturally offer, lf7y then 
 have you g'vcn yourf elf this trouble? 
 
 Why, mdeed, does any man publilh his thoughts, if he 
 believes himfelf vmable to produce what may be worth the 
 attention of the Public ? Without any mention therefore 
 
 ^ In the fir ft editioa of this book was a Difcourfe to Jiis Majefty, which 
 \i here oiiuttedt 
 
 of 
 
PREFACE. vH 
 
 of what I fuppofe my qualifications to be, I (hall only 
 fay, that I firmly believe thefe obfervations are, in general^ 
 juft, and may be of fome ufe. What errors I have been 
 guilty of I Ihall be glad to have pointed out to me : and, 
 wherever 1 am convinced of a miilake, I will not fail to 
 recant, fhould my book pafs through afecond edition. But, 
 though / were even infalUhle^ it were to be vviflied we had 
 performances of this kind by different hands. Every juft ob- 
 fervation does not occur to any one mind : and the impro- 
 prieties, that palfed unnoticed in one of thefe prod anions', 
 the reader might find dete6ted in another. I could, in- 
 deed, myfelf eafily have made double the number of ob- 
 fervations I here give the Public : but I chofe to fee firil 
 how thefe would be received, not being willing to throw 
 away too much time. 
 
 It will be eafily difcovered that I have paid no regard 
 to authority. I have cenfured even our beft penmerr, 
 where they have departed from what I conceive to be the 
 idiom of the tongue, or where I have thought they vio* 
 late grammar without neceflity. To judge by the rule of 
 iffe dixit is the way to perpetuate error. 
 
 Such as the work is, it is entiiely my own, and no other 
 perfon is acceflTary to whatever it contains liable to cen- 
 fure. Not being acquainted with any man of letters, I 
 have confultcd nobody. 
 
 It will undoubtedly be thought firange, when I declare 
 that I have never yet feen the folio edition of Mr. John- 
 fon's diclionary ; but, knowing nobody that has it, I have 
 never been able to borrow it ; and I have myfelf no books ; 
 at leail, not many more than what a church -going old 
 woman may be fuppofed to have of devotional ones upon 
 her mantle-piece : for, having always had a narrow in- 
 come, it has not been in my power to make a colledion 
 without firaitening myfelf. Nor did I ever fee even the 
 Abridgment of this Didionary till a few days ago, when, 
 obferving it inferted in the catalogue of a Circulating Li- 
 brary, where I fubfcribe, I fent for it. 
 
 The reader will perceive in the 104th Remark, that I 
 take it for granted the j, which we ufe at the end of our 
 genitives, where they are not preceded by the prepofition 
 of^ is a contraction of his: and I fpeak of the barbarifm 
 there is in fuch expreifions as thefe— 7^^/ woman s cjlatc 
 
vlu PREFACE. 
 
 . — thnfe mC7is properties — which I fuppofe .to be the con* 
 triuftions of that^^joman her ejlatc^^—thnfe 7ncft his properties, 
 
 I perceive, by the grammar Mr. Johnfon has prefixed to 
 this Abridgment, that he is of opinion here is no contradion ; 
 that ^joo77ians is one word only, and not t<iK)o\ and, confe- 
 quently, that the a{X)llrophe was originally improper. His 
 argument hereupon llaggers me, I own, but does not 
 convince me. 
 
 " Thefe genitives," fays he, *' are always written w^ith 
 *' a mark of elifion, according to a long-received opinion 
 *' that the i is a contradlon of his^ as The foUiers ^ijalour 
 *' for the fohiier his 'valour. But this cannot be the true 
 *' original, becaufe *5 is put to female nouns, as ^-Mcmans 
 *' beauty^ the 'virgin s delicacy ; and collective nouns, as 
 " ^vo?!icns pajji.)ns^ the rahhle*s infnlence^ the viultituSxs 
 ^' folly. In all thcfe cafes it is apparent that his cannot 
 *' be underftood." 
 
 Here I am afraid Mr. Johnfon pays the world an un- 
 deferved compliment. I apprehend that, on the contrary, 
 nothing of this fort can be too prepoilerous for men to be 
 guilty of. Let us conlidcr an exprelTion or two in the 
 French tongue. // tie s\'n ijl gueres falu fignifies // nvantcj 
 hut little of it. Yet thcfe words, if we attend to the fenfe 
 of each of them feparately, have no meaning. FaiW^ 
 which is the participle of faillir^ to he dificient^ was un- 
 doubtedly the word originally u^ed ; whereas falu is the 
 participle of faloir, to heho*ve, Nutwithllanding \\\\%^falu 
 is here ufed by the whole French nation, learned and igno- 
 rant. Failli would found uncouth ; and a miin to talk 
 eafy French, mull talk nonfenfe. 
 
 Aoain. Au prix de fignifies in copiparifon %vith. But, 
 without all doubt, aupres de^ literally 7iear to^ w^as the ori- 
 ginal exprellion. For near to^ to fignify in cumparifo7t 
 ^vith^ is a natural way of fpeaking, a coiiiparifon of two 
 objeds being bell: made when they are placed near to each 
 other, or fide by fide ; whereas to the price <?/, and at the 
 price of\ which are the literal meanings of au prix dc^ are 
 nothing at all to the purpofe. Yet is this exprclTion of 
 au prix de become by far the mod common of the two ; 
 aupres de^ in the fignification of /;/ comparijon wth^ being 
 almoll confined to oratory and poetry. 
 
 The 
 
PREFACE. ix 
 
 The reader may likewife fee what I have taken notice 
 of in Remark 37. 
 
 From thefe, and other examples that might be brought, 
 it is plain that the abfurdity of an expreffion, as ufed in a 
 certain fenfc, is no proof at all that it has not been, or 
 may not be, vmiverfally received in that fenfe. 
 
 But perhaps it may not be difficult to give a reafon why 
 this ufing the adjedive his with female, or with plural 
 nouns, though it may appear fo very prepoflerous tz^w, was 
 crigmally not at all fo. For we are to conlider that lan- 
 guages are not formed at once. We may reafonably 
 fuppofe them to be at firfl: little, if any thing, better than 
 the founds, which the moft fagacious brute animals make 
 to each other. It is by degrees only that diilindions are 
 made : wherefore it appears highly probable that in the 
 crude infancy of moft^ if not of all the languages that are 
 or han)c hcen^ the different ideas, which we Engliili ex- 
 prefs by the words he^ Jhe^ it^ and tbcy^ were exprelTed by 
 one and the fame word. The French, even at this day, 
 when their language is become fo copious and fo refined, 
 have no neuter pronoun ; and to exprefs the it of the 
 Englifh, they ufe either il or elk^ which words iignify he 
 and JJk. On the other hand, they make a diftindion 
 which we do not make : for we ufe the word they both for 
 the ils and for the elks of the French, making- it mafcu- 
 line and feminine, as well as neuter. 
 
 Now, if our anceflors, in the infancy of the language, 
 had but one word for the fubflantives he^ Jhe and they^ it 
 follows almoil: of courfe that they had likewife but one for 
 the adjedives his^ her and their. Confequently, if they had 
 the fort of expreflion we now ufe, and, inilead of faying 
 the houfe of the man^ faid the mans houfe^ as a contratftion 
 of the man his houfe ^ there was no impropriety in fay- 
 ing the 'wo?7ians houfe and the inens houfes^ as contractions 
 of the ^voman his ho2ife and the men his houfes: and we may 
 fuppofe that afterwards, when the words her and their vfQYQ 
 invented, the r, the lall: letter of thefe two words, being 
 lefs pliant and dudile, and not joining fo kindly with the 
 ends of words in general as does the j, this laft letter con- 
 tinued itill to be ufed where it was now become improper. 
 
 I am not unapprized that, in anfwer hereto, I may 
 be told that I feem to beg a c^ueition, and that I go upon 
 
 the 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 the fnppolition that our ancellors did really ufe this wc,y 
 of fpeaking, that man his hcufe^ for the houfe of that mati ; 
 *' which fuppoiition," it will be added, " is unreafon- 
 *' able, fuch a way of fpeakmg being iingrammatical and 
 *' unnatural. No conclulion can therefore be drawn from 
 " thence in favour of any propriety there once may have 
 *' been in placing this adjecStive his after female, collec- 
 *' tive, or plural nouns.*' But to this I (hould reply 
 that, though fuch a way of fpeaking be ungrammatical,. 
 and may therefore to grammarians appear ^//^/y^T/Wu unna- 
 tural, it is a natural^ a 'vcry natural way of fpeaking among 
 an ignorant people, whofe language is not yet brought 
 into any form, and who may be fup|X)fed toexprefs their 
 thoughts to each other much in the fame manner in which 
 we talk to babies : and it is not to be imagined that, in 
 improving the Englifh language, our later ancefton, the 
 more immediate defcendents of our remote forefathers, 
 have banifhed all the rude idioms it contained. 
 
 The French to this day have a way of fpeakin^*, which 
 is fomcthing funilar. Inilead of faying Is your father at 
 hofnc ? — Is that affair ended ? they fay, Tovr father^ is he 
 at home ? — That affaW^ is '7 ended ? where father and af" 
 fair are nominatives without any verb. Nay, we our- 
 felves likewife, where we would I'peak with an emphafis, 
 and be particularly intelligible, often ufe exprellions of 
 the fame turn. A counfellor, in pleading, inftead of That 
 man didfo andfo^ would not fcruple to fay, That man he 
 didfo andfo^ and, in queftioning a witnefs, inftead of h 
 the pr if oner at the bar the fvery man f The pr if oner at the 
 har^ is he the very ?nan f 
 
 Mr. Johnfon proceeds thus. " We fay likewife the 
 ^^ foiindatiotis flrcngth^ the diamond'* s lufire^ the ^Mintcr*s 
 ^'' fe<verify. But in thefe cafes his may be underftood, he 
 ** and his having been formerly applied to neuters, in the 
 *' place now fupplied by // and its. 
 
 This feems to favour my above conjecture, that he and 
 his were originally applied likewife to females : of which 
 if we have no example in any of the writings of our an- 
 ceftors, the realon may be that the word fe was invented^ 
 long before /V, and at a time too remote for any of their 
 then writings to have come down to us. What makes it 
 highly probable that, fuppofing the word he to have been 
 
 originally 
 
PREFACE. xi 
 
 originally mafculine, feminine and neuter, Jlje is the fenior 
 of fV, is that, there being a far greater likenefs between 
 males and females, who are capable of the fame actions, 
 and liable to the fame accidents, with each other, than be- 
 tween males and neuters, the word he was much more fre- 
 quently mifunderftood, when fpoken of a male or of a fe- 
 male, than when fpoken of any neuter objed; and, confe- 
 quently, a feminine pronoun became fo much the more 
 necelfary. 
 
 So far then, in my apprehenlion, there feems to be no 
 ground to believe or to fufped that this s is not a contrac- 
 tion of the word his. But Mr. Johnfon adds as follows : 
 
 *' This termination of the noun feems to conilitute a 
 ** real genitive, indicating poiTeilion. It is derived to us 
 '* from thofe who declined afmith^ of a 
 
 *'' fm'tth^ fmlths-y and fo in two others of their fe- 
 
 *' ven declenfions." 
 
 Here is indeed, to all appearance, an objection to the com- 
 mon opinion ; but how far it militates I cannot judge, know- 
 ing nothing of the language from whence the three words 
 are taken, which, in the pafTage juft quoted, are inferted 
 where I have left blank fpaccs. Nor do I know all the 
 letters^ nor even what the language is. But I fuppofe it 
 to be the Saxon. I perceive, however, that the plural num- 
 ber, and the genitive of the lingular, end with the fame 
 letter, which I fuppofe to be an .r. This, as I faid ht- 
 ioxt^Jiaggcrs^ if it does not abfolutely conmnce me. But. 
 then I fhould be glad to know v/hether that language has 
 the word/6/i in the fame lignii'ication that it bears in ours, 
 or any other monofyllable ending with an j, and that has 
 no other confonant. If fo, the s at the end of the geni- 
 tive, in fome of the decleniions of that language, may not 
 improbably be a contraction of fuch word, and therefore 
 we have Hill the fame reafon as before to confider that let- 
 ter at the end of the Englifh genitive as a contraction 
 of his f . 
 
 Mr. Johnfon adds *^ It is a further confirmation of this 
 *' opinion, that in the old poets both the genitive and the 
 
 t Since the time of my writing this, I have learnt that the word his 
 ^as really the fame fignification in the Saxon as in the Engliih. 
 
 '' plural 
 
xli PREFACE. 
 
 *< plural were longer by a fyllable than the original word. 
 *' Knitis for knighis in Chaucer ; Icavis for leagues in 
 *' Spenfer." 
 
 If plurals and genitives thus lengthened are to be found 
 only in poets, this argument does not feem to be of any 
 great weight, conlidering the liberties poets are apt to 
 take, either to foften or to animate their flyle. 
 
 Upon the whole, I know not well what to think of the 
 matter, but am rather inclined to take it frill in the light 
 that I have hitherto done. Nor do I fee why the notion 
 tliat a certain letter, often occuring at the end of words, 
 is a contraction of another word, fhould become lb unlver- 
 lal if it were not really fo. 
 
 I (hall only add that it is fome mortification to me not 
 to be entirely of the fame opinion with Mr. Johnfon,whom 
 I fuppofe to be a man of as good fenfe as any in the king- 
 dom, and whofe abilities I honour f . 
 
 In the beginning of the difcourie to his Majefty, I 
 have faid that our writers abound with incorreClnefTes and 
 barbarifms ; for which I there fuppofe the eflablilhment 
 of an academy of Belles Lettres might in a great meafure 
 be a cure. I make no doubt that the academy of Paris 
 has contributed not a little to the refining the French 
 tongue, there being an amazing difference between the 
 French of an hundred and ten years ago, and that of forty 
 years before. The former is quite modern, the other an 
 antiquated language. It was, I think, alx)ut the year 
 1630 that academy was inftituted. The members of it have 
 not been, however, quite fo adtive as they ought in their 
 endeavours to abolilh barbarous exprellions. Can we fup- 
 pofe that ifall who have ever belonged to that academy had 
 conflantly, both infpe.ikingandwriting, rejected the abfurd 
 phrafes oi rft g-.-yrcsfalu^ and auprlx de^ mentioned above, 
 and perilled in pronouncing and writingyiz//// and auprcs 
 dcy can we fuppofe, I fay, (efpecially fo many of thefe 
 academicians being celebrated authors) that thefe laft ex- 
 prellions would not long before now have become univer- 
 
 t Upon feeing what the Author of the Introdn(ftion to Englifh Gram- 
 mar lays heievipon, I have been incUnei tp alter my opinion. I >vculd 
 not, however, cancel the arguments I have ufed in this preface, becaufe 
 I thi.ik them plauf.lle, 
 
 fal? 
 
PREFACE. xi 
 
 lal ? One man alone, who oppofes a \\4iole nation, by per- 
 ^iHng in what is in itfelf ever lb right, for the moft part 
 makes himfelf ridiculous. But luch a refpectable body as 
 this would have a great weight. The members would 
 keep one another in countenance ; and the world, con- 
 fcious of their having reafon on their iide, and being at 
 the fame time awed by their authority, would not fail to 
 concur with them and to follow their example. Who can 
 imagine that the Latin tongue would have fo degenerated 
 as it did between the time of Cicero and that of Seneca, 
 had there been in Rome a numerous fociety of men of 
 parts and learning, who had fet themfclves as a barrier 
 againil the admiffion of unnatural or ill-founding expref- 
 iions, and had endeavoured not only to maintain, but even 
 to improve, the purity and elegance of flyle of the Au- 
 guilan age ? 
 
 If therefore an academy of Belles Lettres fhouid ever 
 be formed in London, it were to be willed that the mem- 
 bers, among v/hom we mull fuppofe will of courfe be the 
 iineil writers of the age, would, whenever they concur in 
 opinion that an anomalous expreliion has nothing of that 
 unaccountable pleafingnefs which irregular phrafes fome- 
 times have, but, on the contrary, an aukward abfurdity 
 that will always ilare us in the face, that they would, I 
 fay, come to a refolution among themfelves never to make 
 ufe of fuch expreliion. Should the language, at the fame 
 time, feem to want a more elegant ons to convey the {qw- 
 timent, who fo fit for the inventing it as thefe people, a 
 part of whofe very trade is elegance and propriety of dic- 
 tion? Therellof the nation, according to what I fiid be- 
 fore, would not fail to follow them, fooner or later, in 
 the ufe of the one, and difufe of the other. 
 
 This, and the inventing lingle words of a pleaiing found, 
 to exprefs ideas, for which v/e have no elegant phraies, 
 feem to be the moft that can be done for the improving 
 an old and fettled language: for, as to the new-moulding 
 2t, and altering its general form, it is a thing impolUble. 
 
 Should acertainnumberof gentlemen of ourtvv^o univer- 
 
 iities be admitted members of this academy, which, as I 
 
 have faid in my Difcourfe to the King, feems to be no 
 
 no more than what good-manners would require, they 
 
 b might 
 
xIt PREFACE- 
 
 might belittle lefs ufeful than if they refided hcre^ acor- 
 refpondence being fo ealily kept up between tbc?n and 
 the nieml>ers living in London. I'hey might prefently 
 give their feveral opinions upon any thing" flarted here, 
 ^n^y in their turn, communicate whatever had been firtl 
 fuggelled among themfelves. 
 
 Werefuch an academy really fub^lfting, and (what has 
 been often talked of) a new theatre ereded in London, it 
 would be a fatisfudion, as I apprehend, to all perfons of 
 tarte to have that theatre in feme degree under the direc- 
 tion of the members of this academy. If players were 
 o'jliged to hearken to the admonitions of men fo judicious 
 as we are to fuppofe mod of thefe members would be, they 
 would not run not, and be guilty of the (Irange abfurdi- 
 ties they often are. I have given in my Remarks an in- 
 flmce or two of the grofs ignorance of fome of them in 
 tlieir making ufe of improper words. Thefe perhaps are 
 not adors of the higheft reputation. Bat even the moft 
 eminent among them, and fuch as the world is complaifant 
 enough to call firjl-ratc performers^ will fonietimcs turn 
 all fenfe topfy-turvy by an injudicious deliver)-. Othello 
 fays to Ligo, 
 
 '7/V yet to knoi\: (ivhich^ *ivhen Ihicii' that loafting is an 
 h€7iour^ I Jhall promulgate) I fetch my life and being from 
 vicn of royal Jiege, 
 
 Can any thing be more inteHigil»le than this ? One 
 would imagine every pcrfon, not dellitute of underlland- 
 ing, muft fee, at firil fight, that thefe words, placed in their 
 natural order, and without any attempt at apomp of didion, 
 fland thus, ^Tis yet to kno^zv /fetch my Ufe and being from men 
 of rryal fege y ^K^hich I fall promulgate^ n\?hc7i 1 k7io'VJ teat 
 haajtnig is an honour. And yet the jull and judicious 
 Quin, as he was often cr.lled, pronounced this, for many 
 years before his retreat, as though the words / fmll pro- 
 mulga'e were not included in the parenthefis, but belonged 
 to 1 fetch my life and being. For inftance, 
 
 'tis yet to hioiv^ (^vchich^ ^x:hen I kno^Jj that loafing is 
 an hoficur) I fhall promulgate I fetch 7?iy life a7id bei7igfrotn 
 men of royal fege : which is as much as to fay, ^Tzsyet to 
 hiozv Ifhallpro-mulgate that I fetch my Ufe and being fro77Z 
 men of royal fi^g^ i v^huh^ 'when I ktioiM that boafing is an 
 
 honour^ 
 
PREFACE. XV 
 
 honour^ and is as complete nonfenfe as it is polTible to 
 utter f . 
 
 Lady Brute, after fome altercation with her hufband, 
 fays to him, What is the rea/'nn that you ufe me as you da 
 of late f It once ^x^as other^wife, Tou married me for Icue, 
 Mrs. Prltchard ufed, in pronouncing thefe lail words, to 
 lay the emphaiis upon ?ne and lo^vc — yo7i ?narried Vl^ for 
 LOVE. — Herein ihe quite altered Lady Brute's fenfe. She 
 fhould have la^d them upon married and lo^oe. By hei 
 laying anemphaiis upon me, flie feemed to make a com- 
 pririfon between his motive for marrying her^ and his mo- 
 tive for m?iXYymg fo??2e former "iivff ', which is wrong- Lad/ 
 Brute ought to pronounce thefe words in a manner, thcit 
 exprei^es the d.tiercnce between his 7to^\j treatment of her, 
 and his treatm.ent of her at the ti?nc he 7i?arried her. Sir 
 John, indeed, in his reply, ought to put an emphalis 
 upon me. He malces anfwer And you 7ne for ?no7icy. Here 
 ought to be three emphafes, one uponj/^;?/, another upon 
 me^ and the third upon 7?io?uy: for his you flands oppofed 
 to her YOU, his me to her ME, and his money to her 
 
 LOVE. 
 
 In the play of Meafure for Meafure, Angelo, vice- 
 gerent of the Duke of Vienna during the feigned abfence 
 of this Duke, imprifons Claudio, a young gentleman, 
 aud threatens him with death ; but lignifies to Ifabella, 
 lifter of Claudio, that, if fne will yield herfelf up to his 
 embraces, he will give her brother both his life and li- 
 berty. Ifabella, expreffing to Claudio her indignation at 
 this propofal, fays 
 
 Ohy zvere it hut my life^ Vd throvj it dovon for your de» 
 ll'vcrance as frankly as a fin, 
 
 Mrs. Cibber, in pronouncing this, always laid a flrong 
 vcmphafis upon my, and funk her voice upon life ; by 
 which ihe deftroyed the fenfe of what Ihe faid. The em. 
 phafis ought tQ be laid not upon my, but upon life : fo^ 
 
 t Barry, at his firft appearance in London, pronounced thefe words 
 in the fame manner as Qjiin; whom, without doubt, he copied. But, 
 upon my fending him an anonymous letter, and (hewing him the abfur- 
 djty of fuch pronunciation, he immediately delivered them otherwiie. 
 I never wrote to Qjjin, becaule, from what I had heard of the man, I 
 judged him too opiniated to pay any regard to the admonition. 
 
 b 2 the 
 
xvi PREFACE. 
 
 the meaning is I ^vojild ivHUngly gln^e pf/y lite to fanje 
 you^ hut ca7inot confent to git'cup my HONOUR. 
 
 Now, if admired adors are capable of mifapprehending 
 pafTages fo very plain and intelligible, what room for cen- 
 fare mufl we fuppofe there is in the performance of their 
 inferiors! And is it right to fiiifer thefe people thus to 
 mangle the drama? A theatre fhould be confidered in the 
 light of a public fchool. Nothing fliould be delivered 
 there, but with the utmoft propriety and precilion ; and 
 there ought to be appointed a certain number of men of 
 approved parts and judgment, authorifed to take cogni- 
 zance of the errors of thefe aftors, and to oblige them to 
 corre(ft themfelves. I am as fenfible as any man can be 
 of the real merit of Garrick : his talents, both for Co- 
 medy and Tragedy, are amazing. — In many fcenes of the 
 latter he is even tranfporting; but to admire the ^jchole of 
 his performance is to be llark blind. Among other cir- 
 cumilances, the ftage would have no little obligation to 
 him for h iving baniflied the ftiflf manner in which pro- 
 logues were formerly delivered, if what he has introduced 
 in the room of it were not likewife cenfurable. His acft- 
 ing the fenfe of every word has certainly, as Theophilus 
 Cibber has already obfen'cd, too much of the Pantomime, 
 and is veiy unnatural in every charadler, but that of a 
 buffoon. But it is no uncommon thing for people to be- 
 come unnatural by over-ading nature. Gefture ought 
 to aflift and fupport fpeech, but not to bear an equal part 
 with it. 
 
 How often, and yet to how little purpofe, has Garrick: 
 been reproved for making a full Hop in the middle and at 
 the end of lines in tragedy, whether there be any Hop in 
 the fenfe or not ; by which he fo frequently makes non- 
 fen fe of what he utters ! 
 
 I could never admire him, as many people have always 
 done, in Ranger and Benedic. By a to^ great defire of ap- 
 pearing natural and eafy, he throws a lownefs into both of 
 thefe charadcrs ; and he makes the former, which is in 
 itfelf a very inlignificant one, quite naufeous and con- 
 temptible. 
 
 In Archer he is in fome meafure guilty of the fame 
 fault ; and he does not make this character by far {o 
 elegant a one as the poet intended it. In fome of the 
 
 fcenes 
 
PREFACE. xvii 
 
 fcenes too Ke plays the buffoon. He feems to make a jeft 
 of Aimvvell in his manner of lighting him to his chamber; 
 which circumfl.ince might be fufficient to give the inn- 
 keeper (for Boniiuce is prefent) a fufpi:ion thit they are 
 not really mailer and fervant. Where he breaks in upon 
 Lady Bountiful, Mrs. Sullen and Dorinda, and informs 
 them of his mailer's lud 'en illnefs, inflead of behaving fo 
 as to m ike the old lady believe the illnefs real, which it is 
 his bufin'^rs to da, he plays the antic in fuch a manner 
 that Ihe mufl be an old woman indeed not to fufpe6t it 
 feigned. 
 
 In the part of Bayes, in w^hich he fo highly delights 
 the fhilling-gailery, he is too much the Merry-Andrew, 
 and exhibits little or nothing of the delicate abfurdity of 
 the charader, excepting in the firft act, where he performs 
 admirably well. 
 
 An ae%r often wrongly concludes, from his having made 
 an audience laugh, that he has i:iven that audience plea- 
 fure. Ignorant people (and of fuch conlllls the bulk of 
 all large aflembiies not compofed of fele6ted perfons) will 
 frequently laugh, where they fee prepofterous actions or hear 
 prepoilerous thoughts, though they feel no pleafure at all : 
 but, perceiving there is a jell intended, and not knowing 
 but there may really be a left in the cafe, they laugh, for 
 fear of having their underftanding called in quefiion. I 
 am convinced that Garrick would pleafe more, 7uuc/j morcj 
 than he now" does, if he mide the charader of Ar.her 
 more elegant, and did not play the buffoon in any one; 
 fcene, though perhaps nobody would laugh ^ or, to fpeak 
 m .re propeny, nobody would afc^ to laugh. Let any 
 ma'i of fenfe read the Stratagem, and he will find nothing 
 to laugh at in what Ci.mcs from Archer, though the whole 
 of wh .r he '-ly^ excites •SeerialncrG, and not a few of his 
 fpeechvs may raife a At.: ,e, A ^ to the charac'J-er of Bayes^ 
 it is what not c^^cry one is c^ipaule of encering into; and, 
 if the RcheiLi-fai were n' -yed "n a jull minner, and not 
 made a Earrlemy-tair .iiui e Inni^^nt, the mob of the 
 aiid:ru..c wo.ild trunk it ika u:.^^. This comedy is fi)oilr, 
 to all peopi- )!: tafte, not only by B?.yes*s -acting the Mer- 
 ry-Andrew, but by the wrong conception of thofe who 
 perform the parrf of th- p: yers. The ituthor intended 
 thefe players as mea of tok-rable underilandini;-, and ca- 
 b 3 ^ ^ ^able 
 
xvili PREFACE. 
 
 pable of feeing the abfurdity of Bayes ; which circum- 
 flance renders the comedy fo much the more entertain- 
 ing : whereas the people, who play thefe parts, feem to 
 vie with Bayes in blundering and wrong-headednefs ; and, 
 together with him^ they make fuch a hotch-potch of non- 
 fenfe that the true humour of the play is entirely de- 
 llroyed. 
 
 I know not whether if was Garrick or Mrs. AVoffington, 
 that was the beginner of a flrangely improper and veiy 
 priggifh way of going oft the ftage at the conclulion of a 
 fcene ; but they were both early in it, and fet a bad ex- 
 ample to the reft of the players, many of whom have been 
 injudicious enough to imitate them. An ac^or ought to 
 maintain his theatrical charader till he is entirely out of 
 iight of the audience. Gariick ought not to be Garrick 
 till the fcenes hide him. Indead of this, Mrs. W offing- 
 ton and he took it into their heads long isgo, how fcrious 
 foever the part were that they were playing, to trip off the 
 ilage with a bridled head and an affected alertnefs. If one 
 had a mind to be ill-natured, one might fuppofe this was 
 in order to give the fpectators an idea of the livelinefs of 
 their private character. Mrs. Gibber was fometimes guilty 
 of the fame failt; but Mrs. Pritchard never was. 
 
 It is now many years ago th.t Garrick introduced among 
 hisac%rs (for they arc too implicit to fuppofe anything can 
 be wrong which they fee him do) another ilrange, and, iu 
 my opinion, very uncouth habit,viz. the raifmg the two heels 
 alternately, lb as to have continuidly either the one or the 
 other of the feet reffing upon its fore-part. I have fome 
 fufpicion that he was advifed to this by fome not-rightly- 
 conceiving painter or fculptor. It is true that to Hand 
 equally upon the two legs is ungraceful. This is the pof- 
 ture of old and of weakly people : thofe who are young 
 and ffrong, feldom Hand in that manner, unlefs they are re- 
 markably aukward. Where we thus rcil chiefly upon one , 
 Ic-, the knee of the other fide of the body becomes, of 
 courfe, a little bent ; and, if we raife the heel of that fide 
 from off the ground, it becomes ftill more bent. Now 
 this waving pofition of the thigh, leg, and foot has its 
 beauty ; and, at the fame time, the thus relling chiefly 
 on one leg caufes fomething of that waving in the whole 
 pcrfon. It is not without reafon that Hogarth in his Ana- 
 ^ lyfis 
 
PREFACE. x'lx 
 
 lyfis calls the fomevvhat-curving line the line oflcauty: for 
 flraight lines in the fhape of the bodies of animals and in their 
 attitudes are difagreeable. Accordingly, the ancient fculp- 
 tors, whofe ideas of beauty appear to have been fo juft, have 
 taken care to avoid thefe flr.iight lines. Icannot help thinking, 
 however, that herein they have fometimes departed a lit- 
 tle from nature, and that, in contriving for their figures 
 this waving attitude, they have here and there fallen into 
 an cxcefs; wltnefs, among the reil:, (I here fpeak to thofe 
 only who have fome knowledge of the antique ilatues) 
 him of the two brothers, Cailor and Pollux, whofe hand 
 is placed upon the other's flioulder. Perhaps too the fine 
 figure of Antinous may be a little faulty in this refped. 
 As for thr.t mafter-piece, Laocoon and his two fons, the 
 extreme bodily pain, they are fuppofed to be in, is a fuf- 
 ficient plea for the violence of their contorlions. But, if 
 the ancient fculptors have now and then made the atti- 
 tudes of their figures fomewhat more waving than proba- 
 bility will warrant, mcdern fculptors and painters have 
 been guilty of the fame fault in at leail as great a degree. 
 As to the habit of the Drury-Lane adors mentioned above, 
 and which I have faid I fufpe6t to have been at firfl owe- 
 ing to the advice of fome painter or fculptor, it is a very 
 aukward one. To ti^ke care not to fland eq.ually upon the 
 two legs, unlefs it be in the character of an old man or wo- 
 man, is indeed right ; but the raiiin^^' the heels alternately, 
 andreftingfor jull fo many feconds chiefly upon one leg, and 
 then falling into the counter-polition for the fame fpaee 
 of time, is flifF and unnatural, and has a difagreeable air 
 of ihidiednefs. There are many different pofitions in 
 which the legs may be placed ; and here, as in all the 
 rell of his deportment, an a6lor ought to avoid too much 
 famenefs. 
 
 Before I conclude upon this article, let me obferve 
 that, in flanding, the heel ought feldom to be railed, and 
 never for any length of time. To keep it fo raifed is un- 
 natural; becaufe to fland for any time with one of the 
 legs bearing fo great a part of the weight of the body, as 
 it mufl then bear, is very painful. It is further to be ob- 
 ferved that the foot, of which the heel is thus raifed, 
 ought be drawn back, and never to advance farther than, 
 nor even equally with, the other foot, thefe two poli* 
 
 tions 
 
XX PREFACE 
 
 tions being unnatural and ungraceful. MofTop was fre- 
 quently guilty of this, and has often put me in mind of 
 a horfe advancing one of his fore-legs, and refting it 
 lightly upon his toe; which the poor anim il does, to re- 
 lieve a tender foot. When I fay that the heel ought ne- 
 ver to continue raifed for any length of time, I me^n, un- 
 lefs the body be partly fuftained by fomething upon which 
 the perfon le.ns; for, in this cafe, the chiefly-fupporrlng 
 leg bears fo much the lefs weight. There is a fine an- 
 tique ftatue of a fawn leaning, and playing upon a iiute, 
 with one foot thrown over the other, and reiling upon it3 
 fore-part, which makes a very pleafing poflure, and gives 
 the figure a linking air of eafe and nr.turalnefs. 
 
 Having taken the liberty thus publicly to cenfurc this 
 celebrated ac'tor, whom, upon the whole, I verv greatly ad- 
 mire, it feems but juft that I fliould, at the fame time, 
 publicly confcA myfelf unicr an obligation to him, he 
 having, during the two feafons immedi.itely preceding the 
 time of his going abroad, granted me the liberty of his 
 houfe* He does not knovv me oiherwife than by name; 
 but, being apprized that I was a great lover of theatrical 
 entertainments, and fufpec^ting, without doubt, that I 
 could ill aftbrd money for pleafurc, he caufed it to be lig- 
 nificd to me that I niight fend to him for orders for any 
 part of the houfe whenever I pleafed. 
 
 This obligation was the chief caufe of my committing 
 to the iiames, foon after, a great number of Remarks that 
 I had been making for four or five years upon the feveral 
 performances of our players; ard which I had intended to 
 digell:, and to publiih. But I was more kiupulous then 
 than I have (hewn myfelf now, and was unwilling to cri- 
 ticife a man to whom I flood indebted. I have heartily 
 repented of it fince ; for either I fiatter myfelf, or 1 fnould 
 have made many obfervations that would have been of 
 fome ufe; a thing of which I am convinced the author. of 
 the Rofciad was utterly incapable. I'his was a fuperficial 
 fellow^ who, being puft up by the injudicious applauses 
 of the public, became at length the moll: injolent aid in- 
 fufferable of all coxcombs. His underftanduig was trifling; 
 he had a fmail ftiare of wit, and a middling talent for ver- 
 fification. What is to be thought of the judgment of a 
 aian who makes a bare mention of that excellent come- 
 dian 
 
PREFACE. xxi 
 
 dian Yates, (and that rather with an appearance of cbT- 
 eileem than oihei-vvife,) and is, at the lame time, an ad- 
 mirer of the noify, unmeaning- Blakes? But this is not 
 to be wondered at in a critic, who, while he defpifes Ma- 
 fon, looks upon Lloyd as a poet and a genius; Lloyd, whofe 
 works may not be improperly called A chy7i2Lcal ExfraH of 
 
 InJipicVty the very ^ilnrejjence ofNothingnefs* 
 
 Had I ever reduced into form, and publifhed the Re- 
 marks I have juft mentioned, I fliould have been much 
 more fparing of my encomiums upon feveral admired per- 
 formers (among others, upon Quin, Mrs. Gibber, and 
 Mrs. Woihngton) than the world in general has been. 
 As to the lafi: of thefe three, though llie was undeniably 
 capital in fome very few characters, particularly in Cla- 
 rilla in the Confederacy, and in Lady Dainty, I looked 
 upon her as one of the falfeil and moil unnatural adtrefles I 
 had ever i^tw^ 
 
PREFACE 
 
 TO THE PRESENT EDITION". 
 
 X HE Remarks were firfl: publilhed in 1770. That 
 edition had a tolerable fale ; and I know not why I have 
 fo lon^ deferred the grivin^ a fecond. I have now 
 almoft doubled the numoer o^ Remarks, and both hope 
 and believe my book will be of fome ufe. 
 
