UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 AT LOS ANGELES
 
 OF THE 
 
 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 
 
 t 
 
 O F 
 
 LANGUAGE* 
 
 verba,) quibus voces fenfufque notareni t 
 
 Nominaque invenere: 
 
 Ho Ri 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
 TO WHICH ARE ANNEXED, 
 
 tHREE DISSERTATIONS, 
 
 1 . Of the Formation of the Greek Language, 
 
 2. Of the Sound of the Greek Language. 
 
 3. Of the Compoiitiori of the Antients ; and 
 
 particularly of that of Demoflhenes. 
 
 rrinted for J. BALFOUE, Edinburgh. 
 
 And T. CADELL, in the Strand, London* 
 
 M D C C L X X I V, 
 
 * f* ? ( s i 
 
 i) b :i ?) b
 
 The CONTENTS. 
 
 PART II. 
 Of the Art of Language. 
 
 Pag. 
 fntroduftion, i 
 
 BOOK I. 
 
 Of the Analyfis of the Formal Pare of 
 Language. 
 
 Ch. 
 
 j. That there mujl have been, in the pro- 
 
 grefs of language , t f wo kinds of it ; 
 the one rude and barbarous , the o- 
 ther fucceeding to it a language of 
 art. 27? requifites of a language 
 of art 5 $ 
 
 2. The
 
 iv. The CONTENTS. 
 
 Ch. _ Pag. 
 
 2. The 'works of art prior to the art iff elf. 
 
 The analytic method followed in 
 this inquiry. The formal part of 
 language to be firjl analyfed. Both 
 the form and matter mujl have been 
 analyfed before the 'writing-art was 
 invented. The nature of that difco- 
 
 very) I & 
 
 3. General plan of this fecond part of the 
 
 r work. Analyfis of the formal part 
 of language into 'words. Divi/ion 
 of 'words into f*wo kinds , nouns and 
 'verbs. Subdivi/ion of 'verbs into 
 words exprej/tng the accidents offub- 
 Jlanccs, and thofe exprejjing the af- 
 fections of the mind, 26 
 
 4. Of the noun, and its threefold dwifton ; 
 
 and the fubdivifion of the laji kind of 
 it, 36 
 
 5 Of pronouns. The necejfity of invent- 
 ing them. The nature and different 
 kinds of them, 43 
 
 6. Of the article, and the various ufes of 
 
 *t, 53 
 
 7. Of the ufe of the article in French and 
 
 75
 
 The C O N T E N T S. * 
 
 Gh. Pag. 
 
 8. Of the genders and numbers of 'nouns , 86 
 
 9. Of the cafes ofnoUns, - 91 
 i o. Of the 'verb commonly fo called. ^ Its 
 
 nature, and the things exprejjed by 
 it, H7 
 
 n.Oftenfes, 125 
 
 12. Continuation of the famt fnbjecJ. 
 Authorities in fupport of the doc- 
 trine of the tenfes laid doivn in the 
 preceding chapter. Dr Clarke's 
 fyjiem upon this fubjefl examined, 149 
 i-3'Qf the modes, perfons, numbers, and 
 voices of verbs.- Enumeration of 
 the federal things exprejjed by the 
 verb, - 161 
 
 14. Of participles, adjtflives, prepofttions, 
 
 conjunctions and interj eel ions, i n\ 
 
 15. Diviflon of t words into primitive and 
 
 deri e uati c ue.-^-Defeft of our mo- 
 dern languages in point of etymology. 
 Excellency of the Greek in that 
 point \- The whole Greek language 
 derived from Jive combinations of 
 wwels in duads, - 182 
 
 ,1 6. Whether 'words are by nature fignifi- 
 cant, or only by inftitutlon. The 
 Voi>. II. b arguments
 
 The C O N T E N T S. 
 
 Pag. 
 
 arguments Jlated upon both fides. 
 Conclufion, That the primitive 
 words of a language have not any 
 natural refemblance to the things 
 exprejfed by them, but in perfect 
 languages *were framed 'with a 
 view to derivation and inflection 1 94 
 
 BOOK II. 
 
 Analyfis of the Material Part of Lan- 
 guage. 
 
 Pag. 
 
 Introduction, - * 222 
 
 Ch. 
 
 1. Divifion of the analyfis of the found of 
 
 language into three heads, articu- 
 lation, accent, and quantity, 226 
 
 2. The analyfis of articulate founds into 
 
 letters. Where and when this 
 difcovery probably 'was made. 
 The nature of letters, and the fe* 
 ueral kinds of ihem, Perfection 
 
 f
 
 The CONTENT S. vii 
 
 Ch. Pag. 
 
 of the Greek alphabet. Defeats of 
 theEngli/h, 228 
 
 3. Of alphabetical characters. That 
 
 they came originally from Egypt. 
 
