Ex Libris 
 C. K. OGDEN ' 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 CRITICISMS 
 
 The DIVERSIONS of PURLEY, &c, 
 
 [Price Two Shillings.] 
 
 s
 
 CRITICISMS 
 
 O N 
 
 The DIVERSIONS of PURLEY. 
 
 I N A 
 
 LETTER 
 
 T O 
 
 HORNE TOCKKE, ESQ. 
 
 BY I. CASSANDER. 
 
 NlTGAS AGIT, SED QVJE AD SERIA DUCUNT. 
 
 ERASMUS, Ep. Lib. iv. Ep. ft 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED FOR T. CADELL, IN THE STRAND. 
 M DCCXC.
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 THE remarks contained in the following 
 letter were written three years ago, and merely 
 for the infpe&ion of a few friends, who had 
 cxprefled a defire of feeing the Author's fenti- 
 ments concerning the Diverfions of Parley. 
 This work having been adopted fince by many 
 as a proper guide to English literature, it is 
 prefumed, that the remarks upon it by a 
 writer, who aims at nothing but a fair repre- 
 fentation of truth, will not be unacceptable to 
 thePublick. It is pity, indeed, that a perform- 
 ance, in other refpe&s valuable, and well cal- 
 culated tp open the eyes of the learner with 
 regard to falfe fyftems, mould remain in its 
 prefent ftate, and not be rendered as perrecl: as 
 the nature of the fubject will permit.
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 PAG. 
 
 LINE. 
 
 FOR, 
 
 READ. 
 
 10 
 
 22 
 
 for 
 
 tor. 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 2 6 
 
 concerns 
 
 concern. 
 
 30 
 
 19 
 
 defortoque 
 
 deforteque. 
 
 3 1 
 
 6 
 
 noits 
 
 not its. 
 
 39 
 
 6 
 
 onlej*on 
 
 onl6j*an. 
 
 48 
 
 21 
 
 aj-culan 
 
 aj-cutan. 
 
 Ibid. . 
 
 
 
 ajHeapui 
 
 aj-lean. 
 
 49 
 
 I 
 
 uta r tean 
 
 utaj-!ean. 
 
 5 1 
 
 9 
 
 Adeiiag 
 
 Adelung. 
 
 54 
 
 12 
 
 Light 
 
 Lite. 
 
 57 
 
 22 
 
 Butan 
 
 Botan. 
 
 58 
 
 2 . 
 
 Penanee 
 
 Penance. 
 
 Ibid. 
 
 21 
 
 hai&e 
 
 b.iibe. 
 
 59 
 
 14 and 17 
 
 Butaa 
 
 Botan. 
 
 64 
 
 26 
 
 engaarn 
 
 ongaarn. 
 
 70 
 
 i . 
 
 theis 
 
 this. 
 
 7* 
 
 J 5 
 
 hpyle 
 
 hpyte. 
 
 74 
 
 21 
 
 Spik-lpelder 
 
 Spik-fpiiU
 
 LETTER, 
 
 S I R, 
 
 TH E theory of language is a career in which, 
 from the time of Ariftotle down to the pre- 
 fent, many an adventurer has run himfelf out of 
 breath ; fpent himfelf with fatigue, without the ap-< 
 plaufe, or even the notice, of the fpectators. You 
 have had better luck. No fooner have you entered 
 the lift, but the eyes of all have been fixed upon 
 you ; and great have been the acclamations at the 
 ikill and vigor with which you have been obferved to 
 fet out. 
 
 Your remarks on the diftribution of language and 
 nature of particles, publifhed Come years ago ia a, 
 letter to Mr. Dunning, and lately republiihed in your 
 Diverfions of Purley, have excited a general curi- 
 pfity. Your thoughts are fo new, your manner is fa 
 
 B fbort,
 
 C * ] 
 
 Ihort, fo bold, fo expeditious, that it is difficult to fay 
 \vhich has occafioned mofl furprife. 
 
 It mud not be dhTembled, however, that in fome of 
 your pages you have betrayed a very flrcng propen- 
 fion towards inaccuracy. Unlefs you can get the 
 better of this failing, much of the luftre which 
 awaits your future publication may be obfcured by it. 
 
 The purpofe of this letter, Sir, is to put you, if 
 pofiible, upon your guard againft it. The few hints 
 you have given us may, when cleared of the rubbilh 
 which furrounds them, produce fome good ; but no 
 defirable effeft can refult from them in the ftate they 
 are in at prefent. I (hall make no other apology for 
 the freedom of this addrefs. 
 
 Before I enter upon more irrfportant matters, I 
 mud not leave unnoticed your title-page and intro- 
 duction in your lad-mentioned performance. 
 
 An elegant and mod amiable writer has the fol- 
 lowing obfervation on the monuments which are to 
 be feen in Weftminfter Abbey : " And fome of them 
 " are fo modeft, that they deliver what they have to 
 " fay in Greek and Hebrew, and by that means are 
 " not underftood once in a twelve-month '*." How 
 far you were influenced by thefe feelings, when to 
 an Engtiih performance you prefixed a Greek title, 
 and how far, after having been the miferable victim 
 of two prepofitions and a conjunction -f, you are 
 
 * AcMifon in the Spectator. 
 
 f All I have to {"ay upon this fubjeft has been among the loofe 
 papers in my clofet, and wou'd probably have remained there 
 twenty years longer, had I not been m?.dc the miferable viftim of 
 two prepotulons and a conjunction. Div. of Purley, p. 102. 
 
 likely
 
 [ 3 3 
 
 likely to fuffer from an excefs of modefty, I mall not 
 take upon me to determine : but with regard to title- 
 pages, I muft beg leave to obferve, that they are 
 never fo pleafmg as when they are intelligible ; and 
 wonder much how, after having exprefled fo much 
 horror at Mr. Harris's and Lord Monboddo's zoo- 
 phytes *, that is, " words fignificant without any fig- 
 " nification," you could have the courage of placing 
 a brace of thefe monfters -f in your work, by way of 
 frontifpiece. 
 
 With regard to your introduction, I muft confefs, 
 that though I have met there with a variety of con- 
 verfation, on a variety of very pleafant fubjefts, fuch 
 as " Effufiori of Blood, Total Difinemberment of the 
 " Empire, Sraoak of London, Boots, Picquet," &c. 
 I have not been particularly ftruck with it, except 
 where you introduce one of the champions for into- 
 lerance, delivering the following maxim, " Whatever 
 " is wavering, involved, ambiguous, muft of courfe 
 " be falfe and fraudulent." This piece of fophiftry, 
 originally levelled a*t the Proteftant churches, you 
 take up eagerly, and fling it with fome violence in 
 the face of the writer of Hermes, calling out to him 
 with an air of triumph, (l I have it from good autho- 
 " rity." That this writer deferves to be chaflifed, 
 may be true ; but that it can be effected with a piece 
 
 * Mr. Harris afterwards acknowledges that fome of them have 
 a kind of obfcure fignification and appear in Grammar like zoo- 
 phytes in nature, a kind of middle being cf amphibious character," 
 &c. Ibid. p. 155 and 160. 
 
 f "ET WTIPEVTK, or Diverfions of Purley ; neither of which 
 can give the reader the leait idea ot the fabjefl in queilion. 
 
 B a of
 
 C 4 ] 
 
 of a broken fyllogifm borrowed from Monf. De 
 Meaux, is by no means probable : and how you come 
 to have recourfe to fuch an expedient is wonderful ; 
 unlefs indeed you were determined not only to 
 chaftife him, but *to make his chaftifement as igno- 
 minious as poffible. . For what can be more degrad- 
 ing than to be put to a nonplus with fuch arguments? 
 It is as bad as being brained with a lady's fan *. 
 Thus much for your title-page and introduction. I 
 go over to the work itfelf. 
 
 As Grammar is one of the firft arts which pro- 
 bably engaged the attention of the curious, does it 
 not feem extraordinary that the divifion and diftribu- 
 tion of language ftiould remain even to this day fo 
 i;v>per/ecT: as not to anfwer the purpofe for which it 
 was contrived ? And yet fo it is.. Inflead of point- 
 ing out, in a clear and diftinft manner, the difference 
 of words, it may be faid, that, in many inftances, it 
 ferves only to confound them. In vain, to remedy 
 this defeft, have Grammarians added to the number 
 of their clafles. They have always found fome words 
 fo refractory as not to be reducible to any pre-efta- 
 blimed clafs whatever ; a circumftance which has in- 
 creafed the labour of the learner, without any addi- 
 tional advantage. I mud therefore do you the juflice 
 to fay, that fome praife is your due for having taken 
 this fubjeft into confideration, and employed fo much 
 
 4 
 
 * That the conjunction THAT, and the prepofition OF and 
 CONCERNING, fhouid be made the abject inltruments of my civil 
 extinction, appeared to me to make my exit from civil life as de- 
 grading as if I had been brained by a lady's fan. Diveif. of Pur- 
 Icy, p. 103. 
 
 t Of
 
 C 5 ] 
 
 of your leifure upon it. The point of view in which 
 you have placed it is, upon the whole, well-calculated 
 to bring within the reach of folution fome of the 
 difficulties with which it is furrounded. 
 
 I fpeak with reftriftion, becaufe there is a reafon 
 for it. If in fome inftances you have cleared the 
 ground, you have added to its embarraffments in 
 others, by being too forward in conjecture, too hafty 
 in decifion, too apt to difplace what is right, and to 
 fubftitute what is not fo in the room of it. You 
 have not given, in fhort, your fyftem the confiftency 
 and folidity of which it is fufceptible, and which 
 you were very able to give it, had you been willing . 
 - to beflow a little more thought upon it. Much of 
 its credit depends upon neat and eafy dedu&ions with 
 regard to panicles ; but, more intent upon the num- 
 ber than juflnefs and propriety of them, your de- 
 duftions are heaped together without the leaft dif- 
 crimination ; and iuffered, for the mod part, to make 
 their appearance before they are fit to be feen, 
 " horridulas & incompta?," as the Latins term it. I 
 muft not, however, allow myfelf the liberty of fuch 
 remarks without proving them to be juft; and this 
 \vi!l be done in the following pages. 
 
 In your fir ft chapter, which treats of the diftribu- 
 tion or divifion of language, you condemn Gramma- 
 rians, both ancient and modern, for having fuppofed 
 that the difference of words may be accounted for 
 merely from the well-known principle, that lan- 
 guage was contrived for the purpofe of communi- 
 cating thought. You (hew the deficiency of this 
 principle; and, after a few hints on the means of 
 
 B 3 rendering
 
 [ 6] 
 
 rendering it more complete, you flrike out a new 
 divifion of language ; having, as you fuppofe, all the 
 advantages of the old one, without any of its defefts. 
 The remarks which I have made on this chapter will 
 Ihew the contrary. 
 
 Whether words are confidered as the figns of 
 things, or ideas, or operations of the mind ; if it be 
 fuppofed, as has been done hitherto, that the fame 
 word may ferve to reprefent two different things or 
 ideas ; it is impolTible that the divifion arihng from 
 the above-mentioned principle fhould anfwer the 
 purpofe, and for thi;> plain reafon, becaufe one and 
 the fame word muft in that cafe necelTarily belong 
 to two different claffes. 
 
 Had you been fo fortunate as to view your fubjedl 
 in this light, and in no other, fome advantage might 
 have been gained. Your chapter on the divilion and 
 diftribution of language would have been fiiorter, 
 and, what is of more importance, your new divi- 
 lion would have been more complete. For want of 
 having, when you planned it, kept your eye fixed 
 on the_ above-mentioned circmr. fiance, yc.u miffed 
 your am, as others did before you ; and the very 
 lame mi flakes am! inconveniences, which we have to 
 encounter in the old divifion, diilrefs us with addi- 
 tional force in your new one. 
 
 You do not indeed fet out from the principle, 
 that there mud be as many different forts of words 
 as there are different forts of things, or ideas, or 
 operations of the mind. But you build on a fonnda- 
 tion altogether as loofe and precarious, namely, the 
 ufe or deftination of words.
 
 C 7 ] 
 
 *ThefrJl aim of language, you fay, was to 
 fate our thoughts ; the fecond to do it with difyatch *. 
 And as this principle is two-fold, it leads you, na- 
 turally enough, to fuppofe two forts of words in 
 language: i. Words necefiary for the communica- 
 tion of our thoughts ; 2. Words necefiary for the 
 tlifpatch of that communication -j~. 
 
 I (hall not here oppofe your two-fold principle 
 concerning the ufe of language ; I (hall only take 
 notice of your inference from it. Becaufe language 
 is deftined to communicate thoughts, and to commu- 
 nicate them with difpatch, does it follow that there 
 are two diftincl: and feparate orders of words, the 
 one neceflary for communication, the other necefiary 
 for the difpatch of that bufinefs ? By no means. 
 One and the fame word may happen to anfwer 
 equally well both purpofes. And upon recollection 
 we lhall find this not only poflible, but actually tak- 
 ing place with regard to a great number of words in 
 every language. If we fet out therefore from your 
 principle, the dcfti nation of words, in order to efta- 
 blifii a proper divifion of them, it will not difcrimi- 
 nate them any more than their relation, either to 
 things, or ideas, or operations of the mind. The 
 fame words will frequemly partake of two different 
 claffes ; and the new contrivance will leave them as 
 indiftinct and confufed as ever. 
 
 Experience wonderfully confirms the truth of thefe 
 remarks. Words are divided by you into, I. Words 
 uecejjary for the communication of thought ; 2 
 
 P. 37- fP.6 3 . 
 
 B 4 mcejjary
 
 t 8 J 
 
 fte'cefiary for the difpaich of that communication. Hiefe" 
 are your two grand claffes ; and, provided they dd 
 keep the words feparate and diftincl:, fo that no word 
 deemed neceffary for communication be deemed alfo 
 neceflary for the difpatch of that bufmefs, they may 
 remain as they are. But in your firfl clafs are comprifed 
 the nouns in general * ; and among thefe are the gene- 
 ral terms ; and the general terms, from your own *\~ t 
 fcs Well as Mr* Locke's definition, are to all intents 
 and purpofes abbreviations ; and abbreviations are 
 every one of them neceflary for the difpatch of com- 
 munication* 
 
 Again : in your fecond clafs are comprifed articles, 
 prepofitions, conjun#io.ns, all parts of fpeech, in 
 Ihortj which do not come under the denomination 
 either of noun or verb, from which they are difcri- 
 minated by the general title of abbreviations or fub- 
 ilitutes, which you give them. But it is generally 
 believed, and we fhal) have bccafion to prove in the 
 courfe of thefe remarks, that .among the various 
 Words which constitute a language, and which are 
 neceiTary for communication, none poflefs this lafl- 
 mcntioned property in a more ftriking manner than 
 thofe which you rank under the title of abbreviations, 
 that is, prepofitions, conjunctions, articles. 
 
 You tell us indeed, and that in more than one 
 
 * In Englifli, and in all other languages, there are only two 
 forts of words which are neceflary for the communication of 
 thought : and they are, i, Noun j 2, Verb. Diverf. of Purley, 
 p. 65. 
 
 f Ibid. r* jg* 
 
 inftance,
 
 t 9 ] 
 
 inftance, they do not poflefs it* : you go even fo faf 
 as to try to juggle us into the belief of this paradox. 
 In your third chapter you roundly aflert, and feem 
 to plume yourfelf on the aflertion, that without ufmg 
 any other forts of words whatever, and merely by 
 means of the noun and the verb, one can relate or 
 communicate any thing that can be communicated 
 and related by the help of all the others -)~. And 
 here you challenge us to try the experiment. You 
 are not one of thofe, however, who can withftand the 
 force of truth for ever. Soon after this aflertion 
 you make ample amends for the boldnefs of it. You 
 acknowledge the article to be at once an abbrevia- 
 tion, and a word neceffary for communication ;j; ; and 
 
 you 
 
 * I am inclined to allow that rank only (vi2. of parts of ipeech) 
 to the neceffary words ; and to include all the others (which are 
 not neceflary to fpeech, but merely fubftitutes of the firil fort) 
 under the title of abbreviations. Diverf. of Purley, p. 65. And 
 again : Whereas abbreviations are not neceflary for communica- 
 tion. Ibid. p. 96. 
 
 f B. Merely fubftitutes! You do not mean that you can dif* 
 courfe as well without as with them ? 
 
 H. Not as well. A fledge cannot be drawn along as finoothly t 
 and eafily, and fwiftly, as a carriage with wheels : but it may be 
 dragged. 
 
 B. Do you mean then, that without ufing any other fort of 
 word whatever, and merely by means of the noun and the verb, 
 you can relate or communicate any thing that I can relate or com- 
 municate with the help of all the others ? 
 
 U. Yes : it is the great proof of all I have advanced ; and 
 Upon trial you will find that you may do the fame. Diverf. of 
 Purley, p. 67. 
 
 ; The late of this very neccflarywdrd has been fingularly hard; 
 
 for
 
 C io 3 
 
 you quote Mr. Locke for the farther confirmation of 
 this trurh. 
 
 Thefe are ugly circumftances attending your new 
 clivifion of language ; and it were greatly to be 
 wifhed you could think of fomething lefs repugnant 
 to common fenfe than words neceffary, and words not 
 neceflary, for communication* You will fay, indeed, 
 the latter are only fuppofed to be fo for the purpofe 
 of keeping them feparate from the others. But the 
 anfwer is obvious. If we are allowed to make fup- 
 pofitions in matters of this nature, why fhould we lay 
 afide the old fyftem ? It will do very well. It is 
 only fuppofing an imaginary operation or two, as occa- 
 fion requires. 
 