 I iiere declare, as in the Preface to the firfl edition, that 
 the performance is entirely my own. I have had no af- 
 lillance from any friend ; nor have I borrowed from any 
 work. I even did not know, till the late Dr. Salter Ihewed 
 me the Introducnon to the Englifh Grammar, that any 
 thing of the kind had ever appeared among us. I then 
 perceived that fome (nut many) of the obferv^itions I had 
 m.ide, had been already made by the author of that work. 
 On die other hand, there are obfervations in a fubfequent 
 edition of the Introduction, which I had made in my firll 
 edit'on. But I have no fufpicion that any of thofe obfer- 
 vations were borrowed from ?nc. Whoever will give him- 
 felf the trouble to compare the two books will, indeed, be 
 inclined to wonder that they do not oftener dcted the fame 
 incorrectneiies than they aCtLially do. 
 
 My book was lirit taken notice of by the Critical Re- 
 viewers, who fpoke in commendation of it. 
 
 The Monthly Reviewers commented largely upon it 
 in their Review for Auguil, 1771, and quoted many Re- 
 marks, which they feemed to approve ; but afterwards ex- 
 cepted to certain expreffions which I had made ufe of. 
 SomCjof thefe ftridures are,I confefs, juif; but the greater 
 part, if I have any judgment, captious and abfurd. 
 
 " He ufes," fay they, *' the barbarous phrafe fome 
 
 Some fe^v is by no means a barbarous phrafe. The au- 
 thor of the Introduction to Englifh Grammar, a far better 
 judge of ilyle than thefe Reviewers, ufes it not infrequent- 
 ly. Some fei'O is in many places (where a fcnx) would be 
 infipid) the only phrafe that can be ufcd with any grace. 
 
 Js 
 
xxlv PREFACE. 
 
 yfs alfo is another expreirion which difpleafes them ; and 
 without any jud reafon. The exprellion is a good one, 
 jind unexceptionable. 
 
 *' '7m," lay they, ** is a barbarous contra^lion of// /j." 
 
 It may be fo in general; but there are many places, 
 where '//j is much better than // /V, and where // is would 
 be flat. '7:v/3fi///6/?/^///V/;rr, fays Othello. How poor 
 and fpirltlefs would be // =ivas II Where we are fuppofcd to 
 fpeak haflily and with paffion, the contraction is necellary, 
 and the // would be unnatural. 
 
 About half a fcore more of their ftridures appear to me 
 as injudicious as thefe ; but to cite them all would take 
 me up too much time, and would be no entertainment 
 to the reader. 
 
 REMARKS 
 
REMARKS 
 
 O N T H E 
 
 ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 
 
 . ■ 1. OPPOSITE. 
 
 JL H E word oppojttc is frequently ufed as a prepofition, 
 to lignify o'ver-agahift, 
 
 EXAMPLES. 
 
 He li'ves oppojiic the Excba?tge : thofe tzvo men U've op- 
 pofltc each other: Whitehall is oppojite the Horfe -Guards* 
 This is not good Englifh. — It is necefTary to add to oppofit^ 
 the word to. — He Unjes oppojite to the Exchange, — Thofe t'v:^ 
 men live oppojite to each other ^^^Wljiteh all is oppojite to the 
 Horfe-Guards* 
 
 II. w n I T E. 
 
 X HIS word is often ufed (efpecially by people in trade) 
 with a dative cafe following it, without the prepofition to 
 prefixed to that dative, even though there be no accufa- 
 tive after it. 
 
 EXAMPLES. 
 He is gone into the country^ and has promifed to ivrite 
 me often*-— 'They are fo punBual in their corrcfpondence that 
 they ifcrite each other every "week, — / luont fail to -voritc vo7i. 
 foon. This is very barbarous expreffion. The prepofition 
 is abfolutely neceflary. 
 
 EXAMPLES. 
 He is gone into the country.^ and has tromifcd to ^Jritc fit 
 vie often, — They are Jo punBual in their corrcfpondence that 
 they %vrite to each other every '■ivcek,'^^! ^vcill not fail to <^Mrite 
 ioyGufooiu 
 
 A Indeed, 
 
5 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 Indeed, where an accufative cafe follows the dative, the 
 prepofition becomes uimecefHiry, and Is feldom ufed. For 
 inihince; hc^-x^rites me <^j:ord that the affair is JiniJJxd, — We 
 ivritc each other very long letters, — I have 'written her a long 
 account of that tranfa^ion. 
 
 Nor is the prepolition abfolutely necelTary, where the 
 accufative of the relative pronoun ^xhich or that is fup- 
 pofcd, without being exprefled. 
 
 EXAMPLES. 
 l^he letter I ivrote him never came to hand, — Jl.ye nezvs I 
 Jhall ivrite her to-night vjill pleafe her greatly, — Here the 
 pronoun relative nx.wich^ or that^ is fuppofed : for the fenfe 
 is, the letter that (or ^Jjhich) I ^vrote him,, ne^ver came to 
 hand, — The nei\:s^ that (or v:hich) I JJpall ^zvrite her to^ 
 nighty ixj ill pleafe her greatly, 
 
 in. OmrJJion of the 'Nominative of the relativePronouns w HO, 
 
 THAT and WHICH. 
 
 J. HE nominative of the relative pronouns ivho^ that 
 and ^x'hich^ is frequently omitted by bad writers, (and 
 ibmetimes, though rarely, even by good ones) and left to 
 be fuppofed. Inllead, for inflance, of faying, the man^ v:ho 
 lived there lately^ is removed, — The article^ that ivas inferted 
 in ycflcrdays paper ^ is not true, — The ^cvine, ivhich pleafes 
 vie hcjl^ is claret ; they would fay, the man,, lived there 
 lately^ is removed, — The article^ ivas inferted in yeferday^s 
 paper ^ is not true, — The -iv/ne, pleafes me hcf^ is claret, — This 
 is very bad expreirion, and renders the fentence obfcure. 
 
 There are, however, in Shakefpeare, and other great 
 writers, fome few inilances, where the omilfion adds to 
 the fplrit of the fentence, without cauling any obfcurity. 
 It may likewife now and then be borne with in common 
 conver.ation. Yet in general it has a bad effect in conver- 
 fation, and a flill much worfe in writing, 
 
 IV. AS FOLLOW ufed for as follows. 
 
 OoME good writers (among others, Addlfon) exprefs them- 
 felves in this manner, The articles ivcre as follo^.v, — 
 The clrcumjiances of the affair are as follov:»''-^The condi" 
 tions of the agreement are as follov.\ 
 
 I conceive 
 
ElsTGLISH LANGUAGE. 
 
 I conceive this expreffion to be wrong, and that as foU 
 Ic^lVs ought to be here ufed, and not as follow. What 
 deceives thefe writers is that the preceding fubftantive is 
 in the plural number. But this fubftantive is by no 
 means a nominative cafe to follozv or follows. If the verb 
 fellow^ or follows^ have any nominative, it is the pro- 
 noun //, which is fuppofed, and is here unrelative, as in 
 many other cafes: in thefe, for inilance; // is ^ery hot 
 %\}eathcr, — It Is cold. 
 
 The fenfe then is, The articles were as it here follows, — 
 The circu77ifla7ices of the afair are as it here follows,-' — The 
 conditions of the agreement are as it here follows, Confe- 
 LYdewtXy follows ought to be ufed, and not follow. Indeed, 
 if the word fuch preceded the as^ follow would be right, 
 and not follows ', becaufe y}^6.6 as would be equivalent to 
 thefe w^hich, 
 
 V. El T for THROW. 
 
 JL HE word hit is commonly ufed in Oxfordfhire, and 
 fome of the adjacent counties, even by people of good 
 education, to fignify tofs, throw or Jiing, It is necelTaiy 
 to inform them that to hit lignifies to Jlrihy and not to 
 tofs or throw, 
 
 VI. The words AGO and since. 
 
 JL HESE two w^ords are not to be ufed together. It is 
 
 not aho^ve two 7nonths ago fince he left the univerfity, — // is 
 three years ago f nee his father died, — Thefe exprellions do 
 not make fenfe ; the word. JInce being equivalent to ago that. 
 The proper expreffions are, // is not aho've two months 
 ago that he left the uni'verfity, — // is not aho^e two 7nonihs 
 Jince he left the uni^erfty, — It is three years ago that his fa- 
 ther died, — // is three years fince his father died, 
 
 VII. CHAY. •» 
 
 1 HIS word is ufed by great numbers of people to fig- 
 nify chaife. What deceives them is that, the letter/ in 
 the word chaife being the laft letter that is pronounced, they 
 take the word to be in the plural number; confequently, 
 they imagine that the fmgular number mufl be chay. But 
 A 2 chaife 
 
4 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 (haife is fingular, and the plural is chaifes.-^He Jcetps m 
 thaife, — He keeps tivo chalfcs, — Thefe are the proper ex- 
 preflions. As to chay^ there is no fuch word, 
 
 VIII. WENT. 
 
 JL HE word TiY«^is not to be iifed with ha^-jey ha^l or ha-v* 
 ing, — IJhould have ^^vent, — If I had ^^-veut. — Having -ive/if. 
 This is bad Englifh. 
 
 The proper word is gone, — I Jhoidd have gone, — If I 
 had gonc.^^Ha'ving gone, 
 
 IX. DIFFERENT TO. 
 
 iJiFFERENT TO is an exprelfion often u fed by goodwHters: 
 yet I cannot help thinking it exceptionable. — This is diffe- 
 rent to that, — They arc different to each other, — Thefe ex- 
 prelTions feem hardly to make fenfe. Is not the word fro?n 
 here more natural than to? and does it not make better 
 fenfe ? For inlhmce; This is different from that, — They are 
 (Lfferent fro?n each other. We do not ufe the word to with 
 the verb; nor do I fee why we fhould ufe it with the ad- 
 jed^ive. If any one fhould fay, This dffcrs to that — they 
 dffer to each other^ the impropriety of the expreilion would 
 be glaring, and would (hock every hearer. I know that 
 cuftom often reconciles improprletie? of this fort ; yet there 
 are fome cafes, where it never reconciles them entirely : 
 lind this appears to me to be one. I would therefore 
 give my vote for different frofrty and would banilh the ex* 
 prelfion of dfferent to. 
 
 X. INGENUITY. 
 
 1 T is aconfiderableblemifli in our language that the word 
 ingejiuity has two fenfes ; for hereby it often becomes un- 
 intelligible. If I hear it faid limply that fuch an one is a 
 man of great ingenuity, how is it pofTible I fhould know 
 the meaning of the expreflion ? It may fignify either that 
 he is -ngenious^ or that he is itigenuous. We have, it is 
 true, many words in Englifh (as there are many in other 
 languages) that have each of them more than one mean- 
 ing; but this feldom occafions any obfcurity, becaufe the 
 fubjecStfpoken of commonly determines the fenfe. With re- 
 gard to the vioidingenuityy u isothenvife ; it being made uf© 
 
I 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 5 
 
 of to iignify two evcellent mental qualities, ahflity and 
 ca7idour^ one is fometimes at a lois to know in which of 
 the two fenfes it is to be taken. It was certainly very ill 
 judged, when the word ingenuity was received into the 
 Englifh language, to give it the iigniiication of ability. It 
 ought, in conformity to its etymology, to imply only can- 
 dour. The fubllantive of the word ingenious ought to be 
 ingeniety^ and not ingenuity^ which ought to be the fubllan- 
 tive only of ingenuous. This word ingeniety (with the ac- 
 cent upon the fyllable ni) would be both ufeful and orna- 
 mental in our tongue. 
 
 I have known Ibme perfons, who, to avoid ambiguity, 
 have made ufe of the word ingenioufnefs. This is not a 
 word much authorlfed by cuilom : yet, as the fenfe of it 
 cannot be millaken, I would not condemn any one that 
 Ihould employ it. 
 
 XI. ANY. NONE. 
 
 In Lancafhire, Chefhire, and fome other north-wed coun- 
 ties, the words any and non^ are vifed adverbially even 
 by perfons of dilLlndion ; the liril to fignify at all^ the 
 other none at all. 
 
 Is Jhc rccon^ered from her ilhefs a/iy ? Would one of thefe 
 gentry fay, meaning is Jhe at all (or /;/ any degree) reeo- 
 'ueredf — 2V<7, fays another, Jhe is reco-vered no7ie, — Surely 
 there cannot be a greater violation of grammar and com- 
 mon fenfe. It is neceifary to Inform thefe north-weflern 
 people of fa{hion that a^y and 7ione have not the fignilica- 
 tions they give them ; that they are adjedives, and are 
 never to be ufed adverbially. 
 
 XII. D E M E A Nr 
 
 JL HIS word is ufed by all the lower people, as well as 
 by great numbers of their betters, to fignify dehafe or lejjcn. 
 It is alfo found in the fame fenfe in bad writers. Richard- 
 fan often prefents his readers with it in his emetic hiitory 
 of Pamela. Nay, if I millake not, I have met with it once 
 or twice in Swift; and I think itlikewife once occurs in my 
 Lord Boiingbroke's '' Oldcaille's Remarks upon Englifh 
 Hiitory,'* If thefe two writers have really employed the 
 A 3 word 
 
6 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 word in that fenfe, it mufl undoubtedly have been throug-h 
 overficfht. They could never be ignorant that to demean 
 iignifies to hchavc^ to comport ; and not to dchafe or hjjcrj. • 
 
 \\ hat caufes the miftake in fo many perfons is the fyl- 
 lable 7nca)u The word nicari iignifying /<?il' and contc?nptlhlc^ 
 and the word jneaniicfs^ lo-ivnefs ; they imagine from thence 
 that to dc?ti€an mufl fignify to ?nake contcmptihlc^ or eajl a 
 Ttieanncfs upon. 
 
 As to the fubilantive demeanour^ it is a word the lower 
 people are not acquainted with. If they were once to get 
 hold on it, I make no doubt they would mifapply it a» 
 jnuch as they do the vei*b. 
 
 XIII. IF IN CASE. 
 
 J- HIS exprefTion, which is the fame as {/'{/', and is confe- 
 quently nonfenfe, is continually in the mouths of the lower 
 people, who feem to have a mighty afteCtion for it, and to 
 think it nervous and elegant. It is likewife not infrequently 
 iifed by many who ought to know better. Yet thefe words 
 would not be improper, provided the //made part of one 
 member of a fentence, and the hi cafe of another. Suppofe 
 I fay, for in fiance, //*, /;/ cafe of a nvar hffiveen France 
 and I1.71 gland ^ the king of Pruffia fipnuld join ^jjith Trance % 
 this is very good fcnfe. Here the //belongs to the king of 
 ¥ri{fjia Jhould join ivith France, while the in cafe belongs 
 to ofavrar het-ween France and Fnglavd : and, in order to 
 make the diftinction, it is ncccfl'ar}^ to put a comma at //, 
 and another at £w^/^«^ ; but, as I have already faid, thefe 
 words, as they are commonly ufed, are nonfenfe. 
 
 XIV. ARRANT. ERRANT. 
 
 ± HESE two words are fometimes confounded by writers. 
 Errant fignifies i\:andring, according to its etymology, 
 but is now feldom or never ufed in that fcnfe, except with 
 the fubftantive knight, — A hiight-erraut. 
 
 Arrant figniiies nicer, dovcnright, and is ufed only in 
 difcommending, unlefs it be in a facetious and bantering 
 llyle. We fay, for example, An arrant fool, an arrant 
 coxcomb, an arrant knave. But nobody fliys, an arrant man, 
 of faife, an arrant modeji man, an arrant man of probity, 
 
 ^'^ ■ 'Yet 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 7 
 
 Yet, in a facetious and bantering- i1:yle,as I have hinted, 
 arrant may be ufed in fpeaking of agreeable and com- 
 mendable qualities. If, for inilance, I am told of feveral 
 vvatticifms uttered by a man from whom I fhould not have 
 expected them, or of exertions of courage by another, 
 there would be no impropriety in my faying, I find he^s an 
 arrant ivit, — JVhy^ hes an arrant here. 
 
 Such authors as confound thefe words feldom ufe ai-ra^it 
 for errant^ but frequently erratit for arrant^ (inflances of 
 which there are in Lord Shaftfbury, and in fome others 
 who pafs for good writers) making it to lignify ?neer^ which 
 is the lignification only of arrant. But, in fpeaking^ the 
 other miilake more generally prevails; arrant being of 
 ten pronounced inifead of frr^«^ ; and efpecially upon the 
 flage, where there is a moll: fhameful ignorance both of 
 grammar and pronunciation. Knlght-arrants are often talked, 
 of there ; but we feldom hear of a knigbt-^rrant, 
 
 XV. A IJWJ^ denoting a Nirmhcr^ joined ivith a Noun Suh' 
 fiati'ue^ 
 
 \V HERE this occurs, though the number be plural, 
 the fubllantive (or' what would be a fubflantive if it were 
 uncompounded) is to be written without an j at the end,. 
 P'or inilance^ The five-hell tan.'ern^ the three-tu?i inn^ a 
 tivcnty-gf^i Jhip^ a four-^joheel cha'fie, Thefe are the pro-^ 
 per expreffions; and not the fivc-helh tavern^ the three- 
 tuns inn.^ a tiventy-gu?is Jhip^ a four-vjheels chaije. 
 
 Yet many people affect, both in writing and fpeaking,. 
 to ufe the /, and feem to value themfelves'upon their ex- 
 traordinary con'edlnefs. But they ought to conlider that, 
 in compound words of this fort, what would be a fubltan- 
 tive, if it flood lingle, is no longer fuch, but is become 
 part of an adje^live. for example, in the inllances here 
 brought, fi'-je-hell^ three-tun^ t^vcenty-giin and four-'whcel^ 
 are adjedives, of which the refpeclive fubflantives are ta- 
 n^ern^ inn^ Jhip and chaije. 
 
 It is true xh.'M fi<ve -hells ^ three-tuns^ t^.venty-guns ^wdifour- 
 ^wheels might as grammatically be ufed as adjedives as 
 five-hell^ three-tun^ &c. but cuftom feems to have deter- 
 mined for the omiffion of the s : the reafon of which may 
 pofTibly be that, where a word ends with two diiTerent con- 
 
 fonantSj 
 
8 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 fonnnts, fliould ihe next word begin with another, the pro- 
 nunciation of theie three confonants would be, in fomc 
 meafare, painful, and the found difpleafing-. 
 
 XVI. ARRIVE. 
 
 1 HIS word, where it is ufed in the proper fenfe, is fol- 
 lowed by the article at^ and not by to, 
 
 EXAMPLES. 
 
 We Jhall arri've at London early, — Ton iviU arri've at 
 your coutitry-hoiife before night, — A pei*fon that Ihould fay. 
 We Jhall arrive to London early, — Tou ivill arri-ve to 
 your country-houfe before night — would nor talk Engiifhe 
 And yet there are people of education ignorant enough to 
 exprefs thcmfclves in this aukward manner. 
 
 In conformity to this rule, it is neceffary to fay arrl^.'r 
 there ^ and not arrive thither ; which lafl expreflion is not 
 good Englifh. 
 
 Yet, where the word arrinr is figurative, to zndat are^ 
 in moft places, ufcd indifferently. He is an-ived at great 
 ferfctVum, — He is arrived to great ferfeHion, Both thefe 
 exprcffions are proper. 
 
 XVII. GET THITHER. GET THERE, GO THITHER* 
 GO THERE. 
 
 A HOUGH arrin^e thither is not good Englifh, get thi* 
 ther is very proper, and is much better than get there. 
 With go and come^ all corred fpe.ikers ufe the words 
 
 thither^ -iL^h'ther and hither, — There ^ ^vhere 'Andihcre^ though 
 commonly ufed, are bad Englifli. 
 
 XVIII. AGAIN. PRIZES, 
 
 Among other inilances of ignorance, that wc meet 
 ivith upon the ftige, is the improper ufe of the words 
 agahi and prizes, — Again is ufed by many of the players 
 inftead ^{aga'njl^ (t fhrewd fign of a very low education) 
 and frizes inftead oi prices. We have them of all pr'^zes,, 
 l-ays Lockit, upon the frage, where Macheath's irons are 
 put on. 
 
 Thefe 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 9 
 
 Thefe people ought to know th^t prices is here the pro- 
 per word, and not frizes. What is paid for the purchafe 
 of anv thing is its price. As to pri-ze^ it fignilies a hooty 
 or capture^ a benefit gained hy a ticket in a lottery y and like- 
 wife the re^voard given to the 'vidlor in a7iy trial ofJJcilL 
 
 One cannot help blufliing for thefe players, to think 
 they muil be told that again iignifies once ?nore^ and that 
 againji means oppofitc (^or oppofed) to. 
 
 XIX. FAMOUS, OR RATHER INFAMOUS. 
 
 X HIS exprellion is found in many authors, who feem to 
 value themfelves not a little upon it, and to think it mighty 
 fmart. He ^j.' as famous^ or rather infamous^ for his cruelty y 
 fays one. — He ivas famous^ or rather infamous^ for his de- 
 iaucheriesy fays another,. — She -voa^ fa?noj-{s^ or rather infa- 
 7nous^for her le^-wdnefs^ fays a third. And yet, in reality, 
 there is no fmartnefs in this. It has nothing of the 
 lively antithelis, which thefe writers imagine it to have* 
 The oppalition between fa?nous and infa7nous lies only 
 in the found, and not in the fenfe ; for thefe two words 
 have not fenfes contrary to each other. Fa7nous iig- 
 nifies rcno'vcnedy much knoivn ; but infa?nqus does not ilg;- 
 nify ohfcure ov unknoixm. It iignifies <vile^ fcandalous^ hafe*. 
 It is true it likevvife imiplies of evil report ; but even in 
 this fenfe it cannot properly be oppofed to famous or re-- 
 fioivncd^ the oppoiite of which is (as I have hinted) ohfcure 
 or unlmo'wn. 
 
 Let us put another phrafe of the fame import in the 
 room of famous^ and we fhall fee the nothingnefs of the 
 thought. For inilance, He ^zvas well known, or rather in^ 
 famous^ for the voi eked nefs of his life. What a poor, un- 
 meaning fpeech is this! and how impertinently does the 
 or rather come in I In fhort, this exprellion q{ famous, or 
 rather infaifious, though it be found in fome tolerable wri- 
 ters, is very childiih -AwiS, filly ; and I would caution every 
 one aoainit the ufe of it. 
 
 XX. HUMOROUS. HUMORSOME. 
 
 X HOUGH humoifo7ne, inflead of hiwiorous, be chiefly 
 heard among the low people, (none of whom, in all pro- 
 
 bability^ 
 
16 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 bability, will ever ftiidy this boo-^, to learn good Engli'ili) 
 yet, as there are few bad expreflions ufed by the vulgar, 
 but what fometimes make their way into better company, 
 it is proper to take notice that the word, which implies 
 co?n'ical^ is hmnorous^ and not humorfo77ie \ the fignifica- 
 tion of which lift word is pecn^'Jh^ froivar^^ bard to pleaj'e. 
 
 There is ext :nt a letter written by Congreve, whereiri 
 he condemns the word hum:nir as made to lignify ^-johat is 
 com'cal or facetious. He feems to aihrm this is not the 
 real meaning of it, and that the true fenfe of huvwur is 
 ivbat is chara5lir''Jiic of a certain tctnper. I do not recol- 
 lecl his very words; but thefe, which I have employed, 
 convey at leall the idea, which, as he contends, ou;;ht to 
 be conveyed by the word humour. So that, according to 
 him, a ilroke, which ch:ira6lerifes a man, and expreiles 
 his peculiar turn of mind, is to be called humour \ and fuch 
 UroVe has nothing the more of humour for exciting mirth. 
 
 Now it is to be confidered that words are nothing at 
 all in themfelves. Thry fignify that, and that only, 
 which, by common confent, is underllood by them : and 
 it is undeniable that the word humour is received by all 
 people of education (and has been fo for a long time) in 
 the fenfe he does not allow it to have. We find inflances 
 of it in Shakefpeare, who wrote above a hundred and fifty 
 years ago. The word then being univerfally underllood 
 to imply ^Mhat excites mirth^ this is of courfe the fignifica- 
 tion of it : to which it is no objedtlon that it alfo bears an- 
 other figniiication, there being many words that have dif- 
 ferent lenfes. 
 
 XXI. Adverhs and Participles improperly disjoined, 
 
 XT is common for people to exprefs themfelves in the 
 following manner. / dnnt hiovcfo ^cll a bred man, — Ton 
 fcldo7n fee fo ^j^cll a made Kvoman, — / iie'ver rode fo ill a gO" 
 ing horfe, — / nc'jer fai^fo poorly a painted plBure, 
 
 This is wrong. The a ought to follow the participle, 
 not to precede it; and the adverb and participle ought to 
 be joined together by a hyphen, and to make but one 
 word. For inftancc, / do7i!t kno-vj fo njjcll-hred a man, — > 
 Toufeldo7n fee fo ^Mcll-made a ^ivo77ian, — I ne-ver rode fo ill" 
 ^oing a horfc-^I never faiv fo poorly-painted a piBurc, 
 
 XXH* 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. ti 
 
 XXIL HAD RETIRED FOR SEVERAL YEARS PAST. 
 
 'W/'e often find in our news-papers priragraphs penned in 
 
 the followinp; manner. Onfuch a day died at Mr, 
 
 'v:ho^ halving acquired a good fortune in hufmcfs^ had retired 
 for fame years paf. 
 
 This is an improper expreflion. Thefe printers ought to 
 fay, either W/6£7, hanji?ig acquired a good fortune^ retired frme 
 years agO'—or, ^\)ho^ ha^jifig acquired a good fortune^ had 
 been retired for fome years paft ; of which two expreifions 
 the firfl is moH eafy and natural. In that which they ufe, 
 the had retired and the for are incompatible with each 
 other, the for here lignifying during* It therefore im- 
 plies that the deceafed had retired during feveral years ; 
 which either has no fenfe at all, or lignifies that he fpent 
 feveral years in the a(ft of retiring. But there is a wide 
 difference hcx.\vt^\\fpe?iding feveral years in the aB of reti- 
 ring^ and l)c:7}g retired (or in retirement) during fe^vcral years* 
 
 It is true the words retire and for are fometimes 
 very properly ufed together: but in this lad: mentioned 
 cafe the word for has not the fignification of during, 
 Suppofe, for inftance, a man h^s danced at a ball till 
 he is flitigued : he fays to a friend, Vll retire into 
 another room for haf an hour^ and then cojne ijt again* 
 Here the word for^ as I have laid, does not iignify du- 
 ring. He retires (or is retiring) only while he is pafling 
 from the ball-room into the room where he intends toreil. 
 When he is in that room, he is no longer retiring ; for 
 he is then retired^ or in retirement. In like manner, a 
 man who has quitted the bufmefs he was following in 
 London, and is nov/ fettled in the country, is retired^ (or 
 in retiremejit) : but he does not 7-etire ; he is not 7r tiring ; 
 for he retires (or is retiring) only while he is going from 
 London to the place where he fettles. 
 
 It would be therefore proper (as I have already hinted) 
 for thefe printers to fay, He retired fome years ago, or, 
 he had hcen retired for fome years pafi. But, when they 
 tfay, He had retired for fome years pajl^ they talk nonfenfe. 
 
 XXIIL 
 
rz REMARKS ON THE 
 
 XXIII. The Note of Interrogation itnpropcriy nfcd, 
 
 1 T is common with writers to put a note of interrogation 
 where they only make mention of a queilion's being alked, 
 without employing the very words which form the queflion. 
 
 EXAMPLES. 
 
 / fa-vj your aunt the other day^ ivho inquired ^johen I 
 heard fro??2 you laft ? — / 'vijitcd your Jijier yejierday, — She 
 ^ijkcd jnc ^vhen I thought you ivould he in tovjn ? This is 
 wrong. There ought to be no note of interrogation, iince 
 there is no queflion. 
 
 Indeed, though the writer afks no queftion himfelf, if 
 the interrogatoiy, which he mentions, be put in the form 
 of a queflion, the note is very proper: iis, for inflance. As 
 I "Was talking i^'itb your aunt the other day^ whtn^jduljhcy 
 did you hear from my nephew lafl ? Being yejierday upon 
 a rvijit to your Jifier^ when, /aid Jhe^ do you imagine my 
 brother will be in town ? 
 
 XXIV. An impriper Ufe of the Frotioun relative HE. 
 
 X H E R E are many writers, who introduce this pronoun 
 as a relative to the indefinitive noun one, Iiiflend of 
 laying, Unlefs one be inry cautious^ one ^>.vill he liable to 
 he decei<ved by pretended friends, — If one indulge much in 
 eating and drinking^ one ahnojl certainly fujfers for it in 
 point of health, — They would fay, Unlefs one be *very cau- 
 tious^ he 'ivill be liable to he deceived by pretended friends,'^ 
 If one indulge fnuch in eating and drinking^ he almofi cer- 
 tainly fuffen for it in point of health, 
 
 I'his is not good Englifh. The 07ic here is not the 
 wmx. in number. It has the fenfe of on in the French 
 tongue, from which it is taken, and does not fufler a rela- 
 tive pronoun. 
 
 To Ihew the impropriety of the above ufe of the word 
 he^ let us fuppofe an aflembly of women, where the con- 
 verfation runs upon the pleafure they feel in being ad- 
 mired by the male fex, and that one of the comp.my fays. 
 One cannot pojfibly help being delighted voith the admiration 
 cf the men : let her make ^ivhat ufe of her reafon fke vcill^ 
 Jhe isfiill highly fkafed ivith it. Will any one pretend to 
 U\y this is Engliih ? No perfon of tolerable tulle would 
 
 endure 
 
E>JgL1SH LANGUAGE. 15 
 
 endure \S\tJ}:€^ the pronoun fubllantive her^ or the pronoun 
 adje6live her. And yet this exprellion would be proper, if 
 the he could at any time with propriety be ufed as a rela- 
 tive to this indefinitive noun one. This woman ought to 
 repeat the one^ and to fay One cannot pojjihiy help being de- 
 lighted ^nth the admiration of the ntcru Let one make 'uohat 
 vfc of one^s reafon one nk'ill^ one is flill highly pleafed i\)ith ii» 
 I'here is nothing oflfenfive in the recurrence of the word one^ 
 It is likewife wrong to ufe either hi7n^ her^ himfclf 
 or he f elf as the genitive, dative, accufative or ablative 
 of this indefinite noun. The proper genitives, datives^ 
 accufatives, and ablatives are one and one'sfelf For in- 
 fiance, He tvatches his opportunities to take one at a difad- 
 rvantage^-'^He is of a friendly temper^ and does one all the 
 fer'vice he can, — The lo've of one'' s-f elf ^'-^Oncfometimcs finds 
 an uncxpcHed refource in onc*s-felf 
 
 XXV. Apiflrophes improperly vfed, 
 
 1 T is a common pni6lf<:e, even with good writers, t6 
 put an apoftrophe between the a and. the s of the words 
 idras and operas^ and of many others, of whith the lingular 
 ends with the letter a. 
 
 This is certainly wrong. For why ftioutd an apoilrophe 
 be placed where there is no letter omitted ? 
 
 They put this apoilrophe likewife between the o and the 
 5 of the plurals of 'virtJibfo^ 'virago^ and of fome other 
 words ending with 0^ ai^l write n^irtuofo'^s^ 'virago's^ &c. 
 
 Indeed, as to thefe tvyo words, they may poiTibly pre*- 
 tend there is an e omitted, and that the apoilrophe is the 
 mark of that elifion. 
 
 In the firfl place, I can fee no reafon for an ^ in eithei" 
 of thefe two words. 1 think the true fpelling; is 'virtuofos\ 
 ^viragos. But, even fuppoling thefe plurals to have an r^ 
 why "fliould the e be cut off any more than in tocs^ foes^ 
 floes? There is not the leatl ground imaginable for fuck 
 practice, and the words ought to be written at full len'§.th, 
 the pronunciation being the fame when the e is inferted 
 ;juj when it is omitted, and its place fupplied with aA 
 ■apoftrophe. 
 
 The fame abfurdity prevails in regard to Vndfe v/ords^ 
 
 whofc fm^ukr number ends with an s\ 2.0 genius^ firm?n&ns^ 
 
 S ^herurS^ 
 
f^ " REMARKS ON THE 
 
 chorus^ &c. The plurals of thefe words ought to be writ- 
 ten geniufcs^ fummofifcs^ chori^fes^ &c. 
 
 XXVI. Other improper Elijions, 
 
 JNoTHiNG is more frequent than, in writing thepreter- 
 perfe^l tenfe a6live, or the participle paffivc of a verb that 
 ends with a confonant, to fpell it with a (ingle confonartt, 
 if the f, the laft letter but one, be cut off. 
 
 EXAMPLES. 
 
 He received a blow thatjiund him, — He ivasj}un*d luiih 
 the hloiv. 
 
 This is wrong. The word ought to be written with a 
 double confonant. Jl blovj that Jlunnd him, — He ivas 
 Jiunnd* 
 
 By this pra^lice of cutting off one of the confonnnts 
 with the r, many words of very different meanings, and 
 pronounced differently, and which, when written at full 
 length, are likewife differently fpelt, are confounded, by 
 being fpelt alike. For inftance, Tiled and tilled^ filed and 
 filled^ bared and barred^ planed and plan?ied^ firiped and 
 Jirippcd^ tuned and tunned^ feared and fcarrcd, robed and 
 robbed^ filled Vindfiilled^ with feveral others. It hurts the 
 eye to fee words of fuch different fenfes and of different 
 founds, fpelt in the fame manner. 
 
 Inllead of /'//, the contniCtion of I ivill^ many people 
 write Pie, I do not fee what right the e has in a word, 
 when contracted, which admits no fuch letter, when writ- 
 ten at full length: and I think it offenlivc to the eye. 
 Thofe, who make ufe of it, are fearful perhaps that the 
 word, when written with a double /, will be mlftaken for 
 the word ///. Bat the a{x)fi:rophe feems to be a fufficient 
 guard againft any fuch mifapprehenfion. 
 
 XXVII. A nxTong Method of /peaking of a double Letter. 
 
 JL HE mention of a double / puts me in mind of a mif- 
 take that writers often commit in fpeaking of a double let- 
 ter. Inllead of faying a dd^ or a double d^ they would fay 
 a double dd. But a double dd is a quadruple d, in which 
 there are four ds : and yet they mean to fpeak but of two. 
 They Ihould fay either a dd ox a double d, 
 
 XXVIIL 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. tj 
 
 XXVI IL An O'verjlght^ of ^hlch Authors are no<w and 
 then guilty, 
 
 W^E fometimes, even in tolerable writers, meet with ex- 
 preffions to the fame purpofe with this, If I mijlake noty I 
 think fo and fa ; which is an abfurdity ; for furely every 
 man knows whether he thinks a thing or not. We fay, 
 indeed, jeflin;;^ly, of an irrefolute perfon, that he does not. 
 know his own mind. 
 
 The If I miftakc not^ and the / think^ are therefore not 
 both to be ufed. 
 
 There is an oyerfight of this kind in Moliere's comedy 
 of the The School for Hujbands ; and another in his Learned 
 If^omcn* 
 
 XXIX. TO FLY, FLEE, FLOW, OVER-FLOW. 
 
 1 HE preter-perfe6l tenfe of the firft of thefe verbs, when 
 it fignifies To move ^nth ^joings^ is few, — The bird fevi 
 aivay* 
 
 With the auxiliaries, flown is to be ufed. The hird is 
 flown away — they would have flown away — having flown 
 "•^being floivn^ &;c. 
 
 To fly is likewife frequently ufed, to lignify to flee ; 
 which latter word is too much negle6led. And, iince even 
 our bell authors do not fcruple to employ itinftead oiflee^xt 
 mull be owned to have that fignilication ; though I cannot 
 help thinking its being ufed in this fenfe is a deformity in 
 the language. When it lignifies tofl-ee^tho, preter-perfe6l 
 tenfe is fled, — He fled away : but the participle prefent is 
 fiying, as when it lignifies to move with wings. — The army 
 is flying. 
 
 With the auxiliaries, fled is to be ufed. — They are fled 
 ——//<? had fled — Havi?igfled — Being fled^ Sec, 
 
 As to the verb to flce^ the preter-perfedl tenfe is here 
 likewifej^r^/, which is alfo to be ufed with the auxiliaries. 
 For inftance. We fled away — They are fled — They would 
 have fled — Having fled — Being fled — &c. 
 