 The additions made to them by 
 the Greeks no improvement. - DC-? 
 
 feels of the Roman and Englijh al- 
 phabet , - - 242 
 
 4. Of the antient accents. That they 
 
 were real notes of mufic, diftinl 
 from the quantity of the fyllable, 
 What accent in Englifh is, 269 
 
 5. Of rhythm in general, and the divi- 
 
 fwn of it into the rhythm of mo- 
 tion 'without found, and the rhythm 
 of found. Subdivi/ion of the rhythm 
 of found into five different fpeciefes. 
 
 Of that fpecies of it 'which is 
 called quantity or metre. VerJ'e 
 in Englijh not made by quantity, but 
 
 by 'what < we call accent, 301 
 
 6. Continuation of the fubjeft of quantity. 
 
 The Greek and Latin <verfe not 
 read by us according to quantity, 
 but in the manner ive accent our 
 c'wnverfe, 329 
 
 b2 BOOK
 
 viii The CONTENTS, 
 
 BOOK lit 
 
 Of the Cpmpofition of Language. 
 
 Introduction, 337 
 
 Ch. 
 
 1. Of fyntax in general, and the three 
 
 different kinds of it. The diffe- 
 rence bet'wixt languages, barbarous 
 and civilized, ant lent and modern, 
 with refpefl to the ufe of tkefe 
 three kinds of fyntax, 338 
 
 2. The difference bet'wixt the arrange- 
 
 ment of 'words in antient and mo- 
 dern languages confide, red. The 
 moji natural order of arrangement, 
 whether the antient or the modern. 
 The advantages of the antient 
 arrangement in conveying the fenfe 
 of the fpeaker, 344 
 
 3. Objection to the ant lent composition 
 
 anfwered, and fhe'wn to be an ad- 
 vantage to that compofition. f h 
 
 illuflrated
 
 M 
 
 Pag. 
 
 illujlrated by examples. *-The pre~ 
 fent fafhionable compofition altoge- 
 ther different from the antient^ 353 
 
 4. Of the compofition of ' Demojlhenes, 363 
 
 5. Of the compofition of the material part 
 
 of language. And y Jirft ^ of the 
 compofition of articulate founds. 
 The Jirft kind of that compofition 
 is of letters into fy liable s.- What 
 letters will compound 'with ivhat. 
 
 The influence this compofition has 
 upon the found of language, 366 
 
 6. Of the compofition of fy liable s into 
 
 words ', and ofivords into fent ences. 
 
 The fmoothnefs or roughnefs of 
 a language depends upon fuch com- 
 pofition. Deficiency of modern lan- 
 guages , and great excelkncy of the 
 Greek in that particular, - 373 
 
 7. Of the compofition of accents in the an- 
 
 tient languages. The variety of 
 that compofition in Greek. Not fo 
 great in Latin. -The effect of it 
 upon theftyle, - 379 
 
 8. Of the compofition of accents in Eng- 
 
 and of EngUJh verfe, 383 
 
 9. Con-
 
 x The C O N T E N T S. 
 
 Ch. Pag, 
 
 9. .Continuation of the fame fubjecl, 
 The Latin <uerfe, as ive read it, 
 not much different from the Engliftj. 
 - The greater fweetnefs of the 
 Latin verfe, when fo read, owing 
 to the language, and not to the 
 verjijication, 40 1 
 
 I o. Of the composition of quantity ', and of 
 the numbers both of the antient 
 <verfe and profe, - 407 
 
 1 1 . The conclufwn of the fubjecl. 77?^ 
 
 great excellency of the Greek lan- 
 guage, compared 'with the modern 
 languages of Europe, 420 
 
 12. Of the Chinejc language. The mojl 
 
 extraordinary language in the 
 world. Very imperfecJ, and the 
 reafon r why it has continued fo long 
 in that ft ate. Probably came from 
 Egypt through India, 426 
 
 13. Of the philofophical language invent- 
 
 ed by Bifhop Wilkins, 440 
 
 14. That a language of art muft have 
 
 been the work of men of art, and 
 formed upon a regular plan. The 
 fame art necejjary to preferve lan- 
 guage
 
 The C O N T E N T S. xi 
 
 Ch. Pag. 
 
 guage that is required to form it. 
 
 The t want of fuch art the caufe 
 of the corruption of all languages. 
 
 The danger of the Englifh be- 
 ing fo corrupted. Irregularities 
 and imperfeclions of the Latin, 483 
 
 15. Conclufion of the fecond part y 507 
 
 Three DiiTertations. 
 
 DifT. Pag. 
 
 1. Of the formation of the Greek lan- 
 
 guage, 513 
 
 2. Of the found of the Greek language , 543 
 
 3. Of the compofition of the ant lent s ; 
 
 and particularly of that of Demo- 
 Jlhenes, - - 555
 
 O F 
 
 LANGUAGE. 
 