 But this is not all. You compare abbreviations to 
 thofe parts of a carriage which have been contrived 
 for eafe, ornament, and luxury ; and reprefent them, 
 notwithstanding, as having no connexion with what 
 
 for though, without it, the article, or fome equivalent invention, 
 
 MEN COULD NOT COMMUNICATE THEIR THOUGHTS AT ALL, 
 
 &c. Ibid. p. 83 and 96. 
 
 You add in a note, '' for fome equivalent invention. See the 
 " Ferfian and other Kaftern languages, which fupply the place of 
 " our article by termination." As the generality of your readers 
 are not likely to be benefited by this reference, it being rather out 
 of their reach, 1 beg lea 1 e to prcpofe another in the room of it. 
 The Dano-Saxon language has the contrivance you here mention, 
 or at leaft fomething like it. Porro ut apud veteres Cimbro?, vel 
 Danes Gothos, ex noininibufi cum articulo vel ptonomine in fine 
 affixo nomina compofita, totulemque nominum compofitorum de- 
 clinationes quot fimplic'umt Sic itliufmodi nominum et declina- 
 tionum haud piica reptriuntur veitigia apud Danos Saxonico* 
 Scriptores. Kickes' Gram. H. S. cap. xx. . 3. 
 
 has
 
 t t. ] 
 
 has been contrived for the fake of beauty, or any of 
 the above-mentioned purpofes *. You rank under 
 the title of abbreviations, or fubflitutes of nouns and 
 verbs, all prepofitions and conjunctions whatever^ 
 though many of them are either nouns or verbs, 
 ipfo fafloj and at full length ; as, If, An, And, Nof, 
 Sec. And to fum up the whole, you divide your ab- 
 breviations into abbreviations in terms, abbreviations 
 in forts of words, abbreviations in conftru&ion ; a 
 manner of dividing by no means logical. Terms and 
 forts of ivords are appellations which I conceive to 
 be applicable to all and every one of your abbrevia- 
 tions, and very improper therefore to eftablifh any 
 fpecific differences between them. Whether you 
 were aware of this, and took no pleafure in your new 
 divifion j or whether you really thought it had rc- 
 
 * P. 33. Alluding to abbreviations in language, you fay, " But 
 (hould any one, defirous of underftanuing the purpofe and 
 meaning of all the parts of our elegant modern carriages, at- 
 tempt to explain them upon this one principle alone, that they 
 were neceflary for conveyance only, he would find himfelf woe- 
 fully puzzled to account for the wheels, the feats, the fprings, the 
 blind;, the glr.fTes, the lining, &c. not to mention the more orna- 
 jnentd parts of gilding, varnifh, &c. 
 
 No'wi;hil;m:iing this comparifon, you fay, p. 37, " The firft 
 aim of language was to communicate our thoughts ; the fecond to 
 do it with difpatch. I mean entirely to difregard whatever altera- 
 tions or additions h-ve been made for the lake of beauty, or orna- 
 ment, eafe, gracefulnefs, or pleafure. 
 
 As in the foregoing pafiage abbreviations are evidently confi- 
 dered as additions made to language, for the fake of beauty, orna- 
 ment, eufe, &e. one would naturally conclude, from the claufein the 
 fecond, th.it you mean entirely to difregard abbreviations in your 
 work, anJ yet you make them the principal objecl of it. 
 
 ceived
 
 Ceived all the finifhing in your power ; you no {boner* 
 have brought it to light, than your take your leave 
 of it, and pafs over immediately to another chapter. 
 You fuffer it, indeed, to appear a fecond time (p. 69.), 
 but fo different from what it was before, that it 
 ceafes, in fome meafure, to be the fame. Abbrevi- 
 ations are there divided in the following manner : 
 i. Abbreviations in terms; 2. Abbreviations in the 
 manner ofjignification of words. As fecond thoughts 
 are generally the bed, I am inclined to give this laft 
 divifion the preference, but unfortunately it comes 
 too late to be of any ufe. Thefe, as I faid before, 
 are ugly circumftances in your new diftribution of 
 language. They naturally lead to the mortifying in- 
 ference, that, whatever be your powers of demol idl- 
 ing and deftroying, you do not appear to have thofe 
 of rebuilding what has been taken down. 
 
 Many people have long fince fufpefted, as well as 
 yourfelf *, metaphylics to be a mere cobweb : I will 
 not fay with the poet, 
 
 " Fit for fcull, 
 '* That's empty when the moon is full ;" 
 
 but fo thin, fo airy, fo flimfy, that a man may fee, 
 touch, feel, and handle it for fome time, before he 
 well knows wlrch is the right, and which is the 
 wrong fide of ir. And what you advance with re- 
 fpeft to Mr. Locke wonderfully confirms this fufpi- 
 
 * The very term metaphyfic being nonfenfe, and all the fyftems 
 of it, and controversies concerning it, that are, or have been, in 
 the world, being rounded on the grofleil ignorance of words and of 
 the nature of fpeech, Diverf. of FLU ley, p. 450, 
 
 cion t
 
 r 13 3 
 
 clon : " 1 confider" you fay, " the whole of Mr. 
 Locke's Effay as a philofopbical account of the firft fort 
 of abbreviations in language j" and you add, " P?r- 
 haps it was for mankind a lucky miftake (FOR IT WAS 
 A MISTAKE) which he made when he called his Effay 9 
 AN ESSAY ON HUMAN UNDERSTANDING *. Again : 
 Had he been aware of this, he would not have talked 
 of a compofition of ideas, but would have feen that it 
 was merely a contrivance of language, and that the only 
 compofition was in the terms ^~. 
 
 It is evident from your words, that, in your opi- 
 nion, Mr. Locke was no better than in a mift when 
 he wrote his famous Eflay, as he intended one thing, 
 and did another. Now, though this may gratify 
 fome, it will not be perhaps ib pleafing to others. 
 
 Mr. Locke is flill a great favourite in our uni- 
 verfities. I fhould not wonder at hearing fome young 
 Wrangler, ready primed from thofe quarters, addrefs 
 you in the following terms : 
 
 " Indeed, Sir, it is not Mr. Locke, it is you, that 
 " are all this while in a mifl with regard to abftracl; 
 * c ideas. We underitand Mr. Locke very well when 
 " he fays, General and univerfal belong, not to the real 
 <f exigence of things, but they are the inventions and the 
 " creatures of the under ft an ding, made by it for its oiun 
 " ufe, and concerns only figns t Univerfality does not 
 (( belong to things themf elves, which are all particular 
 " in their exiftence. When therefore we quit particu* 
 i( lars, the generals that reft are only creatures of cur 
 ( own making : their genera! nature being nothing but 
 
 * Jbid. p, 42. f P. 49, 
 
 < tfo
 
 C '4 ] 
 
 *' the capacity they are put into of fignifyin^ or reprc- 
 " fenting particulars" But we do not underftand 
 " you, when you exprefs yourfelf on this fubjeft in 
 " the following manner ; Ihe bujlnefs of the mind, as 
 " far as concerns language, extends no farther than to 
 " receive hnprcjfions, i. e. to have fenfations and feel- 
 c< ings ; what are called its operations are merely the 
 " operations of language *. We do not call a con- 
 " foliation a complex flar, nor a pair of bellows 
 " complex bellows, nor a pound of figs a complex 
 '* fig. But we fay a complex being, a complex name, a 
 " complex Jign, becaufe we conceive the particulars to 
 " coalefce fo as to make but one. Why fhould we 
 <e not fay a complex idea ? If in the latter cafe we 
 (( conceive an abfurdity, we do no more than you do, 
 " when you conceive words to be at once abfolutely 
 <( necefTary and not at all necelTary for communica- 
 " tipn -f-. And now we are upon that chapter, what 
 *' is your principle of difpatch, but a fifth wheel to 
 " a carriage, more fit to retard than to accelerate its 
 t( motion ? Language, fay you, is Intended not only 
 " for the communication of thought, but moreover for 
 " the difpatch of that communication. Upon this fub- 
 " ject I fhall obferve, 
 
 " i. That if any circumftance, befide the defire 
 " of communicating thought, influence the mind in 
 (( the contrivance of language, it mufl be that of 
 (( communicating, not fo much with difpatch, as with 
 " clearnefs and precifion. When we fpeak, the firft 
 
 * P. 70. 
 
 f See what has been faid above concerning the article, p. 11. 
 
 " thing
 
 [ '5 J 
 
 " thing we aim at is to be underftood, and to raife 
 " in the mind of others the fame confiderations and 
 ** affecYions as engage our own. And whatever be the 
 <e particular caft of the fign we ufe, it is the refult 
 " of that intention. Men learn names, and ufe them 
 ss in talk with others, only that they may be ur.derjlood, 
 " fays Mr. Locke ; and this is likewife the fentiment 
 " of Mr. De Brofle, which has been quoted from you : 
 " On ne park que pour etre entendu ; le plus grand avan- 
 " tage d'une langue c'eft d'etre clalre* You fuppofe, 
 " indeed, that, notwithstanding this formal declara- 
 " tion, he is well aware of the fitnefs and expedi- 
 " ency of your fifth wheel -, as he fays afterward, 
 '* L'e/prit humaln veut aller vlte dam fes operations ', 
 " plus emprefle de iexprimer promptement, que curieitx 
 " ds s'exprimer avec une juftejfe exade et reflechie. 
 " But this is mere imagination. Monf. De Brofle, 
 " in this latter paflage, no more thought of your 
 " abbreviations, than he thought of Ali'oth in the 
 " tail of the great bear : he only meant to fay, that 
 " if men are not always exaft and precife in the 
 " bufinefs of fpeech, it is becaufe they chufe rather 
 '* to have done with it, than to give themfelves any 
 " trouble about it. I obferve, 
 
 '* 2. That there are few words in language whofe 
 " origin, nature, and particular character, may not be 
 " traced from the above mentioned principle. You 
 '* yourfelf allow that it accounts for the introduction 
 " of noun and verb. And as to the reft, nothing 
 " can be a ftronger indication that they proceed from 
 ** the fame fource, than the particular energy they 
 " have in producing, with the others, the fame effect. 
 
 " Without
 
 C '6 ] 
 
 " Without them, our meaning is vague and unccr- 
 " tain * : but no fooner are they brought into play, 
 
 than 
 
 * According to the very learned Schultens, this energy of the 
 article is no where more confpicuous than in the Oriental lan- 
 guages. Quintilian had advanced, that the Latin language could 
 do very well without the article. Upon which this author makes 
 the following remark: " Ctsterum articulum non dejiderare Latinum 
 Sermoncm, ghriojius diftum quam veriui putem ....... Ne tie Gracis 
 
 Jam loquar, Onentales noftri incredibilem quandam vim orationis cum 
 elegantijjima brevitate par articulum ajfccuti. Inftitut. ad Fundarn 
 Lingua? Heb. . civ, 
 
 Is it poiTible that the incredililis <uis t & elegantijfima brevitas, here 
 afcribed to the article, are the refult of a mere defire of difpatch 
 in the communication of thought i and fhould we not look out for 
 fome more regular caufe in the production of this effect i I quote 
 here Profefibr Schultens, becaufe he was an excellent judge in 
 thofe matters ; and to convince you of it, I {hall adduce but one 
 proof. Long before you thought of it, that is, about fixty years 
 ago, he had laid it down as a fa&, that " GRAMMARIANS HAD 
 
 *' ALL ALONG MISTAKEN THE ROAD WHICH LEADS TO THE 
 *' PROPER EXPLANATION AND ETYMOLOGY OF PARTICLES," 
 
 concerning which he expreffes himfelf thus, ^Inflit. Sedlio vi, 
 . xci. in a note. Minus commoda Cl. Altingii inter particulas de* 
 (linabiles, & indectinabilts. Ad priorcs refert prouwi'-na. Ad pofte- 
 rzores, adverbia prtefofitionet t 5" conjnnfliones.-^-A'^ui & pronomintt 
 qutedam non dedinantur^ & lona pars adverbiorum ac pr^pojitionum 
 patitur dtdlnationem, quippe qua, maximam parlem, Jtnt <Vil nomina 
 vet Jultjlanti'va^ <vel adjettiva. Hoc Jl pcrfpex'JJlnt primi Grammatici t 
 rnultofelicitif naturam-, vim, mutationem> & conjiruclionem particularum 
 txtedire petrtijjcnt, Again, . xvi.^ Particulas reliquas^ fub quiiuf 
 ad<verbia, prapojitiones, conjunaiones t & inierjeftiones comprcnfa minus 
 rite indcdinabiles vocari diflum. Ratio hac t quod revera dcctinentur 
 prefer tint ad*vtrlia t 5* prtepq/iticnes ; utpote <veri neminis t fubftantivct 
 tvcl aJjcftiva, maximarn partem. Refiius in feparatas, fe J infepara- 
 liles diiimuntur, Separ alarum clajjes dijlinflius notabo: atque fub Jin* 
 gnlis fpetimina cjuczdam. exhibebo ; ad immediately after comes a 
 
 / p ^^ ft ^ / : ' )QRg 
 
 dd T*<-J- zs --y ^xs.'^fvL;
 
 [ >7 3 
 
 * e thari it becomes vifible and palpable. But, lay 
 " you, it cannot be denied, that they wonderfully 
 " accelerate communication. True. But that pro- 
 " perty I look upon as an acceflbry, not a principal, 
 " in the ufe for which they were intended. They 
 " fhorten communication ; becaufe without concife- 
 " nefs, i. e. reducing the number of terms, there 
 " can be no communication. 
 
 * f 3. As the principle of difpatch in communiea- 
 et tion is not neceffary to account for the diftribution 
 t( of language, fo neither for the many difputes and 
 " errors about this matter among philofophers. They 
 " wrangled and blundered about it, plainly becaufe 
 " it never occurred to them that particles were, for 
 " the moll part, no more than verbs or nouns derived 
 " from ancient language. This accounts much bet- 
 " ter for the matter in queftion than any thing elfe 
 " that can be faid upon it. And ihould you ever 
 f: meet poor Harris in the walks of fome future Lu- 
 tl cian or Fontenelle, it is not improbable he would 
 ie accoil you in the following manner : You were 
 " very fevere, Sir ! in your ftriftures upon my Her- 
 
 long firing of Hebrew adverbs, prepofitions, and conjimftions, 
 which he proves to be no more than nouns in that language ; and 
 then finifhes with the following obfervation : Apud L?tinos quo- 
 que conjundliones multa; a nominibus oiiuntla^, Ue verum, vero^ 
 i':rum eniatvero t qucmndmodum, (jiiamquam^ additum & verbiim in 
 quamlilet) quolibct, quovis. 
 
 Mr. Schultens adheres to this plan in all his writings. He en- 
 deavours every where to banifli from the theory of languages all 
 notions of myftery, all -kinds of anomalies, and to account lor the 
 nature of every part of fpeech, by bringing it as near as poffible to 
 its firft origin, 
 
 C " mes
 
 C '8 ] 
 
 <c mes when above. What induced me to write that 
 " book was not the defire of offending you, or any 
 " perfon whatever. I was actuated by the fame mo- 
 " tive which urged you to write, your Diverfions of 
 (t Purley. I wifhed to difcover what had remained, 
 te till my time, a fecret among my countrymen. I 
 te mifcarried ; becaufe I faw no trace of noun or 
 " verb in the words I wiflied to explain. Hence 
 " my flights in the higher regions of metaphy- 
 <l fics. If I have been too daring, why mould 
 " you avail yourfelf of my failure to depreciate my 
 (t talents ? Am I then the only one who has pre- 
 " fumed upon himfelf ? and have I dipped my pen in 
 '* gall to hurt the feelings of any one ? Health, fpi- 
 " rits, ingenuity, may carry a man through any 
 " wicked practice in the world we came from. But 
 " here, Sir, nothing can fupport us but the remem- 
 " brance of our good a&ions ; and as this is the mea- 
 e< fure of our happinefs, let us endeavour to make it 
 " as great as we can by forgetting, I, my Adequates 
 " Preventives ; and you, your Anglo-Saxon Etymo- 
 " logics.'* 
 
 In this, or fome fuch manner, will the Lockifis 
 give vent to their rage, when they come to anfwer 
 your ftriltures on their Mafter*s Effay. For my part, 
 I lhall not undertake to defend the propriety of his 
 cxpreffion, with regard to fuch aggregates of ideas 
 as conftitute the claiFes, gender, fpecies, and which 
 he calls complex ideas. I am not fond of labouring 
 in vain ; and it is evident from your difcoveries, that, 
 in thefe matters, it is the eafiell rhino; in the world 
 for a man to do his utnuft, and mifs his aim afrer all. 
 i 1 (hall
 
 C 19 D 
 
 I (hall only obferve, that, as the thing fignified mud 
 neceffarily exift before the fign, there is a ftriking 
 abfurdity in reprefenting the former as a mere^effeft 
 of the latter : and one is inclined to fufpeft thefe to 
 be your notions, when, fpeaking of abftract ideas, 
 you fay, " // is a mere contrivance of language', the 
 f< only compofition is in the terms* and not in the ideas" 
 p. 49. And again, " The bujlnefs of the mind, as far 
 <( as concerns language, extends no farther than to re* 
 " ceive imprej/ions \ that is, to have fenfations and 
 t( feelings ; what is called its operations, are merely 
 " the operations of language" May it not be inferred 
 from thefe expreffions, that, in your opinion, it is the 
 term that gives birth to the abftrad: idea, and not the 
 latter to the term ? And if you deny it, will not 
 the whole of this laboured diflertation dwindle into 
 a mere logomachy ? 
 