 The preter-perfe6l of flow is flowed, — The tide flowed 
 with aflrong current. Flowed is likewife to be ufed with 
 the auxiliaries — Has flowed — Having flowed^^ScQ, 
 
 B 2 Many 
 
li REMARKS ON THE 
 
 Many people vX^Jlo^vn with the auxiliaries, and would 
 fey The ri'ver has ^ozvn hut iveakly of late. But this is 
 not Englifli. Neither is the word overfloivn to be ad- 
 mitted, though frequently ufed. The proper word is. 
 cvcrjioix^ed^ — The river has ovcrjlircved its hanks* — The 
 grounds are ove7-Jioived, 
 
 XXX. CAME. 
 
 X HIS word, which is the preter-perfecl of come^ is ufed 
 by fome writers now living with the auxiliary verbs. In- 
 Head of faying He is come^ He ^^vould have come^ they 
 would fay He is came^ He ^cvould have came. But this. 
 IS not Englifh. Becaufe, forfooth, in the generality of 
 our verbs, the word ufed in the preter-perfedt tenfe is the 
 fame with that ufed with the auxiliaries, they will have it 
 to be fo likcwife in this inftance. But the verb tocomeh^ix 
 exception to this rule ; as is alfo the verb to go^ which has^ 
 been mentioned already. 
 
 If thefe writers p rlift in this ufe of the word came^ I 
 would advife them not to be inconfiftent with themfelves, 
 to employ the word ^i^ent likewife with the auxiliaries, 
 and to fay He has ^.vent — He had ivenf — They are vce7:t 
 — and, inftead of The bird isjlo^jvn, the bird is JIe^v.\ In 
 (hort, fo many of our verbs are exceptions to the rule 
 ubove-mentioned, that, if we (hould bring them aU to con- 
 form to it, we fhould have a new language. 
 
 XXXI. TO SEW. TO SOW. 
 
 The firft: of thefe (>vhich fignifies to Jiltch ivith needle 
 ^nd thread) is a regular verb, the preter-perfe6t being 
 feived^ and the fame word being ufed with the auxiliaries. 
 She has/ezved it — // is <ivellfe^ived. 
 
 But tofovj (to flatter corn or feed upon ploughed or other- 
 <iy*lfe prepared ground) is irregular, in that eithery^T'W or 
 /kw/ is ufed with the auxiliaries; the laft of which two 
 words is the moft frequently employed. He has fo^xn his 
 cor 71 — The cor7L is fo^vn, ' 
 
 And yet I know not whether, in fpeakingof the^r^7^«^, 
 I ihould not prefer fo^ved, and rather fay the grourid is 
 fowed than the ground isfonxvu However, I do not infill 
 upon it that this expreffion is the beft. XXXIL 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. ly 
 
 XXXn. TO SET. TO SIT. 
 
 X HESE two verbs are contmually confounded in more 
 than one tenfe, and give occalion to innumerable inflances 
 of falfe Englifh. Even people of very good education 
 mifemploy them. 
 
 The firfl of them, which has feveral different fignifica- 
 tions, does not change in any of the tenfes, let the ligni- 
 fication of the word be what it will. We fay pr/jat time 
 iJo youfct out? — Hefet out y eft er day for Bath, — IJhallfet 
 fomehody to ivatch them. 
 
 Set is likewife ufed with the auxiliaries. A dog ^jasfet at 
 mc, — He is noiv fet ahout it i?i good earnejl, — He has fct 
 dovjn his load, — / ought to have fet the trees fome time ago* 
 '—They bcifig fo violently fet agaijfi each other ^ there is 710 
 frohahility of a reconciliation. 
 
 As to the verb to ft^ its preter-perfe(5l h>fat^ which 15 
 alfo ufed with the auxiliaries. Hcfatdoivn, — Whenvje had 
 fat there fome fune^ vje removed, — Having fat vjith us 
 ahout an hour^ they left us. 
 
 This verb is fometimes ufed not as a neuter, but as a 
 verb adive, with an accufative cafe following it. Vllft 
 mc dovjn, — She fat her dovon, — They fat themfclves do'vjn. 
 
 But it is to be obferved that the verb is adive, and go- 
 verns an accufative, only when we fpeak of perfons feating 
 themfclves^ and not in mentioning their cauiing 'others to 
 lit. Therefore fuch ejipreffions as thefe — Pll ft you 
 do'wn, — He fat her clovjn, — They fat us doivn, — are not 
 proper. 
 
 To feat is a regular verb. Seated^ which is the preter- 
 perfed-, is ufed with the auxiliaries. He feated hi-mfelf — 
 When voe had feated ourf elves, — She v:as feated,-^Thcy he- 
 ing feated, 
 
 XXXIIL TO LIE. TO LAY. 
 
 X HEBE two verbs are as often confounded as fet and ft j 
 of v/hich the occalion, in a great meafure, may be that 
 the word lay happens to be the preter-perfed tcnfc of the 
 verb to lie. 
 
 B3 ^ 
 
iS REMARKS ON THE 
 
 To lie IS a regular verb. Its preter-perfed is laid. This 
 is likewife the word ufed with the auxiliaries. For inflancc, 
 Me laid the money do^jjn, — He laid ah out bi?n luftilv* — U^e 
 laid no Jircfs upon that* — / ha^je laid a Hjoagcr, — They had 
 laid out all their money, -^The ^zvind is laid. — The things 
 are laid in order, — Halving laid the burden upon the horje* 
 "•^The cafe being laid before him* 
 
 The preter-perfed of the verb to lie is lay ; and the 
 word ufed with the auxiliaries is lain, Foi example. / 
 ivas lazy this mornings and lay long a-hcd, — They voent 
 yejlerday for^Bath^ and lay at Reading, — / ivas lately at his 
 country-houfe^ ^jjhere J lay tivo nights, — I ha*ve lain in this 
 led above a dozen years, — The houfc has lain in ruins for a 
 coftfderable time.-^^he ivas taken ill ; but^ having lain dovjn 
 for about an hour^fhe found herfelfi\:ell. 
 
 To lie^ when it fignifies to tell lirsy is a regular verb. 
 The preter-perfedl is liedy which is the word ufed with the 
 auxiliaries. He lied cgregioujly, — He has ahvays lied from 
 
 XXXIV. OVERLAIN. 
 
 X HERE is fuch a word as this : but it is for the moft part 
 improperly employed. 
 
 The child is overlain fays one. T7je nurfc has overlain 
 the child. This is not good Englifh ; for overlain belongs 
 to the verb overlie^ not to the verb overlay : and yet over- 
 lay is the verb ufed where mention is made of a nurfe's 
 prelfmg and fmothering a child. Now the participle 
 palTive of overlay^ and the word ufed with the auxiliaries, 
 is overlaid^ and not overlain. 
 
 The proper way of fpeaking therefore is this. / am 
 afraid f}:e* II overlay the child, — The nurfe has overlaid the 
 child, — The child is overlaid. 
 
 And yet I cannot help fufpefting that, if the exprefTion 
 was invented by reafonable people, overlie^ and not over- 
 lay^ was the word originally ufed in fpeaking of nurfes* 
 fmothering children. A child being k'.lled by the nurfe's 
 lyi?ig over it, it feems moil natunil that the word (hould 
 be compofed of over and lie, and not of over and lay. But 
 nurfes, and thofe about them, being commonly very ig- 
 -' norant, 
 
? 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. tg 
 
 norant, and your low ignorant people almoft everufing 
 iay for lie, and latJ for lain, overlaid prefently took place 
 among them, inftead of o'vcrlie ; and, perfons of fenfe or 
 learning being commonly Grangers to the nurfery, and 
 feidom mentioning or thinking about the fmothering of 
 children, the nurfes' language has univerfally obtained. 
 Or fhall we rather believe that the word was not in- 
 
 . vented by reafonable people, but that it was coined in the 
 nurfery ? This, after all, appears the moll probable. For 
 there is no doubt but words are commonly invented by 
 thofe, who are fuUeil of the ideas intended to be conveyed 
 by them. And whom Ihall we fuppofe to think fo often 
 of the overlaying children as nurfes and their companions ? 
 If this be the cafe ; if the word was invented in the nur- 
 fery, overlay (and not overlie) is moft probably, for the 
 reafon mentioned above, (vi%, the low people's uling lay 
 for lie) the original word. 
 
 . As to the verb overlie, it is vifed where ive fpeak of a 
 perfon's continuing in bed beyond a proper time. I am 
 
 jleepy to-night, and Jh all overlie myfelf in the morning, if I 
 am not called, — IJlept hcyofid my ti?ne,, and overlay myfelf 
 this 7norning, — ^Tis l^ter than I thought I find I have over^ 
 lain myfelf, 
 
 XXXV. An I?7iprofer IVay of 7nentioning Titles, 
 
 vJuR news-writers, mentioning their intelligence from 
 Oxford or Cambridge, frequently tell us that on fuch 
 a day was conferred on fuch and iuch gentlemen the de- 
 gree of DoHors of Divinity, This exprellion is wrong : 
 they ought to fay The degree of DoHor of Divinity. 
 
 in like manner, though we fay veiy properly The King 
 has made (or created) thofe tvjo gentle?nen Baronets, it 
 would not be right to fay The King has conferred the dig- 
 nity of Baronets on them. The proper expreffion is The 
 King has conferred the dignity of Baronet on them. 
 
 So likewife, in fpeaking of one man, who has received 
 the honour, though we fay He is made (or created) a Ba- 
 ronet, we ought not to fay The dignity of a Baronet is 
 conferred on him ; but the dignity of Baronet is conferred 
 en him^ omitting the word a* 
 
 The 
 
zo REMARKS ON THE 
 
 The fame rule is to be obferved in fpeaking of any 
 other title, or of any poll:. T/jc Ki;/g has co7if erred on them the 
 title of Duke, — The King has conferred on him the title of 
 Duke, — Thofe fMxw Counfcllors ^^vere both raifed to the poft of 
 Attoriiey General, — He ^x^as raifed to the poft of Attorney- 
 GcneraL Thefe are the proper expreffions ; and the fol- 
 lowing ones are improper. The King has conferred on 
 them the title of Dukes* — The King has conferred on him the 
 title of a Duke. — Thofe t\Vo cou?fellors ivcre both rafed to 
 the fofl of Jlttorney-Gcncrnls, — He v:as rafed to the pojl of 
 the (or of an) At tor fiey -General, 
 
 XXXVI, UP, DOWN. ABOVE, BELOW, 
 
 JL o ^^ (or come) up flairs^ to go (or come) dovcn flairs^ 
 arc proper exprelTions. 
 
 lo go (or come) above fairs^ ^^ Z^ (or come) bcloix: fairs^ 
 though frequently ufed, are not ilrlcf-tly proper. 
 
 On the other hand, To be above flairs — to be belovj 
 flairs^ iu*e proper. 
 
 To be upfialrsy to be doivn flairs ^ are improper; unlefs 
 the being up or doiK^n imply the getting up or doivn. As, for 
 inllance — a man fays / called hi?n do^ivn fairs y and he ivas 
 do^vn in an infant. There is nothing improper in this, 
 bec'Hife he was down is equivalent to he got down fairsy 
 or, in other words, to he arrived below flairs^ and there- 
 fore dcves not imply his abiding there. 
 
 Neither are thefe two ,words, ^^7/ and arrived^ (which 
 I have made ufcof to explain the matter) to be employed 
 indifcrlminutely with «/, down^ above ox below fairs. 
 
 To get is to be ufed with up or down ; and to arrive 
 with above and below, Suppoie I fee a very gouty man a 
 long time in coming down a fl lir-cafe. I fay, upon his 
 landing, At lengthy after much hobbling^ he is got dow^ti 
 flairs ; or at lengthy after much holhlingy he is arrived be- 
 low faWs, Got below) fairsy in the fenfe here intended, 
 would le uncouth ; and arrived do^v:n fairs would be fWl 
 more fo. 
 
 Yet, In another fenfe, got above or belovj fairs would 
 be proper. If a man has lived formerly upon a ground- 
 floor, but lives now over-head, I fay, ver)^ properly. He 
 U 710W got above fairs ; becaufe here my meaning is 
 
 that 
 
I 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. ^t 
 
 tliat he is aliding or continuing there: whereas, agree- 
 ably to what has been already obferved, if I fend a fer- 
 vant to an upper apartment, as foon as he has mounted 
 the top-mofi llep of the ft-lr-cafe, I ought to fay he is got 
 tipjiairs. If I ihould fay he is got ahove Jlairs^ I Ihould 
 talk bad Englifh. 
 
 We have other words, v/hich, ufed with up orrio^Lvn^ have 
 a different fenfe from what they have w^hen ufed with al^o've or 
 Ifclozv, It would be too tedious to produce them all, and I 
 fhall mention only the word difpatch. If I fay Vll dif^ 
 patch my fern) ant up flairs^ it means that I will fend him 
 xip; whereas, if Yx^xj Vll d'f patch him ahove Ji airs ^ the 
 meaning- is that I will difpatch him when I am above. 
 
 Thefe diftinftions have nothing finical or afieded in 
 them. Mofl: people make them mechanically ; and fuch 
 as confound the words in queillon (w'hich even perfons of 
 education are apt to do in fonie of our remote counties) 
 cannot be faid to talk good Englifh. 
 
 XXXVII. IMMINENT. E.MINENT. 
 
 JVIany pf our writers ufe the latter of thefe two words 
 with the fubfbntive danger^ and, inilead of an imminent 
 danger^ fay an eminent danger ; than which furely there 
 cannot be a greater abfurdity. Can there be a more juft 
 expreilion than an imminent danger f Which fignifies a 
 danger where the evil threatened is at hand. But what 
 is a noted or illujirious danger ? For this is the meaning of" 
 the expreflion they ufe. 
 
 This mifapplication of the word emhient took its rife, in 
 all probability, from an itch of imitating the French. 
 They have, in their language, the three words imminent^ 
 eminent and danger] which, as they are fpelt in the fame 
 manner as in the Englifli, have likewife the famaC lignifi- 
 cations. Now fo it has happened (whatever the caufe 
 may have been) that this expreffion of an eminent dan* 
 ^er has introduced itfelf among thcrn. It is of long Hand^ 
 mg ; and fo univerfal is it become that a Frenchman can- 
 not talk of an Imminent danger without fpeaking uncouthly. 
 This is a confiderable blemifh in their tongue ; and their 
 writers, who are fenlible of the inconvenience, are often, 
 reduced to this dilemma, w^hen they mention an impend- 
 ing danger, 1^/2;, either to talk nonfenfe, or to make ufe 
 
 of 
 
iz REMARKS ON THE 
 
 of an expreirion that appears flifF. And ihall ^u^, from a 
 fondnefs of imitating- that nation, introduce into our lan- 
 guage a way of fpeaking which they themfelves own to be 
 ii deformity in theirs, and which their writers would be 
 glad to banlfh ? 
 
 The impropriety, if it fliould take place here, would be 
 ittore unpardonal)le than it was in France, In all proba- 
 bility, it beg m there among the ignorant, who always 
 make the bulk of a nation, and was not adopted by the 
 learned (fome of whom, even to this day, perfiil in theufe 
 of the word 'unm-ncnt) till it was become almoft general; 
 where. s the people, who ufe it among us^ are n.!oritcrSy 
 men whofe duty it is to ende:ivourto polilh a language, and, 
 confequently, to difcountenance all barbarous expreifions. 
 
 XXXVIII. PURPOSE. PROPOSE. 
 
 L o propofe fignifies to make an offer ^ or a propofal of. To 
 purpofe lignifies to intend, to dejign. How different are 
 thefe two fenfes I and how wrong is it then to make fo little 
 ufe as we do of the verb to purpofe, and fo often to cm- 
 ploy to propofe in its (lead? This is the more injudicious, 
 as, notwithflanding the difference there is between to make 
 a propofal, and to intcrid, there are many places where 
 the viord propofe rnight be underflood to mean either the 
 one or the other, and, confequently, where the fpeaker or 
 writer would be liable to be mifapprehended j. as Jias been 
 already remarked in regard to the word ingenuity, which is 
 employed to lignify either candour or ahiiity. Why do 
 not we likewife negled the fubflantive />«r/>^/t', and em- 
 ploy propofal in the room of it? For I cannot fee why the 
 fubftantivc (hould have better quarter than the verb. 
 
 Is the giving this wrong fenfe to the verb propofe in imi- 
 tation oF the French, as I have fufpeded the ufe of the 
 expreflion eminent danger to be ? If fo, the introducers of 
 it have not hit the mark: for, though it cannot be affirmed 
 that the word propofer, which fignifies to make a propofal 
 of, does not likewife fignify to intend, yet it is now feldom 
 ufed in this latter fenfe : and a Frenchman would rather 
 fay // fe propofe de falre cela than II propofe de faire cela% 
 which latter expreflion would be equivocal, the moH obvious 
 meaning of thefe words being he makes a propofal of doing 
 
 that^ 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 25 
 
 that^ wliich would not be the fenfe of the fpeaker; where- 
 as the words il fe fropofe de falrc ccla (verbatim, in Eng- 
 glifli, he propofes to himfeif to do that) have but one mean- 
 ing, and cannot be milunderilood : and, in all probability, 
 the French accompany the word propofcr withyi', in order 
 to avoid the double fenfe it would otherwife have ; where- 
 as we, on the contrary, foolifhly rejeft a word of lingle 
 fenfe, and to which there can be no reafonable exception, 
 and fupply its place with an ambiguous one ; as if there 
 were a beauty in ambiguity, a thing which tends to de- 
 feat the very intention of language — the communication 
 of thoughts. 
 
 I can affign no other caufe than this inclination to imi- 
 tate the French, for the habit fome writers now living 
 have got of ufing the verb to lay inllead of to //>, which 
 I have already obferved to be a common vice in fpeak- 
 ing, though few have been hitherto guilty of it in print. 
 The French word coucher is both active and neuter, and . 
 lignlfies to lay^ and alfo to lie. Upon this account (as I 
 have here hinted) I fufped it is that thefe writers never 
 employ the verb to lie ,• which I therefore fuppofe they 
 would banifh out of our language. " The French make 
 {hift with one verb, and why fhould not we ?" Moft admi- 
 rable reafoning, truly ! As if the having different words 
 for diiferent meanings were not a perfeftion in a lan- 
 guage, and the v/ant of them a defedl. A reafonable 
 man, if he were not a witnefs of it, would hardly conceive 
 there could re fuch an indance of want of judgm.ent. 
 
 This propenlity to 'adopt French cuHoms puts me in 
 mind of the following circumllance, which I have often 
 beared affirmed as a certain fa6t. 
 
 Though the French have in general ilrong and good 
 hair, and are not fo fubje6t to baldnefs as we are, it fo 
 happened, about the year 1734, that the hair of many 
 people of both fexes at Paris fell oif : in confequence of 
 which, they wore wigs. Thereupon numbers of women 
 in E?jgla?nl, hearing cf what had been done at Paris, cut 
 off good heads-of-hair, and wore wigs likewife ; to which 
 thofe French women had had recourfe only to conceal a 
 deformity. 
 
 I would not be underfrocd, from any thing I have here 
 £ud,to advife the avoiding the French cuitoms 3 1 would only 
 
 diifuade 
 
^J4 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 •dilTuade from the adopting them merely as French. Let ns 
 imitate that, or any other nation, in what is in itfelf right; 
 but not ran into abiiud habits becaufe thole habits had 
 their birth in this or that place. We have ah*eady im- 
 proved our language not a little by expreffions taken from 
 the French, and may improve it flill morc by the fame 
 means. But, at the fame time, let us endeavour to difcern 
 3^vherein we have the advantage, and where that nation 
 «ught rather to copy us than we them. 
 
 XXXIX. NOBLE AUTHOK. 
 
 J. HIS is an exprcflion mightily affeded by many of our 
 writers, in fpeaking of the literary \\K)rks of a nobleman : 
 and they feem to pay their court by it to him or his manes. 
 
 I cannot fee what a man'e nobility has to <lo with his 
 authodhip ; and the exprelhon, cipecially if often re- 
 peated, is certainly very childiih ; and particularly in the 
 pulpit, where the .noble hiftorian makes the moft llriking 
 part of the riictoric of many a fermon on the 30th of Ja- 
 nuary. 
 
 The epithet royal appears to me to be often as need- 
 leflly u fed as 7iohlCi- — his hh majtj^y's royal ivill a?id plea- 
 Jure^ fays the fpeaker of the houfe of lords, that this 
 parliament he prorogued. Is not this faying // m the ki-ngs 
 kingly ikkU ajul pleafure ? and would it not be much more 
 iimple, and much better to fay, It is his maj^Jlfs %\)ill atid 
 pleafnre^ 
 
 If the word reyal be introduced, it would be befl, as I 
 •conceive, to omit 'the his 7naejjy*s., and to f ^y It is the 
 royal ^ivill and plea fur e. Herein there is nothing of pueri- 
 lity ; but, on the contrary, a noblenefs and a rimplicity. 
 Laboured and pom.pous epithets do, for the moil part, 
 but leilen, iiiilead of aggraiidizing, the objcds fpoken of. 
 
 XL. HIM. HER. ME. TH2M. 
 
 J. HESE pronouns are frequently ufed in the nominative 
 cafe, even among the better fort of people. '7"/j hi?fi,-^ 
 ^TiS her, — '7~/-v ;;/£•. — T/i them. This is bad Englifh : i/f, 
 Jlx^ /, and thej, arc tlie proper words* 
 
 \ we 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 2J 
 
 We have few writers who are more feldom guilty of 
 falfe Englifh than Congreve, or who have written in fo ele- 
 gant a ftyle. Yet in his Way of the World he has ufed 
 the word me improperly. 
 
 *' Mlllamanu What was the quarrel ? 
 
 *' Petulant. There was no quarrel. There might have 
 *' been a quarrel. 
 
 '^ Wttxxjoud* If there had been words enow to have ex- 
 *' prelTed provocation, they had gone together by the 
 *' ears, like a pair of callanets. 
 
 *' Petulant. You were the quarreU 
 
 ^' Millamant. Me P' 
 
 This is wrong. She ought to fay /. 
 
 Yet it muft be owned there are fome places where the 
 nominative is required, and where the word /, as having 
 too thin and unfubftantial a found, would not do. 
 
 There is an inllance of this in the fame play, where 
 my Lady WiMort fays to Mrs. Fainall " O daughter, 
 '' daughter, is it polTible thou fhouldil be my child, bone 
 *' of my bone, and flefh of my fleih, and (as I may fay) an- 
 ** oth^r me, and yet tranfgrefs the minutcft particle of fe-> 
 *' vere virtue ?" Here the word /, though correal En- 
 glifh, would be aukward, and me, though not gramma* 
 tical, does better. The word myfelf might indeed have 
 been ufed : being a nominative, it would have been gram» 
 mar ; and I think I {hould have preferred it to me. Nor are 
 there many places where the word /, when the found of 
 it would be too poor, might not be fubftituted by myfelfm 
 
 Some inferior writers feem to think they (hew an ex- 
 traordinary corrednefs by ufing an accufative cafe where 
 a verb a<5tive follows, as fuppofing it to be governed by 
 that verb. For example, inftead of// ivas not he they at- 
 taeked, — It ivas not i^e they Jlandcred — they would fay It 
 ^j<:as not him they attacked, — It zvas not us they Jlandered^-^ 
 imagining him and us to be accufatives governed refpec* 
 tively by the verbs attacked and Jlandered, But they 
 write falfe Engiilh : thefe pronouns ought to be in the no- 
 minative cafe, as following the verb ^joas. There is in- 
 deed an accufative, (viz. 'whem, or 'that) governed by 
 attacked Tiwdjlandered : but this accufative is fuppofed, the 
 regular way of fpeaking being this, // vjas not he^ nvhom 
 C (or 
 
^t REMARKS ON THE 
 
 '■(or that) they attacked, — It ivas not ive, ivbom (or f/jat) 
 they Jlandercd* 
 
 XLI. Pulse. 
 
 T ULSE, as (ignifying the pulfation of the blood, is im- 
 properly ufed by many people as a plural. Infteud of 
 H(rjo docs your plufe beat? — Tour pulfc is too quicli, — they 
 ^ould fay H(yi\j do your pulfc heat ? — Tour pulfc are too 
 ^uicJc, They are deceived by the letter j, which being 
 the lall letter that is pronounced, they from thence take 
 the word to be in the plural number: but this word is lin- 
 gular, and the plural is pulfcs, — The pulfes of tzvo or more 
 'fcrfons — The different puifes of tht ^^vrifis^ tc??2plcs^ and other 
 farts of the lody. 
 
 In (peaking *f fuch vegetables as are called pidfc^ wc 
 fay pulfc of dffcrent forts^ or dffercnt forts of pulfe ; and 
 Slot different pulfes^ or different forts of pulfes : fo that this 
 %\'ord has no plural. 
 
 XLII. NEITHER READ KOR WRITE. 
 
 JL HIS is the common way of fpcaking : but it is certainly 
 wrong, it being much more proper to fay He can neither 
 *ivrife nor read — than he can neither read nor ivrite. To 
 what purpofe is it to fuy that a man cannot write, after 
 having faid that he cannot read ? for, if he cannot read, it 
 follows of courfe that he cannot write. 
 
 It being, for the reafon here given, better to fay He 
 ran neither ivrite nor read than he can neither read nor 
 iK'ritey it is confequently better to fay He can both read 
 and ivrite than he can bath ivrite and read; iince, if a 
 man can write, we mufl neceflarily fuppofe that he can 
 read. 
 
 XLIII. MUTUAL. 
 
 X HIS word is often improperly employed. It ought to be 
 \ifed only when we would iignify that there is an interchange. 
 
 If a man and a woman have a love for each other, there 
 'is a muttial love between them. If two men have a friend- 
 
 Ihip euch for the other, their friendfhip is tnutuaU But 
 
 let 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGTi. 2> 
 
 Jet us fuppofe A to be a benefador to B and likewife to 
 C : it would be abfurd in B, Ipeaking to C concerning A, 
 to fay Our mutual hcncfaHor : the proper expreffion would 
 be our commo?i hencfa^or. A. king is the com77jGn fove- 
 reign, not the mutual fovereign, of his feveral fubjedts ; 
 for there is here no reciprocation, or interchange, that 
 julllfies the ufe of the word inutuaL And yet many of our 
 wntei*s employ mutual in cafes limilar to thefe. But our 
 moll judicious writers take care to avoid it. Mr. Locke, 
 in a letter to Dr. Molyneux, fpeaking of the Dodor's bro- 
 ther, then lately dead, fays very properly The efiecm I 
 have for the 7ncmory of our common friend. Had he faid 
 €ur mutual friend^ he had not talked fenfe ; for, though 
 there had fubfiiled a;w?//?/^/friendfhip between Mr. Locke 
 and the deceafed, and the fame between the two brothers, 
 yet there is nothing of interchange between Mr. Locke 
 und the furviving brother implied in the clrcumilance of 
 the friendlhip there had been between the deceafed and 
 each of them feparately, 
 
 It mufl: be owned, after all, that there are places where 
 the word common^ though more proper in refpedl of its 
 fenfe, would found but aukwardly, and where, for want o£ 
 an eafy-founding word, in the language, of the fame im.-* 
 port, mutual mull be borne with. 
 
 XLIV. LEFT OFF. 
 
 \A/ ji fee continually in our news -papers advertifements 
 written in the following manner. 
 
 To he fold, The Jock of Mr, , left off trade 
 
 The goods offuch-a-one, left off houfc -keeping. 
 
 This is nonfenfe ; the words left off, whether they are 
 confidered as a verb, or as a participle, having here no 
 fubflantive, with which they are connected, 
 
 Thefe advertifers, inllead of left off, ought to fay either 
 lea<vhig off, or who has left off. For inllance. The ftock of 
 Mr, A, lea'ving off trade, — The goods of Mrs, B, leaving 
 off hotife 'keeping. — Tlje flock of Mr, A, who has left off 
 trade, — The goods of Mrs, B, who has left off hotfe-' 
 keepings 
 
 C * XLV, 
 
Jjll REMARKS ON THE 
 
 XLV. UNDENIABLE. 
 
 W E llkewife often fee in the news-papers advertlfements 
 for places by people, who tell the public their charaders 
 are ujLderiiable, 
 
 This word, as they ufe it, is not fenfe. If I draw a 
 character of a man, and afterwards affirm the character I 
 have given him to be uncie?iiahlej this is a proper way of 
 fpeaking, and fignifies that I have delivered nothing but 
 truth. But the meaning of thefe people is that their 
 charaders are fuch as no reafonable exception can be made 
 to. They ought therefore to fay that their charadter$ 
 are (not unde?iiable^ but) u7icxccptio7iablc^ 
 
 XLVL NEITHER. EITHER. 
 
 W E have numberlefs writers, who make thefe adjedives 
 plural where they ought to make them lingular. 
 
 Is either of thefe t<ivo men a relation of yours f^—No^ nei^ 
 iher of them is* This is the proper way of fpeaking, and 
 not (as fome would fay), Are either of thefe tivo men rela- 
 tions of yours? — No^ neither of them are. 
 
 Here either is equivalent to any oncy or ever a one ; and 
 neither to no one^ or nenfer a 07ie, 
 
 But, when thefe adjedives refer to fubflantives plural, 
 they become plural thcmfelves : as, for inflance. — The 
 French and the Englijh giofc flrangc accounts one of an- 
 other. Are either of them impartial? No: tieither of 
 them are. 
 
 Where they refer to two fubftantives, one iingtilar, and 
 the other plural, it feems mofl natural to make them plural, 
 
 XLVII. LESS. 
 
 This word is mod commonly ufed in fpeaking of a num- 
 ber J vvhere I fhould think fc^^er would do better. Nofe^wer 
 than a hundred appears to me not only more elegant than 
 no lefs than a hundred^ but more ftridly proper. 
 
 XLVIII. 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 59 
 
 XLVIIL CONTEMPTUOUSLY. 
 
 V^ONTEMPTUousLY, to fignify With contempt^ is a bet- 
 ter word thin contr?nptihly^ though this lafl is moit com- 
 monly ufed. If I hear it faid that one man treats another 
 cnntcmptihly^ I hiirdly know whether the meaning is that 
 he treats him with contempt, or that his own behaviour is 
 contemptible. 
 
 XLIX. POSSESSED OF. POSSESSED BY. 
 
 d\. MAN that hno^vs boiv to ?n ingle plcafures ^vith hujtnefs^ 
 fays fome author, (and I think it is my Lord Bolingbroke) 
 is ne^ver pojfcjjed of the??!. He quits and retakes the??i at 
 his ivilL 
 
 PcJJeJTed of them is here wrong. The proper expreflion 
 would have been pojfejfed hy them. If I poilefs a thing, 
 I am pollelTed ^ it ; if it poUelTes me^ I am pofTefled hy iu 
 
 L. *TIS so MANY TO ONE BUT, &C. 
 
 JL IS tvjc?ity to one hut (or hut that) it ^vill happen,-*-*' 
 *Tis ten to cue hut (or hut that) he w 7/ he difpleafed. 
 
 This is a very common way of fpeaking, though, in my 
 opinion, a very abfurd one. What has the word hut to do 
 here ? It has certainly no meaning. Is it not therefore 
 more elegant and more natural to leave it out, and to faj" 
 *77j t^venty to one it 'ivill happen ^ or, that it %K>ill happen, — - 
 ^Tis ten to one he vjill he difpleafed^ or, that he vjill he dif 
 p leafed, 
 
 LI. TO PROFIT OF. 
 
 jyi Y Lord Bolingbroke feems fond of this expreiEon. - 
 
 We fay to take advantage of this or that circiimfiance^ 
 or to make an adnjan'age hy rt^ or to profd hy it. 
 To prof t ofl conceive not to be Engliih. 
 
 LIL 
 
 X HOUGH I do not ^lovrto profit of to be Engliih, to 
 make proft of is, without doubt, a very proper ^xpref- 
 fion. 
 
JO REMARKS ON THE 
 
 ncy found mankind immerfcd in fupcrftition^ and accuj* 
 icmed to licentioufncfs. To cure them of the latter^ they made 
 their fr oft of the former • Lord Bolingbroke* 
 
 LIII. 
 
 W E find in many authors (and, among others, in Swift) 
 the expreflion of The manner of it is thus. 
 
 The word thus (ignifies in this ?nanner, Itlhould feem, 
 therefore, as though the the manner of it is thus were as 
 much as to fay the manner of it is in this manner \ which 
 is nonfenfe. 
 
 It is better to fay the manner of it is this. 
 
 LIV. Pressentiment. 
 
 X HIS French word is wrongly tranflated by fome of ou» 
 wnttvs pre fentiment : {ox pre-fentiment has no meaning. 
 
 It ought to be tranflated (as it is by fome few) pre -fen- 
 fation ; which word would be very ufeful in our language, 
 and ought therefore to be adopted. 
 
 The French word does not iignify a fore-knon,vkdge^ 
 but an unaccountableyi?rf-/f<r//;;^, of what will happen. 
 
 LV. HUES AND CRIES. 
 
 Dome writers ufe this expreflion, and would fay There 
 rvoerc fii-eral hues and cries after him. 
 
 This feems to be wrong, and I (hould think it better to 
 fay hu:-a?id-cries ; for in the lingular number we do not 
 fay a hue and a cry^ but a hue-and-cry^ making one word 
 ef three : for which reafon, and likewife becaufe it is fel- 
 dom ufed, hues and cries founds uncouthly. 
 
 LVI. FELL. 
 
 i HIS word is ufed by almod all incorrecfl fpeakers, and 
 even by many writers, inflead oi fallen, — The horfe has fclL 
 "^-The ho ufe is fell. 
 
 This is not good Englifh. The proper word (as here 
 hinted) hfallen^ 
 
 LVII. 
 
^ 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 31 
 
 LVIL WORN. TORN. 
 
 These words are much better with the auxiliaries than 
 
 moore and tore. — Thefe cloaths are hut little iMorn, — He has 
 
 fuoorn this fuit for fomc thne* — He has torn the ^vjrithigs*—^ 
 The writings are torn, 
 
 LVIII. COMPUTED TO, 
 
 X HE rents of land in Ireland may he computed to tvjo 7mU 
 lions. Swift. 
 
 Computed at would have been the proper expreflion. 
 To compute to I look upon not to be Englifh, 
 
 LIX. WRECK MALICE. 
 
 JMany writers fay to nvreck malice-, and the expreflion 
 occurs feveral times in Swift. 
 
 To wreak malice is the proper expreflion ; to wreak fig- 
 nifying to difcharge, 
 
 LX. INSTANT. INSTANTANEOUS, 
 
 bo ME writers confound thefe two adjedives, and like- 
 wife the adverbs injlantly and injiantaneoufly^ making 
 them refpedively fynonimous. Others diflinguifli them, 
 and make infant to lignify immediate^ juf at hand^ and 
 injiantafieous to imply of no duration. For example; His 
 coming is iiftant* — He will he here i7:Jiantly, — ji Jiafh of 
 lightning is injlatitaneous, — A flajh of lightning exifts hut 
 inflantaneonfy. 
 
 It is belt to make the diftindlion. Different meanings 
 ought, undoubtedly, to be exprefled in different words ; 
 without which, the intention of language is not anfwered. 
 
 LXL BOTH. 
 
 X HIS word is often introduced in an abfurd manner. 
 
 The goddcfs Minern)a had heard of one Arachne^ a young 
 virgin rjery famous for f pinning and weaving. They hoth 
 met upon a trial ofJkilU Swift. 
 
 What 
 
32 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 What does he mean by faying they hoth 7netf The word 
 ^^//z is fuperfluous, and feems to make nonenfe. One 
 would Imagine the author thought there was a pollibility 
 that, in the interview between them, one of them could 
 meet withjut the orher's meeting. If two peo];ie come 
 together, they muft hoth come together of courfe. It 
 would be ridiculous to fay There is a contcjt het^ioeen hoth 
 of fhofe t'Mo men : for, if two men are engaged in a con- 
 teil, they muft necellarily be hoth engaged in that conteft. 
 