 As to the circumftances which may have attended 
 the defire of communicating thought, and influenced 
 the nature and order of the figns contrived for that 
 purpofe, I will not go fo far as to fay, with thofe I 
 have taken the liberty of introducing here, that tne 
 defire of difpatch had no fhare in that contrivance, as 
 it would be an eafy matter to prove the contrary. 
 But I mud beg leave to obferve, that I do not believe 
 it the only, nor even the principal, circumftance to be 
 taken into confederation, in order to account for the 
 divifion and diftribution of lanoruaq;e. 
 
 CD O 
 
 The defire which arifes in the mind, next to that 
 of communicating thought, is certainly to ufe fuch 
 figns as will convey the meaning clearly and pre- 
 cifely ; which naturally leads to the ufe of abbrevi- 
 
 C 2 ations.
 
 ations, as without them, according to your own ideas, 
 this end cannot be attained, p. 245. Abbreviations, 
 therefore, feem to bear a much ftronger affinity to 
 the defire of perfpicuity than to that of difpatch. This 
 latter, confidered by itfelf, feems little calculated for 
 any regular purpofes. It may produce abbreviations, 
 but of the kind only to which Monf. Le Prefident De 
 Broffes alludes, when he fays, Uefprit humain veut 
 aller vite dans fon operation ; plus einpreffe de s'exprimer 
 promptement, que curieux de fexprimer avec une Juftejfe 
 reflecbie. S'il n'a pas Pinftrument quil faudroit e?n~ 
 player, il fefert de celu'i qifil a tout put : When guided 
 by the former, it produces concifenefs, but concife- 
 nefs attended with neatnefs and perfpicuity. 
 
 After the defire of perfpicuity in the communica- 
 tion of thought comes that of variety ; a defire fo 
 deeply rooted in human nature, that it looks for 
 the gratification of it in every objeft it contemplates, 
 in every ftudy it purfues, in every amufement it par- 
 takes. " All the fenfes delight in it, and equally are 
 " averfe to famenefs" fays an ingenious artift. 
 (Hogarth, Analyfis of Beauty, chap. II.). The ear is 
 as mud) offended with one continued note, as the eye is 
 with being fixed to a point y or to the view of a dead 
 wall. Can it be imagined that it had no hand (if 
 1 may be allowed the expreffion) in the contrivance 
 of found for the communication of thought ? All 
 our fenfes lead us to a contrary fuppofition : and ex- 
 perience teaches us, that it interfered in the framing 
 of language, even fo far as to give birth to a fort 
 of words which otherwife would not have appeared 
 in it. For what are pronouns but words of that 
 
 kind ?
 
 [ at ] 
 
 kind ? The principle of difpntch in communication, 
 on which you lay fo much flrefs to account for the 
 origin and nature of particles, is therefore by no 
 means fufficient for that purpole. It is the truth, 
 but not the whole truth. It may interfere in the 
 contrivance of the article, conjunctions, and prepofi- 
 tions; but as a fecondary, not a ruling principle. 
 The only circumflance, in which ir afts in the lad- 
 mentioned capacity, is apparently in vulgar elliptical 
 forms of fpeech. 
 
 Advertifement, p. 102. 
 
 It is generally at the beginning, immediately after 
 the title-page, that this tedious and troublefome part of 
 a book makes its appearance. In yours it does not 
 come forth till about the middle of it; perhaps as 
 good a place as any, efpeciaily if the author means 
 ferioufly to have it perufed. For, as the French fay, 
 Vappetit vlent en mangeant, I fhall therefore, without 
 any farther hefitation, follow your example, and add 
 here what I have to fay by way of advertifement. 
 
 I. Anglo-Saxon literature is, no doubt, an objeft 
 worth the attention of the people of this country. 
 In order to underftand the meaning and drift of the 
 excellent laws under which we live, it is neceffary we 
 fhould have fome knowledge of the language of 
 thofe who made them. Your defire, therefore, of pro- 
 moting the fludy of it among your readers, and your 
 presenting them, for that purpofe, with a table of its 
 alphabetical characters, is liberal, and what one might 
 naturally expecl from a public-fpirited man as you are. 
 However, as nothing is more likely to prove fatal to 
 that fludy than unforefeen impediments at the firft 
 
 C 3 fetting
 
 C ] 
 
 fetting out, you muft allow me the liberty to fay, 
 that your table is not altogether fo compleat as it 
 ought to be. It wants the wings of Mercury ; the ab- 
 breviations, without which there can be no difpatch 
 in communication. This is the fiift hint I wiflied to 
 give you by way of advertifement. 
 
 II. As I am not without fears about your fuccefs, 
 and expect that the Lockifts will foon appear in a 
 body againft you, 1 have been examining your out- 
 works again -, and as I find them abfolutely untena- 
 ble, I would advife you to abandon them in cafe of a 
 regular attack, and to (hut yourfelf up in your capital 
 work, which is of good dcfign and vvorkmanfhip, and 
 will (land the belt batteri::g-ram in the world, pro- 
 vided however you bellow a little repairing upon it. 
 In what follow?, I iliall point out to you the places 
 where this is moft wanted; and begin with the chapter 
 of the nouns, on which I ihall make two remarks. 
 
 Firft, In matters of little or no confequence, men in 
 general, and even the wifeil, are very prone to take, 
 upon the credit of others, what they will not take the 
 trouble of examining themfelves ; and this inoft 
 likely was the cafe when Dr. Prieftley afferted, upon 
 the credit of Mr. Harris, that Moon is of the femi- 
 nine gender in the Northern languages, as it is in the 
 Greek and Latin. Had Mr. Harris afferted likewife, 
 that two and two make five, it is more than probable 
 the Do&or would not have taken his word for it. Be 
 that as it may, he was unguarded when he took it 
 for granted ihat Mr. Harris could not be miftaken in 
 a point fo much in his way: but fo are you (excufe 
 jny freedom) when, writing upon this matter, you 
 
 boldly
 
 C *3 ] 
 
 boldly declare, " that in all the Northern languages of 
 " this part of the globe 'which we inhabit, MOON is 
 " mafculine." I do not know the Icelandic, Lap- 
 landi/h, or Greenlandijh ; but I know the Low Dutch 
 tolerably well, and take upon me to fay, that Moon* 
 Maan, in that language is feminine : and fo feminine, 
 that there is no boor in Holland whofe ears would 
 not be fhocked at hearing one fay, Het light des 
 maans, inftead of Het light der maane, the light of 
 the moon. It is particularly unfortunate for you to 
 have made this ftumble at your firft onfet againft Mr. 
 Harris. 
 
 It were to be wifbed (and this is my Second Re- 
 mark), that you had been a little more explicit upon 
 the reafon which you aflign for the Englifh language 
 not admitting a gender in the nouns of things ina 
 nimate. This, you fay, is owing to the circumftance 
 of the relation of nouns being expreffed in it by the 
 place or prepofition. But is not this the cafe alfo in 
 the French, Italian, and Spanifh ? And yet in every 
 one of thefe the nouns in queftion clafs among thofe 
 which have a fpecific gender. The truth is, that, in 
 all other languages (not including, however, thofe I 
 am not acquainted with, as the Samoyede, Efquiinaux, 
 Aflinipoul, &c.) the relation of gender is expreffed, 
 not, as you fuppofe, by the place and prepofition, 
 but by an inflexion, either in the noun or article 
 prefixed to it. But the noun in Englifh being fuf- 
 ceptible of inflexion only in a few in (lances, ami the 
 article in none, it is no wonder that a diflinclion of 
 the fpecific gender (hould not take place in it at all 
 with regard to the nouns in queilion. But it is 
 
 C 4 wonderful,
 
 Wonderful, that fome * fiiould have reprefented it as 
 an ornament, and the refult of thought and contri- 
 vance, when in fa6t it is a blemiih -f, and merely the 
 effeft of chance. Any one converfant with the hif- 
 tory of the Englilh language, knows that it formerly 
 admitted that diflin&ion, as the Dutch and Frific do 
 to this day ; and that it did not lofe this mark of 
 its defceut till after the Conqueft ; when it was fo 
 much altered by the mixture of the French or 
 Norman, as to become in fome meafure a new lan- 
 guage. We may take it for granted therefore, that 
 the fame circumflance which caufcd Anglo Saxon 
 noqns to take a French termination for the formation 
 of the plural, and French verbs Englifli ones for the 
 diftin&ion of tenfe, number, and perfon, influenced 
 likewife the gender of their nouns, and caufed it to 
 be omitted, and grow at lafl oblolete, in thole that 
 were appropriated to things inanimate. 
 
 * Harris and Lowih. By whom we are given to underfiand* 
 that, for want of this contrivance, no language, except the Englifli, 
 can keep clear of ambiguity and obfcurity in the Profopopoe'ia. 
 Had it been confiilent with the gravity of their character, they 
 might have added the following ftory, which would have beta 
 much more to the purpofe. A meflenger was lent to the Queen of 
 Navarre, with a letter, and ordered, de la baiftr en la hi prefentant : 
 and fo the blockhead kitted the Queen, infteadof the letter ; which 
 could not have happened, had the French language been without 
 gender for the name of inanimate things, 
 
 j It mull: be confefled, that, by affixing a gender to every noun, 
 the Greek and the Latin will, in many in fiances, and more parti- 
 cularly in elliptical forms of fpeech, admit of a concifenefs and 
 perlpicuity of expreifion, which is peculiar to them, CaMa la<vari y 
 Jrigidam bibere, ci 7* p.oi\et>tu v~>imc. 
 
 i' f/.t' raro yup 
 
 See Valckenaer in Euripidis Phcen. v. 12, 
 Interjections
 
 Interj dions and Articles. 
 
 As opprobrious language is not uuul with you, 
 especially when there is no cccufion for it, one is fur- 
 prifed to hear you rail at the irreijtcHons, and call 
 tfrem brutifo and inarticulate founds wbicb have no- 
 thing to do with fpeech, and are only the miferable 
 refufe of it. But, when a man has braeged to his 
 neighbours of the fpacioufnefs of his houie, has laid 
 a confiderable wager, has fworn a great oath, that it 
 will contain them all ; and finds himielf, upon trial, 
 more pent than a negro on board an African trader, 
 or a forlorn hope in the houfe of an Amsterdam Zie- 
 leverkooper, what can he do, but turn out fome, 
 and call them a parcel of low-lived fcoundrels who 
 intrude themfelves into gentlemens' company ? 
 
 As you had averted that there were but two forts 
 of words in language, words necefTary for the com- 
 munication of thought, and words necelfary for the 
 difpatch of that communication, the interjections 
 could not but prove extremely troublefome. You 
 perceived immediately that they could by no means 
 whatever be forced into either of your claiTcs ; and 
 yet they had by prefcription an undoubted right to 
 the place they occupied among the parts of fpeech. 
 To alter your claffes, was giving up your words ne- 
 ceffary for the difpatch of communication, and that 
 would have been a pity. To meddle with the other 
 clafs, was bringing down the whole edifice at once, 
 and that would have been terrible. No wonder if 
 you fietted and fumed, and came at lail to the refo- 
 
 lution
 
 [ 26 ] 
 
 lution of ufing, with ihefefoi difants parts of fpeech, 
 the fame liberty as the Emperor Jofeph ufed with the 
 monks in Flanders and fo turned them out. This I 
 take to be the beft reafon which can be given for your 
 violent and arbitrary proceedings againft the poor 
 interjections. And had not fome propitious circum- 
 ftances intervened, you would very likely have been 
 as cruel to the article. 
 
 The general terms being by themfelves indefinite, 
 as to the extent of their fignification, it is evident 
 that fome fign is wanted to fix the fenfe in which 
 they are to be taken. And as this is the office of 
 the articles, it is not lefs evident that they are as ne- 
 ceffary for the communication of thought, as the ge- 
 neral terms themfelves can be ; and therefore it 
 would be madnefs to refufe them a place among the 
 parts of fpeech. But they are neither nouns nor 
 verbs ; nor can they, in the drift fenfe of the words, 
 be called abbreviations of them, becaufe they have 
 not a fingle feature belonging to that fpecies. They 
 were therefore in no fmall danger of undergoing the 
 fame fate with the interjections, if by great good 
 luck you had not contrived to difpofe of them, by 
 fuppofmg a fecond kind of abbreviations or fubfti- 
 tutes, befides thofe you had already contrived. The 
 firft were abbreviations or fubftirutes of known words 
 in a language ; whereas the fecond kind, which was 
 to comprehend the article, is abbreviations or fubfli- 
 tutes of words not known in language. 
 
 " From the necejfity of general terms (I quote your 
 " words) follows immediately the necejfity of the arti- 
 " cle, ivhofe bvfinefs it is to reduce their generality, 
 
 " and
 
 C *7 ] 
 
 '* and upon occajion to employ general terms for parti- 
 ** cular ; fe that tbs article in combination 'with tbe 
 *' general terms is merely -a fubftitute. But then it dif- 
 " fers from tbofe fubftitutes which we have ranked 
 t under the general head of abbreviations, becaufi it is 
 " necejjary for the communication of thought > and fup- 
 tf plies tbe place cf words not in the language ; whereas 
 *' abbreviations a r e not neceffary for communication^ 
 " and fupply the place of words which are in tbe lan- 
 " guage*." The beginning of this period is unex- 
 ceptionable ; bat the latter part of it is by no means 
 fo. 
 
 Subftitutes of words which are not in language* As 
 thcfe words muft needs form a very numerous tribe, 
 it is wonderful, fome will fay, how you could fo 
 eafily fi.id out fuch as were more particularly in want 
 of fubftitutes. 1 defpife fuch remarkers, fay you. 
 " I'befe are the people who have the accent neither of 
 ft Chriflian, Piigan, or man ; nor can fpeak jo many 
 tl words together with as much propriety as Balaam's 
 <f afs did -p." Hold, bir ! thefe are alfo the people 
 of whom it has been faid, with no lefs propriety, 
 C'eft uns nation puiffante, Dicu en a beni la race \ ! 
 You will do better, therefore, to keep upon good 
 terms with them ; and ihe more, as in the prefent in- 
 fiance you have no manner of advantage over them. 
 
 There is reafon to rejeft, in a great meafure, your 
 notion of the article. It is a fubftitute, no doubt ; 
 but if there be cafes in which it is evidently the fub- 
 flitute of words which are in the language, why 
 
 * P. 96. f P. 43- in a note. j La Fontaine. 
 
 ihould
 
 C 2 ] 
 
 fhould we go upon an idle chafe, and hunt for 
 words not in the language? Numberlefs are the in- 
 fiances in which it anfwers this purpofe in the Greek, 
 and in fo pointed a manner, that it is hardly poffible 
 to miftake the words for which it flands. I (hall 
 quote a few ; and if you wiih for more, you may fee 
 a cloud of them in Vio-erqs's Idiotifms *. 
 
 o 
 
 It (lands for O^QS in the following phrafe, aysrQai r/jV 
 ITT; Soevciru ad mortem rapi for jj'ppof, in TV? 
 pa,ia, i. e. pridie for pJ7r0cyju, in 70 ra 
 fpr viag in o ry Aspoa-Qivag. -And if I were to affirm, that, 
 inEnglifh, French, or Flemifh, there is not an inftance 
 in which the definite article does not (land for the name 
 of the gender, fpecies, or difference of the thing in 
 queftion, I believe I fhoulcl not go beyond the truth. 
 And I adhere to this hypothefis the more firmly, as, 
 without it, it is hardly poffible to account for the ar- 
 ticle being placed in thefc languages fo frequently 
 before particular nouns. Before the general term it 
 may be faid to reftrain, or rather determine, the 
 fenfe in which that terra is to be taken, and more 
 efpecia'ny in the French. But what ihall we fay, 
 when it is placed before a particular name, as in rhefe 
 inftances tie fun the moon the earth the Jky 
 the clouds ? There is no reduftion nor reftridlion 
 whatever in any of thefe cafes ; yet the neceffity of 
 the article is marked in them as ftrongly as any 
 where. Its defiination, therefore, is not confined to 
 the ufe you mention ; it evidently anfwers fome fur- 
 ther purpofe. 
 
 * Cap. III. Seft. i. Reg, 3. 
 
 The
 
 [ *9 3 
 
 The human mind is for ever bufy in treafuring up 
 every thing which comes within the reach of its per- 
 ceptions ; and, that its ftores may be of ufe ARC} al- 
 ways at hand, they are divided into various claffes ; 
 and every clafs has its peculiar name : by which means 
 every perception becomes at once dirtinct and com- 
 municable. By calling over the claffes, we find a 
 name for any object whatever ; and at the fame time 
 that we retain fome idea of it ourfelves, we can, when 
 we pleafe, make it known to others. In either cafe, 
 the name of the clafs is always the fir ft thing which 
 obtrudes itfelf upon the mind; and that name is 
 moilly underftood in the article which immediately 
 precedes the particular name of the thing in queftion. 
 
 SUN, MOON, STARS, belong to that clafs of beings 
 which are called the heavenly bodies ; and it is that 
 clafs I mean to exprefs when I fay, THE SUN, THE 
 MOON, THE STARS. This becomes unqueftionable 
 from the following inftances. The Mediterranean is 
 evidently the Mediterranean Sea ; The Pyrenees, the 
 Pyrenean Mountains ; The Bermudas , the liles fo 
 called. Again, the wall, the garden, the yard, ma- 
 nifeflly indicate a whole, of which thefe are the par- 
 ticulars ; and the name of that whole is exprefled, or 
 at lead indicated, by the article prefixed to the name 
 of the particular. The French ufe it before the 
 names of countries : they fay, La France, L'ltalig, 
 L'Efpagmi becaufe thefc countries are by them con- 
 lidered in thefe expreffions as parrs of a whole; and 
 that whole is Europe. They alfo fay, L 1 Europe, 
 L'Afie, UAfrique ; and then that whole is the ha- 
 bitable earth. In fhon, there is hardly an inftance
 
 C 30 ] 
 
 in thofe languages, in which the reference of the 
 article (which is called the definite) to words known 
 in the language is not palpable *. Your placing it 
 
 therefore 
 
 * For the further elucidation of this matter, I beg leave to quote 
 here a lew remaiks which I made fome time ago on the ufe of" the 
 article in the French language. 
 
 L'article etant deftine a marquer 'es differens fens dans lefquels 
 fe peuvent prendre hs noms uppellatifs & communs ; il femble 
 qu'il devicnne, en que-lque fa9on, inutile avant les noms, qui ne 
 pouvant defigner qu'an objet a la fois, font par cela meme incapables 
 de varier, pour ce qui regarde 1'etendue de leur fignification. Ce- 
 pendant il n'eft pas rare de voir ces noms precedes de Particle. 
 On dit, par exemple, UEtienne qui a e'crit l y Apilogie pour Herodote. 
 Li Clcdlui qui fe decbaina contrt Ciceron. On trouve dam i'biftoire 
 des Julfs un Zacckarie^ tue dans h temple avant la venue du Mcjjie t 
 C'eft que dans ces fa9ons de parler, on ccnfidere Pindividu portant 
 tel ou tel nom, comme appartenant a tel ou a tel ordre de perfonnes, 
 dont le terme commun eft d'etre toutes appellees de meme. De- 
 fortoque le nom propre devient ici un nom appellatif, & comme 
 il fe prend dans un fens particulier, ii faut ueceflairement, qu'il foit 
 precede de Panicle defmi. 
 
 Mais il y a des noms propres qu'on donne a des etres, en quel- 
 que facon uniques, & qui font neamcins. precedes de Tarticle. 
 Ainfi, quoiqu'il n'y air, fuivant la facon de penfer des hommes en 
 general, qu'un fcul foleil, qu'une feule lane, qu'une feule terre, on 
 dit malgre ctla avec 1'article, le foleil^ la lune^ la. lerre. Parceque 
 chacun de ces etrcs tient a un tout que Ton a toujours prefent a 
 Tefprit quand on les veut nommer, & auquel on ics renvoye vifi- 
 blcment, en mettant Panicle avant les noms qui les defigncnt. 
 Quand on dit U Europe ou L?Jfic, on fent q-ie cette idee en reveille 
 d'abord une autre qui lui fert, pour ainfi dire, de bafe ; & cette 
 idee c'eft la terre en general, que Ton fait etre divlfee en certaines 
 portions, & qui fe prefente comme telle a 1'efprit, des qu'on entend 
 nommer quelqu'une de ces portions. Or c'ett pour faire fentir le 
 rapcrt a 1'idee qui lui fcrt dc bale, et en meme terns pour la dittin-
 
 C 3i ] 
 
 therefore in the oppofite light, in order to diftinguifli 
 it from thofe fubflitutes which you call fubftitutes of 
 words known in the language, is prepofterous and 
 unfatisfaftory. For though we fhould allow it to 
 have the ufe here afligned to it (which we do not 
 allow at prefent), yet, as it is no its general character, 
 it is wrong to build upon that, and that only, its 
 fpecific difference, from fubflitutes of words known 
 in the language. As to the latter, we have ieen al- 
 ready with what propriety they are filled, without 
 any exception, fubjlitutes ; when mod, if not all of 
 them, are in faft the very words of which they are 
 fuppofed to fupply the place. Nor fhall I repeat 
 here what I have faid concerning your hypothefis, 
 of their not being neceffary for communication. I 
 have made it appear pretty plain, that you had your- 
 felf no great confidence in it. 
 
 guer des autres portions, qu'on fe fert de Particle avant le nom qui 
 lui eft propre. 
 
 En general on pent dire, que 1'article avant les noms des ctres que 
 nous avons nommcs uniques femble les clefigner, ou comme parties 
 c'un tout, ou comme individus de quelque efpece ; & dans ce der- 
 nier cas, 1'article tient lieu en quelque fac,on da nom appellatif ; 
 ou ce qui revient au meme du nom de 1'efpece. Ainfi La Baltiquf, 
 c'e;l Jans contredit, La Mer B&l'ique ; La Seine, la riviere dc la 
 Seine ; Le ^efuve, le mcnt appeile Vefuve. Man i ere de s'enoncer 
 parfaitement analogue a cclle dont on conceit ces chofes, & que 
 1'on retient encore toutes les fois que les noms des individus font 
 trop vagnes pour en donner des idces bien diilindes. Ainii on die 
 Lejltwve Si, Laurent, Le lac Cbamplain, Lcs IJln Philippine!. 
 
 Chapter
 
 Chapter VI. Of the Word THAT. 
 
 Except what relates to politics, which, though 
 ever fo found, cannot with any propriety be intro- 
 duced into a work of this kind, the whole of this 
 chapter deferves attention. The light in which it re- 
 prefents the ftrnclure of language is curious ; and if 
 you go on folving in fo plaulible a manner this intri- 
 cate bufmefs, you will make ample amends for the 
 little recreation we have met with hitherto in the 
 Diverfions of Purley. 
 
 I beg leave, however, to make a few remarks on 
 the word THAT. 
 
 There are inftances in which it does not feem fuf- 
 ceptible of the fenfe into which you refolve it : fuch 
 are thofe where it is connected, in one and the fame 
 phrafe, with the pronoun perfonal IT ; as for in- 
 itance, It is reafonable that we Jhould do by others, as 
 we would be dons by ourfefoes ; It is not to be expeRed 
 that in a Jtate of tryal like the present, we Jhould meet 
 'with no difficulties ; Be it known, that, &c. Again, 
 when it is preceded immediately by the word intent 
 in the dative cafe, as, To the intent, that when they 
 come up, they might teach their children the fame. 
 
 It feems as if in the preceding inftances the word 
 THAT could not admit of your refolution, without in- 
 troducing both redundancy and coufufion. Whatever, 
 fay you, be the name which is given to it, whatever 
 be its fit nation and appearance, it is one and the fame 
 word, namely, the article, and (lands for THAT 
 THING. But is not the fenfe of this lafl expreflion 
 
 implied
 
 C 33 3 
 
 Implied already in the pronoun IT, which begins the 
 two firft of the preceding phrafes ? And if fo, is 
 there not a kind of awkwardnefs and redundancy in 
 the article which follows ? It is very poffible, how- 
 ever, that it will admit of your refolution, without 
 my being aware of it. I am far, therefore, from al 
 ledging thefe inftances as proofs that you are wrong. 
 I give them only as difficulties which may be thrown 
 in your way. And of the fame nature is the next 
 remark. 
 
 In the dead languages, the fenfe of the words 
 which conftitute a phrafe depends on their termina- 
 tion chiefly ; whereas, in the modern languages, this 
 point is principally determined by their refpeUve 
 poiition7 There is but one pofition, either in Eng- 
 lifii, French, or Dutch, which can be given to the 
 words exprefiing the fenfe of the following Latin 
 phrafe, Petrus amat Deum : the leaft alteration in it 
 will affect its meaning, and make it either nonfenfe, 
 or at leaft the reverfe of the fenfe which is intended. 
 Each word, therefore, in the modern languages, has 
 its particular poiition, from which it never departs, 
 except for the fake of the metre in poetry. And 
 this pofition depends entirely upon the f|>ecific dif- 
 ference of words. 
 
 Whether our forefathers had, or had not, figns by 
 which to exprefs this difference, they certainly were 
 fenfib'e of it i as no word, in their language, any more 
 than in ours, ever took the place of another, but 
 all had their fixed and peculiar flation, according as 
 they were either nouns or verbs, &c. As this is a 
 
 D well-
 
 C 34 } 
 
 well-known truth, I fhall adduce no proof for the 
 confirmation of it, but pafs on to its application. 
 
 Is it not remarkable, that the word here in queftion 
 Ihould occupy different places in the Anglo-Saxon *, 
 and in its kindred the Dutch, the Frific, the German, 
 according as it (lands for a pronoun, or a conjunc- 
 tion; that in the former inftance it (hould be 
 placed between the auxiliary and the participle, and 
 in the latter after the participle in the compound 
 tenfes ; that as a pronoun governed by the verb, 
 it is placed thus, Ic haebbe ^ec pefce ; and when 
 ufed as a conjunction in this manner, ic hcebbe 
 pe&e Bast? But this is not the only inftance in 
 which it affumes a different turn according to the 
 different purpofes for which it is ufed. When in 
 the flaape of a pronoun, it has no kind of influence 
 over the words which follow : whereas it makes a 
 total change in their order if it ftand for a conjunc- 
 tion. So if, in tranflating the following phrafe, / tell 
 ihee now Stivard THAT / have here already fet down 
 thcfe few briefes of ancient bookes, you make fhat 
 a pronoun, the fentence will be in the Anglo-Saxon 
 as follows : ic fecje pe nu ZipepJ) ftxt, ic hsebbe 
 hepe jgefet^Saj" peafa byfna op ^San ealban bocum : 
 but if you make it what is commonly called a con- 
 
 * To tbofe who attend only to the rules of petition in the Eng- 
 lift, the Anglo-Saxon language may feem uncouth and uncon- 
 ne&ed, as it did to Dr. Johnfcn ; but that it is fo in fat, no one 
 acquainted with the rules cf petition, either in the German or 
 Dutch, will affirm. Thefe rules form a very important objeft in 
 the ftudy of thofe languages, and will apply to the Anglo-Saxon 
 in every particular. 
 
 junction,
 
 r 35 ] 
 
 junflion, the next arrangement will take place, ic 
 j-ecje fe nu Zipepb Sass ic hej) ^eretrt haebbe, &c.* 
 
 The fame holds with regard to the Dutch : your 
 firfl example, / wijh you to believe, &c r tranflated in 
 that language, will have, if you fuppofe THAT a 
 pronoun, this appearance, Ick verzoek u te gelooven 
 dat (ding) Ick bezeer nict gaarn eens i-lieg. If a con- 
 jun&ion, the following, Ick verzoeke u te gelooven dat 
 uk met gaarn eene vlicg bezeere. Here you fee the 
 verb finiflies the fecond part of the fentence ; where- 
 as, before, it begins it. But enough of THAT. 
 
 Conjunctions in your fyftem, are not indeclinable 
 or feparate parts of fpeech having a certain manner 
 of fignification by themfelves, but words belonging 
 to the fpecies either of nouns or verbs, and which by 
 a fkilful herald may be eafily traced home to their 
 own family and .origin. As the origin of the word 
 IF, fo eafily difcoverable, is extremely favourable to 
 this way of thinking, it is with great propriety you 
 begin with it your etymological conjectures. 
 
 IF is certainly the imperative mood of the Anglo- 
 Saxon verb Gipan ; for in this language, as ftill in 
 the German and Dutch, the imperative mood is 
 formed by dropping the termination of the infinitive 
 mood AN or EN. The imperative mood of the An- 
 glo-Saxon verb Gipan can be no other therefore than 
 Gip. And this is the tery form in which the con- 
 jun$ion IF makes its appearance in eld Englifli au- 
 thors, as you have fufliciently proved. It is made, 
 indeed, to govern the fubjun&ive mood; an influence, 
 
 * Ancient Monuments in the Saxon Tongue, by M. L'ifle, 
 Lond. 1638. 
 
 D 2 fome
 
 C a 3 
 
 fome will fay, which could hardly be afcribed to it, 
 were it confidered merely as an appendix to the verb 
 Gipan. But it is not improbable that this circum- 
 ftance, together with many others, in the modern 
 languages, is owing to the exceffive care of fome 
 dunces, who having been whipped feverely, when 
 young, for neglefting the proper government of con- 
 junctions in the Latin, have contrafted the habit of 
 making their equivalents govern with them the fame 
 mood in other languages. Now for An, from the 
 verb Anan, to give. 
 
 I have known a public fpeaker who would now 
 and then take a furvey of his audience, and call out 
 (if he efpied any drooping noddles or falling jawsj 
 " Brethren, I will tell you a ftory." As I think 
 this an excellent method of routing the attention of a 
 reader or hearer, for ever inclined to grow drowfy 
 when the fubjeft is fo, I (hall not fcruple to make 
 ufe of it upon this occafion. 
 
 It is well known that the boors in Friefland, one 
 of the United Provinces, have fo far retained ancient 
 cuftoms, as to be, in drefs, language, and manners, 
 exactly the fame people which they were five hun- 
 dred years ago ; a circumftance that induced Junius 
 the fon to pay them a vifit, and to pafs a few months 
 among them. In a tour I made to that country fome 
 years ago, I was at a gentleman's houfe, from which 
 I made frequent excurfions into the inner part of the 
 Province. In one of thefe, I was obliged to take 
 the firft flickering place in my way, being overtaken 
 by a violent mower. It was a farm houfe, where I 
 f.iw feveral children : and I (hall never forget the 
 
 fpeech
 
 C 37 3 
 
 fpeech which one of them, an overgrown babe, made 
 to his mother. He was (landing at her breafl ; and, 
 after he had done with one, I heard him fay to her, 
 Trientjen yan my 't oor ; i.e. "Kate! give me 
 " t'other." I little thought, at the time, I (hould 
 have fo good an opportunity of making ufe of this 
 flory as I have at prefent. 
 
 AN, you fay, is the imperative of the verb ANAN, 
 jufl as IF is the imperative of Gipan. I confefs this 
 latter deduction is fo plain, fo natural, and fo fatis- 
 fadtory, that it affords great encouragement to take it 
 as a model for all the reft. But we fhould not 
 fancy that words exift, or muft have exifted, becaufe, 
 having adopted a certain method of finding out ori- 
 gins, we cannot poflibly do without them. I have 
 been looking out with fome anxiety for the Anglo- 
 Saxon verb ANAN, but can get very little informa- 
 tion about it. I find, indeed, in King Alfred's will 
 the following article : JEpfr ic an Ea&pabe mmum 
 el&pa f una. Fir/I, I give to Edward my eldejl fan. 
 And from the expreffion 1C AN, it mould feem as if 
 there really exifted fuch verb in the Anglo-Saxon as 
 ANAN. But as this is the only fign of life it has 
 given, as one may fay, for thefe thoufand years, J am 
 inclined to look upon that fign as being rather equi- 
 vocal, and fufpect that the true reading of the will is, 
 not ic an, but ic un, from unnan cedere, concedere ; 
 this laft verb being common in the Anglo- Saxon, 
 and nothing more eafy than to mi flake an u for an a, 
 in that language, as well as in the Englifh. How- 
 ever, as I have not feen hitherto any manuscript, on 
 whole authority I can ground the jui a inefs of my 
 D 3 con-
 
 C 38 ] 
 
 conjecture, I do not give it you as any thing certain; 
 and if you perfift in giving the preference to the old 
 reading, the ftory of the babe is certainly in your 
 favour ; for there is as little difference between An 
 and yan, as between Un and an. With me it will 
 remain a matter of djubt, whether there ever ex- 
 ifted fuch a verb as Anan, the fame in fignification, and 
 yet different in origin, with Gipan. It is by no 
 means probable, that a people, who had hardly a 
 conveyance for one idea in a thoufand, fhould 
 have procured two fuch noble conveyances for one 
 fingle idea. This is a piece of luxury, which 
 even the mod civilized nation feldom allow themfelves. 
 The next word you undertake to explain accord- 
 ing to your principles, is UNLESS. You fuppofe it 
 to be the imperative of the Anglo-Saxon verb un- 
 lej-an, to difrails. But to thofe who, like me, judge 
 from analogy, the propriety of this derivation is by 
 no means obvious. We cannot love God, difmifs be 
 frepareth our hearts. No man cometh to my father, 
 dijmifs my father draweth him. Difmifs you repent, you. 
 foal I all likewife perijh. The turn which language has 
 taken with regard to this expreflion will not bear 
 fuch phrafeology. The Latin, the Italian, the 
 French, make ufe here of the word except. The 
 Anglo-Saxon and the Dutch of its equivalent, 
 utneman uytneemen which feems more na- 
 tural, and which mull have had the preference from 
 time immemorial : fmce, according to the paffage 
 you very properly quote from Feftus, even the an- 
 cient Romans ufed it inftead of NISI. For Nemut is 
 a wora fo like the imperative mode of uytneemen t 
 a both
 
 C 39 ] 
 
 both in found and fenfe, that there is great reafon to 
 believe that it is an adoption from the Teutonic verb. 
 
 * 
 
 But this is not the only reafon 1 can alledge againft 
 your hypothecs ; it is not even the ftrongeft. 
 
 If there be fuch a verb in the Anglo-Saxon, it 
 muft be the fame with onlefon, a compound of on 
 and leran, and the Dutch ontlojfen : but neither lefan 
 in the Anglo-Saxon, nor LOSSEN in the Dutch, iig- 
 niaes to difmifs* Leran, in its primary fignification, 
 means to unbind ; in its fecondary, to redeem^ to tin- 
 load) tofet at liberty* Sofoere, redimere, liberare, fays 
 the di&ionary. In the firft fenfe it anfwers to the 
 Englifh, to loofen, i. e. to make loofe; in the fecond, 
 the Dutch ontloffen. Skinner, indeed, tranflates on- 
 leran, or rather aleran, to difmifs. But Skinner is 
 often ignorant, fays Dr. Johnfon * ; and I rejeft his 
 tranflation, becaufe I am certain the equivalent in 
 Dutch ontlojfen is not fufceptible of it. But further. 
 