 It rnufl- be owned, however, that this word fometimes 
 gives afee-ningly wanted force to an expreffion, where the 
 fcnfe is complete without it : and there it is to be not only 
 borne with, but approved. But in the pafTage above cited, 
 and in numbcrlefs others where we meet with it, it is im- 
 pertinent. 
 
 LXII. IxN' COMPARISON OF. 
 
 1 HIS is^n expreffion ufed y many of our writers, and, 
 among others, by Lord Bolingbroke, in whom it is very 
 frequent. 
 
 In comparifon i^jith feems to me to be preferable. 
 This is very good in comparifon of that^-^This is 'very good 
 in comparifon ^zvith thau Is not :hc latter plainly the bet- 
 ter expreifion of the two ? and does it not m;ikc the befl 
 fenfe ? 
 
 LXIII. 
 
 Jb AiNALL fays to Mlralcl, in the Way of the World, 
 *' Now I recolie^V, I wonder nor they were ueiiry of you, 
 *' Laft night was one of their cabal nights. The^ have 
 *' them three times a-week, and meet at each others 
 *' apartments, like ihe corui.er's im^ueft, to fit upon the 
 " murdered reputations of the wees. You a.id 1 are ex- 
 '* cluaed : and it was once p o^poied that ;.ll the male fex 
 ** fhould be excepted. i>ut ibmebody moved that, to avoid 
 *' fcandal, there mi.;hi be on- man of the conmun ty : upon 
 *' which Witwoud and PecuL:nt were enrolled members." 
 Were enrolled a mcmhcr would have been a more pro- 
 per expreffion. Let us fuppofe that this fociety h:.d ad- 
 mitted men amon^ them.; each man would have been 
 
 looked 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 33 
 
 looked upon not as two members, but as one only. 
 Confequently, having mentioned Witwoud and Petu* 
 lant's being admitted, as making iointly but one man^ 
 there is an inconfiflency in his callmg them two mem- 
 bers, and he ought to have faid they were enrolled a fnem- 
 her : by which expreflion likewife the humour would have 
 been kept up. 
 
 LXIV. MUSSULMEN". 
 
 ± HIS word is ufed by many writers as the plural of Muf'* 
 fulman ; which feems to be wrong. It is true we fay 
 Frenchmen^ Didcbmeti^ Irzjhfnen^ ^c, and not FrenchmatiSy 
 Dutchmans^ IrlJJimans^ becaufe Frenchman^ Dutchman^ 
 Irijhman^ are compounded refpedively of French and many 
 Dutch and 7nan^ Irijh and man^ and becaufe men is the 
 plural of man. But, as to the word Muffulman^ though 
 it may be a compound in the Arabic, (where, we are 
 told, it lignifies a helie<ver in the true religion) yet, conli- 
 dered as an Englifh word, it is not compounded, but 
 fimple : for we have no fuch word as mujjtd in the Englilh 
 tongue. 
 
 It is the fame with the fubftantives Ottoman and Ger* 
 ntan^ which, coniidered as Englifh words, are not com- 
 pounded, whatever they may have been in the countries 
 where they were coined. Accordingly we fay Ottomani 
 and Germans in the plural : and no one ever yet took it 
 into his head to fay Ottomen or Germen, 
 
 We ought in like manner, (as I fhould imagine) to fay 
 Mujpulmam in the plural, and not MuJJulmenm 
 
 LXV. 
 
 XTe is more a foldler than a fcholar. This is an expref- 
 lion, to which I imagine no exception will be made. But, 
 as to the following, he is a better foldier than a fcholar^ 
 though perhaps not one in a great many would find fault 
 with it, it feems to me not perfedly to make fenfe. As 
 the word letter comes between a and foldier^ I Ihould 
 think it beft to leave out the a that precedes yc-6i?/^r, and 
 to fay he is a hotter foldler than fcholar* 
 
 LXVI, 
 
54^ REMARKS ON THE 
 
 LXVI. AGREEABLE. SUITABLE. CON FOR MABLET* 
 CONSISTENT. 
 
 X HESE adjectives, with others mnch to the fame pur- 
 pofe, are ufed improperly by the greateil part of our wri- 
 ters ; for they frequently employ them as i.dverbs. 
 
 His pcrf arm ante ivas agreeable to his promife, — His con- 
 JuH "voas fuitahk to the occajlon — this makes fcnfe. 
 
 He performed agreeably to Us promife, — He conjured 
 himfclffuitably to the occajion — this likewife makes fcnfe. 
 
 But — He performed agreeable to his promife, — //' con^ 
 Ju^ed hi?nfelf fuitable to the occafion — this is nonfenfe. 
 
 The word previous likewife ought to be ufed only as an 
 adjective, and never as an adverb. He -wrote to me pre<vious 
 to his coming to to^vn is not g'ood En^lifli. 
 
 The proper exprefTion is He <wrote to me pre^vioujly to 
 bis coming to tovon. 
 
 Tolerable before an adje£dve, or an adverb, {tolerable 
 good — tolerable ivellj inftead of tolerably y is a frequent im- 
 propriety. 
 
 Some writers employ the word bad as an adverb, and 
 would not fcruple to lay TIjat nvas done very bad : which 
 is not Engliih. 
 
 The word ///, it is true, is both an adje<^ive and an ad» 
 Terb ; but bad is only an adje<flive. The adverb is badly • 
 
 LXVIL SAFELY, 
 
 The word /a/efy is likewife (as I apprehend) impro- 
 perly ufed by fome authors. 
 
 / arrived here fafely the i t^th itifiant^ fays Mr. Moly- 
 neux in a letter to Mr. Locke. 
 
 This appears to me hardly to make fenfe. Safely fig- 
 nifies w/V/^y^(/>/>', or in afafe manner. Now, if a man fays 
 that he arrived in w fafe manner, he feems to fuppofe there 
 is danger of fome mifchance in arriving. But what danger 
 is there to be apprehended in the circumilance of arri- 
 ving? The danger is only during the journey or voyage: 
 in the arrival there is none at all. The proper way of 
 fpeaking is, therefore, / arrived faft: that is, having 
 d\ated all the dangers of the peijjagc^ 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 35 
 
 LXVIIL GOVERNMENT. ADMIKISTR ATIOX. 
 
 vJtTR news-writers have lately taken it into their heads 
 to perfonify (as it were) our government, by ufing the 
 words go'verment and adjnuiljiration in the following man- 
 gier. The difputes hetijoeen gonjcrnment (not the go'vern- 
 ment) and the EaJI-India Company, — Adrainljiration (not 
 •the admln'ijiration) fcems at a lofs ho^vo to proceed in this 
 .J^ujtnefs, 
 
 This is an.expreiTion of great barbarity. 
 
 LXIX. 
 
 r J. HIS prodr^cedfuch melancholy thoughts In mc^ fays an au- 
 jthor, that^ if they had continued^ m'-ght have pronged fatal 
 to my healths 
 
 Such that^ where the word that is a pronoun, as it is 
 here, makes bad Englifh. 
 
 He might have faid either Such melancholy thor^ghts as^ 
 if they had continued,, 7night ha^ve pr on) ed fatal to my healthy 
 or, fuch melancholy thoughts that^ if they had continued^ they 
 might have proved fatal to my health. Here the v/ord that 
 is an adverb. 
 
 LXX. 
 
 xIere, fays another author, are fo many charaBers that 
 the perfon of the e?nperor cannot 'vjell he miftake?i^ fnce not 
 €7ie of them agree vjith any hut Auguftus C^efar* 
 
 AVe have many writers, who take this liberty of ufing a 
 verb plural with a nominative cafe fingular, where a ge- 
 nitive cafe plural intervenes, 
 
 V. . There is no grace in this ; and it is a needlefs, and a very 
 ridiculous violation of grammar. The verb here being in 
 the indicative, not in the fubjundlve mood, (for in the 
 third perfon lingular of the prefent tenfe of the fubjunftive 
 .mood our verbs have no s) the proper expreflion is 'Not 
 ^ne of thsm agrees with any hat Auguftus Cafar, 
 
 LXXL 
 
36 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 LXXI. 
 
 XI E printed a great numher of authors, fays the fame wri- 
 ter, infui'h a ma7iner as Jhevo him to have been a n^ery in'» 
 genious and learned man. 
 
 Here is an abfurdity nearly a-kin to that jufl mentioned. 
 It is not the word authors, but the word fnamicr, that 
 ought to determine the number of the verb. The proper 
 way of fpeaking therefore is infuch a manjier as Jhe^ws hiiti 
 to hanje been a v^ry ingenious and learned man. 
 
 LXXH. 
 
 1 T is cuflomary at the playhoufe, at the concKifion of the 
 Beggar's Opera, if the fame be intended to be a6led again 
 the next night, for one of the adors to advance, and 
 fay To-morrozx: ivill be performed this cpera again. 
 
 He ought to fay this comedy, not this opera : for, though 
 ^'he Beggar s Opera be the name of the piece, it is not 
 an opera. It is a comedy written partly in ridicule of operas. 
 How abfurd would it be to fpeak of the dramatic piece 
 called Ihc Tragedy of Tom Thumb as of a real tragedy ! 
 It is not a tragedy, though the word tragedy make part of 
 its name. The piece is comic. It is a farce written in ridi* 
 cule of modern tragedy. 
 
 Swift fpeaks very properly of the Beggar's Opera at the 
 beginning of the third Intelligencer, where he fays The 
 flayers having no^w almnjl dene -voith the comedy called Tali 
 Beggar's OrEKA/or thc/ea/ony &c. 
 
 LXXni. j^n improper Repetition of the Adverb THAT, 
 
 X EXPECTED that, vjhen I told him the news, that he would 
 he more fuipri fed at it than he really vcas. 
 
 This is noiifcnfe; and its being fo is owing to the ad- 
 verb's being twice ufed in the mention of one circum- 
 ftance. The proper way of fpeaking is / expeHed that^ 
 Kvhen I told hhn the ?ircvs, he ivould be more furprized at it 
 tha7i he really ^was. 
 
 The repetition of the adverb is allowable only where, 
 aft^r once ufing it, fo many v/ords intervene before the 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 3^7 
 
 circumftance is mentioned, to which it belongs, that it 
 may be fuppofed the reader or hearer has fo far forgotten it 
 as not readily to perceive the connexion : in which cafe it 
 is to be introduced the fecond time by the words that pre- 
 ceded it before ; as, for inftance, 
 
 / voas in hopes that^ as he had always exfrcjjed a great 
 fricndjhip for this now dijlrejfcd family^ as he is Ukewife im^ 
 menfely rich^ and ne'ver was looked upon as a man of a near 
 difpofition^ huf^ on the contrary^ of a n^ery lihcral a^id co?n' 
 pajjionate onc^ of which he has given numhcrlefs proofs^ (for 
 feldojn a week has pajjed hut he has relieved fome indigent 
 * perfon) I fay I was in hopes ^ confdering all this^ that he 
 would give the unfortunate family a very a7}iple afjifla7icc. 
 
 Heie it is not a different that^ which is ufed. It is the 
 fame that^ introduced by the fame words as before. 
 
 LXXIV. 
 
 A vfiRY great abfurdity, of which both the Englilh and 
 the French are continually guilty as well in writing as iu 
 fpeaking, is the making the pronoun relative that (or 
 which ^ or who) fingular, where it refers to a fubflantive 
 plural, and where, confequently, it ought itfelf to be plural. 
 
 EXAMPLE. 
 
 He was one of thofe highwaymen^ that was condemned 
 laji fejjions. 
 
 This is falfe grammar, if the meaning be that feveral 
 highwaymen were condemned lafi: feffions, and that this 
 man was one of them ; for in that cafe the pronoun rela- 
 tive that refers to highwaymen^ not to he ; and we ought 
 therefore to fay he was one of thofe highwaymen^ that 
 w ERE cotidcmticd lajlfejions^ A tranfpolition of the words 
 will make it plain that the word that refers to highway- 
 men. For inftance, Of thofe highwaymen^ that were con^ 
 demned laf feffions^ he ivas one* 
 
 But the expreffion, if taken in another fenfe, is good 
 grammar. 
 
 Suppofe a company to be talking of a gang of high^ 
 waymen, and that one of this company has a mind to fay 
 that a certain highwayman, condemned lail: feflions, be- 
 longed to that gang. Here this perfon may fay He was onr 
 of thofe highwaymen^ that was condemned lajt feffio7is\ be- 
 D caufc 
 
38 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 caufe tlieword that refers upon this occafion not to higlKvay^ 
 nini^ but to he\ and the meaning is, hc^ that ^ivas condemned 
 Iqft J'cJJions^ ^j:as one of thofc hig}>vjayi}ie7u But this laft way 
 of fpeaking, viz. hc^ that w^j covde?7mcd laft fcjjions^ w^j 
 C7ie of thofe h!gl.Hvay7ne>i^ is the bell, becauie it is impof- 
 fible to be mifunderflood. 
 
 One would think thefe dilHnc^ions xtry eafy to make : 
 nndyet there are few authors, either EngHih or French, 
 that make them: and it is amazing to fee what blunders 
 and falfe grammar many even of the beil writers of the 
 two nations are herein guilty of. 
 
 LXXV. NO OTHER BESIDES, NO OTHER EXCEPT. 
 NO OTHER BUT. 
 
 JL HESE expreflions are frequently made ufe of, where 
 they do not make the fenfe intended. 
 
 If I aik a friend what vifus he has received to-day, and 
 he would fignify that Mr. A is the only perfon that has 
 V ill red him, he may fay No perfon hcfidcs Mr, A has ^ji^ 
 fttcd 77ic^ or 710 other perfo7i than Mr. A las I'fttcd nie. But 
 to fav no other perfon beftdes Mr. A has I'ifted wr, would 
 be wrong, bccaufc it would feem as if fomcbody elfe had 
 been mentioned before the mention of Mr. A, 
 
 Where the words *7to other have a reference, this expref- 
 fion mny be right. 
 
 If I fay Mr. A and Mr. B have called on me 'to-day : 
 hut no other perfon has come into my rocniy hefides 7ny taylor^ 
 (or except'mg my taylor) herein there is nothing improper. 
 The words vo other have here a meaning ; whereas in the 
 former inllance they have none. They fignify 710 other 
 perfon than Mr. A and Mr. B. 
 
 In poetry, the fort ofexprelfion here condemned feems 
 fometimes to give a force which would otherwife be want- 
 ing. When that is the cafe, it may be allowed. 
 
 LXXVI. WONDERED. 
 
 Xx STEAD of Tf.wfe thhigs ^j:ere mi4ch -zvondcird at. — 7^: at 
 circurhfiance ^vas much ^jjondcrcd at — many writers would 
 fay thofe th'mgs "vccre much <v^07idi:red — that circiwzftance 
 ^vas much ^iX}07id€red — omitting the at. This is not Eng- 
 lifh : for we do not fay to 'i^'o?ider a thi7ig^ but to v:ondcr at 
 a thing. I ^^^ 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 39 
 
 I am not fure that, where the clrcumftance which raifes 
 the wonder is mentioned after the word ^MOiidereil^ and 
 that word is preceded by the unrelative pronoun //, the at 
 may not either be ufed or omitted. For inilance, It ^vas 
 ixjo?ukred that he Jhould marry Jo late In Vfc* — It ivas ^voh- 
 ikredat that he Jhould marry fo late in life. At leall, there 
 are many writers who omit it ; which, I believe, how- 
 ever, I (hould myfelf not venture to do. 
 
 LXXVn. RELATIVE. 
 
 JL HIS word is often ufed adverbially by incorre6l writers. 
 
 He ^vas interrogated relati've to that circu?njiancc, — J4^e 
 d/jlourjed a great ^vhilc relative to %\)hat you han^e juji men- 
 tioned. 
 
 This is not good Englifh. The proper expreffions are 
 relatively to^ and in relation to, — He voas i?iterrogated re- 
 latively to (or i?i relation to) that circumjiancc, — JVc dij- 
 courfed a great vohile relatively to (or in rclatio?i to) 'U)hat 
 you have juji mentioned. 
 
 Relative to is to be ufed only where there is a fubllan- 
 tive, with which relative^ an adjedive, agrees. For in- 
 flance, the hint he gave jne vjas relative to that affair* 
 Here relative is an adjedive agreeing with the fubilan- 
 tive hint\ and to is a prepofition to the fubitantive affair* 
 
 LXXVHL 
 
 vJuR tranflators from the French tongue, where they 
 meet with the words Huit jours — quinze jours — are apt to 
 render them literally eight days— fifteen days. 
 
 The French fay eight days and fifteen days^ where an 
 Engliihman woulci fay a ^.veek — a fortnight ; for they bring 
 both the firfl and the iaftday into the account. Hult jours 
 '-^quitize jours — ought therefore to be tranflated a ^-nceek 
 -— ^ fortnight. To ufe a French exprellion in writing 
 Englifh is wrong. 
 
 I have often wondered that the ingenious author of the 
 Rambler (who without doubt is well verfed in the French 
 tongue, and who has a remarkable fluency and copioufnefs 
 of expreifion in the Englifti) Ihould tell us that fome 
 French writer alFerts there are few people, who know how 
 T> 2 to 
 
40 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 to take a walk. I know not what French writer this is ; 
 but his words, in all probability, are either /f« dc gens fa- 
 n^cntfcfromener^ ox pen de gens fan)ent f aire une promenade* 
 The words fc proinencr^ though they iignify what an 
 -TEnglifhman calls taking a ^valk^ have a much more ex- 
 tenfive fignificatlon than this Englifh exprelfion. They 
 mean likewife to go out upon a lit 'le party of plcafure^ whe- 
 ther on foot, on horfeback, or in a carriage. S(Jtnetimes 
 they figni fy to go Ic purely. Nous rc'viendrons en nous pro- 
 Tfienant fays Lewis XIV. in a billet to Madame Mainte- 
 non ; as much as to fay ^^ w/7/ come back ^m it bout hurry- 
 ing^ and ivill tra'vcl o?dy fuch a pace as ivill make our re- 
 turning an amufemcnt to us. 
 
 As to the French writer mentioned by the Rambler, I 
 fhould imagine his meaning to be that few people are 
 properly qualified to make themfelves agreeable in any 
 iittlc jaunt of pleafure : which obfer\-ation is vciy jufl; 
 there being not one in a great many, who has the com- 
 pliablcnefs of temper, the cheerfulnefs, and the talent of 
 making amufing remarks U|x>n any thing that falls under 
 the notice of the company, which feem to be all neceHuiy 
 in fuch jaunts* 
 
 LXXIX, 
 
 A coMhfON fault in our writers is the making the pro* 
 jiouns tlat c^n^ ivhich at t)^c fame time nominative and 
 iiccufative; as, for inftance. Tie venifon^ v^hich I received 
 yvjierday out cf the country^ and<=i\:as a prefentfrom a friend* 
 
 There is abarbarifm in this cxprefiion ; and it muil hurt 
 every perfon that has any delicacy of apprehenfion. It is 
 nccelfary to repeat the word %\>hich before w<j^, and to 
 fay The <uc7ilfon^ ^ivhich Irecci'ved ycjierday out of the coun- 
 try ^ and ivhich ^joas a prefent from a friend. In ^.vhich I 
 received the n.\:hich is in the accufative cafe. In ivhich i\>as 
 a prefent it is in the nominative. 
 
 This fault is frequent in Swift, whofe ftyle is far from 
 being fo excellent as it is often afferted to be. In fome 
 parts of his works it is exceedingly good ; but in many 
 others it is flat, low, and fhamefuily incorrect. 
 
 ^ I have 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 41 
 
 I have often wondered at grammarians' afTerting (as 
 they fometimes do) that nouns have no cafes in the mo- 
 dern languages. The nxjord CASUS, fay they, which fig- 
 nifies A CASE, is dcrii^cd from cadere, to fall. Co7i- 
 fequC7itly nouns^ that do not change their tcrmlnatio7i^ hai^e 
 no cafes. But this is only faying that a noun, that never 
 varies in its termination, never varies in its termination. 
 
 According to this account, the Latin word nihil has na 
 cafes ; and the wordisfcHcc and felici, which ^re both ufcd 
 in what we call the ablative cafe fmgular of friix, are, i«i 
 reality, of different cafes, as well as the words honus, hona^ 
 honu?n^ which we fay are ail in the nominative. 
 
 I would alk thefe grammarians upon what account tlie 
 Greeks and Romans made their nouns vary in their ter- 
 mination. No doubt it was becaufethey felt that a noun 
 raifed different ideas in their minds, according to the place 
 it occupied. Being placed before a verb, and gonjerning^ 
 as we call it, that verb, it appeared in a different light 
 from that in which it appeared in what we call the accu- 
 fatlve cafe, where it is, as we f^iy, go<\icrricd hy it. 
 
 If this were their inducement (and I do not fee what 
 other inducement they could have), it is not the termina- 
 tion that makes the cafe, but it is the view, in which the 
 word appears, that makes it: and different terminations 
 were Invented to exprefs, in fome meafure, the different 
 views in which nouns fnew themfelves. I fay in fome mea- 
 fure ; for it would have been endlefs to invent different 
 terminations for all the different views, in which a noun 
 is capable of prefenting itfelf to the imagination. 
 
 Now, confidering the thing in this light, we muff con- 
 clude that nouns have as many cafes in one language as in 
 another; that it is impoffible to fay how many cafes, or 
 JituationsyOx points of n)ie^±\ there really are,* and that the 
 difference between the Greek and Latin on the one hand, 
 and the modern languages on the other, is only this, viz.. 
 that in the former there is an endeavour to (hew thofe/i^/w/i 
 afjvic^yj by different terminations,, and in the latter by the 
 life of prepofitions. 
 
 It did not occur to me, till fince the firft edition of thefe 
 
 Remarks, that, agreeably with my notion of its not being 
 
 the termination of the word that makes the cafe of a noun, 
 
 but the poi7U of <uicvj in v/hich the word appears, the 
 
 D 3 compilers 
 
42 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 compilers of the Latin grammar, conlidering verbs in the 
 fame light, have made three different moods [the fub- 
 jundtive, the optative, and the potential], in all which 
 three the words are ftill the fame. 
 
 This reminds me, further, of a certain particularity in 
 the French language. Participles mafculine active admit 
 an accufative cafe, or any other word, immediately after 
 them; as, for inflance, Cct homme almant cette fc?nme 
 fojfime II faifoit — (that 7ijan Icvlng that luoman to the degree 
 he did,) — Cet cfficier croyaiit la hataille gagnee — (that of- 
 Jicer fttfpofin^ the hattle gained). But the feminine parti- 
 ciple (according to French grammarians) does not. Cette 
 femme aimante cet homme comme elk faifoit^ to fignify that 
 IV Oman losing that man to the degree jhc dld^ would not be 
 French. The mute ^, the laft letter of the word aimante^ 
 5s fupprefTed ; and the univerfal way of fpeaking is, cette 
 fcmine aimant cet homme comme clle faifoit, '* This word 
 **' aijnant^^ would thefe grammarians fay, ** is here a ge- 
 ♦' rund ; and gerunds are undeclined, and end always with 
 •* the fame letter." 
 
 Now thefe grammarians may aiTert as they pleafe that 
 the word is a gerund. Its fenfe is ablblutely that of a 
 participle. The word is therefore a participle, let them call 
 It what they will ; it being, as I have faid, the fer.fe of 
 the word, and not its termination^ that determines it to be 
 this or that part of fpeech. 
 
 LXXX. THE REASON IS BECAUSE, &C. 
 
 J. HIS cxpreffion does not make fenfe* 
 
 l^he reafon of my dcjiring to fee you ^.vas hecaufe I^ivanted 
 to talk with you on fuch an afair. — The reafon of his gO' 
 ing to live in the country is hecaufe he has had health. 
 
 This expreflion, I fay again, is nonfenfe ; and it amazes 
 me that our writers do not perceive it. But, in fhort, 
 they do not ; and there are fccircely any, even of our 
 greateft authors, that avoid this way of fpeaking. 
 
 Let us put hy reafon in the room of bccaufc, — By rea^ 
 fon^ to fignify hecaufe^ is indeed a low expreflion. How- 
 ever, it is Englifh. 
 
 ne reafon of ?ny deftring to fee you iK'as hy reafon I 
 wanted to talk with you on fuch an affair, — The reafon of 
 lis going to li*vc in the country is hy reafon he has had health. 
 
 Can 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 45 
 
 Can any thing be more glaring than the nonfenfe of 
 this expreiiion ? 
 
 The proper ways of fpeaking are, Tl.n reafon of my de- 
 firing to fee you i\.'as that I ^v anted to talk ^vith you on fuch 
 an affair. — The reafon of my defring to fee you ivas my 
 <voanting to talk ii^ith you on fuch an affair, — The reafon of 
 , his going to li've in the country is that he has lad health*-^ 
 The reafon of his going to li've in the country is his hanging 
 had health 
 
 The reafon is on aacount of\% as bad 35 the reafon is 
 hecaufc* 
 
 LXXXL 
 
 «* JhlE Was admirably formed for poetry ; and in the 
 •* year 167 1 he had a fair opportunity of difplaying his 
 *' talents in that way. It was on occafion of the prize of 
 ** poetry founded by the members of the French academy ; 
 ** the fubjed of which at this time was on the fuppreffing 
 *' of dueliing by Lewis XIV." Biographical DiHionary, 
 To fay The fuhjcH of if ivas on the fuffrcJIing of duel- 
 ling is talking as improperly as it would be to fay On the 
 fupprefjing of duelling was the fuhjeH of it. The proper 
 expreiiion would have been Tlje fuhjeH of vjhich was the 
 fupprefjing of duellings without the on^ 
 
 LXXXIL 
 
 " OupposE I were to fay that to ever)' art there was a 
 *' fyilem of fuch various and well-approved principles," 
 Harris^ the Author of Hermes* 
 
 ** If all the obje61ions to Newton's fyOem were anfwer- 
 ** ed, if the fafts and calculations were over and o^er con- 
 *' firmed, a difciple of Leibnitz would ftill maintain that 
 ** there was nofufficient reafon for attraction as an efiential 
 ** property,or as an attribute, of matter." LordBolinghrokc, 
 
 This is the common way of fpeaking ; but, in m.y opi- 
 nion, not the moll rational one. 
 
 That to every art there is a fyflcm^ and that there is no 
 fufficient reafn for attraSlion^ would be much better ex- 
 preffions, as I Ihould imagine, than to enjery art there was 
 afyfiem,) and there was no fufficicut reafon for attraHlon, 
 
 It 
 
44 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 It is tnie the word ^ere mfuppo/e I i\:ere to fay ^ and in 
 if all the ohje.Bions 'were anfjoered^ is in what we call the - 
 preter-impec^a tenfe of the fubjundive mood ; for which 
 reafon many \s^i fay the verb in the indicative mood, 
 which follows, ou^ght to be in the preter-imperfed like- 
 wife. But, though this word be in that tenfe, yet, in re- 
 gard to lisfcnfc, it has nothing to do with the time paft ; 
 and therefore the following it with a verb in the preter- 
 imperfect in the indicati'vc^ which docs regard the time 
 pafl, is improper, notwithftanding its being the common 
 way of fpeaking. 
 
 If an atheifi vjouhl well covfdcr the arguments in this 
 hook^ he ^.vould confcfs there ^vas a God, — If an atheifi 
 ivould <ivell cofifdcr the arguments in this hook^ he would 
 confefs there is a God, 
 
 Thoiic;h mod people would make ufeof the former, the 
 latter of thefe is the befl expreilion, the exigence of a 
 GOD being fpoken of as a thing permanent. 
 
 Nay, even though the verb wcre preceded by a verb 
 in the ind cati've mood, this way of fpeaking would ftill be 
 the bed. For inllance, an athcift^ upon read, fig this hook^ 
 confefi there is a God^ is not only a more elegant, but a more 
 proper, expi-ellion than an athc'^fl^ upon reading this hooky 
 conf'fi there ivas a Gcd; becaufe we are nor to luppofe that 
 this man imagined there was a God jutl at thit time only, 
 but that he looked upon him as a permanent being, exill- 
 ing likewife in future. 
 
 For a fimilar reafon is would be a better word than was 
 in the pailages quoted above from Haxiis and Lord Bo- 
 lingbroke. 
 
 I will fubjoin another cafe. 
 
 Suppofe I meet accidentally in London a man who rob- 
 bed me lately upon the road. Which would be the nioft 
 proper exprelfion for me to ufe, t/.^is was the man ^ or this- 
 IS the fuan^ that robbed me? Moil people, I imagine, 
 would fay this was the man. But this is the man is the 
 propereft expreilion : for, though the robbery, which is a 
 pill tranfidion, ought to be mentioned in a pail tenCe, the 
 i<:Ientity of the man, who flill continues the fame, is 
 wiih more prop T^'c^^ •ry,^\r.. r.r;M ^'-^.. prefent tenfe. 
 
 LXXXIIL 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 4$ 
 
 LXXXIIL 
 
 «* 1 WAS much delighted with a perfon, who hath a great 
 *' eftate in this kingdom, upon his complaints to me how 
 *' grievoufly poor England fuffers by importations from Tre- 
 *' land : that we convey our wool to France,in fpite of all the 
 " harpies at the Cuftom-houfe : that Mr. vShuttleworth, 
 ** and others on the Chefhire coaft, are fuch fools to fell 
 *' us their bark at a good price, for tanning our own hides into 
 *' leather: with other enormities of the like kind." S-w/ft* 
 
 *' Thofe among them who were fo unfortunate to have 
 ** had their birth and education in this country." 
 
 In the fame D'lfcourfe^ 
 
 To {-^y fuch fools to fell us their hark and fo nfifortv.rufte 
 to have bad their hirtb^ ^c, though it be a way of freak- 
 ing ufed by many people, and even by efteemcd writers, 
 is not talking llridly good Engllfh. He ought to have 
 faid fach fools as to fell us their hark* — ^a unfortunate AS 
 to ha<ve had their hirtb and education in this cctiutiy* 
 
 The omillion of the as ought to be left to poetry, where 
 nil ungrammatical concifenefs often gives- a Ipirit, which 
 more than compenfates for the negled of grammar. 
 
 LXXXIV, PAINS. 
 
 bo ME writers ufe a verb fingular with the fubftantivc 
 fainsywhttt that fubflantive is employed figunuively. For 
 example; He took great fains in that affair : lut his fains 
 fVjas ill retvarded, 
 
 I think this has no grace, and that it would be much 
 better to fay His fains were ill rewarded* 
 
 LXXXV. ANGUISHING. 
 
 JVIr. Molyneux, in one of his letters to Mr. Locke, has 
 the following pericxl. It is an anguiflnng thought to 7nc 
 that ycu fnoidd he fuhjeft to the common frailties and fate of 
 mankind, 
 
 Avguif:ing is perhaps a word of his own coining r for I 
 do not remember to have feen it in any other writer. But 
 I think it very exprcliive, and fliculd be pieafed to fee it 
 adopted, 
 
 LXXXVL 
 
46 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 LXXXVI. DARE. 
 
 JN UMBERS of people, though they ufe the s in the third 
 peiibn fingular of the prefent tenfe of the indicative mood 
 of other verbs, omit it in that of the verb to dare^ -iwA 
 would fay he dan not do it^ inftead of be dares not. Many 
 authors do the fame. Tlie cxpreffion is indeed fo com- 
 mon that it feems rather too bold to affirm it not to be 
 Englilh. Yet I confefs I fee no grace in it ; and the uiing* 
 it appears to me to give a perfon an air of illiteratenefs. 
 
 LXXXVII. 
 
 vJuR Englifli writers very frequently, by the wrong 
 placing a word, either annihilate fenfe, or give a fenfe 
 diflerent from what they intend. 
 
 " The Celtiberl of Spain borrowed that name from 
 ** the Celtse 3c Iberi, from whom they were jointly de- 
 •' fcended." Moyle. 
 
 The proper expreilion here would have been from 
 hjhofft jointly they <vcere drfc ended. This would have fig- 
 nified that the Celta and the Ibcri were jointly the proge- 
 nitors of the Celtileri \ which is the authors meaning; 
 whereas, placing the wotA jointly as he does, he gives the 
 reader a confufed idea of a defcent common to the Celtic 
 heri and to fome other people. 
 
 LXXXVIII. our'n, your'n, his'n, 
 
 1 N FINITE numbers of the low people in the country (and 
 not a few in London) inilead ot hisy hcr\s, oursy your Sy 
 their Sy fay his^n^ hern^ our n.^ your* n^ their n, 
 
 I had not taken notice of this, but that even perfons of 
 education are often guilty of the fame. I would advife 
 them likewife, in imitation of many of thole low people, 
 to fay houjhi inilead of houjes^ 
 
 LXXXIX. The. ABliJe and the Paffi-ve i?npropcrly intro- 
 duced together, 
 
 X HE effedls of ity fays an author, fpeaking of perfpe6tive, 
 arc not letter csplained hy Leofiard da kind than, Plata 
 
 has 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 47 
 
 has ^one in his Dialogue of the SophiJI, This does not 
 make fenfe. The author might have faid The cffcBs of it 
 are not better explai^icd by Leonard da Vitici than Flato has 
 e-xplained them in his Dialogue of the Sophijl^ or tha?i the^ 
 are explained by Plato in his Dialogue of the Sophifl} 
 
 There are perhaps many people, who would feel the im- 
 propriety of his exprellion, without immediately perceiving 
 to what it is owing". 
 
 The abfurdity lies here. Flato has done is adive. The 
 cffctls of it are jiot better explained is paffive. When he 
 fays Plato has done^ he means has explained it. This has 
 explained is a6live. The are explained above is (as I have 
 juil: now faid) pallive. Now he ufes the two explai?ieds as 
 words of the fame fignificatlon ; which, one being paffive, 
 and the other adHve, they cannot be. And this it is that 
 makes his expreffion nonfenfe. 
 
 It is a mortification to me to have obferved that this 
 fort of barbarifm is not unfrequent in even good Engiifh 
 writers, while the very woril of the French are hardly 
 ever guilty of it. 
 
 Here follow two quotations, in each of which there is a 
 fault of the fame kind with that mentioned above. 
 
 " Yonder comes the man we are fpeaking of, your 
 '* friend Theodorus. I fhould be glad to be introduced 
 •*• to him. — That, faid Agoretes, I undertake very frankly 
 " to do." Fordyce^s Art of Preaching. 
 
 " All that can now be decently urged is the reafon of 
 <* the thing: and this I fhall do, more for the fake of that 
 *' truly venerable body than my own." 
 
 Dr» WarburtoTLS Preface to Shakefpeare, 
 
 What is it that Agoretes undertakes to do ? The mean- 
 ing (as we may guefs) is that he will introduce the other 
 to Theodorus. But it is not properly exprelled ; the words 
 to do^ which are aclive, referring to the words to be rntro- 
 duced^ which are paffive. This certainly does not make 
 fenfe. 
 
 The fume ob^edion lies to the paffage from Dr. War- 
 burton. 
 
 XC. The Jf^ofds BOTH and OR improperly vfed togothcr, 
 
 X HEY are under the fame predicament^, fays an author* 
 They arc alike ?nen both as to afe^ion or ii'caknefs^ 
 
 This 
 
4? ^ REMARKS ON THE 
 
 This does not make fenfe. Qr would have been pro- 
 per after the adverb cither : but the adverb i^/rf/.j required 
 an anri to follow it. For inftance, T'/jcy are alike men. ei- 
 ther as to affcHion or ^^eakncfs, — They are alike ?nen^ both 
 as to affeHion and 'v^caknefs, 
 
 XCI. 
 
 OwiFT, where he enumerates the caufes of a countiy*s 
 fiourifhing, writes in the foUovs^ing manner. 
 
 '* The firil caufe of a kingdom's thriving is the fruit- 
 *' fulncfs of the foil, &c, — The fecond is the induHry of 
 *' the people in working up, &:c. — The fixth is by being 
 ** governed only by laws made with their own confent. — 
 *' The feventh is by improvement of land. — The tenth 
 ** is by difpoling of all offices of honour, profit, or truil, 
 ** only to the natives." 
 