 As there is an equivalent in the French of the 
 word UNLESS very much refembling it in turn, it is 
 fomewhat extraordinary, that it fhould never have 
 occurred to you, that poffibly the one is a tranilation, 
 or at lead an imitation of the other. This equiva- 
 lent is A MOINS QUE. What word more likely to 
 have given birth to unlefs , if we may fuppofe the 
 latter to be a compound of on and left ? And if the 
 Anglo-Saxon dialeft admits ofonhij}, at the lail ; onb^c % 
 at the back ; onbutan, externally ; on <cffe, oppofite ; 
 why fhould it not alfo admit of onlefs, for A MOINS 
 Q.PE? This conjecture is the more probable, as it 
 
 * Preface to his Di&ionary. 
 
 D 4 was
 
 [ 4 3 
 
 was not till after the Conqueft, when the Englifli 
 became a mixture of the French and Anglo-Saxon, 
 that the word UNLESS was introduced into it ; the 
 Anglo-Saxon having ufed till then, as you yourfelf 
 have objferved, NEMTHE, or NYMTHE, inftead of it. 
 And yet you never mention A MOINS QJJE ; no, not 
 even where you name the words correfponding in 
 other languages to the Englifli word UNLESS. The 
 French SINON, unlefs you add QJJE to it, which you 
 do not, is by no means of the number. It is fome- 
 times ufed as an adverb in the fenfe of otherwife, or 
 in default. Falles ce qu'il dit, finon, rfefperex nulle 
 grace de fa 'part ; do ivhat he bids you y elfe expeft no 
 favour from him. Sometimes as, venia fit verbo, an 
 exceptive conjunction, when it mud be tranflated but. 
 Je n'ai autre chafe a vous dlre^fmon que vous en uferez 
 comme il vous plaira ; / have nothing to tell you, but 
 that you are at liberty to do what you f leaf e. p. 214. 
 
 LES. The imperative of Leran. 
 
 The orthography of this word, I prefume to fay, 
 is LESS. It is thus Ben Jonfon fpells it in the paf- 
 fages you here quote from him ; and it fhould feem 
 as if civilized people had no other way of fpelling it. 
 You choofe, however, upon the authority of Gawin 
 Douglas, to write it with a fmgle s ; and, truly, I 
 do not wonder at it, as in that garb it will anfwer 
 your purpofe much better than in the common one. 
 It is poflible that LES fhould be the imperative of 
 Lepm ; but LESS can have no pretenfions to it : at 
 Jeaft not according to your principles; for, if my 
 
 memory
 
 [ 41 3 
 
 memory does not deceive me, you have faid fome- 
 where, or at leaft given us to underftand, that words 
 may lofe, but not acquire, letters, as they recede 
 from their origin. 
 
 You do not depend, however, in fo implicit a 
 manner upon Gawin Douglas's fkill of fpelling, as 
 to adopt it upon every occafion. You fcruple not 
 to depart from it wherever it proves unfavourable to 
 fome new etymology. A ftrong proof that the mo- 
 tive I have juft now mentioned has no fmall degree 
 of influence over your judgement in thefe matters. 
 No fooner has the imperative of the Anglo-Saxon 
 verb Lepm (hewn itfelf with you in one form, than 
 it appears in another. In the very next article to 
 that we are upon here, you fuppofe it to be, not LES, 
 but LEAS : and why ? becaufe you labour to prove 
 there that Leafieas, Botleas^ and the like Anglo-Saxon 
 words, are compounds of a noun and the imperative 
 in queition, which would not have been quite fo 
 clear, had that imperative appeared in its ufual 
 form. But, it will be faid, how can Lear be the im- 
 perative of Lef an ? Verbs may lofe, but not ac- 
 quire, letters, as they recede from their origin. 
 Whether you were aware of this difficulty, and 
 wifhed to make yourfelf eafy about it, or whether 
 chance fo far interpofed in your favour as to remove 
 it without your knowledge, I cannot tell. Certain 
 it is, that the verb L.efan is here all of a fudden 
 transformed into Leofan ; in confequence of which, 
 its alliance with the affix Leap becomes unqueftion- 
 able. But Lecran fignifies perdere, and is the fame 
 
 verb with the Englilh to Lofe Oh, we cannot 
 
 help
 
 [ 42 ] 
 
 help that, you'll fay. We have proved Leaf to be 
 the imperative of it, and that's fufficient. 
 
 You add in a note *, It is the fame imperative LES, 
 placed at the end of nouns, and coalescing with them, 
 which has given to our language fuch adjectives as 
 HOPELESS, RESTLESS, DEATHLESS, MOTIONLESS. 
 
 Thefe words have been all along confidered as 
 compounds of Hope, Reft y &c. and the adjective Lefs, 
 Anglo-Saxon Lear -j~, and Dutch Loos : and this ex- 
 planation is fo natural, fo clear and fatisfactory, that 
 it is inconceivable how a man, who has any notion 
 of neatnefs and confiftency in etymological difquili- 
 tions, could ever think of their being compounds of 
 a noun, and the imperative of the verb Lefan. 
 LEAS and Loos are Hill extant, this in the Dutch, 
 and that in the Anglo-Saxon language; and both 
 anfwer to the Latin folutus in this phrafe folutus cura. 
 So that hopelefs, in the literal fenfe of the word, only 
 means void cf hope ; faithlefs, void of faith ; a fenfe 
 fo obvious, and fo analogous to that which we mean 
 to exprefs when we ufe thefe words, that nothing but 
 love of novelty in the extreme could induce you to 
 rejeft it, in order to make room for the uncouth 
 and awkward expreffions, Hop'e^difmifs, Death-difmifs 
 
 * P. 126. 
 
 f Multa (adjeftivaj formantur ex fubftantivis addendo affixum 
 negativum Leaj-, vel Laj"e, ut pecceleaj* negligent ; j^commeleaj", 
 impuaeias ; 6xeleiij~, imfavidui ; picieaj* Jine cnlpa. Hinc apud 
 nos careleffiy fathtrltffi, rnittherlfjfc, friendlfjjf, bartnlfjfe) & limilia. 
 Sciendum vero eft leaf Anglo-Saxonicum deduci a M. Gothico 
 Lans, quod fi^nificat liber, folutus, votcum, & in compofitione pri- 
 vationem vel defecftum denotaf. Hickeb's An^l. Sax. Gram. 
 iv. . in. 
 
 Where,
 
 [ 43 J 
 
 Where, in the name of wonder, have you ever 
 found words tacked together in this manner ? 
 
 In all languages, as -far as we kno-v, which admit 
 of compofition in words, there is a certain manner 
 which muft be attended to, before we prefume to 
 make compounds ; a manner in the arrangement ; 
 and a manner in the choice of thofe words which 
 are to be joined together. Some are to be considered 
 as prefixes, others as affixes ; fome will not coalefce ; 
 fome, on the contrary, run into compofition, as it 
 were, of themfelves. In this part of the ftrufture, 
 therefore, as well as in all the others, there is a kind 
 of harmony, which muft be attended to, and ferve as 
 a rule. To take words at random, and to jumble 
 them together, 
 
 ut nee pes, nee caput, 
 Uni reddatur formce, 
 
 is to violate that harmony : and this you do, when 
 you tack an imperative to a noun for the purpofe of 
 making but one word of the two. This is a bar- 
 barifm of the fir ft magnitude, I will not fay in the 
 Greek or Latin, but even in the lefs poliflied lan- 
 guages. The French and the Engliih have, indeed, 
 their compounds of imperative and noun, but never 
 of noun and imperative. I mean, that, when fuch 
 compofition takes place with them, the imperative is 
 conftantly placed before the noun *. But, fuppofmg 
 
 * U>i coupe-jarrct, a banditto ; un-loute-feu t an incendiary } un 
 tirc-bouchon, a cork-fcrew. So in Englifh, a cut-purfe, a catch" 
 penny, &c. We fay, indeed, a tootb-pLk ; but this is evidently cor- 
 rupt from twttyi(ktr* 
 
 it
 
 [ 44 3 
 
 it was not, neither the French nor the modern Eng- 
 lifli arc, in that refpect, a proper ftandard whereby 
 \ve can determine the genius of the old language, 
 Not the French, becaufe it has little or no affinity 
 with it ; nor the Englifli, becaufe it leaves here its 
 original and more forcible manner, to adopt that of 
 her rival. The Dutch, as it has preferved to this 
 day the Anglo-Saxon manner of compofition, and 
 admits of no other whatever, is undeniably the better 
 rule to follow on this occafion. But there are no 
 compounds of the French kind juft mentioned to be 
 met with in that language : and as to thofe you here 
 obtrude on your readers, nothing can be more re- 
 pugnant to its true nature and genius ; a ftrong rea- 
 fon to believe that they are not admiffible in the 
 Anglo-Saxon ; and indeed, if they were, the compo- 
 fition would not have been confined to one fingle in- 
 {lance. More verbs than one would have had their 
 imperatives affixed to nouns, in order to make com- 
 pounds with them. You would not have failed to 
 quote a few inftances where this kind of compofition 
 takes place ; and we fhould have had fomething 
 more than your bare word, by which to regulate our 
 belief in this particular. 
 
 I have not done yet with hope-difmifs and faith- 
 difmifs ; I beg leave to add one obje&ion more to 
 that manner of compofition in language. If, as you 
 contend, Loos be the imperative of Loffen in Dutch, 
 how co:r.es the noun prefixed to the imperative to 
 terminate with an E, which is the con ft ant and inva- 
 riable fign of the ablative cafe ? They write and 
 pronounce, e vri(gtdoos j fruitlefs j godsloos, impious; 
 
 Jinneloos,
 
 , d [ 4S ] 
 
 finnetoos, fenfelefs ; lufteloos, liftlefs. If Loos were an 
 active verb, they would write and pronounce vrugt- 
 loos, godloos, JmlooSf lufthoS) which is the form of the 
 accufative. 
 
 As it is expeSed you fhould advance fomething in 
 defence of your new-fangled compounds, you make 
 two efforts for that purpofe, but both fo feeble and 
 ill-direfted, that neither of them makes the leaft im- 
 preffion. 
 
 With this view you fay, / think, however, 
 there will be little doubt about this derivation, when it 
 is obferved, that we fay indifferently either Jleeplefs or 
 without Jleep, &c. i. e. Difinifs Jleep, or Be out fleep. 
 So for thofe words where we have not by habit made 
 the coalefcence, as the Danijh Folkelot and Hale/os, we 
 fay in Englijh, withot people, without tail. 
 
 We fay indifferently either Jleeplefs or without Jleep. 
 Ergo, there can be little doubt of LESS being the 
 imperative of the verb Leran, &c. Can there be 
 sny thing more prepofterous than the flrefs you lay 
 upon fuch arguments? and who bul a man infatuated 
 with the love of fingularity would produce them ? 
 
 You add, it is obfirvabk, that, IN ALL NORTHERN 
 LANGUAGES, the termination of this adjefiive in each 
 language varies juft as the correspondent verb, whofe 
 imperative it is, varies in that language. After which 
 comes an exhibition of the verb Leoran in no lefs 
 than fix different languages*. BUL here again you 
 
 fuffer 
 
 * As this exhibition is rather curious, I (hall fubmit it to the 
 infpeition of the reader. 
 
 Goth
 
 [ 46 ] 
 
 fuffer yourfelf to be carried away by your favourite 
 fyftem, fo far as to venture upon ground where you 
 can do nothing but expofe your want of (kill. I do 
 not know the Swedilh, nor the Dauifli, nor the Gothic. 
 But I know enough of the Dutch to affirm, without 
 fear of being miftaken, that the imperative of the 
 verb LOSSEN is Loss, and not Loos, as you put it. 
 Nor can you plead here the negligence of the printer, 
 as no other imperative fuitcd your purpofe fo well 
 as Loos. And as I find you fo often and fo egregioufly 
 tripping in one of the fix languages you here appeal 
 to, how can I depend upon what you affirm of the 
 others ? 
 
 I cannot help taking notice here of the very extra- 
 ordinary fentence you have been pleafed to pafs upon 
 Johnfon's Dictionary ; a work which, now for many 
 years, has been a kind of ftandard, by which even the 
 moft judicious, have afcertained the fignification of words 
 in the Engliih language, and which therefore ought 
 not to be depreciated, without giving weighty reafons 
 for fo doing. It has, no doubt, its blemifhes : but 
 they are not of the kind, quas incuria fudlt. On the 
 contrary, they may be called the refult of the oppo- 
 
 Termination. Infinite of the verb. 
 Goth .... AANs .... AANsgAN. 
 Anglo Saxon . Lear* .... Leopin. 
 Dutch .... Loos .... Loflen. 
 German . . . Los .... LoJcrn. 
 Danifh . . . Los .... Lo f er. 
 Sweciifii . . . Los .... Lo.;>. 
 
 Div. of Purley, p. 218. 
 
 I\. B. It is in this table the Anglo-Saxon verb Leyan, felvere, is 
 transformed into Ltoj-an, which haj been noticed before. 
 
 fite
 
 [47 ] 
 
 fire caufe, too much nicety and exaclnefs. Had the 
 author been lefs minute in diftmguiihing the various 
 Cgnifications of words, be would have faved himfelf 
 a great deal of trouble, and his work would not have 
 been the worfe for it. As it is, we have nothing 
 better of the kind. The explanations are commonly 
 juft and clear -, the quotations numerous, and from 
 the beft authorities : which inclines me to believe, 
 that when you ftigmatize it as a mojl contemptible per- 
 formance, a reproach to the Englijh nation, one third of 
 it being as much the language of the Hottentots as of the 
 Englijh ; you mean only to animadvert on fuch of 
 the Doctor's definitions, divifions, and derivations, as 
 do not perfectly coincide with your manner of dif- 
 patching that bufinefs. I am the more willing to 
 make this fuppofition, as you do not enter into par- 
 ticulars ; and as there is perhaps no point 19 which 
 the Doctor differs more effentially from you, than in 
 the etymologies to be afllgned to Englifli particles. 
 
 Your mentioning the Hottentots, in a paffage I 
 have jufl quoted from you, puts me in mind of your 
 very curious table of Anglo-Saxon verbs * ; one third 
 of which, if I may be allowed the expreffion, are 
 of your own hatching, and force of them fo cruelly 
 mangled in the hatching, that they have not a limb 
 left entire and in its place. 
 
 Beon-utran ! pyp^San-utan ! Mercy upon you for 
 having found fo much fault with others! 
 
 Ncn Di, non homines, non conceftere columns ! 
 Why man, there is not a greater adulterator of lan- 
 
 guage
 
 C 4 ] 
 
 guages than you in the world ; and never did Mr. 
 Champante, the Amfterdam fealing-wax maker in 
 London, violate in a more flagitious manner the pu- 
 rity of the Belgic Dame in his Dutch mottos *, than 
 you that of the Anglo-Saxon in your table. 
 
 UTAN, according to the common way of think- 
 ing, is put down in the dictionaries as being both an 
 adverb and a prepoiition ; but, whatever you pleafe 
 to make of it, in neither of thefe capacities can it be 
 joined to the verb in the manner you have done, 
 without violating the moft obvious rules for the ar- 
 rangement of words in the Anglo-Saxon langnage , 
 not as an adverb, becaufe, though a word of this de- 
 nomination is added to a verb in order to exprefs 
 the circumftance of the matter in queftion, yet it 
 cannot coalefce fo as to make a compound word with 
 it ; nor as a prepoiition, becaufe, when this part of 
 fpeech is to make a compound with a verb, though 
 in other moods it is occafionally made to follow, yer, 
 in the infinitive, it is confhntly made to precede h-j~, 
 and to write anyban-uran, apculan-utan, aj~)earan- 
 
 utan, 
 
 * Wei brand en i<aft bond. 
 
 f In the German, Dutch, and Anglo-Saxon, the rule is this : 
 in compounds of verb and prepofuicn, the prepofition is always 
 prefixed to the verb in the infinitive, as in uulepm, fol<vere t 
 FojTcjieabim cwculeare t Inhvban introducere : but, in other mood?, 
 fome of the prepoiitions may be put after it; and this is the cafe, 
 for inflance, with the prepoiitions up and ute. 
 
 Infinir. Proet. Jmperat. 
 
 Uppcanban ic uppcob, or 8ro& up Sranb up 
 
 Urprran ic u-j st, or ic Sat ute Bret ute, 
 
 For want of having altended to this rule, the Editors of Lye's 
 
 Dictionary
 
 [ 49 ] 
 
 utan, inftead of utany&an, utarcutan, utaj"tean, is as 
 bad as to write in Latin Pellere-ex 9 inftead of Ex- 
 pellere. 
 
 But I go farther : I doubt whether the Anglo- 
 Saxon verb Weoji^San be fufceptible of the com- 
 pound form you here give it, and I have two 
 reafons for my doubts; i. I am certain the Dutch 
 WORDEN is not; 2. .Both in this language and in 
 the Anglo-Saxon it anfwers to the Latin FIERI ; 
 to the French DEVENIR, and to the Englilh TO 
 BECOME, TO HAPPEN. It is joined to paffive parti- 
 cles to exprefs the paffive voice ; but fo as to re- 
 prefent, at leaft in the prefent and imperfeft, what is 
 or what was doing, and not what is, or was done. 
 feojij^aS bejieopfce op telcpe ape. Privabantur 
 omni dignitate. Bat; hi anpebe peop^San, ^ Go'Sej" 1 
 pijtz lupan. Vt Concordes Jlant & Dei juftitiam 
 ament. 
 