 One of the caufes is the doing thus^ or thus^ is a veiy 
 proper exprelTion. But to fay One of the caufes is by do- 
 ing thus^ or thus^ or (which is the fame thing), by doing 
 thus^ or thus^ is one of the cavfes^ is not talking fenfe. 
 
 He ought to have faid The fixth is the heiyig governed 
 finly by laws tnhde ivith their o^lVh confent. The fc-venth is 
 the ifnpro^'cmcnt of land. The tenth is the difpoftng of all 
 effices of honour^ froft^ or trnfi^ only to the natives. 
 
 This abfurd mode of expreffionis very common with our 
 Engliih writers. Here follows '.mother inflance of it, that 
 I have juft met with. 
 
 " To this overture the count made no other anfwer 
 ** tkan by a low bow." 
 
 Tranflation of Keyflers Travels* 
 
 This is wrong. The tranflator might have faid either. 
 To this onjcrlurc the count made anf^K)er no otherivife than 
 hy a lovo bo-iv — or, (omitting the word by) to this overture 
 the count made no other anfocer than a low bo-iv. 
 
 He made anfwer by a lovo bi>^JO is fenfe. — A lo^\} bo^M 
 is the anf=iver he made^ is likewife fenfe. 
 
 But to fay hy a loiv bo^xj zvas the anfiver he made^ or he 
 fnade no other avfwer than by a lo^w bo^w^ making thus the 
 word by a part of the nominative or accufative cafe, is 
 •talking nonfenfe. 
 
 XCII. 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 4^ 
 
 XCIL Two Nominatives imtb a Fcrh Jlngular, 
 
 « W HEN you are a6ling towards them in confequence 
 *' of what your juftice and honour requires." 
 
 Tranflatiori of Cicero'^s Letters^ hy Melmotb* 
 
 A verb lingular with two nominative cafes iingular may 
 perhaps be allowed, where thofe nominatives have the 
 fame, or very nearly the fame, fignification : but not elfe. 
 This is therefore bad Englifh; and the proper expreffion 
 would have been in confeqiance of nvbat your jufiicc and 
 honour require* 
 
 The fame trapllation has the following period. 
 
 *' *Tis true, into whatever part of the world he might 
 *' be caft, he muft ilill retain the fame bitter fenfibility 
 " of that ruin, in which both himfelf and his country is 
 «* involved." 
 
 There is here no pretence for the ufe of a verb lingu- 
 lar; and the tranflator ought to have written /« which 
 both himfelf and his country are inn)oln)cd. 
 
 This affedation of deviating from the rules of grammar 
 merely for the fake of deviating from them, and where a 
 freedom of expreffion does not require it, is very wrong. 
 Why was grammar invented, but that, for want of it„ 
 men were unable to convey their thoughts to each other 
 in a clear and diftlndl manner ? This was undoubtedly the 
 reafon. And fo far are we from being overburdened with 
 rales of grammar, that, on the contrary, we are often un- 
 intelligible for want of a greater number of them. If we 
 neglecS thofe we have already, we Ihall come, in time, to 
 underhand one another no better than our anceflors did 
 before the language was brought into any form. 
 
 XCIII. ANTECEDENT. 
 
 VV E have feveral writers, who employ this word ungram- 
 matically. ^ 
 
 *' This is evident from aletterto Attici^s, written about 
 
 *' four years antecedent to the fact, of WAiich I am fpeak- 
 
 ** ing." Notes on Cicero^ s Letters. 
 
 Though thefe four years were antecedent to the fa6l, 
 
 the exprcllioxi oiiAiritten about four years antecedent to the 
 
 E fa^ 
 
SP REMARKS ON THE 
 
 fa^ is not proper : for antecedent, when thus joined with 
 ivriticn, is ufed adverbially. But anteccdejit is not an adverb. 
 
 VTrlttcn antecedently to the faB by about four years would 
 have been good Englifh : and, if the tranflator had dif- 
 liked the adverb, another turn might have been given to 
 the period, and the word ^joritten might either have been 
 placed immediately after letter, or have been omitted. For 
 example, This is evident from a letter ^iVi'itten to Atticus^ 
 about four years antecedent to the fa^, of ^jjhich I ayn fpeak' 
 ing, — This is evident from a letter to Atticus, about four 
 years antecedent to the faH, ofivhich lamfpeahing. 
 
 Here antecedent agrees with the fubllantive letter, which 
 it cannot do, when joined, as above, with the word ^.vrittcn: 
 and, if you fuppofe it to agree with years, the words con- 
 vey no idea of any particular point of time. Prior would 
 have been, however, a better word than antecedent^ as an 
 adjective to letter, 
 
 XC I V. YOU and THOU employed together. 
 
 *' OHOULD fortune continue to perfecute me, will you, 
 ** thou dear, unhappy woman, will you fondly throw away, 
 *' in gaining friends to a defperate caufe, the lafl fcanty 
 ** remains of your defperate fortunes ?" Cicero's Letters, 
 The Viiingyou and thou in the fame period (and more 
 cfpecially fo very near together) is r.n unnatural way of 
 writing. And yet we have many authors guilty of it. 
 Pope is not a little faulty in this particular. 
 
 XCV. EVERY ONE made plural. 
 
 *' 1 SHALL very zcaloully perfevere in my applications 
 *' not only to Cxfar, but to all thole who are moll in his 
 ** favour, every one of whom I have experienced to be 
 ** much my friends.'* Ibid. 
 
 Though e<very one be a noun of number, it has no grace 
 ufed as a plural ; and the tranllator ought to have faid 
 J^Tfry one of vchorn I have experienced to be much ??iy 
 friend. 
 
 The tranflator fays, in another part of the fame letter. 
 They are every one of them my friends. Here the fubftan- 
 tive is rightly put in the plural number; and it would have 
 been improper to fay they are every ofie of them my friend. 
 But it is to be confidereS that in this place the words ??iy 
 
 friends 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. §1? 
 
 friends belong to the words they are ; which makes the 
 expreffion of they are my friends. As to the words every 
 one of them^ they Hand by themfelves, and ought to be in- 
 cluded between two commas. They are brought in (as 
 one may fay) by way of explication. When, therefore, 
 a man fays they arc^ enjery one of them ^ my friends^ it is as 
 though he faid they are i7ty friends. Ifpeak not of feme of 
 them o?iJy^ hut ofalL 
 
 XCVL 
 
 " rL/xcEPTiNG Orpheus, there is none of them that have 
 *« any great claim to this favour." Ibid. 
 
 The verb lingular is and the verb plural havc^ intro- 
 duced thus together, make a confuiion. The tranilator 
 ought to have faid either there are none of them that ha've 
 any great claim^ or there is 710 one of them that has any great 
 claim, 
 
 XCVIL MUCH LESS. 
 
 X HIS expreffion is often ufed where it is not proper. 
 
 " Tell me whether I can, with a good grace, afk him to 
 ** allow me even the leall time for the payment of this 
 *' money ; much lefs above a year." Ibid. 
 
 Mvch lefs ahon^e a year does not here make fenfe. More 
 efpecially above a year would have been the proper ex-» 
 prellion. 
 
 Had the writer put a full flop at the word money ^ and 
 ceafed there to propofe a queition, and had afterwards 
 fpoken politively, much lefs might have been ufed. For 
 example. Tell me vjhether I can^ voith a good grace, afk 
 hi?n to allovj me even the leaf time for the payment of this 
 money. Much lefs can I afk of him above a year • 
 
 The reader will obferve that there is no note of in- 
 terrogation at jv<^^r; and that the words are therefore an 
 affirmation, and not a queflion. 
 
 XCVHL 
 
 *' XjLe acquitted himfelf fo much to my fatisfadlion that 
 
 *' I had reafon to think I received, inftead of bellowed, a 
 
 *' favour, when I nominated him to that employment." Ibid, 
 
 E z The 
 
52 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 The tranflator, I conceive, wrote hejlozved^ as judging; 
 that the word ought to be in the fame mood and tenfe with 
 received^ to which it Hands in oppolition. But I believe 
 every dilcerning perfon, who takes the leall time to conii- 
 der, will find that this word cannot properly be made ufe 
 of with injleady and that injicad of hcjiovjed h.'^rdly makes 
 fenfe. 
 
 With inftcad^ he/i(n\jing is the proper word. On the 
 other hand, if we fay beji<ywed^ the word ought to be ac- 
 companied by the adverb not. As, for example, He ac- 
 quitted hlmfclffo 7nuch to my fatisfaHion that I had re of on 
 to think I received^ injtead of bcftovjing^ a favour^ ^zvhen I 
 nominated him to that employment* — He acquitted hirnfelffo 
 much to my fatisfaBion that I had reafon to thifik I re- 
 ceinjed^ a7id not that Ihefiowed^ a favour^ ivhen I nominated 
 him to that employment. 
 
 This miflake of the tranflator reminds mc of a certain 
 impropriety very common among us both in fpeaking and 
 writing. Many people (I believe, indeed, the greatefl 
 part) would exprefs themfelves in this manner. — He has 
 not i\jork*d this afternoon. He has done nothing hut play d. 
 
 This is wrong. The proper expreflion is He has do?te 
 nothing but play. This word play is here in the infinitive 
 mood ,* and it is as though we faid to play is the only thing 
 that he has done ; which makes fenfe ; whereas play d is the 
 cnly thing that he has done is nonfenfe. 
 
 An infinitive mood may fupply the place of a noun fub- 
 ftantive : but a verb in another mood cannot. 
 
 XCIX. DIFFERENT THAN. 
 
 ** 1 FOUND your affairs had been managed in a different 
 ** manner than what I advifed." ^ Jhid. 
 
 A different manner than is not Englilh. We fay diffe- 
 rent to^ and different frc7n\ to the lafl of which expreifions 
 I have in another place given the preference, as making 
 the bell fenfe. 
 
 C. OmiJJion of a Frcpojition, 
 
 *' His compliance can by no means be confidered in the 
 ** favourable light which he here reprefents it." Ibid. 
 
 Thia 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 53 
 
 This IS a very bad, though a very common, way of wri- 
 ting. The tranflator ought to have repeated the prepofi- 
 tion /«, (for the imagination of the reader cannot fupply 
 it without pain) and to have faid His compliance can by no 
 means he conjidcred in the favourable Ught^ in %\}hich ht 
 here reprefents it, 
 
 CL 
 
 *« 1 NEVER expe6l to reap any advantage from my la* 
 <* hours of this kind." Ihid. 
 
 Cicero fpeaking here of what he at the time of his wri- 
 ting fuppofed would be the confequence of thofe labours, 
 the proper expreffion would have been / do not expeH cnjer 
 to reap a?iy ad'vantage from my labours of this kind^ or / 
 ha've no cxpe Elation of ever reaping any advantage from my 
 labours of this ki?id. 
 
 There is a difference between the ?iever expcHing to re* 
 ceive and the not cxpeHlng ever to receive* 
 
 If I fay / often do that man kindtieffcs ; but I never ex-^ 
 peB him to make a?iy return^ the meaning is that I, at 
 the time of my doing thofe kindnelTes, have no expedla- 
 tion that the man will, at any future time, make a re- 
 turn. 
 
 But, if I fay I often do that raan kindncjjes] but I do not 
 (xpeti him ever to ?nahe a return^ the meaning may be that 
 I, at the time of my fpeaking, have no expedation that 
 the man will ever make a return. 
 
 CII. 
 
 ** 1 wonder that fuch a valiant hero as you fhould trifle 
 *' away your time in making war upon women." 
 
 EJJay 071 the Writings and Genius of Pope» 
 This is wrongly exprelfed. It is the fubllantive hero^ 
 not the fubilantive you^ which ought to determine the 
 perfon of the pronoun, that ferves as an adjedive to time, 
 llie writer fhould therefore have faid / vjonder that fuch a 
 ^valiant hero as you fjould trifle a-voay his time in 7naking ^L,var 
 upon women. 
 
 E 3 cin. 
 
54 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 cm. 
 
 *' JlIe is the author of two works of a very different cha- 
 *' rader." 
 
 This, which I think I took from the Biographical Didio- 
 nary, would be a proper expreflion, had the writer been jufl 
 mentioning fome other work, and had thefe two works, 
 now fpoken of, been of the fame charadler one with an- 
 other, becaufe t^fjo ivorh of a different charaBer would 
 then lignify /w^ ivorks of a charaHer differerit from the 
 charader of the vjork already mentioned. 
 
 But this is not the cafe. He has not been fpeaking of 
 any other work : and his meaning is that thefe two are very 
 different from each other. Heoughttherefore either to have 
 faid of*very different charaSlers (which would have expreil'ed 
 his meaning), or to have ufed the (ingular number without 
 the ^, and have faid of njcry different charaBer ; which 
 would have had the fame lignification. Of thefe two ex- 
 preffions the lall is the mofl elegant. 
 
 I well know that the expreflion a different (or a very 
 different) is often employed in the manner which I here 
 condemn ; and I am not fure that any even of our befl 
 writers take care to avoid it. But, whatever authority it 
 may plead, it is not a clear expreflion ; and, therefore, I 
 can never think it right. 
 
 CIV. 
 
 W E have a certain ftrange barbarifm in our tongue, 
 which in all probability will never be baniftied. 
 
 The s with an apoftrophe, which occurs fo frequently 
 at the end of fubllantives, is a contraction of his, Inftead 
 of faying The houfe of that man^ thehorf of that man^ &c. 
 we fay, that man s houfe ^ that 7nan^s hofcx which e^pref- 
 fions are contractions of that man his houfcj that man his 
 horfc. 
 
 One would imagine then that, in fpeakir:g of what be- 
 longs to a woman, we fliould ufe the word her ; and, in 
 fpeaking of what belongs to feveral perfons, the word 
 their. And yet the j, the contraction of /6/j, is ufed even 
 in thefe cafes ; and, inflead of That nxwman her efate^ thofe 
 rnen their properties^ we fay that vjomans efiate^ thofe men^s 
 
 properties j 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 55 
 
 properties ; which are contractions of That 'woman her eft ate ^ 
 thofe men his properties. This is certainly, as I have faid, 
 a ftrange barbarifm. 
 
 It is neceffary to obferve that, to mark the elifion after 
 a plural number, where, for the avoiding the difagree- 
 able repetition of the found of the letter j, not the hi 
 only, but the whole word his is cut oiF, the apoftrophe 
 ought to be put not between the two lafl letters of this 
 plural number, but at the end of it. 
 
 For inflance, The EngVJh kings* palaces ; which figni- 
 fies the palaces of the Englijh kings. Here the apoflrophe 
 is put where the whole word his is omitted ; for the ex- 
 preffion at full length would be the Englijh kings his 
 palaces. 
 
 This is what few people obferve. Ninety-nine in a 
 hundred would write the the EngliJJ? king*s palaces. But 
 this expreffion would not give their meaning : for the 
 Englijh hinges palaces does not fignify the palaces of the 
 EngliJJ^ kings : it iignifies the palaces of the Englijh king. 
 
 This obfervation has nothing to do with plurals that do 
 not end with the letter i, as mcn^ ^\jomen^ (s'c. 
 
 CV. 
 
 *' X HE feeming importance given to every part of fe- 
 ** maledrefs, each of which is committed to the care and 
 *' protection of a different Sylph, with all the folemnity, 
 *' &c." EJJay on the Writings and Genius of Pope, 
 
 The word each does not make fenfe where it refers only 
 to one noun lingular. Now it refers here only to every 
 part ; and every part is lingular. 
 
 Neither can I think diffcrc7it a proper word in this 
 place ; and that for the fame reafon which I have given in 
 the lait obfervation but one. If I fay a different Sylph^ 
 when no other Sylph either is or has been mentioned, I 
 cannot fee that the word different has any meaning. 
 
 A word implying fcparate^ dijiin^^ particular^ would 
 have been more proper ; and the author might have writ- 
 ten in the following manner : — The Jeeming importa?ice 
 gin) en to all the parts of female drefs^ each ofvchich is com^ 
 mi tied to the care and proteBion of a feparate (or of a par » 
 tiiularj or of a fever al) Sylphy vjith all thefolejnnity^ (sfc. 
 
 The 
 
56 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 The viordifepai'ate^ which may here appear a little ftif!^ 
 would no longer appear fo, if it once began to be ufed in 
 the places where I have laid I think the word dif event 
 improper : and I Ihould imagine the fenfe of it muil be 
 owned to be juft, 
 
 CVI. 
 
 *' J. HE wounds inflicted are fuitable to the nature of each 
 ** different initrument faid to infii6t them.'* Ihid* 
 
 The words each and different^ juil now difapproved of, 
 as being feverally improperly employed, are here brought 
 in together in fuch a manner as makes fomething of a 
 confulion of fenfe. Either of them might have been intro- 
 duced fnigly : but different mud have been made a: plural, 
 and each muil: have referred to ^joounds^ and not have been 
 made an adjective to injirument : as, for inftance, T/je 
 *i\)ound5 injiitled arc ftdtahlc to the nature of the dfferent in* 
 Jlruments faid to inJiiH them, — Thcwounds ivjl:^ed are fuit' 
 ahle^ each to the nature of the particular itiftrument faid to 
 infilH it. 
 
 It is to me unaccountable that writers Ihould make this 
 word each of the phiral number, where it lefers to fingle 
 obje6ts. One would imagine that even the finalleil de- 
 gree of underilandiug fhould inform them it is fmgular. 
 In making it plural, they make it fynonymous either with 
 both^ or with the pkiral oi all : whereas it fignifics every 
 onc^ finely confidcred, 
 
 " Each of thefe experiments," fays a book that lies 
 before me, '* have fomething peculiar to them." 
 
 *' Thirteen of thefe unfortunate rivals," fays the tran- 
 flator of Cicero's Letters, *' entered the lift ; and each 
 ^' of them in their turn paid the forfeiture of their lives.'* 
 
 Thefe writers ought to have faid, Rach of thefe cxpcri^ 
 mef/ts has fometh I /ig peculiar to it, — Thirteen of thefe urfor' 
 tunate rivals entered the lifi ; a7id each of them in his turn- 
 paid the forfeiture of his life, 
 
 CVII. IT IS EQUALLY THE SAME. 
 
 X HIS expreflion, fo frequently in the mouths of the lower 
 people, who mean by it It is the fame, or it is all one^ 
 would not be worth mentioning, if it did not fometimes 
 efcape their betters. As 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 57 
 
 As it is ufed, it is nonfenfe : for the word equally ought 
 to refer to fomething ; wherea^ as thefe people ufe it, it 
 is made to refer to nothing. 
 
 CVIIL 
 
 X HE word hoth^ of the improper ufe of which I have al- 
 ready fpoken, is frequently brought in with equal or 
 equally in an abfurd manner. For inftance, Thofe nvo men 
 are loth equal i?i capacity, — Thofe ti>:o ?nen are both equally 
 a?nhitious, 
 
 A and B are equal in capacity is fenfe. This means 
 that they are equal to each other. 
 
 A and B are both equal in capacity to C is likewife 
 fenfe. It ligniiies that A is equal to C, and that B is 
 likewife equal to C, in capacity. 
 
 But, if I fay limply that A and B are both equal in 
 capacity, I talk nonfenfe : for thefe words lignify only 
 that A is equal in capacity, and that B is likewife equal 
 in capacity, without implying to whom. So that the 
 word equal has nothing to which it refers. 
 
 We have numbers of authors (and fome of tliem verj" 
 good ones) who do not attend to this. 
 
 CIX. 
 
 ** XT is generally allowed that the author of the Difcourfe 
 *' of Free-thinking, and of the Grounds and Reafons of 
 *' the Chriflian Religion was one and the fame." 
 
 Preface to the Divine Legation* 
 
 I think this ill expreffed. When the writer fays The 
 author of the Difcourfe of Free-tbinking^ and of the Grounds 
 and Reafons of the Chriflian Religion^ the very words 
 feem to fuppofe thefe two works to be produced by one 
 man. And what wonder is it that this one man fhould be 
 one and the fame ? 
 
 The word author ought to have been repeated, and the 
 verb ihould have been in the plural number. For in- 
 llance, It is generally allovjed that the author of the Dif* 
 courfe of Frec^thinking^ and the author of the Grounds and 
 Reafons of the Chriflia7i Religion ivere one and the fame. 
 
 Faults of this fort are very common in Englilh writers, 
 
 ex. 
 
58 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 ex. 
 
 JNoTwiTHSTANDiNG (as has been already obferved) 
 there is not a more common fault in fpe.tking than the 
 ufmg the verb to Aary inllead of /<? />, while we fcarcely 
 ever hear the word lir where lay would be proper ; there 
 are fome few writers, who are guilty of faying have lahiy 
 (which is a preter-perfe6t of to lie) where they ought to 
 fay have lald^ a. preter-perfecSl of to lay. 
 
 Among others, Bluet has this expreflion in his very 
 fenlible (though little known) anfwer to M.mdeville s 
 Fable of the Bees. — '* The reftraints," fays he, " rhatedu- 
 *' cation, cuflom and decency have lain them under, "&c. 
 — and, in another place, *' after they have lain afide all 
 *' pretences to it." This is not good Englifh. He ought 
 to have ufed the word laiJ^ and not lain ; for lain is the 
 participle of lie. We do not fay to lie people U7idcr re^ 
 Jiraints^ or to lie afide pretences ; but to lay people under re* 
 Jiraints^ and to lay af.de prete?ices, 
 
 CXI. EN PASSANT. 
 
 Instead oi en pajfant^ my Lord Shaftefbury makes ufe 
 of the Englifli words, in pajjin^. Herein I think he is 
 right. The expreflion of in pafftug^ or in ptijjing along y is 
 perfectly intelligible, and very eafy. We have, there- 
 fore, no need of the French words. 
 
 It would indeed be well if foreign words could be en- 
 tirely banifhed. The ufe of them has fomething in it un- 
 natural, and gives the lang-uage, into which they are drag- 
 ged, an air of poverty. Where we want a word in our 
 own tongue, to exprefs any particular idea, we ought either 
 to take a foreign word, and give it an Englifh form, and 
 an Englifh pronunciation, (as we have already done in 
 many inilances) or to invent a word ourfelves. 
 
 CXII. 
 
 X HE adverbs neither and nor are not to be ufed with the 
 adverb not^ and the adjective no, 
 
 I have received no letter^ neither from him^ nor from 
 his hr other. — / have not heard any nevjs^ neither of him^ nor 
 of his hroih£r% 
 
 Thia 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 59 
 
 This is wrong. The proper way of fpeaking is, Ihave 
 rcccinjed no letter^ either from hi?n^ or frofn his brother, — • 
 I have not heard any ne<vjs^ either of hi?n<^ or of his brother. 
 
 This is, as I have faid, the corre6t way of fpeaking-, 
 But we ought not to refolve never to deviate from it. Iii 
 very animated fpeeches, where a man were delivering- him- 
 felf with vehemence and heat, neither and nor^ as having 
 a more forcible found than cither and or^ might perhaps 
 be ufed not with an ill grace. 
 
 CXIIL ON. OF. 
 
 X HE latter of thefe words is frequently ufed where I 
 ihouid imagine the former to be preferable. On afiiddeny 
 and to fend on an errand^ appear to me much better than 
 of a fiidden^ and fojhid of aft errand, 
 
 I fliould iikewife think It happened on fuch a day much 
 more proper than it happeiied of fuch a day. 
 
 We commonly fay To fall foul of (and not to fall foul 
 on) a perfon. Yet we have fome writers, who fay to fall 
 foul on: and it feems to make better fenfe than io fall foul 
 of,lx. were therefore to be wifhed it were brought into ufe. 
 
 CXIV. 
 
 ^' riis health beginning to decline," fays the new Bio- 
 graphical Dictionary, " he was no longer able to go 
 *' through buiinefs with that vigour and zeal as he wilhed." 
 
 That vigour and %eal as he HX)ifhcd is not Englifh : for 
 as is not to be ufed in this manner with the pronoun that. 
 It may be ufed -wixh. fuch ^ or with y?^ 7nuch^ ox fo great. 
 
 For inllance, He voas ?io logger able to go through buf' 
 fiefs ivith fuch *v'gour and %cal as he vjifhed — ivithfo much 
 ^vigour and %eal as he wijhed — 'vjithfo great a vigour and 
 zeal as he 'wifhed. 
 
 The vigour and zeal as he voif^ed would Iikewife be bad 
 Englifh. 
 
 cxv. 
 
 JL HE fame performance, fpeaking of one Konig, fays 
 J' He was extremely deaf fome years before he died." 
 
 If 
 
6o REMAPvKS ON THE 
 
 If he became deaf feveral years before he died, and hia 
 deafntfs continued during thofe feveral years, (as feems to 
 hrvte been the cafe) it would have been better to fay He 
 ivas deaf for fomc years before he died. The word for 
 would have made it clear that his deafnefs continued ; 
 whereas we may fay that a man was deaf fome years be- 
 fore he died, if he became fo feveral years before his death, 
 and, after fome time, recovered his hearing-. 
 
 Thefe feeming minuties are by no means to be defpifed, 
 lince they contribute to the intelligiblenefs of language. 
 
 CXVI. SORTS. 
 
 A HIS plural is often improperly ufed, not only in com- 
 mon difcourfe, but by many of our writers, inileadof the 
 lingular, fori. 
 
 If I fee a large number of fwords packed up for ex- 
 portation, it would be wrong in me to lay 7here ^^vill he a 
 <07ifidcrahle profit upon thefe fjjords ; for thefe forts of goods 
 fell ivell ivl.ere they are going : for, though thefe fword3 
 are fo many different objecfts, they make but one fort of 
 goods. I ought therefore to fay this fort of goods fells^ 
 jaid not thefe forts of goods fell, 
 
 CXVII. 
 
 vV E have inftances in our tongue of verbs in the third 
 perfon without a nominative cafe. 
 
 7hough he commends her upon the ivhole^ he cevfures her 
 Jo far as regards her cotiduB in that particular affair* 
 
 This is certainly good Englifh, notwithilanding the 
 word regards have no nominative. 
 
 But thefe verbs without a nominative ought, as I ap- 
 prehend, to be always in the lingular number. 
 
 " The ^eface," fays the Monthly Reviewer, ** con- 
 ** tains fome general obfervations on military matters, fo 
 ** far as concern a militia." 
 
 I cannot allow this to be Englifh. He certainly ought 
 to have {\\\6. fo far as concerfis a militia : for neither the 
 plural fubftantive ohfervations, nor the plural fubilantive 
 matters has any thing to do in determining the number 
 of this verb, 
 
 CXVIII. 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 6i 
 
 CXVIIL 
 
 1 HERE are numberlefs inflances, even in writers not def- 
 picable in point of fenfe, of the grofs violation pf gram- 
 mar of joining participles with verbs by the copulative 
 and. For example ; He legan fiovj to li've in a different 
 ijianncr\ the ejlate^ that was fallen to him^ fetting him at 
 his eafe^ and made him ^very happy. 
 
 Here the word a-nd joins the participle fetting and the 
 verb 7Jiade. 
 
 CXIX. 
 
 *' In him," fays fome author, "were happily blendecL 
 *' true dignity with foftnefs of manners." 
 
 This way of fpeaking, where a noun lingular is made a 
 nominative to a verb plural, when fuch noun is followed 
 by one or more nouns preceded by the prepofition w/V/;, 
 is very common both in Englifh and in French ; and it 
 muil be owned that, in many places, it appears eafy and 
 natural. But, in many others, there is an uncouthnefs in 
 it, the violation of grammar being too palpable ; and it 
 requires fome delicacy of ear, to judge where it is allow- 
 able, and where not. In the inftance here brought, I 
 think it fomewhat oiFeniive ; and I would rather have laid 
 /;/ hiju ^Jjas happily blended true dignity ^mth foftnefs of 
 manners ; or, in him true dignity 'was happily blended ^th 
 foftnefs of 7nanners ; or, in him 'were happily blended true 
 dignity and foftnefs of manners, 
 
 cxx. 
 
 *' X HEY are fo far from promoting real trade that the 
 *' fupport of themfelves and families are a deadweight on 
 *' its profits." Monthly Ren;iewer. 
 
 I have already fpoken of the employing a verb plural 
 with a nominative cafe lingular, on account of the inter- 
 vening of a genitive cafe plural between the two words, 
 and have condemned the practice, it giving the fentence 
 a very unnatural found. Thefe writers are here guilty of 
 it, in faying the fupport are a dead -vseight. 
 
 But there is another fault in thefe lines. — Of tle?ftfeh'es 
 
 •apJfatnilies^ for ofthcmfelnjes and their families^ is very bad 
 
 F expreffion, 
 
«^ REMARKS ON THE 
 
 exprefTion, though very common. It 15 mere fhopkeepers* 
 cant. (Han-is and fon^ Clarke and foti^ Br o~x'n and f 071) 
 ■ ?ind will always found contemptible in the ears of pcrfons 
 of any taile. 
 
 CXXI SCARCELY. 
 
 ** Is there a man fcarcely to be found of a temper fo truly 
 *' mortified as to acquiefce in the loweil: and fliortell ne- 
 ** ceflaries of life ?'* Harris. 
 
 This is a French exprelFion ; but not an Englifli one, 
 though ufed by many of our writers. At leall it is not an 
 Englifh exprcifion in the fenfe, which it is here intended 
 to convey. In another fenfe it is properly ufed in 
 Engiifh. 
 
 The author, as the tenor of his difcourfe (liews, is of 
 opinion that a man fo thoroughly mortified can fcarcely 
 be found. But, whatever a Frenchman might do, an 
 Englifhman would not ufe fuch an interrogatory, to ex- 
 prefs this opinion. He would fay either Is it cajy tofnd? 
 or is it not very difficult? or is it not ahnojl itnpojjihle to find 
 fuch a man? Thcfe are, I fay, the interrogatories an En- 
 glifhman would ufe, toiignify that he fuppofes fuch a man 
 can hardly be found. 
 
 On the other hand, if he were of a contrary opinion, 
 and thought it not a very difficult matter to find fuch a 
 man, he would, upon hearing another talk of the great 
 difficulty of it, naturally fay, is there then fcarcely to he 
 found a man fo jnortified? which would imply that, for his 
 part, he did not think it fo very difficult to find one. 
 
 I have faid that the author's exprefTion is French in the 
 fenfe in which he intends it, but not Englifh. 
 
 A Frenchman, for infbnce, would fay Pcut on a peine 
 trouvcrun telhomme? (literally, can o?ie fcarcely ^or hardly ^ 
 find fuch a ?nan ?) to fignify that he really believed it al- 
 modt impoffible to find fuch a man. But, if he meant to 
 fignify that he fhould not have thought it fo very difii- 
 cult, he would fay l^e feut on done qua peine trowver 
 nn tcl homme? literally, cannot one then othcrwife than 
 hardh find fuch a man ? And it is perhaps ffrom an in- 
 tended imitation of the French that Mr. Harris, and fome 
 Other writers, cmplpy the word farcely in an interroga- 
 tory 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 63 
 
 tory in fuch a manner as iKilth us gives a fenfe contraiy 
 to what they purpofe fhould be conveyed. 
 
 CXXIL 
 
 ** 1 HAVE fet down the names of feveral gentlemen, who 
 " have been robbed in Dublln-flreets for thefe three 
 " years pafl." ^ &iv/?. 
 
 VVlw have been rohhed in Duhlin-Jlreets within thcfe three 
 years pqft is the proper expreffion. IFho have been rohhed 
 for thefe three years pqft feems to imply that each of thofe 
 gentlemen had been robbed daring the whole three years. 
 
 CXXIIL 
 
 ** It is a long time fince I have been entirely your votary." 
 
 Dentil upon Crutches, 
 
 This is bad Englifh. Since is properly ufed in reckon- 
 ing from a point of time ; but not to exprefs a duration of 
 time. 
 
 The tranflator might have faid It is a long time that / 
 have been entirely your votary^ or it is a long time Jince I be« 
 came entirely your ^votary, 
 
 CXXIV. 
 
 *' JLet him know I (hall be over in the fpring, and that 
 " by all means he fells the horfes." S^vjift's Letters, ' 
 
 This being a diredion how to a6l, and not an account 
 of what is done or doing, the word fells is here improper. 
 This verb fhould have been in the fubjundive mood. — 
 Let hi?n kno^vj I fJmll be o<ver in the /fringe and that by all 
 means he fell the horfes* 
 
 CXXV. 
 
 <« JMy brother Ormond fent me fome chocolate to-day. 
 " I wifh you had (hare of it." Jbid. 
 
 " I hope all will be ended by then." Ibid. 
 
 To havefhare of a things to lignify to have fart of it % 
 and by then^ to fignify by that time ; if they are not falfc 
 Engliih, are, at leaft, terribly low expreffions. 
 
 F z CXXVI, 
 
^4 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 CXXVI. 
 
 JL HE tranflator of Cicero's Letters fays in one of his 
 notes, fpeaking of two certain letters, *' This proves 
 *' that the date of each muft have been nearly, if not ex- 
 ** adlly, coincident." 
 
 Thefe words have no meaning : for they only imply, 
 that the date of one of thefe letters was nearly coincident, 
 and that the date of the other was nearly coincident like- 
 wife ; without faying coincident with what. 
 
 The proper exprciTion would have been, This proves 
 that the dates of the tivo letters mujl have heeti nearly^ if not 
 exa^ly coincident. 
 
 CXXVII. 
 
 ^* E frequently hear people fay, in talking of an a<5lor, 
 ^hat is the hcji part he plays, where they mean that he 
 performs no other part fo well. 
 
 They (hould fay That is the part he plays heft. 
 That is the heft part he plays lignifies that that charac- 
 ter is preferable to all the other chaniders in which he 
 appears; and is an encomium upon the author, vvithouc 
 at all regarding the performance of the player. 
 
 CXXVIII. 
 
 ** 1 WAS foon relieved by one of the fervants, who wrung^ 
 ** off the bird's neck." Gulliver s Travels. 
 
 This is a common, but a wrong, way of fpeaking. We 
 ought to fay either to vcrittg the neeky or to vjring off the 
 t:^ad. 
 
 To voring off the nec\ is not proper; inafmuch as, when 
 the head is wrung off, it brings but a part (and commonly 
 Vifmall part) of the neck along with it. 
 
 CXXIX. 
 
 ** 1 HE bifliop of Clogher intends to call on you this 
 *' morning; as will your humble fervant in my return 
 *' from Chapel-Izzard." Addifoii to Sv:ift. 
 
 Tour and my employed fo near together, in fpeaking of 
 the fame perfon, make an unnatural expreffion. He might 
 have faid, as vcill your humble fervant in returning from 
 CJjapel-J%%ard, CXXX. 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 65 
 
 CXXX. 
 
 <' An attempt of this nature would be utterly impra6li- 
 *' cable." Preface to Baker s Rejie^ions on Learning* 
 
 In the expreflion of the dejign is impraBicalle^ there is 
 no impropriety ; whether the word dcfign fignifiy only /«- 
 t€7ition^ or piirpofe^ or whether it lignify thitig intended^ 
 QY purpofed', for of either of them we may fay, that it can- 
 not be reduced to^ or put into^ praHice. 
 
 But in the words, an attempt of this nature nxwuld he im* 
 pradlicahlc^ there feems to be an impropriety : for, how 
 impradicable foever a thing', which we have thoughts 
 of attempting, may be, the attemping it will be always 
 poffible. 
 
 And yet the expreflion, confideredas a figurative, is per- 
 haps allowable. It is, however, fuch an one as I fhould 
 fcruple to ufe. 
 
 CXXXL 
 
 *' If any one, who thinks thus of me, will only fufpend 
 *' his cenfure fo long till I draw my conclufion, &c.'* Ihid* 
 
 Sufpcnd yonr cenfurefo hrng that I may dra'^.v my conchi* 
 jion* — Sufpend your cenfure fo long as to give ?ne ti?nc to dra-iv 
 my conclnfion, Thefe are Englilh, though fomething lan- 
 guid ; and it might be better to fay, ffpe?id your cenfure 
 till I draiv (or //// / have drazvn) ?ny conclufon. 
 
 So long that, and fo long as, are Englifh. — So long ilU 
 is not Englilh. 
 
 cxxxn. 
 