 Similar to peopban-utan, and Beon-utran, is 
 Anan-ab in your table : a verb not likely to make 
 
 Dictionary have thought themfelves authorifed to put the prepo- 
 fition laft in the infinitive mood of fuch verbs as they have found 
 occafionally feparated from it, when the mood will admit of that 
 arrangement, and have by that means made, as it were, a feparate 
 order of verbs of them. So in the prepofition ur, they put 
 abjiipan ut, purvpan ur, opj~lean ur, an arrangement which caufcs 
 one and the fame verb, in more than one inftance, to appear twice, 
 i. e. once in the article of the prepofition, and again in that of 
 the verb itfelf ; which is the cafe, for inftance, in the verbs ura- 
 fcrupan and urlaetan. However, when they allow themfelves that 
 liberty, they keep the verb and prepofition feparate. The fancy 
 of joining them together, fo that the prepofition comes laft, and 
 makes, notwithftanding, a compound with the verb, is entirely 
 th Author's. 
 
 E its
 
 C 5 3 
 
 its way in the world, as it confifts of fuch heteroge- 
 neous parts as never were put together, and labours 
 under many more unfavourable circumflances. The 
 conjunction AND is, you fay, the imperative of Anan- 
 a&, and confequently its literal meaning is, Da con- 
 geriem. I wifh to tranflate Da congeriejn into Eng- 
 lifh, or French, or Dutch ; but whether from flow- 
 nefs of apprehenfion, or from a real impoffibility, 
 in none of thefe languages can I find an expreffion 
 adequate to the purpofe. And how Da congeriem 
 can ever be accoutred with the wings of Mercury, 
 ib as to pafs currently for one of your wet* tzn^o'snot, 
 cr winged words , is to me incomprehenfible. Leaving 
 you, therefore, to manage that bufinefs, I (hall only 
 obferve, that, in my opinion, AND is the imperative 
 of the Dano-Saxon, or rather Franco-theotifc verb, 
 Andan Spirare, from Anda Spiritus ; and means fimply 
 Draw your breath ; that is, Stop, faufe a, moment, Sir. 
 And mould you afk, from whence I have my intelli- 
 gence concerning the verb Ant>an, my anfwer will 
 be, from the fame quarter which furniflied you with 
 Anan-a&, dare congeriem *. I now proceed to 
 
 EKE, where I ihall have occafion to notice another 
 kind uf miftake, into which you are very apt to fall. 
 
 * The faft is, that we know very little of the origin of ANI> : 
 it lies moft likely buried in ihe ruins of forne ancient language, of 
 , which we do not know fo much as the name. The learned Hickes 
 lays, that " AND, in the Franco -theothifc, Ande t Endi, Inte, Int y 
 '* Unde, Ufiff, is a prepofuion among the Goths, anfwering to the 
 " Latin /, Coram, Conira, Afoerfis : and that fo it comes to be a 
 " prefix to Ib many nouns and verbs in the Anglo-Saxon to make 
 '< with them a compound." Gram. Anglo-Sax. Cap. xiv. . 37. 
 This is the whole that can be faid with any certainly of AND. 
 
 You
 
 C 51 ] 
 
 You obferve, that the conjunction in Dutch is OOK, 
 from the verb OOKEN ; and in German AUCH, from 
 the verb AUCH EN. I have converfed frequently in 
 Dutch I have read many Dutch authors but neither 
 in books nor converfation do I remember ever to 
 have met with this verb OOKEN; nor is it to be 
 found either in Sewel's or Halma's Dictionary. 
 With regard to the German AUCHEN, all I can fay 
 is, that it is not to be found in the Dictionaries I 
 have confulted, among which is Adeling's Wb'rter- 
 buch, allowed to be the bed of all. You have here, 
 however, the authority of Junius, who puts down 
 thefe verbs as being the origin, the one of Auch, the 
 other of Ook ; but, I have your's to fay, that he was 
 fometimes very carelefs and ignorant ; and to add the 
 following moral reflexion, which I find ready cut and 
 dried in one of your pages : How eafily do men take 
 upon truft, how willingly are they fatisfad witn t and 
 bow confidently do they repeat after others, falfe expla- 
 nations of what they do not under ft and! 
 
 I fee we have not done yet with the imperative of 
 the verb Alepin. ELSE ; formerly written ALLES, 
 ALYS, ALYSE, ELLES, ELLUS, ELLIS, ELLS, ELS 
 and now ELSE, is no other, in your opinion, than 
 the imperative Ales or Alys, of Alefan or Aljjan di- 
 mittere. As my tafte for the Anglo-Saxon has never 
 induced me to attend to the various fpellings of one 
 and the fame word in the language, I fhould think 
 my felf ridiculous were I to contradid you with regard 
 to the various ways of writing the word ELSE. I 
 fhail only remark, that had your quotations (by which 
 you mean, I fuppofe, to prove the truth cf what you 
 E 2 advance)
 
 advance) been in favour of tflys, or dlyfe, inftead of 
 Alles, they would have been more to the purpofe, as 
 the two former come nearer to ,the imperative in 
 queftion than the latter. 
 
 This miftake, however, can make no great differ- 
 ence with regard to the fum total of the credit you 
 are likely to gain by this new difcovery. It is evi- 
 dent, that all thefe different readings of the word 
 ELSE are refolvable into one and the fame found, 
 viz. that which is exprefled by ELLES. And as this 
 is the form in which the Anglo-Saxon word for ELSE 
 makes its appearance generally, I fhall take it for 
 granted that it is the original one, and with the more 
 confidence, as it has been given to it by Skinner, 
 Minmew, and Johnfon. Thefe authors agree in de- 
 riving it from the Greek csAAwg, or the Latin ALIAS : 
 perhaps they are miftaken in doing fo. There is, 
 indeed, as much reafon to fuppofe that the Greeks 
 and Latins borrowed the word fiom the Germans, as 
 that thefe borrowed it from them ; but that they had 
 it in common will hardly be contefted by thofe who 
 attend a moment to the fimilarity of the found and 
 the fenfe in each of thefe languages ; and confider, 
 at the fame time, the number of words, both jn the 
 Greek and the Latin, avowedly of German extraftion, 
 or at lead of the fame origin with their collaterals in 
 the German language. 
 
 You will fay that, notwithflanding what has been 
 allcdged, your hypothecs is iliil 'as good as that of 
 Skinner and Minfhew, as both are grounded on con- 
 jecture only. But I cannot allow the derivation of 
 ELSE from, or its alliance at lead with, the Greek 
 
 and
 
 [ 53 3 
 
 and Latin correfponding words to be a mere con- 
 je&ure, as it is fupported by facl. ML or EL, in. 
 the fenfe of aMws, or alias, is ftill extant in the 
 Anglo-Saxon language ; and there are traces of it 
 not lefs evident in the Dutch and Danifh. The firfl 
 part of this affertion is grounded on the following 
 words, TClcop, alias 7^1|?eob, or JEl-^eobij, alienus 
 peregrinus, to be found in any Anglo-Saxon Diti- 
 onary. The fecond in the Dutch word ELDERS, 
 and the Danifh ELLERS, fignifying, both of them, 
 'Elfewbere. In both EL feeras the radical word, and 
 ERS only a termination, perhaps that of the genitive 
 cafe, in order to exprefs a circumftance of time, 
 place, or manner. AL and EL may then be faid to 
 convey the fame idea as the Greek JAAo;?, and the 
 Latin Alias ; arid if To, why fhould we have recourfe 
 to the verb alepm to find their origin ? I have al- 
 ready obferved, that it is not fufceptible of the fig- 
 nification you have all along affixed to it as its pri- 
 mary one ; but let us fuppofe it to fignify to difmife, 
 and nothing befides ; we fhall find many phrafes in 
 which ELSE will hardly bear to be refolved into hoc 
 difmijjb ; wirnefs the following, Nothing Elfi, btr 
 E/fet what Elje, where Elfe. 
 
 That, THOUGH, in the Englifh, Beah, in the An- 
 glo Saxon, and DOCH, in the Dutch, are one and the 
 fame word, fignifying one and the fame thing ; and 
 that there is fuch a verb as Dapan, or Bapgan, in 
 the ancient language, is unqueftionable. But that 
 the firfl mentioned words are the imperative of the 
 verb Dapan, or Dapjan, is not quite fo clear. 
 THOUGH, indeed, is pronounced by fome THAF, 
 
 E 3 THAUF,
 
 [ 54 ] 
 
 THAUF, or THOF, and by others THO*. But if we 
 fuppofe (and it is very natural, and even necefiary, 
 to fuppofe it) that THOUGH had originally a guttural 
 found at the end (as it ftill has in the Dutch, and 
 probably in the Danifli), the above-mentioned pro- 
 nunciation may be accounted for from other circum- 
 flances befides that which you imagine. It is well 
 known, that in words which have gutturals, and are 
 common to the Englifli and Dutch language, that 
 found is either dropped in the Englifh, or changed 
 into that of F : thus, Nacht and Light are pro- 
 nounced Nite, Light ; and Genoeg, Kuch Sacbt, 
 Enoufy Couf t Soft, in Englifh. This true and fair re- 
 prefentation of the matter, if it do not abfolutely fu* 
 perfede your derivation of Though, renders it at lead 
 very uncertain. But I have fomething befides to 
 alledge againfl it. 
 
 The true Anglo Saxon word for THOUGH is Deah. 
 For what reafon this word is kept out of fight by 
 you, I do not know : it is certain, however, 'that if 
 it be an imperative, it is not that of the verb Dapan, 
 or Dapgan, which is Dip, or Dapj. You would 
 perfuade us, indeed, that this is the form THOUGH 
 ftill affumes in the provincial pronunciation of it ; 
 but we have feen what dependence can be had upon 
 this alTertion. As Deah cannot be called the impe- 
 rative of Dapian ; fo neither can Doch> in D.utch, 
 pafs for the imperative Dongen t or Gedoogen, in that 
 Janguap-e. As well might one fay, that FED in Eng- 
 
 O O O J * O 
 
 lifh is the imperative of Feed; P\.at of Rate; Bit of 
 Bite. Not to mention, that it is frequently added to 
 imperatives, to urge in a particular manner the thing 
 
 in
 
 [ 55 ] 
 
 in queftion. As, Laat toch, toe, Suffer me, or Per- 
 mit me, I befeech you. In which cafe, toch feparates 
 the verb from its affix, which it could not do, if it 
 were an imperative. 
 
 In your next article * you reprefent Bot and But 
 as having been originally, that is, in the Anglo- 
 Saxon, two words very different in origin, as well 
 as fignification. Would you be fo obliging, Sir, as 
 to let us know, in what Anglo-Saxon author one is 
 likely to fee this nice diftinftion obferved, fo as to be 
 convinced of its reality ? You quote, indeed, Chaucer 
 and Gawin Douglas ; and, left the quality fliould be 
 conteftcd, you endeavour to make it up in quantity, 
 having adduced no lefs than twenty paffages from the 
 latter, who, it fhould feem, favours your opinion, 
 and has given you a handle to palm it upon others. 
 But on what ground can he be called, I will not fay, 
 an original, but an Anglo-Saxon writer? I ap- 
 prehend, that neither he, nor Chaucer who lived an 
 hundred years before him, will pafs for one of the 
 number among thofe who -confider how much the 
 language had been vitiated at the time they Hvedj by 
 the importation of foreign words -\~. Skinner taxes 
 the lad-mentioned of the two to have imported whole 
 cart-loads of them; you will give me leave, there- 
 fore, to fufpend my judgement on this your obfer- 
 vatiori, till you can produce fome belter authority for 
 it. 
 
 I have my doubts alfo with regard to the origin 
 
 * P. 232. t Seejohnfon's Preface, Art. Chaucer. 
 
 E 4 you
 
 C i ] 
 
 you affign to Bof, fuppofing it to be a word really, 
 exifting in the language. 
 
 The imperative mood, indeed, has ever been a 
 great favourite with human nature, at lead fo far as it 
 has the difpofal of it. From the monarch to the mule- 
 driver ; from the burgomafter to the mafler of the 
 treckfchuyt ; or, if you do not like profane exam- 
 ples, from the dean to the verger, men are fond of 
 it ; and there is no doubt, but, as foon as they were 
 able to ufe moods in any way, this was the firil they 
 put in practice. No wonder, therefore, if fome who 
 are wilhing for reputation in the etymological career, 
 but apt to grafp at the laurel before it is within their 
 reach, ftiould, when they meet with words of an ob- 
 fcure and dubious caft, exclaim without hefitation, 
 " An Imperative ! An Imperative !" Aye, aye, men 
 had never any objection to imperatives for their own 
 ufe. 
 
 No wonder alfo, if you who have undertaken to 
 explain the mod difficult part of the language, fliould 
 indulge in the fame fancy, and call out upon every 
 occafion, " An Imperative ; no other than an Impe- 
 " rarive !" But what furprizes me, is the readinefs 
 with which you find at once both an infinitive to your 
 imperatives, and a fenfe to your infinitives, which 
 fuits to a hair the purpofe in queftion. 
 
 BUT, you fay, is corruptly put for EOT ; and the 
 laiter is the imperative of Botany i. e. to fuperadd^ to 
 fubjlitute, to atone for, to compensate with, to make 
 amends with, to addfomething more in order to make up 
 a deficiency in Something elfe*. And you add in a 
 
 * P. 244 and 250, 
 
 note,
 
 [ 57 ] 
 
 note, Jobnfon and others have miftaken the exprejfion, 
 TO BOOT, (which Jlill remains in our language) for a 
 fubftantive, which is indeed the infinitive of the fame 
 verb* of which the conjunction is the imperative ; as the 
 Dutch alfo Jlill retain BOETEN in their language with 
 the fame meaning. The compofure with which you 
 advance your paradoxes, is, indeed, admirable. 
 
 As I cannot boafl of having read all the Anglo- 
 Saxon books and manufcripts to be found on this our 
 hemifphere, it would be improper to tell you that I 
 never met the Anglo-Saxon verb BOTAN ufed in the 
 fenfe you are pleafed to give it, viz. TO SUPERADD, 
 TO SUBSTITUTE : I {hall only obferve, that it is not 
 to be found, at leaft not in the fenfe here in queftion, 
 in Somner's or Lye's Dictionaries, or Benfon's Trea- 
 fure ; and as you appeal to the verb BOETEN in Dutch, 
 and mention it as having the fame meaning which you 
 fuppofe BOTAN to have, 1 muft beg leave to add, that 
 the Dutch verb fignifies to make amends, to fatisfy, to 
 atone for , and never to fuperadd. Dr. Johnfon has alfo 
 ventured to give us his fentiments with regard to the 
 Anglo-Saxon verb Butan * ; snd, more cautious than 
 you are in general, he has confirmed it with proper 
 authority. The following are his words : BOTAN, 
 to repent^ to compenfate : as, 
 
 Ih is wit tl:at bit and bofe, 
 
 And bet biforcn dome. 
 
 If he be right (and there is great reafon to believe 
 he is) BOTAN in the Anglo-Saxon is exactly the fame 
 verb, in point of fignirication, as the Dutch BOETEN. 
 
 * See his Diiftionnry in the word TO BOOT. 
 
 To
 
 C 58 ] 
 
 To this laft verb is allied the noun BOETE, PE- 
 NANEE, PENALTY, FINE, fays Sewell ; and to the 
 Anglo-Saxon Box AN is allied EOT, recompenfe, fays 
 Johnfon very properly, or fine paid by way of expia- 
 tion. BOETE and BOT may very fafely, therefore, 
 be taken for the fame word. To BOTE in the Anglo- 
 Saxon is applied properly to what is paid or done by 
 way of making amends for an offence ; and thence, 
 in a fecondary fignification, to what is paid or done 
 in addition to the value offered or received between 
 two contra&ing parties: in which fenfe it anfwers to 
 the common expreffion in Englifh, into the bargain ; 
 and to the French, Par deffus le marcbe. And as 
 thefe expreffions may be extended, in both languages, 
 to whatever exceeds, either in fpeaking or afting, the 
 object firft in view ; fo the Anglo-Saxon TO 
 BOTE takes a greater or a lefs latitude of fignification, 
 as occafion requires. I fliall give, for example, a 
 paffage borrowed from Somner, and tranflated for 
 the purpofe into Englifli and French. 
 
 Ang. Sax. Opte he to bore halbe gecpebon -f 
 hie Sef pi^ef pigh re ne pohton. 
 
 Lat. S&pe infuper ei audafter dixerunt, fe vifforem 
 mbili facere. 
 
 Eng. They told him into the bargain, more than once, 
 and boldly ) that they regarded not the conqueror. 
 
 French. 1U lul dlrent par deffus le marche, & ccla 
 avec hardieffe f a differ entes reprifes qu'ils n'avoient 
 pour le vainjueur qiie du mepris. 
 
 I ufe here the words into the bargain, and par def- 
 fus le marcbe, not bccaufe I think them elegant ex- 
 preffions, but becaufc they arc the bed to render the 
 
 fenfe
 
 C 59 ] 
 
 enfe of the Anglo-Saxon word to bote ; and prove 
 evidently that words may, in a remote fignification, 
 convey an idea no ways conne&ed with the primary 
 fignification of the root from which they fpring. 
 