 *' 1 HE author being fome diflance from the prefs, 3rc." 
 Prefixed to the errata of the fame hooJf^ 
 
 This is not EngliHi. The word d fiance, where wc in- 
 tend to give an idea of ilation, requires an at, — where of 
 motion a to — before it. 
 
 Their hovfe fiands at fome d'Jla7ice from that ioii^n, — Theyi 
 live at prefnt in that to^K'n^ hut are going to remove tofomc 
 d'fance from it. 
 
 F ^ CXXXIII. 
 
66 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 CXXXIIL WHENEVER. ALWAYS, 
 
 JL HESE two words are not be ufed together. 
 
 Whenever I call upon him^ he ahvays enquires after your 
 health* The fenfe of the word akucays being included in 
 the word 'ujhe?iever (for ^vhenever iignifies alvjays nxjhen) 
 this is as much as to fay, always <whcn I call vpon him^ he 
 alvjays enquires after your health : which is not fenfe. 
 
 The proper way of fpeaking is, ^ivhene-ver I call upon 
 hlm^ he enquires after your health ; or, he ahvays enquires 
 after your healthy ^vhen I call upon him, 
 
 CXXXIV. SORT O-F A. KIND OF A. 
 
 aIe is a Jl range fort of a man, — This is an odd ki?id of an 
 affair. 
 
 Would not the a or an be better omitted ? and is not a 
 Jlrangefort of man^ an odd kind of affair^ a more correct, 
 as well as a more elegant, way of fpeaking ? 
 
 CXXXV. INDEPENDENT OF. INDEPENDENT ON. 
 
 \N E all fay dependent on^ or upon ; and no one fays depen^ 
 dent of\ which exprelfion would be abfurd. Yet many 
 fay independent of. 
 
 Independent on^ or upon^ is certainly much better. This- 
 is quite independent upon that, 
 
 CXXXVI. NOTWITHSTANDING OF. 
 
 X HIS is a very uncouth phrafe; which frequently oc- 
 curs in the Scotch, and fometimes in Englifli, writers. 
 
 The proper way of fpeaking is, notvjithfiandlng this-^ 
 TtotTA. ithfta7iding that, 
 
 Notivitlfia7i.di7ig of this has no meaning : for notivith- 
 Jianding is a prepolition ; and the linking another prepoli- 
 tion with it certainly deflroys all fenfe. 
 
 When I fay it is a prepofition, I mean that it is fo 
 where it precedes the fubftantive : for, where it follows 
 the fubftantive, it m.iy be conlidered as a participle ; as in 
 thefe words, fo often to be met with in law-writings and 
 ads of parliament, a7iy thing herein contained notvjlthfiand^ 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 67 
 
 tng ; where the word not^ithftandlng feems to be a partl-^ 
 ciple in the abhitive cafe abiblute, agreeing with the fub-- 
 itantive thing, 
 
 NoHvithJiandhig is likewife an adverb. 
 
 CXXXVIL 
 
 jVIany of our writers fay hy a parity of re af on. 
 
 By parity of rcafon^ without the tf, is certainly a more 
 elegant expreflion. 
 
 CXXXVIIL HENCE. THENCE. WHENCE. 
 
 JL HOUGH the fenfe of the prepolition//-^^ be inckided 
 in each of thefe words, and they lignify fro?72 this place^ 
 from that place ^ from 'which (or 'what) placc^ yet cuflom 
 allows the prefixing this prepofition to either of them, 
 and faying from hence ^ from thence^ from %\)hence ; which 
 feems to be {?iy\ng from from this place, tsfc. 
 
 Even our beil writers in profe do not fcruple to take 
 this liberty ; it feeming, in many places, to add ilrength to 
 the exprelllon. In poetry, where it has rather a contrary 
 efteft, it is feldom taken : for it is to be obferved that the 
 very fame circumftance, which ilrengthens an expreffion 
 in profe, often makes it fiat in poetry. 
 
 CXXXIX. 
 
 *' 1 HE empire of Blefufcii is an ifland fituated to the 
 ** north-eafl fide of Liiliput.'' Gulli'vers Tra'vels. 
 
 Situated to the fiorth-eaji fde I apprehend not to be 
 Englifh; and I think the writer (hould either have faid on 
 the nor th-c aft fide ^ or have omitted the word fide. 
 
 For infiance, The empire of Bkfnfcu is an ifland fituated 
 on the north-eafi fide of Lillipuf, — The empire of Blcfufcu is 
 a?i ifiand fituated to the north-eafi of Lilliput, The prepo» 
 fition may likewife be omitted ; the er/ipire of Blefufcu is 
 an ifiand fituated north-eafi of Lilliput. 
 
 CXL. SCARCE, HARDLY. 
 
 X HESE words are incorrcdly ufed with negatives. 
 
 EXAMPLE. 
 
 There is nothing farce (or hardly) that pkafes mcletter. 
 
 The 
 
63 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 Thecorre6t wayof fpeakingis, Tl:>ere isfcarce {oxfcarcely^ 
 
 or hardly) any thing that plcafes mc better • 
 
 CXLI. 
 
 X HE lower people in general, as well as many of their 
 betters, and even many of our authors, ufe the word he^ 
 holdings to fignlfy under an obligation, 
 
 I'he proper word is beholden, Wc are beholden to you 
 for this favour, 
 
 CXLII. 
 
 JN EVER fo much, — never fo many — to iignify ho^jj much 
 fo^very hoi\j many foever^ is another impropriety, of which 
 our carelefs writers are often guilty ; and which, in all 
 probability, took its rife among the lower people. 
 
 Ever fo much^ everfo many^ is the proper way of fpeak* 
 ing. He vjillgi'vc her ivhat Jhc afks^ though fhe ajh ever 
 fo much, — They ^jo ill be all entertained at his houfe^ be they 
 everfo many, — That army iiv7/ not fear to engage the enemy ^ 
 he they everfo numerous, 
 
 CXLIII. E. 
 
 A VERY common fault is the unag the former of thefc 
 words in the fubjunCtive mood. 
 
 That man is of a very benevolent dfpofition ; and^ if he 
 ivas richy vooidd probably Jhevo himfclf charitable. 
 
 The corred way of fpeuking is, if he were rich ; the 
 verb being in the fubjun6tive mood. 
 
 Was may indeed be ufed with an //; but there only, 
 where" it is intended in the indicative mood. 
 
 That man died rich^ fays one. Another replies, if he 
 ivas richy he lived in a mariner by no mca7is anfwerable /» 
 his fortune : for he ahvays made a f curvy figure. 
 
 This is very proper J becaufe // he vjas rich fignifies 
 here if the truth be that he aHually zvas a rich man ; and 
 fpeaks of what is fuppofed to have been, and to be now 
 pall; whereas, if I lav, tvat man ivould JJpeiu himfelf cha- 
 r: table y if i e voas rich^ I fpeak of nothing paft, or fup- 
 pofed to be paft; but of what the man's behaviour would 
 xiovv be, were his iituation different from what it is. Con- 
 
 fcquently, 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 69 
 
 feqiiently, the verb (as I have faid above) is in the fitb- 
 jun6tive mood ; on which account tvtre (and not ivas) is 
 the proper word. 
 
 CXLIV. 
 
 -N EITHER has he, nor any others, done any thing in that 
 afifair. 
 
 Expreilions of this fort are not imcommon : but they 
 make falfe grammar : for 7ielthcr has he^ nor ariy others^ 
 iignifies neither has hc^ nor has any others. 
 
 The proper way of fpeaking is, neither has he. nor have 
 tiny others^ done any thing in that affair, 
 
 CXLV. EITHER THAT. THAT EITHER. 
 
 JL HE former of thefe is often ufed, where the latter only, 
 would be proper : for they make very different fenfes. 
 
 An acquaintance promifed yeflerday to call on me this . 
 afternoon, but did not call; whence I conclude him to be 
 a man regardlefs of his appointments, or to have been 
 prevented by fomething unforefeen; without determining 
 in my mind which of the two is the reafon of his not 
 calling. 
 
 Here it would be wrong for me to fay, I conclude either that 
 he is regardlefs of his appointments^ or that he has been pre^ 
 fvented. The proper way of fpeaking is, I conclude that either 
 he is regardlefs of his appointments^ or he has heen prevented. 
 
 But, if a third peribn, v/ho were to fpeak of this mat- 
 ter, fuppofed that I had determined in my mind which of 
 the two above-mentioned caufes was the occalion that this 
 acquaintance did not call; but were himfelf ignorant which 
 of the two I had fixed on ; he ought to put the word either 
 before the that^ and to fay He concludes either that his ac- 
 quaintance is regardlefs of his appointments^ or that he has 
 been prevented, 
 
 CXLVL PROPORTIONABLE, PROPORTIONAL. PRO- 
 PORTIONATE. 
 
 iVlANY of our writers confound the word proportionahle 
 vnth proportional : but their fenfes are different. 
 
 Proportionahle fignifies having its fevcral parts of a jvfi 
 relative proportion^ ca^h to the others-, and each particular 
 
 part 
 
/^ 
 
 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 fart of a hlgnefs fulialle to its lajgth, A horfe is propor- 
 tionable, when no part of him is too maiTy, or tooflender; 
 and each part, at the lame time, correiponds, as to its ge- 
 neral fize, with every other. 
 
 Proportlo?iahle is alfo ufed, to {\g\\\{y of a good fi%e upon 
 the 'whole ; without regard to the correfpondency of the 
 feveral parts. 
 
 Proportional fignifies of a juft proportion relatively to a?}- 
 other objeH, — His ne^iv houfc h very large \ and the offices y 
 ivhlch are novj buildings ^jolll he proportlonaL 
 
 Proportionate has the fenfe of proportlonaL — That man 
 has Jlu died hard', and he has made an lmprovc?ncut propor^ 
 tionate to the pains he has taken, 
 
 CXLVII. 
 
 VV E want in our language a word, toanfwerto theFrench 
 verb menager^ where it fignifies to treat vcith tcndernefs or 
 caution^ from the fear f>f gl^^lng offence hy a rougher heha' 
 viour. We have, indeed, feveral authors, who employ 
 the word 7nanage (which they have taken from the above 
 French verb) in this fenfe. But it feldom neatly conveys 
 the intended idea ; the fenfes, in which this word is more 
 commonly underftood, almoft ever obtruding themfelves 
 in fome degree. 
 
 Is there no word, in Greek or Latin, which bears the 
 fenfe of this French verb, and no other fenfe, and which 
 Word might be Anglicifed ? 
 
 CXLVIII. 
 
 X HE New Biographical Di6lionary has the following 
 words, under the article Julian. 
 
 " This, joined to a fevere temperance, an affected love 
 **of jullice, and a courage fuperior to all trials, firll 
 *' gained him the affedions, and afterwards the poiTeflion, 
 *' of the whole empire." 
 
 This feems to me not ftri(ftly to make fenfe ; the word 
 empire being here, at one and the fame time, both figura- 
 tive, and almoft, if not entirely, literal. The affeHlons of 
 the e?nplre is a figumtive exprelfion, fince it means the aff 
 fe5llo7is of its inhabitants* The poffejjion of the empire is 
 more literal. 
 
 The 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 71 
 
 Tlie fame obje6lion may be made to the word in^ in the 
 followiiiT^ pairage from Moyle. 
 
 *' I will venture to prophecy that, if a man walks naked 
 *' in rain, hail, or the depth of winter, he will be feize.d 
 *' with the cold fit of an ague.'* 
 
 He ought to have repeated the word in before the words 
 
 the ik.pth of ^jointer : for the leaving it to be fupplied by the 
 
 .reader's imagination fuppofes it to have the fame lioniii- 
 
 cation here as it has where he fays in rain^ hail', which it 
 
 has not. 
 
 CXLIX. 
 
 " V'v E are unacquainted," fays the fame Moyle, *' wkh 
 *' his country, defcent, and age he lived in." 
 
 For want of the word the before age^ this feems to be 
 faying, M'e are miacijuaintcd vjith his country^ his defcent^ 
 wid his age he liiied in ; which is not fenfe. 
 
 This affectation of concife expreffion, fo common in 
 our Englifh writers, defeats, in numberlefs inflances, the 
 very end propofed by it ; for it frequently occa lions an ob- 
 fcurity that flops the reader ; and it cofts him, beyond com- 
 parifon, more time, todifcover the author's meaning, than 
 iui additional word or two, which would have prevented 
 fuch obfcurity, would have taken him to read : and, even 
 when he has found the meaning, there Hill remains in his 
 mind a dillatisfadion at the unnaturalnefs of the expreffion, 
 
 CL. 
 
 JljLis flyle is iimple; but often low and incorre6l. 
 
 This way of fpeaking, though it does not make non- 
 ^^nfe, as the fentence quoted in the laft remark feems to 
 ^o, would be, neverthelefs, in fome degree reprehenfible, 
 ^s being liable to be mifunderilood. 
 
 If the meaning be that the flyle is in many places 
 , low, and in many others incorred:, the word often ought to 
 be repeated, llis Jlyle is fi?nplc ; hut ofte?i loiv^ and often 
 incorrcH, 
 
 But, if the meaning be that the lownefs and incorre^l:- 
 nefs are to be found together (which is the moft natural in- 
 terpretation of thev/ords) it were better, in order to avoid 
 2. poffibiiity cf being mifanderflood, to infert either the 
 
 word 
 
72 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 word hoth^ or the words at the fame time. — 'H.lsjTyleisfuuple\ 
 hut^ in many places^ hcth lo-vj and incorrcB, — His Jiyle is 
 Jimple; but, in many places^ lo-zvy a?ul, at the fame tlme^ 
 incorreH* 
 
 CLI. BE IT AS IT WILL. BE THAT AS IT WILL. 
 
 JL HIS was formerly the way of fpeaking': but many of 
 our modern writers have exchanged the word "-jcill for may. 
 — i)V it as it may, — Be that as it may. 
 
 This is more elegant, and feems to be more proper, 
 
 CLII. 
 
 -*' It is pity he (hould make ufe of any arms againft his 
 *' opponents, but the weapon of truth ; which he is always 
 *' able to manage with dexterity, and feldom without 
 *' fuccefs." A Revic^iver. 
 
 The Re-vie-zver (hould have faid and feUom manages 
 tvithout jHccefs, The fear of a repetition of found has made 
 him fuy what he did not intend : for his exprellion ligni- 
 iies that his writer is fcLlcm able to manage that weapon 
 without fuccefs. 
 
 CLIII. 
 
 JL/E Witt is made to fay to King William, in the Dialogues 
 of the Dead, " Thebes did not owe its liberty more to Epa- 
 ^' minond is than Holland to you." 
 
 He (hould have faid than Holland hers to you. 
 As the exprelTion Hands, it iigni(ies that HcUa?id was as 
 much indebted to King Willinvt for the liberty of Thebes 
 as Thebes was indebted for it to Epafninondas. 
 
 CLIV. 
 
 ** X HERE was indeed in our deftinies," fays the Countefs 
 of Clanrickard to the Princefs of Orange in the fame Dia- 
 logues, " fuch a conformity as feldon: is found between 
 *' that of two perfons in the fiime age." 
 
 Bet-zveen thofe cf fjoo ferfons in 'the fame age would 
 have been the .proper expreiiion : and efpecialiy after hav- 
 ing ufed the plural (dej}in;rs), in fpeaking ox the different 
 foituiies of the princeis and herfelf. 
 
 CLV, 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 73 
 
 CLV. 
 
 I N thefe dialogues Odavia fays to Arria, <' I was not be- 
 " come indifferent to my hufband. His idea was dear, 
 *' too dear, to me flill." 
 
 Her meiuiing, when fhe fays / 'ivas not Iccome iiidiffe- 
 rent to my hnjhand^ is that fhe, at the time (lie fneaks of, 
 ftill retained an affeftion for her hiifband. But her words 
 do not convey this meaning : they lignify that he Hill re- 
 tained an affection for her. 
 
 She might have faid / '■v^as not become i7id'ffcrent 171 rc^ 
 gai'd to my hnjhand^ or, as to 7ny hufuand. 
 
 If I am indifferent /?/ regard to any particular perfon, I 
 car€ little for that perfon : but, if I am indifferent to that 
 perfon, that perfon cares little for me, 
 
 CLVL 
 
 1 HAVE met with the follGv/ing fentence in fome author; 
 but cannot recoiled the nanie; "He has not only rnif- 
 " underfbod, but applied, a text of St. Paul;" to fignify 
 he has not culy mifundcrjlood^ hu t mifappllcd. 
 
 This is an execrable way of writing ; though I make no 
 doubt the above author valued himfelf for his ingenious 
 concifenefs. 
 
 CLvn. 
 
 '' It muff be owned that, in moil: cafes, even a guinea 
 *' is a fmnll enough iee for the trouble and attendance 
 *' upon fush occafions." Parliamentary Debates,, 
 
 Had the fpeaker delivered himfelf in the common ilyle, 
 he had faid a guinea is a fmall fee enough ; but his expref- 
 fion is much better thiin this. The word enoi.gb ought 
 immediately to follow the word fmall^ whether/;/^*^// be 
 placed before or after fee, — A fmall enough fee — a fee 
 fnall enough, 
 
 '' Whenever any defign was fet on fooc aga'nil: the go- 
 ** verment, the firil fcene has been ahvays laid in that 
 *' country." ^ 3ld, 
 
 The ivas and the has been in this period do not corref- 
 
 pond. The fpeaker fhould have faid either, Whenever any 
 
 defgn vjasfet on foot^ the frjt fcene v,'as laid, or, is^bmever 
 
 G a-iy 
 
7+ REMARKS ON THE 
 
 any dejign has lecn fet 07i foot^ the firjl fcene has leeti 
 laidy tsfc. 
 
 I obferve in another remark the impropriety of uling 
 the word ivhenevei- with the word ahvajs, 
 
 CLVIII. VERSE. STANZA. 
 
 JN OT only almoft all the common people, but even great 
 numbers of perfons <" good education, call by the name of 
 Tff/e each of thofe dlvifions, in which many poems are 
 written; confifling, for the moft part, of the fame number 
 of lines, one as another; each of which divisions in a 
 common fong takes-in the whole of the tune. 
 
 The proper word \%Jian%a. A n^-erfc in poetry is only 
 one line. 
 
 CLIX. TIME OUT OF MIND^ FROM TIME IMME- 
 MORIAL. 
 
 W E commonly fay time out of mhtcf^ without a prepo- 
 fition ; and from time immemorial : but time immemorial^ 
 without the prcpofition, is hitherto ufed by no corre(^t 
 writers or fpeakers ; though not infrequently by newf- 
 writcrs, (great corrupters of the language) and by other 
 bad penmen. 
 
 CLX. BECAUSE. AS. 
 
 JVIany of our writers follow the words the morc^ oxfo 
 much the more^ with a hecaufe^ inftead of an as. 
 
 EXAMPLE. 
 
 His contemptuous treatment of his ivife ixjas fo much the 
 7norc ixexcufaUe^ hecaufe the fortune Jhe brought had been 
 the making of him. 
 
 This hardly makes fenfe. The proper word is as\ not 
 hecaufe. 
 
 His conte7nptuous treatment of his nvife ivas. fo much the 
 more inexcufalle as the fortune fje brought had been the 
 ?naking of hi?n. 
 
 CLXI. 
 
 The word //// is often omitted, where it is abfolutely ne- 
 ceflary. 
 
 ^^ This 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 75 
 
 ** This humour held no longer than Averroes came to 
 ** be underflood." Baket'^s RcficBions on Learning* 
 
 This does not make fenfe. The author Ihould have 
 faid This hu?nGur held 710 longer than till A'verr'oes came to 
 be underjlood, 
 
 CLXIL 
 
 ** XJLVERROEs is now as much out of fafhion for his phi« 
 ** lofophy as Avicen is for his phylic ; though they were 
 *' once the wonder of their age and nation." Ihid, 
 
 They ^\jere once the ^wonder of their nation is fenfe. — They 
 ivcre once the ^voonder of their age is not fo; the word once 
 indicating an uncertain, and their age a certain, time. 
 Here is therefore the fame impropriety as there would be 
 in faying fonie time this mornings a friend called upon me 
 at eleven 0^ clock, 
 
 I am ignorant whether thefe two men (Averroes and 
 Avicen) were contemporaries. If they were fo, and if their 
 works continued in reputation much longer among their 
 countrymen than elfev/here, (which, the temper of man- 
 kind conlidered, appears probable) the author might have 
 faid, though they <wcre the ^joonder of their age^ a?id^ en) en, 
 for a conjiderahle time after ^ of their ovon nation, — If they 
 were not contemporaries, he might have faid though ecich 
 of them vjas the Hvonder of his age^ and^ even for a coiifi- 
 deralle tinie after ^ of his ovon nation* 
 
 CLxm. 
 
 XJL CERTAIN impropriety, though a very grofsone, is al* 
 moil univerfal among us. 
 
 After an event, which we imagine will never happen 
 again, we fay This is the lafi fu^te it will ever happen. A 
 man, who lives in the country, being juil returned from 
 London, whither he fuppofes he Ihall never go again, 
 would fay, this is the lafi time I fhall ever go to Londoum 
 But this Jh all go ^ which is a future, is utterly improper in 
 fpeaking of an a6tion already performed. A Frenchman 
 would fay, voila la derniere fois que je vais a Londres'y 
 which is equivalent to this is the lafi time of 7ny going to 
 London : and this is certainly the proper way of fpeaking. 
 
 G z CLXIV, 
 
76 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 CLXIV. 
 
 W E have fome writers, who, where a fubftantive pkiral 
 follows, lay %\jhat are (mftead of '^johat is) beco?>ie of? — 
 For inftance, W7jat arc bcco?7ic of thofc 7JiC7i P A little rc- 
 fiedion will (hew this to be wrong. 
 
 The P'rench, indeed, fay very grammatically ^//^y£7;?/<7<:- 
 *venu5 CCS — f But become of and dcvcnm (or dcvemi) are 
 not fimilar phrafes: for hccomc of is not to be confideredas 
 one word, as a verb (or participle) and a prcpofition (or 
 adverb) may fometimes be ; where they ought, in ilrid 
 propriety, to be joined by a hyphen, for example, tbi 
 guns are kt'off' — a Jiron^ northerly '•J^ind is fet-iv. But, 
 were any one to fay, U hat are thofe men hecome-off every 
 hearer would feel this not to be Englifh. Yet I conceive 
 this would be proper, if 'i\}hat arc become of thofe inen ? 
 were fo. In Ihort, the palpable impropriety of ^ivhat are 
 ihofe men beco?nC'off fhews plainly that the word ix:hat 
 is the nominative that governs the verb; which nomina- 
 tive, being fmgular, rec^uires /V, and not are: and, as to 
 thofe men^ thefe words muft be fuppofed to be in one of the 
 oblique cafes, and to be governed by the prepofition of 
 
 CLXV. 
 
 J-^ET us fuppofe t^venty pillars placed in a row, with a 
 llatue between the firfl pillar and the fecond, another be- 
 tween the fecond and the third, a third between the third 
 and the fourth, and fo on throughout. How will this be 
 befl expreiTed? Some very incorred fpeakers would fay 
 nereis a flatue betiveen every pillar : others, lefs incorrect, 
 would fay there is a flatue betivcen every nvo pillars. This 
 is much lefs bad; but it does not convey neatly the idea 
 intended, which is that there is one ftatue, and no more, 
 between every two pillars that are next to each other ; 
 whereas the firll pillar and the hift, or the third and the 
 fifteenth, or the fifth and the nineteenth, are tivopillarSy 
 and between each of thefe tivo there arey^t'^m/flatues. 
 
 I do not remember to have feen or heard the word 
 proximate employed in any fimilar cafe : yet it would per- 
 haps not be an improper one. 
 
 Ihcrc is ajlatuc betvocen every t-i^o proximate pillars, 
 
 -^ CLXVI. 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. yy 
 
 CLXVL 
 
 <« His opinion was nearer to the truth than of his fuc- 
 *' ceilbrs." Wotton on ancient and modern Learnings 
 
 Another inftance of injudicious concifenefs. 
 
 For want of the pronoun that^ this fentence does not 
 make fenfe. The words of his fucceffors Ibnd oppofed to 
 the words his opinion. It is therefore as though the author 
 had faid Ofhisfuccejfors ivas not fo near to the truth as his 
 opinion ivas. 
 
 He ought undoubtedly to have faid His opinion was 
 nearer to the truth than that ofhisfuccejfors* 
 
 CLXVIL 
 
 *' 1 HIS part of knowledge has been ahvays growing, and 
 <' will ftUl do fo till the fubjea is exhaufled.'' Ibid. 
 
 Will do what? The words fo dofo cannot properly refer 
 to the verb to he : for the being in this or that ilate does 
 not imply the doing 'SLny thing. 
 
 The author might have fiid This part of knowledge has 
 been always growing ; and will fill he fo (or, w)ill he fiill 
 growing) till the fuhjeci is exhaifted, 
 
 CLXVIH. 
 
 '* After the peace of Ryfwick^ procured by the firft 
 '' grand alliance, did not a new and greater danger re- 
 *' quire another fuch league to be formed ?" 
 
 Dialogues of the Dead, 
 
 Moil people, inllead of another fuch league^ would have 
 {■^xdi fitch another league : but another fuch league is the pro- 
 per expreflion. 
 
 The word fuch may plead prefcription for the wrong 
 place it commonly occupies j but, to prove that it is ^ 
 wrong one, we have here only to exchange this word for 
 fmllar* — Did not a new and greater danger require fmilar 
 another league to be forme df How bad an exprellion 
 is this! Whereas, if we fay another^ f^nilar league^ the ear 
 feels the wox^fm'lar to be in its right place. 
 
 The exprelaon, a new and greater danger^ in the period 
 
 juil now quoted, is better than a 7iew and a greater danger ^ 
 
 G 3 whic|i 
 
7S REMARKS ON THE 
 
 which laft many writers would have made life of; bc- 
 caufe a reader might polTibly, at fxrit fight, and before he 
 gave himfelf time to reflect, be mifled by the words ane\\y 
 and a greater davger^ and imagine tvco dangers to be here 
 fpoken of, one new, the other greater than that which 
 fublifted before the peace of Ryfwick. But the words a 
 7ie^d) and greater danger are not liable to be fo mifunderilood, 
 
 CLXIX. 
 
 *' J. HE crown had it in their power to give fuch rewards 
 ** as they thought proper." Parliamentary Debates^ 
 
 Were two fovereigns feated on a throne at the fame 
 time, this way of fpeaking would be juflifiable, becaufe 
 the crovjn^ which is a figurative term, might then be 
 confidered as a noun of number. But, that not being the 
 cafe, the expreflion is wrong; and the proper way of 
 fpeaking is, Ihc cro'vcu had it in its fozvcr to gi^ue fuch 
 rewards as it thought proper, 
 
 CLXX. 
 
 1 N thefe Parliamentary Debates there frequently occurs 
 the expreflion oinpon the contrary^ inllead of on the contrary. 
 Though on and upon have the fame fignification, 7i].on 
 the contrary is certainly not Englifh, it not being aa ex* 
 prefllon ufed. 
 
 CLXXI. 
 
 1 N the fame Debates (and likewife in many of our au- 
 thors) we fometimes find of purpofc inilead oi on purpofy 
 to fignify purpofely^ defigncdly. 
 
 On purpofc is the proper expreflion. 
 
 The prepofition of\% in numberlcfs inflances made ufe 
 of by the lower people inflead of en ; and in not a few 
 even by learned men. I am apt to fufpecl that fometimes, 
 where it is thus improperly ufed by thefe lafl:, their ac- 
 quaintance with the French tongue may be the caufe, and 
 that they confider it as having the fenfe of the prepofition 
 de. But this prepofition, having feveral other fignifications, 
 is in many places proper, where ^t/' would be abfurd. 
 
 CLXXII. 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 79 
 
 CLXXIL 
 
 «' The ends of a divine and human lawgiver, both uiin^ 
 <' the common means of a feparation, are vaftly different; 
 *' the latter only aiming to keep the people unmixed, the 
 " former pure from idolatry." Bl^jlnc Legation, 
 
 One would imagine, upon hearing the words of a diinne 
 and human lanrgl^jer^ that one perfon only was fpoken of. 
 How improper would it be, in fpeaking of two men, one 
 very tall, the other very corpulent, to fay a 'very fall and 
 corpulent man! The hearers would fuppofe that one man 
 only was meant, who was both tall and corpulent. 
 
 The author of the Legation (hould have i'aid The ends of 
 a dl'vine^ and thofe of a human lavogi'VCVy are njajlly dlf- 
 f event, 
 
 CLXXHL 
 
 ** X HE hiftory of Florence is little elfe, for feveral ages, 
 *' than a hiilory of confpiracies and civil wars." 
 
 Cofmo to Pericles^ in the Dialogues of the Dead, 
 
 Little elfe than is the proper v/ay of fpeaking; though 
 many writers (perhaps the greater part) would have faid 
 little elfe excepting^ or little elfe hut^ or little elfe hcfides\ 
 either of which would be wrong, becaufe in each of thefe 
 three words (excepting^ hut^ hejides)^ the fen fe o{ elfe is in- 
 cluded : for excepting^ or hut^ or lefides^ would be here 
 equivalent to elfe than. 
 
 Yet either of thefe three expreHions (little elfe excepting^ 
 little elfe hut^ little elfe hefdcs) would be very proper where 
 fome circumflances VvTre antecedently mentioned, to which 
 the word elfe (hould refer. If I Ihould fay that houfe has 
 a goodprofp:B; hut has little elfe to reconimertd it^ except its 
 nearnefs to a markef-toivn^ this makes fenfe; becaufe the 
 elfe has fomething to which it refers, \yl, good profpccl, 
 
 CLXXIV. 
 
 *' ilERE the fpeaker muft take care to be much fiower 
 ** and diflindt in his utterance than ufual. 
 
 K^heridajis Letlures, 
 
 The author (hould, at all events, have inferted the word 
 
 more immediately before the word dlftln^ : — much flo^zver 
 
 and 
 
8a REMARKS ON THE 
 
 and more dlftinB in his utter mice than ufual: for, thougll 
 the vvord^^virr figriify morcjloiv, the word more does not, 
 as he has penned the lentence, prefent itfelf to the rea- 
 der's mind immediately before the word diJtinH, Confe- 
 quently, his exprcflion does riot make fenfe. 
 
 But, if his meaning- be (as moil: probably it is) that the 
 fpeaker fhould be 77iuch flower, and likewife much more dif- 
 tin6l, the word much^ in order to make it clear that that 
 was his meaning, ought to have been repeated ; and he 
 fliould have faid Here the fpcakcr ?nujl take care to he ?nuch 
 Jloi\Jcry and much more diJiinSly in his utterance than ufuaU 
 
 CLXXV. 
 
 *' bcARCE had The Spirit of Laws appeared than it was 
 ** attacked." A Re^ie^iver. 
 
 This is not good Englifli. Ko fconer would have re- 
 quired a than : but the word fcarcc required a ^\:hen to 
 follow it. 
 
 Nofooner had The Spirit of Lan.vs appeared than it was 
 attacked, — Scarce had the Spirit of LaiK's appeared^ ^i.\:hcn it 
 was attacked, 
 
 CLXXVI. 
 
 ** 1 T is not many years fnice I remember a perfon, 
 •* who, &c." Swift. 
 
 This does not appear to me to make CevSe. I think the 
 writer (hould have faid, Iremcmhcr a pcrfcn^ whcy not many 
 years fince^ Sec, 
 
 CLXXVII. 
 
 ** JvicHARD, therefore, appears," fays a modern writer, 
 *' not to have been abhorred by either the courts of Spain 
 «' or Scotland." 
 
 This is certainly very confufed exprelTion. The proper 
 way of fpeaking would have been, Richard^ therefore, ap- 
 pears not to have been abhorred by either the court of iipain^ 
 or that of Scotland; or, Richard^ therefore, appears not 'ta 
 have been abhorred either by the court of Spaiii^ or by that 
 cfScotla?id. 
 
 CLXXVIII, 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Si 
 
 CLXXVIIL 
 
 <' X oLYDORE Virgil," fays the fame writer, *' a fo- 
 " reigner, and author of a light Latin hiftory, was here 
 *' daring the reigns of Heniy VIL and VIIL" 
 
 This is likewife, in fome meafure, confuted. Were it 
 not for the pkiral reigns^ Henry VH. and VHL would 
 feem to be but one man, as our firft James was James the 
 firfl and fixth ; as being the firil James of England, and 
 the fixth of Scotland. 
 
 It would have been much better to fay During the two 
 rc/gns of Hc7iry VIL and Henry VIIL or during ihc reigfis 
 of the tvjo HcnrySy the fcventh and tic eighth, 
 
 Clxxix. 
 
 *' Ore lived no farther than the Hague." TZ^^A^/z/t' J'fr/V^r- 
 This appears to me not to be frriclly good Englifh. I 
 think the writer fhould have faid no farther off. We fay, 
 indeed, to go far ^ without uling the off. But to he far^ 
 where no other word is ufed or ijLippofed, I apprehend to 
 be improper. For inilance, Tork is far fi'om London.— 
 It \% far from London to York. — It is far to Tork — Thefe 
 are proper expreffions. But this expreffion — Tork is far^ 
 I conceive not to be fo. The proper expreffion is Tork is 
 far off. 
 
 CLXXX. 
 
 ** i HIS jealoufy accounts for Hall charging the Duke of 
 *' Clarence, as vv^ell as the Duke of Gloucefter, with the 
 *' murder of Prince Edward." 
 
 *• This very circumflance takes off from the probability 
 *' of Richard having as yet laid any plan for difpoiTelTing 
 *' his nephew." The fa?7ie Writer, 
 
 This is in my opinion a very uncouth way of fpeaking, 
 though much ufed by ignorant people, and often affeded 
 by thofe who are not ignorant. The writer fhould cer- 
 tainly have faid IlaWs charging the duke^ and Richard'' s 
 halving as yet laid any plan. By the omiffion of the /, 
 the words charging and havings from fubflantives that 
 they were, become participles, and make no fenfe. 
 
 The 
 
22 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 The s fliould never be omitted, but where it makes a 
 dlfagreeable found, or caufes a difiiculty of pronunciation: 
 for the omiflion never fails of either making the palfage 
 unmeaning, or giving it a fenfe different from the in- 
 tended one. 
 
 CLXXXI. ABIDE. ALIDE BY. 
 
 VV E have writers, who feem not to diftinguifh between 
 thefe two: the fird of which fignifies to /fifft'r, to e/ulurVy 
 the other, to continue Jicfifajt tOy not toforfakc, 
 
 CLXXXII. 
 
 ** In nothing do men approach nearer to the gods than 
 *' by preferving their fellow-creatures." 
 
 Duncan s Trajifiation of Cicero s Oration for T^igariu.^» 
 
 Though there be here no abfolute impropriety, I Ihould 
 think the fame prepofition to the nothing and to the frc- 
 fcrnjlng would be more esfy and more elegant than twa 
 different prepofitions. 
 
 By nothing do men appi'oach nearer to the gods than hy 
 preferving their fello^v-creatures. In nothing do men ap" 
 preach nearer to the gods than in preferring their felloi^^ 
 a-eatures. Of thefe uvo I fhould prefer the latter. 
 
 CLXXXIII. 
 
 *' JVIen ignorant of the nature and end of this inilitution 
 *' have adjudged it altogether unworthy the concern of 
 ♦' God." Divine Legation, 
 
 We fay to adjudge to : — the court has adjudged the cflate 
 to the plaintiff- — the houfe has he en adjudged to her. But 
 adjudge It u?nvorthy is, furely, not Englilli : for adjudge 
 has not the fenfe o^ judge. The proper expreffion would 
 have been have judged it altogether umvorthy^ t^c, 
 
 CLXXXIV. 
 
 <* Most an end." ^ i^/^» 
 
 This writer, who has treated fo many other writers de 
 
 haut en has^ aboimds in fuch low expreffions as even, 
 
 though his produdions were unexceptionable in every 
 
 other 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 83 
 
 ' otlier rerpe6l, would afford no little room for recrimination, 
 Moft an end^ by which is meant moji commonly — -fo7' the 
 moft party is an exprelFion that would almoil difgrace the 
 mouth of a hackney-coachman. 
 
 CLXXXV. 
 
 " X HE fame hiftorian tells us, when Egypt was become 
 ^' a province to Perlia, the Egyptians deified Darius : which 
 '* they had never done to any other king." 
 
 The done to^ as referring to the word deified^ is impro- 
 per, iince we do not fay de'fy to a man^ but deify a man, 
 
 l^y uiing only the done^ the impropriety had .been 
 avoided : and yet, <wh'ich they had ne-oer done any other 
 kbigy though not ungrammatical, would have founded but 
 uncouthly. 
 
 The author might have repeated the word deified^ and 
 have faid The Egyptians deified D^rius^ though they had 
 7ie'Ver deified any othe?' king ; — or (putting a full ftop, or 
 at leaft a colon, after deified Darius) the Kgypt'.xns deified 
 Darius: yet they had never deified any other king, 
 
 CLXXXVL 
 
 *« All I defire is that, if the contra6ling of debts, if ar- 
 " rogance, if youthful debaucheries lie at prcfent under a 
 *' general odium, as I fee they do, the vices of others, 
 *' nor the depravity of the times may be of no prejudice 
 " to Coellus." 
 
 Dunca?i^s Tranfiaiion of Cicero* s Oration for Coelius* 
 
 The word neither is here to be fuppofed immediately 
 before the words tie vices : for the meaning is / defire that 
 neither the vices of others^ nor the depravity of the ti?nes may 
 he of prejudice to him. 
 
 The thus leaving the word neither to be fupplied by the 
 reader's or auditor's imagination, where there, follows a 
 nor^ has often fomething in it peculiarly elegant. 
 
 But the tranflator has been guilty of an overlight in the 
 words nor the depravity of the times jnay he of no prejudice ; 
 for nor no lignifies and fomc : fo that, in this trapilation, 
 Cicero, initead of wifhing that the circumflances he men- 
 tions 
 
^4 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 tions may be of no prejudice to his client, is made to w'lfh 
 that they may he of prejudice to him. 
 
 The tranflator flioukLhave written All I dtjtrc is that the 
 fvice of others tier the depraz.'>ity cf the times may he of any 
 prejudice to Ccellus, 
 
 CLXXXVII. 
 
 *' ivEGARD is to he had to every one's circumflances, 
 *' healths and alnlitles." 
 
 Hh Trafijlation of the Oration agalnjl Cadllus, 
 
 E'Very 07ie is lingular; the words implying cach^ coiiji- 
 dcrcdjlngly, — JL^jcry one^s healths is therefore a grolly im- 
 proper w.iy of fpeakinr ; this plural l>ein'^ never ufed in 
 fpeaking of an individual; as are the plurals clrcumjtanccs 
 and ahliulcs. 
 
 It is fometimes difficult not to conceive an unreafonable 
 difregnrd for the knowledge of the Latin and Greek, when 
 one conliders how poorly thofe, who are fuppofed to have 
 been tliorough mafters of them, have written the language 
 of thcii- own country. This tranflator, who is perhaps as 
 j'^ood a Latiniil as any man in Europe, is far from writing 
 Englifli well. But is it not amazing that foine, who have 
 been beyond a doubt very excellent Grecians and Lati- 
 niils, have written their mother- tongues not only inele- 
 gantly, but even very incorredly and ungrammatically ? 
 
 CLXXXVIII. 
 
 '<* 1 HESE words have the fame fenfe of thofe others." 
 
 This is a way in which many (perhaps the greater part) 
 would fpeak or write. But the exprelfion appears to mc 
 a bad one ; and I think we ought to fay either thifc ^vcords 
 have the fcnfe of thofe others^ without the word fame^ or 
 if this v/ord l?e ufed, thcfe nvords have the fame fenfe ^vltb 
 ihofc others^ or as thofe others. 
 
 In thefe -ii'ords ha-ve the fifne fcnfe of thofe others^ I can* 
 not perceive that the vioxdifamc has any meaning^i 
 
 CLXXXIX. 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 85 
 
 CLXXXIX. 
 
 Thomas, fon of William Arnold, jMayor of York. 
 
 This is the ilyle of many a carelefs writer. It does not 
 here appear which of the two, the father, or the fon, is 
 (or was) mayor of York. Moll readers would, in all pro- 
 bability, fuppofe the father to be the man. But the words 
 do not abfolutely determine that it is he. 
 
 Writers fliould exprefs themfelves in fuch a manner as 
 to leave no doubt, 
 
 CXC. SOME TIME. SOMETIME. SOME TIMES. SOME- 
 TIMES. 
 
 VV R ITERS do not always properly d'ilinguifh tliefe 
 words. 
 
 ['c7i7C fiip.c lignines a certain fpace of iime^ or dm-'mg a 
 ccrtivn fpace of tune, — Sc/ne t'nnc ^jjill he required for the 
 cn?7ipleth?g that h^ijinefs, — Jrlc has been doivfi to his ccuntry- 
 hoyf:^ and flayed there fo77te time, 
 
 t^o?:::tim: is to be ufed only in fpeaking of what is pafl", 
 and has cue of the fenfes of the word o-ace. Lord Bacon^ 
 fovietime chajicelior of Kvglaiid\ that is,«LC/66>civ7j once chan^ 
 ccllor of F 71 gland. 
 
 In t}ic wordsyi>T//^ /////^-jjCertain times are diilinguifhed from 
 other times. — i^otyie ti77ies are prcftcrous^ and fo77ic (j^uite the 
 cc7itrary, — So7neti7iies is a diilindtion from ahivays, — Ifo7ite'' 
 times rife early : hut not al-v:ays\ nor^ i/idccd^ often, 
 
 CXCI, 
 
 VV HEN followed by a then in the fime fentence. 
 
 Sle is fhppofed to he in h:i^e 'vj'th hi772] for^ "-when fhcfces 
 hl7J'i^ then Jhe is like to faint. 
 
 II 'hen fignifies at the time^ at ^vhich : then fipfnllies at 
 that time. — When Jhe fees hi 77?^ f^e is like io flint iigniiies, 
 therefore, at the ti772e^ at ^hiehfcfes hirn^ at that tl77isjhc 
 is like to faifit. 
 
 Is it not vifible that the word then not cnly is fupcr- 
 l]uous,but even makes a confuiion that fee: z to baniili fciife r 
 
 Yet I do not condemn this way of IjjtjakLig u^on all oc- 
 
 cafions, though it be irregular and ungrvuiimatical. \x 
 
 li ^ give;i 
 
86 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 gives a ilrength, and an appearance of earnennefs ; and is 
 therefore, in many cafes, where the fpeaker would incul- 
 cate llrongly the obfervation he is making, not only al- 
 lowable, but even preferable to the regular and gramma- 
 tical way of fpeaking. 
 
 CXCII. HEART-FELT. 
 
 vJuR modern poetaflers are fo enamoured of this word 
 that they cvenliirfcit us with ihcix hcart-fclt jojs and their 
 hcart-filt forvLivs* 
 
 At the fame time, I will not anfwer for it that they 
 ♦;lve us the word in its proper fenfe. They make it to 
 lignify cxccjfivc — extreme, I fnould rather fuppofe it to 
 Signify real — unfeigned. But whether they are right, or 
 whether / am right, as to the fenfe of the word, the truth 
 is, that their everlafting and afledcd ufe of it gives us a 
 heart-felt naufea. 
 
 CXCIII. PREFEREXCE OF. 
 
 JlTe gives his fecond fon the preference of the eldefl.— - 
 She gives London the preference of the country. 
 
 This is a common way of fpeaking, but what I can by 
 no means approve. I cannot perceive that preference of 
 in thefe places even makes fenfe; and we certainly ought 
 to {\\y preference to^ ox preference before, — He gives his fc' 
 co7id fon the preference to (or before) his cldeft, — She gi'ves 
 London the preference to (or before) the country. 
 
 Preference of is to be ufed (as I (hould miagine) only 
 where preference has the fenfe of the fubflantive pre- 
 ferring. The preference of this ??uin to that other man: that 
 is, the preferring this ?nan to that other man, 
 
 CXCIV. 
 
 TnErAnhorof the Introduction to Englifh Grammar 
 feeins to condemn the ufe of the word either^ as made to 
 fiirnlfy each ; and quotes the two following pallages from 
 fcripture. The king of Ifrael, and Jehcfaphat^ kivg nf 
 J udah^ fat either of them on his throne, — ISIadab and Abiim^ 
 the fans cf Aaron ^ took either vf tlcmhls ce:fer. 
 
 His 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 87 
 
 His Lordlhip gives, as a reafon of his difapprobation, 
 the word either s bearing another fenfe. This objection, 
 with all deference to a venerable charader, does not ap- 
 pear to me of any great weight. 
 
 Nuinberlefs words are ufed in different tenfcs without 
 any inconvenience. Where the word either^ lignifying 
 cachy is liable to be miilipprehendcd, it is, doiibtlefs, to be 
 condemned : but in the above citations, and in many other 
 places where it occurs, it has, in my opinion, an elegance ; 
 and in fome a very great one. 
 
 CXCV. DESTITUTE OF. DEPRIVED OF. 
 
 IVlANY of our Vv'riters feem to confider thefe two phrafes 
 as fynonymous, I apprehend there is a difference in their 
 meanings. We are dcftitute of that, of which we arc not 
 now adiially polfefl'ed, whether we have been formerly pof- 
 feifed of it, or not. But, to be now deprived of -Any thing, wo 
 muft, as I conceive, taking the word in its ilrlcl: fenfe, 
 have been once polfelfed of it. 
 
 Yet, deprived of \i?-vmg^ in many places, a much more 
 eafy founa than defiitute of the former is frequently ufed, 
 where, if my above conje6lure be right, it is not abfo- 
 luteiy proper: and we have had, perhaps, ^qw writers, who 
 would have fcrupled to fay, of a man born blind, that he 
 was deprived of fight; though fight was what he never 
 enjoyed. 
 
 N either fhould I blame a writer for faying of a vicious 
 young prince, whom the fubjeds of his late father had fet 
 afide, that his vices had deprived him of a crown; as we 
 (hould fay of an unfuccefsful candidate for a place, that he 
 had lofl that place; a thing he was never poffeiTed of. 
 
 CXCVL 
 
 xi. CERTAIN mode of fpeaking is common among us, (and 
 I do not always avoid it myfelf) which I fear does not 
 make fenfe, viz. the following the words pcfihle and 
 i?npoflible by an infinitive. For inilance; What you pro- 
 pofe is impojihle to do^ or to he do?ie, 
 
 FoJJihlc — b7ipoflihle fignify n)ohich may he — vchich cannot 
 
 ie^ and perhaps vohich may he donc-^wbich catinot he done. 
 
 H 2 Now, 
 
S8 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 Now, 111 whichever of thefe fignlfications either of them 
 is taken, the addition of to r/j, or to he^ or to he donc^ makes, 
 furely, a confufion that excludes fenfe. Yet, for want of 
 a better expreiiion readily prefentiiig itfelf, I have ufcd 
 the following words in the 74th remark This is thchcji i\jay 
 ' *^ffP^^^^^gj hccaiife it is impojfihlc to he ?}iif!i7idLrftcod. 
 I often wonder thr.t we have not coined the words fa- 
 cihle^ infac'hle^ or faclahlc^ infaciahlc ; which would be 
 eafy derivations from the Latin word faccrCy to fignify 
 capable and incapahlc of hei?ig done. We have, indeed, 
 feafihle (of which we do not make much ufe) which wc 
 have taken from the French. But facihlc and i?ifacihle 
 have, I think, a better found. 
 
 CXCVII. EACH OTHER. ONE ANOTHER. 
 
 X HESE found to the enr as though the two words were in 
 each of them in the fame cafe ; whereas, in fad, they are 
 not fo. 
 
 That man and hisfofi-in-Jaiv lo^ve one another,'-^T7jat 
 <ixioman and her daugbtT-in-laixj hate each other. Here the 
 words o?ie and each are in the nominative cafe : other and 
 another in the accufative: the meaning being, in fpeaking 
 of the men, th it one party loves the other ; in fpeaking of 
 the women, that each party hates the other. 
 
 But thefe phrafcs have a flill worfe effe6l where they 
 follow a prepofition. Yet it is where they arc accompa* 
 nied by a prepofition, that the words are the moil eufily 
 feparated, by pl.icing the prepofition between them ; 
 which may frequently be done without any flifthefs. If I 
 fay Thofe tv^^o to-v::is are at a great d'f.ance one fro?n the 
 cther^ there is certainly no iliftnefs in the exprelTion; and 
 it is by far a Icfs inelegant, as well as a much more pro- 
 per and corred, way of fpeaking than Thofe tivo to^zvns are 
 at )y great d'ftance from one another. 
 
 The word anotlxr^ where only two objecls are men- 
 tioned, feeiBS to be an impropriety. It is better to fay the 
 other. 
 
 CXCVIIL 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 89 
 
 CXCVIIL 
 
 A WORD is often employed as a nominative cafe, with- 
 out governing any \erb, or being in apportion with any 
 other nominative. 
 
 '' It is againfl th- laws of the realm ; which, as they are 
 <* prelerved and maintained by your majefly's authority, 
 *' lb we afiure our 'elves you will not fuifer them to be 
 " violated by your family." 
 
 Addrefs to the Khig^ P arli anient ary Delates, 
 
 The word ^m6/V/y has here no verb; and the ientence is 
 confequently ungrammaticul. But this way of fpeaking, 
 which is very convenient, is, at the f ime time, fo univer- 
 fal (for we have perhaps no author who avoids it) that I 
 dare not pronounce it to be bad Enghlh. 
 
 CXCIX. 
 
 -/jL CERTAIN defigner, now living, has frequently, in the 
 })rinted catalogues of the pidures he has expofed to vicvv', 
 given us the names Raffa'ele^ Titlafio^ MJinibale Car- 
 racciy fe'r. 
 
 This favours greatly of afFedation. As the names of 
 the painters Tifiano and Annlhale Carracci ha\ e been long 
 Anglicifed, and as theie painters are univerfally known 
 among us by the names of Jdian and Hannibal Carrachc^ 
 it is prepoflerouo for one Englifmiian to talk to another of 
 Titiani) and Anmhale Carracci, 
 
 Foreign Chnfcan names are Hill more pedantic than 
 foreign iurnames. We all knov/ who Raphael is : but, 
 pray, who is i^^'tf ^7^ .^ I prefume thar, if this d.ligncr 
 had occafion to mention Alexander the Great ^ and Piilij)^ 
 his father, he would c.dl '.\\q~^.v Alexandras "^rA Fh'.Hppo}\ 
 Indeed, where a foreigner has been hitherto named among 
 lis by his foreign Chrifiiann'a.':nc, and the Englijh name, 
 wlrch anfvvers to it, w -s never yet ufed in Ipeaking of 
 him, the foreign name is, for that reafon, the moil pro- 
 per. It is therefore better Pnd more natural for an Eng- 
 lijhman to fay 'jidU Romano than Julius Romano^ the paint tr 
 of tha*: name h-iving never yet been called Julius among 
 us. But, hid it been long cuflomary to call him Julii^s^ 
 it would now be merepeu'.ntry to fpeakofhimby the 
 H 3 name 
 
CO REMARKS ON THE 
 
 name o{ Julio, Our poets, it is true, are allowed greater 
 liberties, and may deviate from the common way of fpeuk- 
 \n^ without the imputation of pedantry. 
 " Carracci's itrength, Corregio's fofter line, 
 *' Paulo's free llroke, and Titian's warmth divine." Fojc. 
 I have often been much ofiended at ^hi the player, 
 who, in the part of Othello^ whenever he fpoke of Cajfiiy 
 by his Chrijilan name, pronounced it Mechll^ and not 
 MlchacL What reafon could the man poiUbly affign for 
 this ? and in what light did he fee this word ? Othello^ it Is 
 true, is fpeaking to //<7//^;^i. But what then? The play 
 being written in the EvghJ}) tongue, and for the enter- 
 tainment of an Engl'JJ? audience, every thing is to be pro- 
 nounced as an Englijhman pronounces, though this li^'g- 
 lljh audience is, at the fame time, to fuppofc the dialogue 
 to be in the Itallafi tongue: and there is no more reafon 
 for giving a foreign pronunciation to this name of Michael 
 than for giving it to all the rell of the play, and, confc- 
 qucntly, talking all the way unintelligibly, 
 
 CC. 
 
 *' If the charges, which that commiflion h".s already and 
 *' will (land the jniblic in, were to be dedu6led, there will 
 *' be very little remaining, to be divided among the fuf- 
 ** ferers." Farllamentary Delates, 
 
 If a man fay The money that my fori does noi\:^ and -zi'/'il 
 farther Jiand me in^ the exprelTion has nothing exception- 
 able ; becaufe the wox^ Jlatid^ which follows, is naturally 
 fuppofed after the does noiv; and it is plain that the fpeakcr 
 means, the money thai ^{y fon tio~jj Jiands me in, and ^.\)lil 
 farther Jiand mc in. 
 
 But the above-cited fentence, the charges ^^hkh that 
 commljjion has already^ and ivill fand the public /;/, does 
 not make fenfe ; becaufe it is not the word Jiand ^ but the 
 word Jioody which is to be fuppofed after the word already. 
 But, there being no other food in the fentence, the ima- 
 gination of the reader or hearer does not fupply it. It 
 ought therefore to be exprefl'ed, The charges ^vhich that 
 convwjjion has already food^ and <^\:ill ftand the public in: 
 
 Nay, even the very fame word, which precedes or fol- 
 lows, is not always eafily fupplied by the reader's or hearer's 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 91 
 
 Imagination ; and I much doubt whether it would be 
 right to fay, the money ^ ^vhlch my fort has already^ a?id ivill 
 farther coji 7nc, — Has ah-eady cqft, a?id ^xnll farther cojl 
 ?nc^ would, as I cipprehend, be much better : for the word 
 cift^ when joined with the auxiliary has^ feems to prefent 
 it; elf in a different view from v/bat it does when following 
 the auxiliaries do and ^u///; wherefore has already^ and 
 ^jjlll farther coft 7ne hurts the ear. 
 
 It would be If ill much worfe to fpe.ik in the following 
 manner ; JVhen 1 related that piece of ncivs to the t^-jjo hro^ 
 thcrs^ it f leafed ofie of them extremely^ and the other ivas fo 
 7vjt a little ; to lignify that the other v/as likewife not a 
 little pleafed ; becaufe thefe wno fleafds^ one of which is 
 a verb aftive, and the other, whether confidered as a par- 
 ticiple, or as part of a verb, is paffive, are words of very 
 widely different fenfes. Yet we have many authors who 
 write in this negligent way. 
 
 CCL 
 
 1 N the words quoted from the P arliameritary Delates in 
 tlie preceding remark, there is ill 11 another impropriety. 
 
 " If the charges were to be deduced, there will be very 
 *' little remaining," is un^-rammatical, the veere to he de- . 
 du^ed being in the preter-imperfett tenfe, and the w/// 
 be in the future. 
 
 We ought to fay either, if the charges -zvere deduced, (or 
 *ivere to he deduced) there ^vould he njery little remaining', 
 or, if the charges are deduBed^ (or he dedudled^ ox fhall he 
 deduced) there ivill he^ery little remai7Ling, 
 
 CCIL 
 
 ** X HEY argue as if the nun^ber of forces were to be 
 ** kept up againillaw; whereas the very delign of the 
 *' motion is in order to have a law for the keeping them 
 '' up." Ihid. 
 
 This is improperly exprefied. The 'very depgn and Iti 
 order are not both to be ufed : for they lignify (allowing 
 for the difference between a fubflantive and an adverbial 
 phrafe) the fame thing. When, therefore, a man fays 
 the -very defign is in order ^ it is as though he faid the t'Cfy 
 dcfgn is "with a defgn. 
 
 The 
 
92 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 The fpeaker might have faid, The ?notion is ma^Ie merely 
 in order to have a /aiv for the keeping them up^ or (which 
 is a better expreffion) the 'very defign of the motion is the 
 having a la-M for the keeping them up, 
 
 CCIIL 
 
 JJiD Tiwdi forhid iixt improperly ufed by the greatefl part 
 of our writers in the preter-imperfe(ft and firil: preter- 
 perfed tenfes; likewife with the auxiliaries, and as parti- 
 ciples pailive. 
 
 The participles paflive, and the proper words with the 
 auxiliaries, are hidden ^vA forbidden. Bade nnd forbade avQ 
 the preter-imperfe6l and firil prctcr-perfed tenfes. A 
 high price bidden — a» a^liun forbidden — he has bidden a 
 high price — he has forbidden the a^ion — he bade bis fer-vant 
 do it-'—he forbade him to do if, 
 
 IVrit and ^.vrofe are likewife improperly ufed with the 
 auxiliaries, and as participles palfive. liritten is the pro-, 
 per word, A copy fairly ^written — he has zvri/ten the letter 
 — the letter is ^written. 
 
 Run is alfo improper in the preter-impcrfei^ and prc- 
 ter-pcrfei-^L Yet Pope has ufed it in the latter of theie 
 tenfes in his Dunciad. He fiid^ and run. The proper 
 word is ran. 
 
 There is little expe<5t:ation that thefc faults, with many 
 others of the i.mt kind, will ever be univerfally amended : 
 for it can fcnrcely be doubted but th-it our poets will con- 
 tinue to indulge themfelves in them for the fake of rhyme 
 or meafiH-e : and their authority will always give them a 
 landion. 
 
 CCIV. 
 
 vJuR writers are often, through inattention, deceived by 
 the s at the end of fulillantives in the genitive cafe ; and, 
 taking thofe fubilantlves for nominatives, ufe a verb plu- 
 ral, where they ought to ufe a verb fingular. 
 
 " His words being applicable to the common miftake 
 ** of our age, induce me to tranfcribe them.'' 
 
 Br, Fojlcr on Accent and ^ua7it'fy, 
 
 IFords is here in the genitive cafe, and ought to have an 
 apoftrophe at the end. 
 
 If 
 
I 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 93 
 
 If I fay, thcfc tivo mens ivorJiing fo hard yrJIcrJay has 
 thro^vjn them into a fever : — ^vorking is here a iubfrantive, 
 not a participle, and is in the nominative cafe. The words 
 thefe tivo meris are in the genitive ; and, if any one word 
 be the nominative to the verb has tnro'iK'n^ it is 'ivork- 
 ing. But, properly fpeaking", all thefe words, thcfc tivo 
 7nerLS ^voork'rdg fo hard yeftcr day ^ are the nominative to the 
 verb ; and thefe v/ords, conlidered as a nominative, are not 
 a plural, but a lingular. Confequently, have throvm (In- 
 ilead oU?as throvjti) would make falfe grammar. 
 
 It is the fame with the fentence quoted above. The 
 word being is there not a participle, but a fubflantlve. Or, 
 perhaps, it might not be improper to join the two words 
 being and applicahle together by a hyphen, and to conlider 
 them as one; which word would be equivalent to apfli^ 
 cahlenefs : for his vjcrds* being applicable lignifies the appU- 
 cablcnefs of his %\Jords\ and all thefe words, his v^ords"* be- 
 ing applicable to the co7n7non niifake of our age, are the no- 
 minative to the verb, and are a nominative lingular, not 
 plural. The author fnould therefore have written induces, 
 not induce. His 'words'* being applicable to the common mif- 
 take> of our age induces 771c to tranfcribe them. 
 
 That this is the right way of underflanding this fentence 
 cannot reafonably be doubted ; for, if we confider v^'ordi as 
 a nominative, and being ?iZ a participle agreeing therewith, 
 his voords induce me to tranfcribe them will ilgnify his vjords 
 induce 7nc to tranfcribe his \.vords : a itrange way of talking ! 
 
 ccv. 
 
 JL HE pronouns his, her, and their, are improper, when 
 ferving as adjedives to fubftantives conjoined with the pro- 
 noun ivho, 
 
 '' It is hard to be conceived that a fet of men could 
 *' ever be chofen by their cotemporaries, to have divine 
 *' honours paid them, whilil numerous perfons were alive, 
 " who knew their im perfections, and who themfelves, or 
 " their immediate anceflors, might have as fair a pretence, 
 " and come in competition with them." 
 
 Prideaux, as quoted in the Divine Legation, 
 
 The writer Ihould have laid, and who themfelves, or 
 ivhofc i7m7icdiatc anceflors, might have as fair a pre- 
 te/ice, i^i\ 
 
 CCVL 
 
94 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 CCVI. COTEMPORARY. 
 
 JL KOUGH the word cotemporary^ which occurs in the la^ 
 quotation, be ufed by m.iny efteemed writers, (ainon;;- 
 others, by Lord Bolingbroke, perh-ips one of our beft 
 penmen) there are critics, who infill: that it is improper, 
 and that we ought ahvays to fay contemporary. 
 
 They lay it down as a rule that co is to be ufed only 
 where the word, with which it is joincv^, begins with a 
 vowel, as i:^ • . -• -^^co-cxfjicnt^ co-'—'' ■'. co-operate^ 
 
 ^r. 
 
 CCVII. PREVIOUSLY. 
 
 1 HAVE already taken notice of the word prcv'ous^ as be- 
 ino; improperly ufed as an adverb, inilcad oi prcvioifjly, 
 B\.\tprev!o/(/Jy iilvcwife appears to me not to be always the 
 right word, where we find it. I apprehend that, in ftrld 
 propriety, it ought to be employed only where the cir- 
 cumilance mentioned immediately with it has fome r.la- 
 tion to another that follows, or to fomething that has been 
 mentioned already. 
 
 A man equips himfelf in a Yiding-drefs prea^ior{/Iy to hi» 
 gettmg on horfeback. — He folicits for a poll, for which 
 he has p-cvloujly proved himfelf to be well qualified. 
 
 But, where there is no fach relation, a mere priority in 
 time does not, in my opinion, juftify the ufe of this word. 
 For inflance; I praBifcd an hour tipon the harpjichord this 
 morning prev'ioiifly to my drejjing viyfelf. 
 
 There being no relation between a man's drefling him- 
 felf, and his playing on the harpfichord, I (hould imagine 
 the word previoufly to be here wrong. 
 
 It feems a wonder that we have no fuch word ^^prJorJy* 
 It would be naturally formed from prior^ and would be 
 very ufeful. 
 
 CCVIII. 
 
 *' rLvEN after fcience had once dawned upon them, the 
 " Scots feemcd to be finking back into ignorance and ob- 
 *' fcurity : and, acTtive and intelligent as they n iturally are, 
 *' they continued, whilil other nations were eager in the 
 *' purfuit of knowledge, in a ftate of languor and ftupe- 
 *' fadtion. This, however, muil be imputed to the un- 
 
 '^ happinefs 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 95 
 
 *' happinefs of their political fituation ; not to any defedl 
 "of genius: for no fooncr was the one removed in any 
 *' degree than the other began to difplay itfelf." 
 
 Roher^fo7iS I'ijicry of Scotland, 
 
 The author's meaning is that, as foon as the unhappi- 
 nefs of the political fituation of the Scots was in fome 
 degree removed, their genius began to difplay itfelf. But 
 his words do not imply this : they imply,- not :hat the ge^ 
 7ilus of the Scots, but that their (kfcdt ofgen>usy began to 
 difplay itfelf. f'or, though the fingle word genius may be 
 conlidered as oppofcd to political Jituat-di^ ic is d fed of 
 genius^ which is oppofed to unhapp';icf tf polit'^ca: ftua- 
 tion: and he tells us that, when the Inrter was in lome 
 degree removed, the other begin to di!piiy itfelf. 
 
 I think I jQiouId have faid — Th's^ hciKeucr^ 7111 f hp V;/- 
 puted to the unhafpincfs of theh' pullt'cal ftTfiilan \ n':t to 
 any defect cf ge:ihi- : for no fooncr ivas that Jiiuai oti 
 amended in any degree than their gen 'us began to difplay 
 itfelf. 
 
 CCIX. 
 
 J- HE words vch'ch and it are frequently employed tcge- 
 gether in fach a m/inner as fcems to dellroy fenfe. 
 
 , " Credit no propoliticn purely becaufe the etymiology 
 
 *' Implies it. Etymology is the voice of the people; 
 
 " which the philofopher always fufpeds, but always at- 
 
 '' tends to it." Tranflation of MichacUs's Dfcourfe en 
 
 the Influence cf Opinions on Language^ and of Lan- 
 
 g^^age 071 Opinitns, 
 
 This leems to fay Ety?nclogy is the 'voice of the people ; 
 v:hich the philofopher alvcays fufpetlsy out ^vhich he always 
 attends to it: for the fenfe of the w^ord ^ivhich is almoil ne- 
 celTarily brought fonvard in the mind of the reader to the' 
 lail limb of the fentence. 
 
 The abfurdity is avo'ded by omitting the //. Etymologv 
 is the 'Voice of the people \ ^.I'hich the philofopher akvaysff- 
 fcHs^ hut ahvays attends to. This is laying, 'which the 
 philofopher alvaays fufpc^ls^ hut (which he) akvays at- 
 tends to. 
 
 If the word // be ufed, there ought to be at leaft a 
 colon, if not a full Hop, at the word fufpeHs ; and fome 
 additional words will be aeceifary. For inflance \ Etymo* 
 
 logy 
 
96 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 Ingy is the 'voice of the people ; ^ivbich the phllof other alzvays 
 fi'fpcSls : bufy though he alvjays fiifpccls^ he akooays attends 
 to it,. 
 
 Faults of this fort are very common in our Englifh 
 
 writers. 
 
 ccx. 
 
 *' J. HESE Hermnpion tranflnted into Greek; part of 
 *' which is prefcrved by Ammianus Marcellinus." 
 
 Divine I.egaticn. 
 
 This certainly does not make {c\\(ty there being no word 
 whereto the rel.itive ^.vhich refers : for the author's mean- 
 ing is that a part of the traniliition (not of the origin-ds) 
 is preferred : but, thouq;h the adl of tranilaiin^:^ be fpoken 
 of, the tranfiiition itfelf is not mentioned. As to the word 
 Greek, the iK^hich cannot refer to that; for Greek fi 'nifies 
 the Greek Ir.n^^U'^.c.e, not the Greek tnmflation. Yet I fuf- 
 peft that tliC author, through inadvertence, confidered it 
 as referring to this word. 
 
 He might have fa'd Thefe Hcrmapicn franJJatcd into 
 Greek ; ajid a part of them thus tranJJated is preferred by 
 Aftijnianus Mar cell. kus\ or, thefc Hcnnapion tranjlated into 
 Creek ; and a part of the tranflaticn is prefr'ved by A?n^ 
 mia7i u 5 jMarcell: n us , 
 
 CCX I. The employing the prefent and the preter-perfcH 
 Icnfe together in rclatitig a pafi Tratfadlion, 
 
 ** riE accordingly draws out his forces, and offers battle 
 '* to Hicro, king of Syracufe, who readily accepted it." 
 
 When the writer, for the fake of animating his narra- 
 tion, had thought proper to make uie of the prefent 
 tenfe for the two lirll verbs, he ought to have put the 
 other verb in the fame tenfe, bkewiie. He fhould there- 
 fore have faid He accordingly drains cut hisfjj-ces, and of- 
 fers battle to Hlero^ -^-'^^S* ^f '^^'^^'-K ^^ '''^'^■^^ readily ac^ 
 
 This is a common fault in cur v/riters, and efpecially 
 in oar p.)ets, who feldom fcruple to facrifice i^rAc^ where 
 it iban.U m the way of rhyme or meafure. 
 
 It is not a little' to be deplored that Virgil, whofe fryle 
 is fo very nolle, and perhni^s is in all other refpects un- 
 
 exceptionuble, 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 97 
 
 exceptionable, is everlaftlngly guilty of the fault I here 
 reprehend. It is a terrible biemilh in him. 
 
 CCXII. 
 
 " Thou art the firft that ever has taught the fcience of 
 *' tyranny." Duke of Guife to Machiavcl^ i?i the Dia- 
 
 logues of the Dead, 
 
 This is the grammatical way of fpeak'ng ; though fomc 
 writers would hive faid Thou art the firft that e^ver hajl 
 taught^ i^c, confidering the pronoun that as relative to 
 thot/^ which is the fecond perfon. 
 
 Indeed, if I fay thou, ^zvho (or that) haft firft taught the 
 fcience of tyranny^ I fpeak properly ; becaufe here the ^K^ha 
 (or that) which is the nominative to the following verb, 
 is really relative to ihou\ and the wovAfrf is only an ad- 
 jective agreeing with ^ho (or that). 
 
 But, in the fentence quoted from the Dialogues, Thou 
 art the firft that ever has taught the fcience of tyranny^ the 
 word that is relative to firfi ; and y??y? is in the third per- 
 fon, it meaning the firft ?nan^ or the firft ^j:riter. 
 
 There may, however, befentences of a limilar conftruc- 
 tion, where a deviation from grammar would not be with- 
 out its grace. 
 
 CCXIIL 
 
 ^' An attempt of this nature would be utterly Imprac- 
 *' ticable." Preface to Baker s RefieBions on Learnings 
 In the expreffion of This defign is impraHicahle there is 
 no impropriety, becaufe the word defign lignifies not only 
 intention^ ov purpofe^ but likewife a thing intended ox pur- 
 pofed: and it is in this latter fenfe that it mufl: be under- 
 ftood, when we talk of a defigris being impradticjible. But 
 an attempt^ which lignifies an endeanjorn-j does not, as I 
 apprehend, alfo lignify a thing endca^voured at. If it be 
 as I fay, the expreffion of the attempt is impra^icahk mufl 
 be wrong, unlefs we confider it as figurative. 
 
 CCXIV. 
 
 f' If any one, who thinks thus of me, will only fufpend 
 
 *' his cenfure fo long till I draw my conclufion, &c." ihid. 
 
 I Sufpcnd 
 
9^ REMARKS ON THE 
 
 Sufpcnclyour ccnfure fo long that I may dravo my conclu- 
 Jion, — Sufpe fid your ccnfure fo long as to give me time to dravj 
 my conclufion, 
 
 Thefe exprellions are Englifii, but fomewhat languid : 
 audit would be better to fay Sufpcnd your ccnfure till I 
 draw (or //// / have dra^iVn) my conclufcn. So Icvg tlaty 
 andy^ l0?ig as, are good Englifii. So lo?ig till is not Englifii. 
 
 CCXV. TO EE REVENGED OF. 
 
 Many people (perhaps the greater part) fay to he re- 
 *vengcd of an offender. 
 
 1 conceive this not to be flridly good Englifii, and that 
 we ought to ufe the word/77nn fpeaking of the perfon who 
 is the objcel of revenge, and of or for , in fpeaking of the 
 crime, or fault revenged. 
 
 For infiancc, / ivHl take revenge on that man. — I will 
 he revenged on that man, — I 'ivill take revenge of that in- 
 fult. — / will he revenged of that infult. — / will take re^ 
 venge for that infult. — / will he revenged for that i?fult. 
 
 It may be worth while to obferve that on^t, the con- 
 tradion of on it, is frequently ufed where on it would be 
 improper, and where the proper expreflion would be of it; 
 and this even by the correclell: fpeakers, as weU as by all 
 the reft of the nation. The reafon of this is, without 
 doubt, that the contraction on^t has a more diftindl and 
 pleafing found than the contrr.d-ion rf^t. We fay, for 
 example, / am glad 07i*t, — / had never heard oiCt. And 
 yet / am glad en it. — / had never heard on it, are not 
 Englifii; the proper expreifions being I am glad of it»^^ 
 J had 7iever heard of it, 
 
 CCXVI. 
 
 JVIr. ward, late profefibr of rhetoric at Grefiiam col- 
 lege, fpeaking in his grammar of a future-perfect tenfe, 
 fays " It denotes an action as done at fome future time." 
 
 " He ought," fays one of the Reviewers, " to have faid 
 ** It denotes an aClion as to be done at Tome future time. 
 ** As it ftands, it reads fomewhat like an Hibeniicifm." 
 