 If any one were to tell you that BARGAIN in Englifli, 
 MARCHE, in French, and INSUPER in the Latin, in 
 confequence of the meaning they here aflume, are all 
 defcended from verbs, the primary fignification of 
 which is to SUPERADD, or SUBSTITUTE, would you 
 not think this a ftrange way of reafoning? Now I 
 am defirous to know what ground you have to go 
 upon with regard to the fignification of the Anglo- 
 Saxon verb EOT AN. It can be no other than this: 
 To BOTE, if not the verb BUT AN itfelf, is nearly re- 
 lated to it. To BOTE, Anglo-Saxon, is the fame 
 word as TO BOOT in Englilh, and fignifies infuper ; 
 ergo, Butan fignifies to SUPER ADD, or SUBSTITUTE ! 
 Armed with fome fuch argument, it is pleafant to 
 hear you pafs the following fentence. Jobnfon and 
 others have mijlaken the expreffion TO BOOT for a fub- 
 jlantive, which is indeed the infinitive of the fame verb 
 of which the ctnjunElion is the imperative. Permit me 
 to fay, there is not the leaft ground for this ftri&ure. 
 BOOT is evidently the fame word with the Dutch 
 BOETE, and differs from it in the fpelling only. 
 BOETE, to my certain knowledge, is not a verb, 
 but a fubftantive. To BOTE, Anglo Saxon, more- 
 over, cannot be an infinitive ; becaufe no words com- 
 ing under that denomination are likely any more in 
 the Anglo-Saxon than in the Dutch to end in OTE, 
 or any termination exhibiting a confonant between 
 two Towels ; but it may be a fubilantive ; and that it 
 
 actually
 
 C 60 J 
 
 a&ually belongs "to this clafs is evident, from the in- 
 flexion it undergoes in confequence of the prepofition 
 being prefixed to it. This inflexion is the E at the 
 end of it, the invariable mark in the Anglo-Saxon 
 of an oblique cafe in nouns of that caft. All nouns 
 mafculine in that language, ending their nominative 
 with a confonant, take E in the dative or ablative : 
 GOD, CODE; ENGEL, ENGELE; GROUND, GROUNDE. 
 Da cpse'S Zacchapiap to J? am enjele, &c. Da anb- 
 pjiobe him f*e enjeL Ic eaom Dabniel ic fcanbe- 
 beponan Gobe *. 
 
 1 could quote more paffages to prove my aflertion ; 
 but as it is hardly poffible to add any without being 
 tirefome, I (hall be permitted, I fuppofe, to come to 
 thefol!owing inference. 
 
 There is great reafon to believe that Johnfon and 
 others have not miftaken the expreflion TO BOOT, 
 when they called it a fubftamive ; but that you were 
 egregioufly fo, when you made an infinitive of it. 
 
 I am now come to the word BUT, in the fenfe of 
 WITHOUT, or the Latin NISI. You give it as your 
 opinion, that it is a contraction of the Anglo-Saxon 
 Butre, or Butran, and anfwers to the Dutch BUYTEN ; 
 and thus far I perfectly agree with you : but when 
 you add BUTE, or BUT AN, is neither more nor lefs 
 than BE OUT, i. e. an imperative of the verb 
 beon, I beg leave to confider a moment. 
 Se that hinne felve uor<ret. 
 
 He fal comen on euele (lede 
 But Code him be milde. 
 
 * -See Specimen of Ancient Englifii in Juhnfcm's Preface. 
 
 He
 
 t <si 3 
 
 He who forgets himfelf fliall come to an evil fate, 
 Be out the Lord be merciful unto him. 
 There nis met bote frate 
 There nis halle bure no bench. 
 Bot water man is thurft to quench. 
 
 There is no meat, be out fruit ; no hall, no houfe, 
 no bench : nothing be out water for a man his thirft 
 to quench. 
 
 As an imperative implies a command, and this a 
 fubject to whom it is given, the perfon who fays, Be 
 cut fruity be out water, muft be fuppofed to give his 
 orders to fomebody. Now, unlefs we admit he is 
 here addrefling his own words, I confefs I cannot fee 
 the fubjeft to whom his fpeech is directed. We fay 
 indeed, Be it known, be it remembered ; but then, to 
 you, or by you, is underflood. We fay, If you come, 
 i. e. give you come ; but there again the fubjeci is vi- 
 fible -, however, let us not be too nice, we often hear 
 of a man eating his words : why (hould we not be- 
 lieve that a man can addrefs his words ? the one is 
 not more impoflible than the other. If there be any 
 real obje&ion againft your explanation of BUTE or 
 BUTAN, it muft be the following. 
 
 Numberlefs are the inftances in which Be is em- 
 ployed as a prefix ; and in others as a prepofition in 
 the fenfe of CIRCA juxta, per, in, fecundum, in the 
 Anglo-Saxon, Dutch, or Englifli. And unleis we 
 can affign a fignification to it, which will make it one 
 and the fame word, whatever be its appearance, it 
 matters not to name one which will fuit only in this 
 or that inftance. For you fay very properly, " I do 
 *' not allox that any words change their nature, fo as to 
 
 " below
 
 " belong fometlmes to one fart of fpeech, and fometimes 
 <e to another, from the different ways of ufing them." 
 "Whatever, therefore, be that in which the word in 
 queftion is ufed, it muft have one and the fame form 
 as well as meaning, when traced to its fource. But 
 if we look over the catalogue of words in an Englifh 
 or Dutch dictionary beginning with it, we (hall 
 hardly find one in twenty, nay, in an hundred, which 
 will bear the fuppofition that its firft component part 
 is neither more nor lefs than the imperative BE, from 
 the verb To BE. 
 
 The field of conje&ure is open to all ; and what- 
 ever riches are difcovered in it, they are the pro- 
 perty of the difcoverer, and he may reap the benefit 
 of them without fear of ever becoming an objeft of 
 cenfure or envy, provided he does not prefume to 
 circulate them as fieri ing. To indulge in fancies 
 where we have little or no ground to go upon, is a 
 harmlefs amufement j but to proffer the refult of our 
 fpeculations under thofe circumflances, as any thing 
 which can be depended upon, is prepofterous. 
 
 So many ages have elapfed fince the Anglo-Saxou 
 language firft began to be diftinguifhed from any 
 other, it continued for fo long a fpace of time to 
 float in the mouths of favages and unfettled people, 
 it underwent fo many changes from the mixture of 
 foreign idioms, that probably the rudiments from 
 which it fprang are for the moft part loft : and with- 
 out thefe, it is impoilible to trace the origin of every 
 word that occurs in the language. It is but now and 
 then we fee a ray breaking through the clouds which 
 
 o&fcure
 
 C 63 ] 
 
 obfcure this fcene ; but now and then we can make 
 an obfervaiion. 
 
 We fee enough, however, to fix our judgement 
 with regard to the true nature of prepolitions, con- 
 junctions, and particles in general : fome of them 
 have fo near a refemblance to words confidered as dif- 
 ferent from them, and (till remaining in the language, 
 that it is more than probable both belonged formerly 
 to one and the fame clafs. "AAA*;, for inftance, in 
 the Greek language, called a conjunction, can be no- 
 thing but the noun #AA#, t&pcx'ypccra, being under- 
 flood ERGO, in tfce Latin, the dative or ablative 
 cafe of the Greek noun spyov * ON, in the French, 
 the Italian noun huom, or uom -j~ NOT in Englifh, 
 and NIET in Dutch, compounds, the one of NE and 
 OUGHT, and the other of NE and IET : this laft word 
 having the fame fignification as OUGHT in Englifh. 
 
 I mention this explanation of the word NOT, be- 
 caufe it appears to be more natural and fatisfaftory 
 than that which you have given of it, p. 512, of your 
 Diverfions of Parley ; where, after fome (Injures on 
 Greenwood's, Minmew's, and Junius's derivation, you 
 exprefs yourfelf on this fubjed: in the following 
 manner : But ive need not be any further in%ui/itive t 
 
 * See Sanftii Minerva de Vocibus Homonymis. L. IV. 
 f II peccato per lo quale huom dice ch'io debbo, elTera moite 
 giudicato, io no'l commifi giammai. Bocace. 
 
 II fonno veramente e com' uom dice, 
 Paiente della morte. 
 
 Petrarquc. 
 
 nor.
 
 [ "4 ] 
 
 nor, I think, doubtful, about the origin and fignification 
 of NO r and ^o,Jtnce we find that in the Danijh NODIG, 
 and in the Swedijh NODIG, and in the Dutch NOODE, 
 NODE, and No, mean averfe, wwilling* 
 
 Nothing can equal the inadvertence, to fay no 
 more, which you betray upon this occafion. Had you 
 beftowed one fingle thought upon the fubjeft, you 
 would not have put down No as a Dutch word ; nor 
 would you have called NOODE or NODE an adjective 
 equivalent to NODIG in the Danifti, and NODIG in 
 the Swedilh, and having with them the fignification 
 of AVERSE, UNWILLING. 
 
 NOODE, in Dutch, is the dative or ablative cafe of 
 NOOD, neceffity ; and is an abbreviation of UYT 
 NOODE, through necej/ity. What is done through ne- 
 ceflity, may be faid to be done unwillingly and with 
 averfion. Thefe different expreffions, therefore, are 
 put down in the dictionaries as being equivalent, and 
 the following phrafe, Dat heb ick noode gedaan, may 
 be found there tranflated, 1 have done that unwillingly. 
 But does it follow that NOODE is an adje&ive fignify- 
 ing unwilling, averfe ? As well might a Dutchman 
 fay that NECESSITY, in Englifh, is a word of this 
 clafs, having that fignifieation, becaufe I have done it 
 through neccjfity ; is thus explained in his dklionary, 
 I have done it, unwilling, or averfe, lik heb het en- 
 gaarn gedaan. 
 
 From the fitnilarity of the found and fpclling, I 
 ihould fufpecl Nodig in the DanHh, and Nodig in 
 the Swedifli, to be the fame word with Nodig in 
 Dutch ; and, if fo, its proper and primary fignifica- 
 tion is NeceJJury, and not that which you are pleafed 
 
 to
 
 C 6 5 ].. 
 
 to aflign to it, Unwilling, Averfe. And from this, and 
 many other circumftances, I fufpeft, moreover, that 
 your knowledge of the Swedifh and Danifh is of the 
 fame kind with that you poflefs of the Dutch the 
 mere refult of fome occafional infpeftion into the 
 dictionary. Be that as it may, your derivation of 
 NOT is abfurd beyond meafure ; but, abfurd as it is, 
 you make it your finifhing ftroke. It is after this 
 fpecimen of your etymological powers, you tell your 
 reader, as if confcious of fomething, I do not know 
 what, / hope IJJiall be permitted to have done with ety- 
 mology ; and fo -you take your leave of him. 
 
 WITHOUT, nothing but the imperative o/pyjVS-ufran. 
 To many this derivation may appear plaufible ; but 
 not fo to thqfe who underftand any thing of the 
 Dutch or the German : they will tell you, that peop- 
 t>an will not coalefce with the prepofition UT or 
 UTAN, fo as to make a compound word with it, any 
 more than EX with FIERI in Latin ; OUT with become 
 inEnglifh; and hors with devenir in French ': they 
 will tell you, moreover, that very different are the 
 verbs BEON and WKORDAN ; . and that if, by faying 
 the one is incorporated into the other, you mean that 
 both have the fame fignification, you are utterly mif- 
 taken. But no more at prefent of WEORDAN-UTAN: 
 it ought never to make its appearance but to be 
 laughed at. 
 
 You accufe Hermes of having blinded philofophy ; 
 take care you do not commit a greater crime, pcffefled 
 as you are with the rage of fluffing the language 
 with words repugnant to its nature ; take care you 
 do not poifon the hallowed fprings at which the Eng- 
 li(h Mufe delights to drink : the limpid ftrcam may 
 
 F foon
 
 I 66 J 
 
 foon lofe its purity, if the courfe of it be altered. 
 You tell us, that thofe who have no coaches muft ride 
 in fledges : but in your way there is no riding at all, 
 not even upon a ftick ; and if the rude forefather of 
 the hamlet had no other way of communicating 
 thought than that you mention, he mud have felt 
 happy whenever he could keep his thoughts to him- 
 felf, as by that means he efcaped a hooting. 
 
 1. Afs be out a crupper. 
 
 2. Man join a nofe. 
 
 3. Figs come beginning Turkey. 
 
 This is the way in which he exprefied himfelf when, 
 in the firft inftance, he wifhed to fay, An afs without 
 a crupper ; in the fecond, A man 'with a nofe ; in the 
 third, Figs come from Turkey*. It is very well he is 
 gone ; had he lived to the prefent wicked age, he 
 muft have had a bad time of it. 
 
 * FROM,J>U fay, p. 374, means merely BEGINNING, and nothing 
 elft', ami immediately aft r you add, it is fimply the Anglo- Saxon or 
 Gothic word FaUM, beginning, origin, fource, fountain, author. 
 Ergo, fome will fay, it means ibmething more than beginning. But 
 I will not dwell upon this inference. There certainly is fuch a 
 word as Frum, Frim, or Fram, in the ancient language ; and among 
 the fignificaticns affixed to it by Lye, is that you mention; 
 but by the uncouth, unmeaning interpofition of it in Figt come 
 beginning Turkey, one would naturally imagine, that either the 
 primary fignifkatLn of it is loft, or that the exprefiion is elliptical, 
 and wants fome intermediate word or words to fill up the chafm. It 
 feems, indeed, a difficult matter to fay any thing rational concern- 
 ing the particular drift, rot only of this, but of many more words 
 without having recourfe to one of thefe fuppofitions. Frym and 
 from are very likely allied to Form, Forma. Primus, and it is not 
 improbable, that both are arrived from the word For, originally a 
 roun ; but what the original meaning of that word is cannot be 
 afceuained. 
 
 Junius,
 
 [ 67 ] 
 
 Junius, Skinner, Wallis, Johnfon, and Lowth, all 
 concur in deriving LEST (a conjunction) from LEAST 
 (adjective). You are very pofitive it is not derived 
 from it : " I will venture to affirm, fay you, that LEST, 
 "for LESED, is nothing elfe than the imperative of 
 " LESAN dimittere -, and, with the article THAT, either 
 " exprejfcd, or under flood, means no more than hoc 
 " dimiffb, or quo dimi/b." 
 
 And I alfo will venture to affirm fomething, which 
 is, that there is great realon to reject, on this occa- 
 fion, if not ycur hypothefis, at lead the confidence 
 with which it is delivered ; and if my afieruon prove 
 true, it will furnijh one caution more to learned critics^ 
 (I give your own words), not to innovate rafoly : 
 left, while they attempt to amend a language, as they 
 imagine, in one trifling refpetl, they mar it in another 
 of mere importance ; and, by their corrupt alterations 
 and, amendments, confirm errors, and make truth more 
 difficult to be discovered by thofe who come after them. 
 
 BETAAL * is a very common word among the 
 Dutch ; it is generally the firft one hears when one 
 lands any where in their country ; ind truly the Eng- 
 lifh are not much behind hand with them in the ufe 
 of its equivalent. For fince they obferved, that by 
 urging it frequently their neighbours grew fat and 
 lufty, and fufficiemly flrong to meddle with other 
 people's things without afking leave, they alfo be- 
 came fond of it; and the imperative LES, from the 
 verb LEZAN, was no more common among the Anglo- 
 Saxons, than the imperative mood of the verb to 
 PAY is among your modern Englifh : they ufe it even 
 
 * The imperative of BETAALEN-, to pay. 
 
 m
 
 C 68 ] 
 
 in contracts of mutual civility, infomuch, that when, 
 on the one fide, is to be given up a certain portion of 
 judgement and belief, and, on the other, certain good 
 reafons for it, they will not give you a pennyworth. 
 of the firft article, unlefs you pay them ten times 
 the value. 
 
 In the name of wonder, will you fay, what do yon 
 mean by this ftrange digreffion ? It is intended, Sir, 
 as a hint that your countrymen will not pin their 
 faith upon your aflertions, and pay you a compliment 
 into the bargain, unlefs you Ihew caufe why they 
 Ihould do fo. 
 
 On what ground does your etymology of the par- 
 ticle here in queftion reft, that you fhould be fo po- 
 fitive about it ? LEST for LESED, fay you, as BLEST 
 for BLESSED. This is the whole of what you tender 
 for our deference to your opinion ; and, fmall as the 
 coniideration is, it is made up of bad coin. 
 
 LESAN and BLESSIAN cannot, whatever you may 
 think of the matter, be coupled together, as belong- 
 ing to one and the fame order of verbs ; the one has 
 a fingle, the other a double confonant before the ter- 
 mination of the infinitive mood : that forms a long, 
 this a fliort fyllable in the participle paffive; and 
 confequently, though the latter will bear the con- 
 traction, ic does not follow that the former will bear 
 it likewife. And thus much for the bad coin with 
 which you attempt to put us off. 
 
 Chillingworth fays, no matter where, Ton make ufe 
 offuch indireft and crooked arts as thefe to blajl my re- 
 putation, and to pojfifs mem minds with difaffeftion to 
 my perfon, left peradventure they might, <witbfome in- 
 difference.
 
 [ 9 ] 
 
 difference, hear reafon from me. And the following is 
 the turn you give this pafiage, in order to {hew the 
 juftnefs and efficacy of hoc dlmffo. 
 
 " Ton make vfs of thefe arts." Why ? the reafon 
 follows, Lefed that y i. e. Hoc d'uniffb Men might hear 
 reafon from me 'Therefore you ufe thefe arts. 
 
 Would any one imagine this curious aphorifm to 
 be intended as an explanation of the particle LEST, 
 to (hew at once, and clearly, what its origin and 
 meaning are ? It will require fome quicknefs of ap- 
 prehenfion to make it out in any given time whatever. 
 But you are not the firft who has made things, dark 
 of themfelves, a little darker by endeavouring to ex- 
 plain them. 
 