 The Reviewer appears to me to be miftaken. I fee 
 nothing exceptionable in Mr, Ward's expreffion. Sup- 
 
 pofc 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 99 
 
 pofe I fay to a friend, / am going to fettle hi the country ; 
 ivhei-e I intend i?n?Jiediateiy to huild a houfe, — If you ^will 
 come do^jcn a year hence ^ you ^jjiilfindit built and furnijhed. 
 Here I fpeak of the houfe as finlfhed, though at a future 
 period of time : but furely no man will aflert there is 
 even the leall impropriety in this way of fpeaking'. There 
 is therefore no Hibernicifm in faying- that a future- 
 perfed tenfe reprefents a thing as done at fome future 
 time. 
 
 Why did not the Reviewer obje6t likevvife to Mr. Ward'j; 
 exprellion of •^future-pcrfcB tcifef For, if denoting an ac' 
 tion as done at fome future time be an Hibernicifm, a fu- 
 turc-perfcH tenfe mufc be fo. 
 
 CCXVn. MUCH LESSr 
 
 JL HESE words, on which I have already made one rC" 
 mark, ai'e fometimes but aukwardly ufed after the fubftan- 
 tive nothing, 
 
 hi his dfpofition there <u)as nothing harfh^ much lefs cruel. 
 Where the words f7iueh lefs are introduced in this way, 
 fome other words, in order to make fenfe, muil be fup~ 
 pofed. What words ought to be fuppofed here? The 
 words any thing. For inflance, In his difpoftion there v^as 
 ?iothing harfj^ much lefs any thing cruel. 
 
 But, i:-" '^ys I?> his dfpoftion there ^.':as nothing 
 
 haiji:^ 7. . ,./7, d.)C3 mo^. die word notiyuig prefent 
 
 itfelf again to the hearer's imagination ? and does not the 
 fpeaker feem to fay In his difpofition there ^mus nothing 
 harfh^ 7nuch lefs nothing cruel? To my ear he does. But 
 this would make a fenfe contrary to what he intends. I 
 ihould think it therefore beft to introduce the words any 
 things as I have done above : In his difpofition there was 
 nothing harfh^ much lefs any thing cruel \ or, much lefs was 
 there any thing crueL 
 
 CCXVHL 
 
 X HESE (or thofe) fort of mtn.^^Thefe (or thofe) kind of 
 people. 
 
 One v/ould think this way of fpeaking muft be in- 
 
 fuffcrable to an ear of any delicacy ; yet we have many 
 
 I 2 approved 
 
loo REMARKS ON THE 
 
 approved authors, who take no care to avoid It. In the 
 Divine Legation it occurs frequently. 
 
 We have many ungrammatical exprefSons, which can- 
 not well be avoided, without a ftifFnels ; but that is not the 
 cafe here. Min of thisfort^ which is a corred exprelTion, 
 is as eafy, to the full, as thefe fort of men ; and is certainly 
 much lefs ineleg'^nt. But, though any one Ihould chufe 
 to make men the genitive, where is the neceflity of grofTly 
 violating grammar by giving fort an adjedive plural ? and 
 what fliould hinder him from faying this fort of men f in 
 which cxprellion there is nothing exceptionable. 
 
 I fufpcd that what ^wo, rife to the ufnig an adje<5\ivc 
 plural vviihyi;r/,or X///^,was the fometimes feeming difficulty, 
 where it is a nominative, in determining whether to make 
 it plural or lingular. This fort of men is ever ready to 
 make prfrfinns offer^vice, — This fort /)f ?nen are ever ready 
 to ?)take frofcfjions of fcrvice, I may be afked, which of 
 thefe two ways of fpeaking is the beft, both of them feem- 
 ing to be exceptionable. In the firft, what feems a 
 noun of number is followed by a verb fmgular : in the 
 laft, a noun fmgular is followed by a verb plural. As for 
 me, I fliould prefer the firft. But 1 afhrm that either-of 
 them 18 mxich lefs ofFenfive than //^^ {oxthofe)fortofmeH% 
 
 CCXIX. 
 
 X HE Englllh participle is often converted into a fub- 
 flantive. 
 
 For inftance, His aBing in that manner v:as a great 
 piece of rafknef^ — His Jigning that paper {oVyhis fgn'mg of 
 that paper) has undone him. Here aHing and fgning are 
 fubliantives. 
 
 There are critics (and the author of the Introduction to 
 Engllfh grammar is one) who allcrt that, where, another fub- 
 ilantive immediately follows, the prepofition /T/isubfolutely 
 neceffary. They would therefore condemn the expref- 
 fion of his fgning that paper ^ and would tell us we ought 
 to fay his fi^ ning- of that paper. 
 
 Here I cannot agree with them. His fgning that paper 
 is, as I conceive, muvh better than his fgning of that pa- 
 per J which lail cxpreffion is, to my ear, infipid. 
 
 Though 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. lox 
 
 Though the form of the wordt f'gmng be that of a 
 fubflantive (it having the adjedive his agreeing with it) 
 the fenfe of it is that of a verb. The preprfition there- 
 fore not only is unneceffary, but feems to maim the fenfe# 
 
 The ufe of the prepofition is necelTaiy, as I fhould 
 imagine, only where the participle thus converted into a 
 fubrtantive has what we may call a neuter fenfe, not an ac- 
 tl've one. For inllance, The dancing of that ^voman fo 
 'vcell at the ball ^vas the ruin of her no^iv huJha?iJ ', for he 
 fell in love "with her thcre^ and married her. Here the 
 danc'ng of that zvoman fo ivell lignifies that ivoman's danc- 
 ing fo ^vell; and dancing has what I have called a neuter 
 fenfe. 
 
 But, when I fay hisfgning that paper ^ the wovAfgning 
 has an a6tive fenfe ; as has the verb to fign^ when we fay 
 tofign a paper ; where paper is the accufative cafe go- 
 verned by that verb. 
 
 There are places, however, where I would ufe the of 
 for the fake of found, and of fniooth pronunciation, though 
 the omiflion of it might make better fenfe : and I would 
 rather fay his fgning that paper ^Joas the undoing of him 
 than hisfgning that paper tvas the u?idoing him ; where un- 
 doing has an a6^tive fenfe, as well z%figning. But I fhould 
 ufe the of becaufc the undoing of hi?n is more diflin6t tO' 
 the ear, and more eafy to the organs of fpeech than the 
 -undoing him. 
 
 That thefe participles, when taking the form of fub- 
 ftantives, llill retain the fenfe of verbs, appears to me fa 
 plain as to need no proof. But, if any one be flartled at 
 the aifertion, let him conlider thefe expreffions. His aH- 
 zngfo gencroufly in that affair has gained him great ap- 
 plaufe, — His fpeaking fo clamor oufly is very offenfvc ; where 
 thefe participle-fubffantives (as I may call them) are ufed 
 very naturally with adverbs ; whereas his aH fo gener oufly 
 in that affair^ — -his fpeech fo clamor oufly ^ are nonfenfc, 
 
 ccxx. 
 
 *' 1 HOUGH the learned writer's arguments be thus de- 
 *' fedive, yet it is very true what he fays; thefe phyfi- 
 •^* cians were indeed an order of the minifters of religion." 
 
 JPivine Legation* 
 I 3 ^^ 
 
102 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 // is "J cry true ^vhaf be fays ^ to fi^^nlfy -zvhat he fays is 
 'very truc^ is certainly very iingnimmatical. Yet, this 
 way of fpeakmg- being not only common among the illi- 
 terate, but even frequently ufed by the learned, and hav- 
 ing a certain air of eale, it cannot be condemned as bad 
 Engliih. 
 
 CCXXI. 
 
 *' X HERE is not now a fovereign flate in Europe, but 
 *' keeps a body of regular troops in the'.r pay." 
 
 Farl a'fKtntarv Del) ate s* 
 
 The pronoun theW^ which refers to fiate^ fuppofes this 
 noun to be a noun of number. But, even granting it to be 
 fo (which I can hardly admit), the verbs /j and keefs^ both 
 of which are fmcrular, make the pronoun tbeiry which is 
 plural, abfolutely improper in this place. If a pronoun 
 therefore muft be ufed, it were belt to fay There is not 
 Ttoiv a fo'vereig7i Jiatc in JLurope hut keeps a bocJy of regular 
 troops in its pay. 
 
 But the fentence would perhnps be more elegant with- 
 out any pronoun at all. For inftance, Tijere is not no^iv a 
 fovereign Jlate in Europe but keeps a body of regular troops 
 in pay, 
 
 CCXXIL 
 
 " J. HE reafon will be accounted for hereafter." 
 
 D I If i Tie Legation, 
 A reafon given for any event is what accounts, or pre- 
 tends to account, for that event. To fay therefore The 
 reafon w/// he accounted for ^ is faying Ul^at accounts for it 
 VJill he accounted for. 
 
 The proper exprellion would have been The reafcn ivill 
 be given hereafter ; or, this n.vill be accounted for hereafter. 
 Or, perhapc, the writer ufes the expreffion oi accounting 
 for in the fame fenfe as a tradei'mun, who fays, / ^.lUl ac- 
 count for that fm^ me aiing that he will produce it. In 
 this fenfe it feems allowable. 
 
 The caufe is (or ^.':as) attributed to is an impropriery 
 common in the French language; from whence perhaps 
 we have borrowed ii. It is pardonable no o^henvife than as 
 being underftood figmatively j for the expreffion is very 
 vifibly irregular. 
 
 That 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE, lo^ 
 
 That, which produces an event is, the caufe of fuch 
 event. If I therefore fay The cavfp of his death was af" 
 trihuted to a ^violent odd that he catight^ it is as though I faid 
 the caiife of his death ^ims attributed to ^.vhat ^ivas (proba- 
 bly) the caufe of it \ which is utterly abfurd. 
 
 The proper exprelTion is His death ^vas attrihnted to a 
 *violc72t cold that he caught ; or, the caufe of his death ^'a-s 
 fufpifed to he a 'violent cold that he caught, 
 
 CCXXIIL 
 
 " JL HIS explains the meaning of the^ forty days, which 
 *' were fulfilled for Ifrael." ^ ^ Ihid. 
 
 Here feems, at firft fight, to be an impropriety not un- 
 like thofe obferved in the preceding remark. The word 
 explains fignifies fevos the meaning of Is not therefore 
 explains the meanmg as much as to Vetyjhe^vs the meaning of 
 the meanhig? 
 
 The writer might have faid This is an explanation of the 
 forty days^ ^johich -zvere fulfilled for Ifrael ; or, this gi^es us 
 {ovfje^vs us^ or points out) the meaning of the forty days 
 vjhich 'Were fulfilled for Ifrael. 
 
 Yet I will not afiirm the phrafe to explain a meaning to 
 be abfolutely an impropriety. I think the exprefHon may,, 
 in many places, bejuflified. A man makes me an embar- 
 rafled fpeech, which I do not well comprehend. I fay to- 
 liim, I han)e fome notion of your meanings hut it is a covfifeJ 
 vm\ — Ihelienje^ fays a flander-by, lean explain it to you* 
 That is, / can make clear to you ^what his meaning is,. 
 
 CCXXIV. 
 
 -I HE Divine Legation, explaining a pafTage in Virgil, 
 fays '* But an old poem under the name of Orpheus, en- 
 *' tituled A Delcent into Hell, had it been now exlfting, 
 *' would, perhaps, have fhewn us that no iiiore was meant 
 " than Orpheus's initiation." 
 
 Had fuch a thing heen THEN exfng^ it 'would have had 
 
 fuch an effeH^ is a proper way or 'peuking. — Had it been 
 
 ^o^ ex flings it ^would have hu.i fucb an effed^ thou::^h 
 
 many people would exprefs theniielves in thib manner, is 
 
 hardly fenle, 
 
 I think 
 
$04^ REMARKS ON THE 
 
 i think the author fhould have written as follows— ^z^^ 
 an old poem under the name of Orpheus^ cntltuled A Dejient 
 t?it0 Helly ivere it novo exljiing^ ivould perhaps JJjevj us that 
 no more is meant than Orpheus^ s initisLtion^ 
 
 CCXXV. ONE, 
 
 Would areafonable perfon believe it podihle for wri* 
 ters to make this w^^*d pluril, where it meins ( s it slmoll 
 always does) an individual ? and yet we fometimf s find it 
 made fo, 
 
 *' Not one in an hundred," fays a book called Advice 
 from a Bifhop to a Clergymnn, *' either read or 'peak \xt 
 *' public with any propriety." 
 
 I am afraid the good biftiop himfeTf never fpoke with 
 much propriety in regard to his choice of words. What 
 could induce him to fay read and fp ak^ and not reads and 
 /peaks? Co':M he fuppofe that the word hundred w2ls to 
 determine the peiTon ot the verbs ? 
 
 This is a fault not unlike that which I have taken no* 
 tice of in remark LXX. 
 
 There are indeed places where the word one ought to 
 be made plural. If I fay Courtiers and anti-ecunicrs ere 
 pretty much alike. The one hai'e no more the intercft of the 
 nation at heart than the others^ this is a proper way of 
 fpcaking, and it v/ould be wrong \o fay has the inter ejiy 
 becaufe the one here refers to a fubitantive (or to fubftan- 
 lives) plural, 
 
 CCXXVI. ONE OF THEIR, &C. 
 
 JL/ET us fuppofe three houfes to belong in common ta 
 three men, each man having a fliare in each houfe. If 
 one of thefe houfes happen to fall, the e^prelTion of one of 
 their hoi'fes is faVUn^ or OJie of thofe mens houfes is fallen 
 would, without doubt, be very proper. 
 
 But I believe ninety-nine perfons in a hundred would 
 make ufe of the 'ams expreiHon where it would not be 
 proper; or, at leaf:,, where it would not be the befl: way 
 of fpeaking. 
 
 We will fuppofe a man to be the fole proprietor of one 
 houfe. If this houfe (hould fall, there are few people but 
 
 what,. 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 105 
 
 what, feeing- this man in company with other men, and 
 mentioning the accident, would (as I have hinted above) 
 life the fame expreffion, and fay one of their houfes is fallen^ 
 or one of thofe meri s houfes is fallen. 
 
 But this, as Ihavejull: now faid, would not be the be ft 
 way of fpeaking. It would be much better to fay the houfe 
 of one of thofe me?ils fallen^ or the hoife of one cf them is 
 fallen: for thefe words, conveying but one idea, could not 
 be mifunderilood ; whereas o?ie of thofe mens houfes is 
 fallen might be underilood to iignify that thofe men had 
 fome houfes in common, and that one of thofe houfes was 
 fallen d jwn. 
 
 CCXXVII. ONLY. NEITHER. EITHER. 
 
 X HERE are innumerable inflances of the wrong placing 
 thefe words. 
 
 Only^ by not being in its proper place, gives a fenfe not 
 intended. Not only^ neither^ and either^ by being out of 
 their places, make nonfenfe. 
 
 " Theifm,'* fays my Lord Shaftefbury, *' cm only be 
 *' oppofed to polytheifm or atheifm." 
 
 He ought to have faid The f mean hi dfpofcd en!-; to •poly- 
 theifm or atheifn : for his meaning is tha.t polytheifm and 
 atheifm are the only things to which theifm can be op* 
 pofed. But his words do not imply this: ior the if n can 
 only he oppofed to poly the fm or atheifm fignifies that theifm 
 is not capable of any thing, except of being oppofed to 
 polytheifm or atheifm ; which is a quite diftercnt fenfe. 
 Befides, it makes a falfe alfertion ; for, though it may be 
 true that polytheifm and atheifm are the only fpe.ies of 
 belief to which theilm can ftund in oppolition, yet there 
 are many other things, of which theilm is capable. It is 
 capable of influencing a man's condu6l. It is capable of 
 gaining him the good-will of another in the fame, or of 
 exciting the averiion of thofe in a different, way of think- 
 ing. In fhort, there is no faying of how many things it is 
 capable. 
 
 " He was not only an eye-witnefs of" thofe aifa'rs, but 
 *' had a great fhare in them." Biographical D'tlionary, 
 
 '' He was neither learned in the languages, nor philo- 
 *' fophy." Ihid. 
 
2o6 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 The proper way of fpeaking is He not orily n.vas an eyt" 
 'ivitvefs of thofe affairs^ liit had a great Jh are /';? them. The 
 not cnly ought to precede the ii-^j, not to follow it. — He 
 nxjas learned ?; either in the languages nor in philofophy, 
 Lear?ied ought to precede neither* 
 
 When we fay He ^vas not only an eye-^jcitncfs of thofe 
 affairs^ hut had a great fhare in them^ the fenfe of the word 
 ivas^ by this word's being put before the not only ^ is brouirht 
 forward to the hut had a great Jhare in them. It is there- 
 fore the fame as if we faid He ivas not only an eye- 
 ivitncfs cf thofe affairs^ hut alfo he ^juas had a great flmre in 
 them\ which is nonfenfe. 
 
 So likewife in the other fentencc, He ^.vas neither karfied 
 n the languages^ nor thilofofhy^ by putting neither before 
 learned^ the word philofophy^ which ought to be oppofed 
 only to the languages^ becomes oppofed to learned in the 
 languages \ whereby wc fay He neither ivas learned in the 
 languages, nor ivas he philofop/y ; which is alfo nonfenfe. 
 
 I own it aftonifhes me that our writers fliould go on 
 from age to age expreffmg themfelves in this flovenly man- 
 ner, when there is not one inftance in ten of the fault's 
 beicsr commii(ed, where it would not hare been ea(y to 
 avoid it. Sometimes indeed there is no avoiding the im- 
 propriety without a Hiffnefs or heavinefs of exprelTion. In 
 either of thefe cafes it is to be fuffered. 
 
 " Wherein not only their wants were to be fatisfied, 
 ** but all their appetites and pufTions to be gratified/' 
 
 Lord Bolinghroke*. 
 
 Here the not only is rightly placed. But the fame wri- 
 ter in the following fentence has placed it wrong. They 
 fpeak not only of the laiv, hut refer to many of the faBls re* 
 lated in the Pentateuch, By ^\iX\\vig fpeak before not only, 
 he has brought forward the fenfe of this word fpcak to the 
 latter part of the fentence, and made nonfenfe : for it is as 
 though he faid They fpeak ?iot only of the laiv. They like^ 
 ivife fpeak refer to many of the fails related in the Fen* 
 tateuch* 
 
 If a man fays I fpeak not only of him, hut of all his compa- 
 nions, here the word fpcak is rightly placed before the 
 not only, becaufe the all his companions Hands oppoled to 
 the him ; for which reafon the fenfe of the word fpeak 
 ought to be brought forward to the latter part of the fen- 
 
 tence^ 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 107 
 
 tence, the meaning of the fpeaker behig this, I /peak not 
 of him only : I likevji/ejpeak of all his companions, 
 
 CCXXVIIL 
 
 vJx^E of the greatefl barbarifms hi the Englifh tongue, and 
 which it amazes me th'-Jt f.;arcely '«ny author avoids, is 
 the ufiag the preter-perfe<5t tenle of rhe infinitive mood 
 where we ought to ufe the prefent or future. 
 
 I "-was go ng to have -written him a letter* — I Intended to 
 have "joritten to him. — Can there be a greater impropriety 
 than this ? Is it not pldn we ought to fay I ^jjas going to 
 ijoritc him a letter, — / intended to vonte to him. 
 
 When we talk of going to hanje done a thing, or of in- 
 tending to hanye done it, vve fpeak of the thing's being 
 <lone, as prior to the fetting about it, or intending it. 
 
 We have indeed one verb, which claims an indulgence 
 in this particular, and which it is necefla y to follow with 
 the p -eter-perfed tenie of the infinitive mood, where it 
 w^oiild be proper to follow other verbs with the prefent or 
 future. 
 
 This is the verb ought which is irregular, and never va- 
 ries in its termination. If it were a regular verb, its pre- 
 ter-imperfeft and prefer- perfect would be oughted-, and, 
 in that cafe, if I mtended to tell a man that it was his duty 
 upon f)me pifl: occalion to a6l otherwife than he did, the 
 proper exprellion would be Tou oughted to aHfo andfo^ and 
 not Tou oughted to have acted fo and fo ; for this laft 
 expreffion would contain the fame abfurdity as thofe which 
 I have condemned above. Indeed the abfurdity is con- 
 tained in the expreffion we do ufe, viz. Tou ought to have 
 done it* But there is no avoiding it, as this verb does not 
 change its termination : for, when we fpeak in the prefent 
 tenfe, we fay Tou ought to do fo and fo ; and our uiing 
 the fame expreffion in a paft tenfe would caufe a confufion. 
 I am not ignorant, that the word ought, which I may 
 here feem to fpeak of as an infinitive, was originally the 
 preter-perfe6l of the verb to oive. But it is now never ufed 
 as fuch, and has at prefeat a cj^uite different fenfe. 
 
 CCXXIX. 
 
io8 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 CCXXIX. 
 
 JL HAVE lojl this gav2C^ -hrr/gh I thorght IJkould haiH ^vnn 
 it. — !She ^ivas/o ^v cry 'ill that ail thofe ah.,ut her i/naglncdjbe 
 <u:ouU haiie d'cd, — He rccci'ved a ^vouml^ ^johlch had almcji 
 coji hij?t hlsl'fc, 
 
 Thefe are the coin n- on ways of fpeaking : but they are 
 wrong. They are barl?anrms of the fanu- Itrain with that 
 taken notice of in the preceding remark. 
 
 The proper wnys of fpeaking are I hanjc loft this game ^ 
 ihovgh I thought IJhould -vjin it, — She ivas fo <vcry ill that 
 all thofe ahoiit her imagined fee ^ivould die. — He recci^vcd a 
 ivoundy 'vJAch ahvojl cofi him his life, 
 
 ccxxx. 
 
 JL HERE may, it is true, be a cafe, where the lafl expref- 
 fion, condemned in the forepoing remnrk. He recei'ved a 
 •Vjound^ ivhich had almofl crjl him hii life, would, with an 
 additional word or two, not be improper. 
 
 For inllance, Ifaiv frm lately, and fund him in a very 
 ivcak fate: for he had rece'ved a ^^\:ound in a duel ah out a 
 mofith before, ^^vhieh had aim of ccf him h s life. 
 
 If the fpeaker mean that this m..n's life had been in dan- 
 ger before he (the fpeaker) fiw him, the expreffon is 
 right; becnu'e, though th. d/.n^jer w.s future to the re- 
 ceiving the wound, it was antecedent to tfie feeing the 
 duellill: in this weak ftate. But to employ a preter-plu- 
 perfc^t tenfe, in mentioning a patlch'cumllarce, otherwife 
 than as it was antecedent to fome other pall circumlbaice 
 fpoVen of, is an ahfurJiry fo egregious, .nd, as 1 fhould 
 imagine, fo very obvious, that '. can never fufticiently 
 wonder that even our bcil writers do not avoid it. 
 
 CCXXXI. 
 
 *' Ps oT long before, he alked m.e what need I had for his 
 *' aliiilance." 
 
 Duncan s Trarflation of Cicero's Oration againf Pfa» 
 With the word cccafion we u'*e thc/I;r. Ihcrc nvas no 
 oceafionfor it. But, with need, the of. — "Not long before, he 
 afkcdtne "what need I had of his afifiance. 
 
 The 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 109 
 
 The Introdu6tion to Englilh Grammar takes notice of 
 many prepofitions thus improperly ufed even by Swift, 
 Addifon, Temple, and other writers of the highefl: repu- 
 tation: fome of them, indeed, with fuch (hameful impro- 
 priety as one would think mufl: lliock every Englilh ear, 
 and almoft induce the reader to fuppofe the writers to be fo- 
 reigners. 
 
 CCXXXIL 
 
 1 HAVE obferved in another Remark, that the word only^ 
 by being improperly placed, gives a fenfe not intended. 
 
 This word, and feveral others, are fometimes placed not 
 abfolutely improperly; yet fo as for the reader not to 
 know, till he has pail them, whether they refer to the 
 words immediately preceding, or to thofe immediately 
 fucceeding them. We ought to have two different 
 marks : one to iignify the firft ; the other, the latter. A 
 reader, then, though he were nmning over the page evet 
 fo fail, could not be deceived, and lay a wrong emphaiis* 
 
 CCXXXIIL WHOM. 
 
 W E often find this word in bad writers, and fometimes 
 even in good ones, in the room of ^vho, 
 
 Mr. Locke fays, in one of his letters to Mr. Molyneux% 
 *' If you were here, you would find three or four in the par- 
 *' lour after dinner, whom you would fay palled their af- 
 *' ternoons as agreeably and as jocundly as any people 
 *' you have this good while met with." 
 
 This is not good Englifh. He ought to have faid ^i^h^ 
 you n^vould fay pafs their afternoons^ t^c, and not ^\:ho?n : 
 for the pronoun is not in the accufative cafe, and governed 
 by the verb fay : but it is the nominative to the verb 
 faffed: and vohom is not a nominative. If the fmall hia- 
 tus there would, have been in i\}ho you was the reafon of 
 his avoiding thofe words, he might have given another 
 turn to the fenteace, and have written 0f^\)homyou ^.mjdd 
 fay that ihey fafs their afternoons^ QX^^\:hoin you ^ucould own 
 to pafs their afternoons. 
 
 For the reafon of my fubftituting pafs in the room of 
 Med, fee Remarks CCXXVIII. and CCXXIX. 
 
 K 1^ 
 
no REMARKS ON THE 
 
 In poetry, where greater liberties in point of ftyle may 
 be taken than in profe, ^joho?n may, for the fake of found, 
 be ufed inftead oin^^ho, 
 
 ** The king of dikes, than whom no fluice of mud 
 
 ** With deeper fable blots the filver flood." Dunclad. 
 
 To have written flridly good Englilh, the author (hould 
 have faid than ii'bo 710 Jluicc of 7nud\ lince the word is ia 
 the fame cafe with fluice^ which is a nominative. But, as 
 there is a force in the word 'vjhom which there is not in w/?<7, 
 the uiing this lafl word would have enfeebled the fentence, 
 and, in a great meafure, have fpoiled two of the moft 
 beautiful lines in Englllh poetry. 
 
 There are likewife places, even in profe, where, for the 
 fake of found, ^jjhom may be ufed in the nominative. 
 
 The late Dr. Salter, Mafter of the Charter-houfe, on 
 feeing the firfl edition of my book, where the above made 
 one of the Remarks, inquired of the bookfeller the name 
 of the author, and, foon after, wrote to me, defiring me 
 to call on him. 
 
 When I faw him, he objected to my obfervation on 
 Pope's expreflion of than "johom. He infifted upon it 
 that than ^\:ho?n was always right, and that than ^vho 
 was a bad expreflion. 
 
 I heard what he had to fay,' without being at all con- 
 vinced. But I find the author of the Introdudion to 
 JEnglifli Grammar, in an edition of his book publiflied 
 fmce that time, is of the fame opinion ; though he feems 
 to own the expreflion to be ungrammatical. 
 
 But neither am I yet by any means convinced. There 
 are places, where, in my opinion, than <i\jhom would be 
 glaringly abfurd. For inftance, a man fays Firgil is a 
 viuch greater poet than Lucan. Another, who did not hear 
 diftindly the word Lucan^ fays a much greater poet^ than 
 ivho? Surely, this is the proper expreflion, it lignifymg 
 a much greater poet than ^.\}ho is? — A much greater poet 
 than^Kshom? (which would fignify a much greater poet than 
 ivhom is ?) would be infufferable. 
 
 CCXXXIV, 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. in 
 
 CCXXXIV. 
 
 «* Justice therefore, as well as gratitude, oblige^ me 
 
 *' to dedicate thefe papers to your Lordfhip." Dedication of 
 
 W^ottoris ReficBions on ancient and inodern LearJiing, 
 
 Here is a fault fomething liniilar to that taken notice of 
 in Remark CXIX, but much more grofs. 
 
 Though the expreffion of JtiJUce arid gratitude oblige 
 me would be very proper, Juftice^ as ^cacll as gratitude^ 
 ohlige me — is a great viol.ition of grammar ; and a violation 
 that has no grace. The verb ought inconteftably to be 
 in the lingular number ; and the author fhould have faid 
 Juftice^ as ^jocll as gratitude^ obliges 7ne : for as ^vjell as can 
 never be conlidered as having the fenfe of and. 
 
 The word does is fuppofed after gratitude ; and it is as 
 though the author had faid, Jujiice obliges me to dedicate 
 thefe papers to your hordfuip^ as ^jccll as gratitude docs^ oi 
 as vjell as gratitude obliges' me to it, 
 
 CCXXXV. 
 
 *' J. HEY were wife enough to feem not to underilnnd 
 *' her meaning." Robcrtfojis Rifory of Scotland, 
 
 The expreffion to underjiand a meaning feems, as well 
 as to explain a meanings taken notice of in RemarkC C XXHL 
 liable to exception. 
 
 To undcrjiand i^^\r[^^(^^ //j /•.v/or-n //.v mrnniny of, — To uv 
 derftand her meani?ig mud therefore iignUy /^ Iffriv thi 
 meaning of her meaning. 
 
 To cot7iprchend or conceive^ of which tv/o words the fenfe 
 appears to me fomething different from thc;t of to under- 
 Jiarid^ would perhaps have been more proper : or, the au- 
 thor might have faid they ^jjcrc ^wf cnoi'gh to fcem not to 
 imderjla7id her ; or, they ^vere ^vfc enough to fcem not i» 
 know (or, not to be conf clous of) her meaning, 
 
 CCXXXVL 
 
 -L HOUGH the verb to lie dovjn be neuter, its participle 
 is ufed as a paffive by moft of our writers, where ihe lying- 
 down is a felf-a6t, and the perfon is not laid down by an- 
 other, 
 
 K 3 He 
 
112 REMARKS ON TH£ 
 
 He finds h'nnfclf ill^ and is lain do^vjn, — This expreffion, 
 I own, hurts me; and I fhould rather fay He finds hunfelf 
 ill^ and is laid do^\jn. 
 
 Yet the felf-ad of rifing is univerfally expreffed by the 
 participle paflive, though the verb to rife be neuter, as 
 well as to lie^ or to lie dozim. 
 
 He has had a heavy fall: hut I fee he is rifcn again. 
 
 And why lain^ ufed as a pafTive, Ihould offend me more 
 than rifcn^ I (hould find it, perhaps, no eafy matter to tell. 
 
 CCXXXVII. 
 
 X T was obfer\Td to me by Dr. Salter that, where a 
 prepolition is connected with a verb, fo that the two 
 words give but one fenfe, as in lean^e ofi\ Jet ofi^^et in^ 
 fet to^ they ought to be joined by a hyphen, as we join 
 tu^o fubftantives, when the firfl ferves as an adje(5tive to 
 the lafl ; and that we (hould write leavc-off^ fi^-'^ff') fi^'^f^ 
 fet— to. 
 
 I am tired^ and fhall no=i\3 leave-off. — Drefs fets- off that 
 ^ucoma?i 171 an extraordinary mafiner,'—A fivong iicrtherly 
 nvind is fet-iru The combatants are ready ^ and are going 
 iofct'to^ 
 
 ccxxxvin. 
 
 *' 1 HIS I take to be the period, in which the art of 
 *' preaching was carried to the hi^heft pitch of beauty iC 
 *' h:*.d before, or has ever fince, obtained." 
 
 Fordyce on Preachings 
 
 A higher pitch of beauty than it had before^ or has ever 
 fince^ obtained^ would have been fenfe. But the author's 
 exprellion is not fo : for it fuppofes the period, of which 
 he fpeaks, to be part of the time that preceded th^t pe- 
 riod ; and likewife part of the time that has elapfed fmce. 
 It is fomething like Milton's 
 
 " Adam, the goodlieil man of men fince born, 
 
 *' His fons ; the fairefl of her daughters Eve;" 
 Where Adam is fpoken of as one of thofe men who have 
 been born fmce his time ; (or, at leail, fmce his forma- 
 tion) and Eve as one of her own female defcendants. 
 
 There is the fame impropriety in an exprefTion very 
 common among us, but which cuftom reconciles, viz. Of 
 
 all 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 113 
 
 all other ^ or of all others. For inftance, He is of all others 
 the ^jjzttieji writer. 
 
 If I fay, A is the <vjittleft ^xriter that e^jer nvas ; hut B 
 is of all others the ^vittieji^ I talk fenfe : for this fignifies 
 that B is the wittiefl writer that ever was, excepting A, 
 who is v/ittier. But, if, without having mentioned any 
 other author, I fay, B is of all others the ^'ittiefl ^vritcr^ 
 I talk nonfenfe : for this fuppofes B to be one of thofe wri- 
 ters, of whom he is not one ; iince, B alone being men- 
 tioned, the words all others can lignify only all other ^jjriters 
 than B. 
 
 Yet cuftom, as I have faid, reconciles this expreffion, 
 I mean, that it reconciles it to the common run of men, 
 and even to many who are efleemed men of fine parts ; 
 but I much queftion whether it will ever reconcile it to 
 perfons of a corred mind. 
 
 CCXXXIX. 
 
 JtlAD like^ and to he Uke^ to exprefs the nearnefs to a 
 contingency, are very aukward and uncouth phrafes ; and 
 it were to be wiflied fome writer of reputation, whom the 
 reil of the world would not difdain to follow, would in- 
 vent fome other concife and better phrafe, to fignify the 
 fame thing-, 
 
 Thefe expreffions were undoubtedly invented by per- 
 iods unlettered : and the word like was probably intended 
 as an adjc<5tive : nioft certainly not as a verb ; in which 
 view it makes no fenfe at all. Yet the author of the Dia- 
 logues of the Dead has coniidered it as a verb in the fol- 
 lowing fpeech of Cofmo de Medicis to Pericles : Nor did 
 I enfer forget andfuffer him \Marfilius Ficinus'\fo to vjant 
 the necejjaries of life as you did Anaxagoras^ ^joho had like 
 to ha'ue ferijhed hy that negle^. 
 
 He ihould have faid either who had like to perijh^ or 
 ^ivho was like to ferifh : of which the latter appears to me 
 the better expreffion. To he like is certainly not fo remote 
 from fenfe as had like* 
 
 CCXL. 
 
114 REMARKS ON THE 
 
 CCXL. 
 
 W E find even in very tolerable writers the abfurd ex- 
 preffion of he enjoyed had health. 
 
 This is not indeed falfe grammar, but it is bad fenfe. 
 Enjoy is certainly to be ufed only where wefpeak of ibme- 
 thing defirable and good. 
 
 Thefe writers might have faid He fuffered had health — 
 he lahourcd under bad health — he ^jjas afl'iHed -vcith had 
 health. 
 
 CCXLI. 
 
 In the preceding Remark, I have ufed the expreiTion of 
 affliclcd ^xnth^ as being the mofl common. Yet I think 
 qffl';5led hy more proper. 
 
 He ivas affiled hy had health. 
 
 This is vifibly a more juft cxpreflion than affllBed K\:ith 
 had health, 
 
 CCXLII. OTHER GUESS. 
 
 X HIS is the common way of fpelling and pronouncing 
 the word> 
 
 The proper way of fpelling and pronouncing it is, with- 
 out doubt, othergiufc^ the word guij^c fignifying fajhlon^ 
 
 mode^ fort, ^ 
 
 CCXLIIT. STAND AN END. 
 
 JL Hus people pronounce, and mofl commonly write*. 
 
 The proper expreifion \%^Jland on end. His hair Jlands 
 on end. That is, the hairs of his head (as (landing up- 
 righ^) fi and on their ends. 
 
 CCXLIV. 
 
 1 HAVE obferved that the s is improperly omitted in the 
 third perfon fmgular of the prefent ttn^t of the verb to 
 dare. 
 
 It is as improperly omitted in that of the verb to nced^ 
 where the verb lignifies to he under a nccefjity^ or ohli- 
 gatitft% 
 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. nj 
 
 He need not do it is a wrong way of fpeaking. If we do 
 not ufe the auxiliary docs^ we ought to fay he needs not do 
 ity or he needs not to do it* 
 
 Need IS likewife improperly ufed in the pall tenfes. 
 
 Inftead of faying He need not hwve done ity we ought to 
 fay^(if we do not ufe the auxiliary) he needed not do it^ or 
 he needed not to do it% 
 
 THE END, 
 
14 ^\Y USE 
 
 ^3 
 
mmmm