 LEST, ufed as a conjunction, and attended by THAT, 
 means, as you imagine, neither more nor lefs than 
 That being difmlffed or dif charged, or laid a fide. To 
 give your explanation all the chance poffible, let us 
 not fland upon trifles ; 1st us choofe out of thefe three 
 expreffions that which is moft favourable to it, 
 namely, laid afide : by ufmg it inftead of LSI*, : '\ the 
 above-mentioned paflage, the whole will run as fol- 
 lows, Tou make ufe of thefe arts, LAID ASIDE THAT, 
 men might hear reafon from me. Now, though tnis 
 conveyance for thought does not run quite fo fi.ft as 
 Englifh conveyances do in general, yet, as it may 
 very well be compared to a dray-cart, dragged >n <;n 
 heavy, flabby, flat-footed horfe, we will not deny it 
 here the appellation of a conveyance for thought ; 
 we fhall only take notice of the direction in which it 
 moves. 
 
 I imagine, that when a man fays, Tou make ufe of 
 F 3 thefe
 
 C 7 j 
 
 thefe arts, left men might hear reafon from me, theis 
 expreffion implies an apprehenfion in him that fome 
 thing may happen, and at the fame time a flrong de- 
 fire to prevent ic. And I am the more inclined to 
 think fo, as the French ufe uponnhis occafion, De 
 peur que, De crainte que- 9 the Dutch, Uyt vreeze dat ; 
 and the Latins their emphatical NE * : expreffions 
 which all indicate clearly, that the above-mentioned 
 circumftances do actually take place upon this occa- 
 fion. But how can they be implied in this lame and 
 infipid phrafe, You make ufe of thefe arts, laid afide 
 that, men might hear reafon from me ? It barely de- 
 clares that fuch a thing may happen, and has no kind 
 of tendency to exprefs a fear that it may happen, or a 
 defire to prevent it: LEST THAT, confequently, muft 
 convey fomething more than the bare idea of quo or 
 hoc dimijjo : and your fledge, though we might put 
 up with the ilownefs of its motion, yet, as it moves 
 in a contrary dire&ion to that which is intended, muft 
 be laid afide in the prefent inftance. 
 
 Dr. Johnfon gives us, in his dictionary, the follow- 
 ing deduction of the word LEST. 
 
 LEST, conjunction from the adjeflive LEAST, that 
 not. On this deduction of the Doctor you make the 
 following remark : 'This is a curious one indeed^ and it 
 would puzzle as fugacious a rcafoncr as Dr. Johnfon 
 biwfelf, to fupply the middle Jtep to his conclufion % from 
 
 * They fay, indeed, Cave pules, Cave creJas ; but it is evident 
 that NE is unJerihxxl, and that even in this way of fpeaking there 
 is an ellipfis of Uf ; and that the phrafe at full length is Cave ut ne 
 creJas j fo Terence, Ulcijcar ut ne impune in nos t/fajeris ; and 
 Tuliy, Opera datw ut judtcia ne faa\ 
 
 I LEAST
 
 
 C 7i ] 
 
 LEAST (which akvays, however, means (bmethlng) to, 
 THAT NOT, which means NONE AT ALL. I beg leave 
 to make fome remarks in my turn. 
 
 1. If there be any thing curious in the prefent 
 cafe, it is your criticifm on Dr. Johnfon's explana- 
 tion, and your recommendation of hoc dimijjb, or quo 
 dimtffb, in the room of it. From what has been al- 
 ready alledged againft it, there is no great hope of 
 hoc dimiffb, or quo dlmijjo, ever making its way fo as 
 to get the ftart of any explanation whatever ; let us, 
 however, compare them together, by trying their re- 
 fpe&ive efficacy on the above-mentioned paflage. 
 
 Dr. Johnibn's explanation of it is, Tou make ufe 
 cf thefe arts, THAT men may NOT hear reafon from 
 me. 
 
 Your improvement upon Dr. Johnfon is, Tou 
 wake ufe of thefe arts. Why ? the reafon follows : 
 Lezcd that, i. e. Hoc dimijjb men may hear reafon 
 from me. 
 
 Is it not aftonifhing that a man fhould plume him- 
 felf on having fubftituted this drained and far-fetched 
 manner of fpeaking, for the eafy and natural expla- 
 nation which precedes ? But fay you, 
 
 2. LEAST always means fomething, and Johnfon em- 
 ploys it as a mere negative. Quirks and quibbles, 
 Sir, will not do in the fearch after truth. -When I 
 hear it affirmed of a man, that he has friends no 
 where, and leaft of all at court, I fhould be glad to 
 know how many friends 1 may rcafonably fuppofe 
 that man to have at court. Or, when I read in La- 
 tin, Minime gentium, res minima mira, fpeffaculum ;///- 
 
 F 4 mine
 
 C 7* ] 
 
 nime gratum ; or thus, Operam das ut nrinime mels ob~ 
 temperent confilils homines ; I (hould take it very kindly, 
 if you would let me know what that fomething is 
 which the word MINIME implies ; becaufe, when that 
 is done, it will be an eafy matter, not only to fettle 
 your difpute with Mr. Harris, about the manner of 
 fupplying the article in the Greek *, but, moreover, 
 to adjuft public matters fo, as that there lhall be no 
 more difcontented people, no more effufion of blood, 
 and difmemberment of the empire. 
 
 3. LEST, in the fenfe of THAT NOT, or the NE em- 
 phaticum of the Latin, is generally written in the 
 ancient language thus, L^EST ; and what is more to 
 the purpofe, it is there preceded by the article THE 
 or THY. papnobe he hme *6 \<e.\ hi on hpyle to 
 him ineoban. " Caverat ne in aliquam domum ad 
 " fe introirent ~j~." ]?;et: hy $ polcpmt: artehton j?y 
 lasf* EEIIIJ man cpe^e. That they common right 
 fliould declare : D \&\ pe fpelcon, Ne moriamur . 
 And as Isr is ufed alfo in the Anglo-Saxon for the 
 comparative of lyrel, parvus, it is evident that ^ lasf 
 anfwers to the modern THE, or THAT LESS. ^ laerfc 
 
 tO THAT LEAST, fupple, OF ALL THINGS; and if fo, 
 
 it will require no great effort of genius to find out 
 the middle flep from LEST to THAT NOT ; and you 
 will do well to look for it yourfelf, as it will furniih 
 you with an eafy and natural explanation of the word 
 
 * See Diverfions of Purley, p. too. 
 f Bed. Hift. Ecclef. Lib. I. cap. 21. 
 % Alfred's Will, p. 12. 
 Exod. xx. 19. 
 
 LEST,
 
 C 73 ] 
 
 LEST, and put you, perhaps, upon acknowledging, is 
 I think yon ought to do, that, in this, as well as 
 ia many other inftances, you have beea too precipi- 
 tate in condemning Johnfon. 
 
 I have now gone over the greater part of your 
 feventh chapter ; and from the remarks I have made, 
 there arifes a ftrong prefumption, that, if a few of 
 your etymologies can bear examination, mod of 
 them cannot; being grounded on words, either not 
 in the language, or not connected with thofe of 
 which they are fuppofed to be the origin. And 
 having proceeded thus far, it will perhaps be ex- 
 pe&ed that I ftiould go on, and extend my remarks 
 to the remaining part of your work ; but the excep- 
 tionable places being lefs numerous there than in the 
 preceding chapters, and moftly of the kind already 
 noticed ; fo that in animadverting on them at large, 
 it would hardly be pcfTible to avoid repetitions ; I 
 (hall content myfelf with a few general obfervations, 
 and then conclude. 
 
 Notwithstanding the unfavourable impreffions I 
 received from your manner of tracing the conjunc- 
 tions to their origin, that is, to the primitive word 
 in the language from which they fpring ; I mud do 
 you the juftice to fay, that I have read with pleafure, 
 and even with fome advantage, your ninth and tenth 
 chapters, which treat of prcpofitions and adverbs. 
 The light in which you place thefe parts of fpeech is 
 new, and well calculated to turn the attention of the 
 fludious in general from idle and endlds fubdeties, 
 
 to
 
 C 74 ] 
 
 to the contemplation of truth, and acquifition of real 
 .knowledge. Your dedu&ions here are> upon the 
 whole, the reverie of what they were before ; for, 
 except fuch as reft upon fuppofed imperatives, they 
 are in general plaufible, and many of them unex- 
 ceptionable. In fhortj I think this the beft part of 
 the work. I am more particularly pleafed with the 
 following reflexion * : The explanation and etymology 
 of theft words require a degree of knowledge in all the 
 ancient languages, and a degree of /kill in the applica- 
 tion of that knowledge^ which 1 am very far from af- 
 fuming. After a femence fo full of modefty and dif- 
 cretion, fo much to your honour, one is grieved to 
 fee you meddle with the benedcnfle lip, en enderjle lip, 
 and with Spic-fpan, and Spik-fpeldsr. O fie upon 
 Spit-fpan and Spik-fyelder -f-. 
 
 As you feem to aim at fome fignal diftinftion in 
 the etymological career, let me prevail upon you not 
 to be too free with the Dutch. I know that any one 
 
 * P. 491. 
 
 f In Dutch they fay, Spllt-fpcUer /Vir, and Ftyhr, means a 
 warehoufe, or a magazine; /.//, or Spel, means a fpindle ; Scbiet) 
 Spoel, the weaver's ftiuttle ; and Spotlder, the (hurtle thrower. In 
 Dutch, therefore, SpikfpcMcr view means new from the waiehoufe, 
 or the loom, Div. of Par), p. $e8. 
 
 N. B. J, Two points over a fmgie vowel not in ufe with regard 
 to Dutch words. 2. Spyker means here a nail. 3. Spel tor Spil, 
 not in the Dutch language. 4. S/w/dcr, ditto. 5. SptMcr, here 
 an oblique cafe of fyettci a pin J. 6. SpoeMer, in the premifles, a 
 fhuttle-throwcr ; in the conclufion, a Icorn. Sum total of the faults 
 in this article, Six. 
 
 See Halma, in Spclde. 
 
 is
 
 [ 75 3 
 
 is at liberty to mangle and torture it ; but there arc 
 a thoufand reafons why you fhould not. For, not to 
 mention that a man may be poflefled of an uncommon 
 fhare of merit, both as a fcholar and a gentleman, 
 without knowing a word of it ; this, like other lan- 
 guages, has its true and falfe currency ; and 
 though the miftaking and tendering the one for the 
 other is deemed but * flight offence in Come ; with 
 regard to dealers in etymologies, it is reckoned a 
 capital one. And as the field of glory lies open to 
 you in fo many places, why fhould you attempt to 
 enter it at one fo dangerous ? 
 
 Let me add another piece of advice, which you 
 feem to be much in want of : when you are about 
 fome new difcovery, take care not to dwell too long 
 upon one and the fame thing. It is well known, 
 that by the continual preffure of the fame idea upon 
 the mind, its operations are gready impeded. I re- 
 member to have read fomewbere of a Greek pro- 
 felfor, who, having made it out, as he thought, that 
 the Greek language is the fource of all the reft; at 
 every word he met with, whether in the German 
 or French, Latin or Hebrew, would call out Vox 
 GR;ECA ! and be as pofitive about it, in cafe of any 
 demur, as brother Peter about his brown loaf. 
 Though this cafe is by no means fimiliar to yours, 
 it puts one neverthelefs in mind of your imperatives. 
 
 If ytm muft put our gravity to the proof, by tell- 
 ing us that, Man join nofe* j Afi be out crupper ; figs 
 
 * *. 348. 
 
 beginning
 
 C 76 ] 
 
 /beginning Turkey, and the like, are the true prototypes 
 of a man with a nofe ; an afs without a crupper ; fgs 
 from Turkey *, &c. Well and good. We are ready 
 to pay you the attention which is your due as a man 
 of learning and genius. But be not too pofitive ; 
 and remember, that if, in delivering ihefe fentiments, 
 we perceive the leaft attempt, or even defire, to pafs 
 them upon us as articles of faith, we fhall think 
 ourfelves at liberty to relax in our attention, and 
 turn into a jeft what cannot be converted to any 
 other ufe. 
 
 You make WITH, prepofuion as it is called, the 
 
 imperative of WITH AN, yicpAN f, to join. There is 
 
 fuch a verb in the ancient language, and from its 
 
 fignification, conjugare, copulare, it feems to bear fome 
 
 affinity to the verb WED in Englifh, and pebian in 
 
 the Anglo-Saxon. And thus far circumflances feera 
 
 to favour your derivation of WITH from WITHAN, to 
 
 join ; but others ftrongly militate againtt it. i. It is 
 
 hardly poffible to determine which is the root, fup- 
 
 poling there is a real affinity betwixt WITH and 
 
 WITHAN. 2. WITH often occurs in a fenfe which 
 
 does by no means accord with conjugare & copulare ; 
 
 as for inftance, in the Englifh, to WITHHOLD ; the 
 
 Dutch, weederfpreeken ; the German, widerjlehen ; 
 
 and in many other words, it has the fignification 
 
 of the Latin particles CORAM, or ITERUM. But 
 
 the moft ugly circumftance of all, in the prefent cafe, 
 
 * P. 185. p. 375 . fP-376. 
 
 is
 
 C'77 3 
 
 is your having fomewhere elfe derived * the prepo- 
 fition WITH from the foi-difant Anglo-Saxon pyjr&u- 
 tan. I very much fear that this will bring to the 
 ground your conjecture about WITH from withan, to 
 join, and that man join nofe mud be given up as a 
 loft caufe ; unlefs indeed you can prove, as you at- 
 tempt to do, that there is a fallacy in that prepofition 
 which few people are aware of; that, Proteus-like, 
 it is fometimes one thing, and fometimes another ; 
 that in the following phrafes, WITH mifebante, WITH 
 9nifadventure t it means be, and is the imperative of 
 pyjibon i whereas in thefe, WITH evil prefe, WITH 
 harde grace, it means JOIN, and comes from WITHAN, 
 to join -f-. But this is a hard tafk indeed ! 
 
 Truth, as you fay, has been improperly imagined 
 at the bottom of a well : it lies much nearer the fur- 
 face. Had Mr. Harris and others, inftead of diving 
 deeper than they had occafion, into Ariftotelian myf- 
 teries, contented themfelves with obferving plain 
 fa&s ; they would foon have perceived, that prepo- 
 fitions and conjunHons were nothing more than nouns 
 and verbs in difguife ; and the chapter of the diftri- 
 bution and divifion of language would have been fet- 
 tled and compleat long ago, to the contentment and 
 joy of every body ; whereas, in the way they pro- 
 
 * Mr. Tyrwhitt has obferved truly, that BY and WITH are often 
 fynonymous ; they are always fo when WITH is the imf>eratiTe of 
 ^yriban ...... But Mr. Tyrwhitt is iniftaken when he fuppofes 
 
 WITH evil frefe, WITH bard grate ^ WITH fory grace to have the 
 fame meaning: for, in thofe three inilances, WITH is the impe- 
 rative of pltpAN. Div. of Purl. p. .349. in a note. 
 
 t P. 349- 
 
 ceeded,
 
 C 7 3 
 
 ceeded, their labour was immenfe, and the benefit 
 equal to nothing. 
 
 Happy thofe, who, in their endeavours to explain 
 fcience, are allowed to look behind the veil which 
 conceals her from the common eye. Whatever be 
 the objeft of their purfuit, if they are but allowed 
 to contemplate it in its true light, and give fuch in- 
 formation about it as has not been given yet ; they 
 think them/elves fufficiently rewarded, and perfevere 
 \vith joy in application. 
 
 To many the ftudy of particles may feem unplea- 
 fant and unprofitable ; but it is neither. The hap- 
 pinefs which is felt by the Philofopher, and that en- 
 joyed by the Grammarian, are nearly on a par, pro- 
 vided both originate in the difcovery of truth. As 
 to the utility of it, though trifling in itfelf, it leads to 
 things of the utmofh confequence ; and the mod dig- 
 nified of all fciences, Theology, often deigns to con- 
 fult her humble hand-maid, the fcience of panicles, 
 the better to fteer her way through the many diffi- 
 culties which furround her *. 
 
 Profeflbr Schultens was the firft philologiil who 
 fufpefted prepofitionsj conjunctions, particles in ge- 
 neral to be no more than nouns or verbs, and re- 
 fufed therefore to make feparate claffes of them, 
 among thofe that comprehend the parts of fpeech. 
 
 * Ac ne ipfa quulem, opinor omnium difciplinarum regina, 
 theologia ducet indignum admoveri fibi manus ac debitum exbiberi 
 officium a pedifequa grammatica : quas tametfi nonnullis eft pofie- 
 rior dignitate, nullius certe opera magis necefl'aria. In minimta 
 verfatur, fed fine quibus nemo evafit maxiinus. Nugas agit, fed 
 quae ad feria ducunt. Jiiaiiiius Epift. Lib. IV. Ep. 7. 
 
 But
 
 [ 79 ] 
 
 But he confined himfelf in the application of this 
 truth to the learned languages. You are the firft 
 who applied it to thofe which are called modern- 
 It? would be wrong not to acknowledge, that in this 
 you have rendered the literary world an important 
 fervice. For though you have not been allowed to 
 proceed far in this career without frequent miilakes, 
 yet your progrefs through it has been fufHciendy 
 marked with fuccefs to put others upon making fome 
 further difcoveries. That this may be the final re- 
 fult of your lucubrations, and that you may live to 
 fee your fyflem receive all the improvements of 
 which it is fufceptible, is the fmcere wi(h of 
 
 Your mod obedient fervant, 
 
 I. CASSANDER.
 

 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which It was borrowed. 
 
 NON-RENEWABLE 
 
 JUN 16199R 
 
 ^iu/ M14 
 DDE 2 WKS FROM lAIf RECEIVED 
 
 orm L9-
 
 3 1158 00456 8373 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FAC LITY 
 
 A A 000024154 7 
 
 From 
 
 -UCUA Reference Department 
 ^
 
 si