 PART II. 
 Of the ART of LANGUAGE. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 LL the fubjecls of human know- Intr. 
 ledge, how many and various 
 foever, are either the works of 
 nature, and the great author of 
 nature himfelf, fo far as he can be com- 
 prehended by our faculties, or the works 
 of art. The author of nature is undoubt- 
 edly the higheft fubject of the contempla- 
 VOL. II. A tion
 
 a THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Intr. tion of the human mind ; and the works of 
 nature are likewife far more noble and ex- 
 cellent than the works of art, being the 
 production of divine wifdom ; whereas 
 the other are produced by human intelli- 
 gence, working in imitation of divine wif- 
 dom, and upon that model forming a kind 
 of new creation : for not only are the ma- 
 terials of this creation furnimed by nature, 
 but every idea which we have of order, 
 regularity, beauty, and fymmetry of delign, 
 are all taken from the great archetype of 
 divine creation. In this way does man 
 form a little world of his own, of which 
 he is the fovereign, and which may be 
 called the world of Art, in contradiflinc- 
 tion to the great world of Nature. This 
 creative power we have by degrees extend- 
 ed to every fubjecl of nature within our 
 reach ; but we have chiefly exercifed it 
 upon ourfelves, being the fubjecl of all o- 
 thers the moil in our power, and which 
 we have, from nature, the capacity of 
 moulding and fafhioning to our own con- 
 ceit, more than any other animal has 
 that we have yet difcovered. The greateft 
 work of art therefore is man himfelf, as we 
 fee him ; for we have made ourfelves, as 
 
 I
 
 PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 3 
 
 1 have endeavoured to fhew, both a Intr, 
 rational and political animal ; and alfb v -'" v "' > - ; 
 have acquired that great inftrument of 
 the rational and political life, the facul- 
 ty of fpeech. The fubject of this art is 
 both the body and mind of man. The 
 firft furnilhes what I call the material part 
 of language ; for of the breath, modified 
 by the organs of the mouth, is produced 
 articulation ; and the mind furniilies the 
 ideas, which make the form of language. 
 
 We have, in the preceding part of this 
 work, endeavoured to fhew how men be- 
 came firft pofTefTed of this faculty of fpeech, 
 which, for being common, is not the lefs 
 wonderful in the eyes of the philofophen 
 We have alfo fhewn, not only from theory, 
 but from fact, how imperfect this firft lan- 
 guage muft have been, both in found and ex- 
 preflion. We are now to explain how, from 
 thofe rude eflays, which may be called ra- 
 ther attempts towards fpeaking than fpeech^ 
 an art of language was at laft formed. And 
 what I chiefly propofe, in this part of the 
 work, is to fhew wherein this art confifts, 
 and how great the difficulty muft have been, 
 even from the rude materials furnifhed by 
 the firft favages who articulated, to form 
 A 2 -a
 
 4 THE ORIGIN, &c. Part II. 
 
 Intr. a regular fyftem of a language. This is a 
 "^ view in which language has not hitherto, 
 fo far as I know, been considered ; and I 
 hope it will ferve the purpofe of vindica- 
 ting from obfcurity a learned profeflion, 
 held in high efleem among the antients, 
 but which, in modern times, has become 
 almoft a name of contempt, I mean the 
 profeflion of the grammarian. For I think 
 I mall be able to mew, that it is a matter 
 of great difficulty to explain well the prin- 
 ciples of this mod wonderful art, even 
 after it is invented ; and as the gramma- 
 rian profefles to teach us the practice of 
 an art which diftinguiflies us chiefly from 
 the brute creation, and not the practice 
 only, which children have, and the moft 
 illiterate of the vulgar, and even fome 
 brutes in a certain degree, but likewife 
 the fcience, fo that we may fpeak as be- 
 comes rational creatures, it ought to be ac- 
 counted an art of no lefs dignity, than 
 ufe. 
 
 BOOK
 
 BOOK T. 
 
 Of the Analyfis of the FORMAL PART of 
 LANGUAGE. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 That there muft have been, in the progrefs of 
 language, two kinds of it ; the one rude 
 and barbarous , the other fucceeding to it 
 a language of art. The requijites of a 
 language of art. 
 
 THAT a regular and formed language, Ch. i 
 fuch as is ufed by every civilized V - X ~^ VJ 
 nation, is a work of art, no man 
 who knows any thing of language, or of 
 art, will deny. It is equally clear, both 
 from reafon, and from the facets mention- 
 ed in the preceding volume, that ,the firft 
 attempts to fpeak mufl have been very rude 
 and imperfect ; and that the firft lan- 
 guages among men, though they may 
 have ferved the purpofes of communica- 
 tion in a very narrow fphere of life, with 
 few wants, and as few arts to fupply thofe 
 wants, mufl have been almofl entirely art- 
 
 left.
 
 6 THE ORIGIN AND Part It. 
 
 Ch. i . lefs. If therefore language was invented, 
 X ~ V ~ V<J there mufl have been a firfl and a fecond 
 language ; the one altogether rude and art- 
 lefs, the other formed by rules of art, 
 and the work of men of art ; for that it 
 could not have grown out of popular ufe 
 merely, I will endeavour, in the fequel, 
 to make evident. But, in the firft place, 
 it will be proper to fhew wherein the art 
 of language confifts, which is what I pro- 
 pofe to do in this fecond part of the work. 
 When that is done, it is hoped very little 
 argument will be neceflary to prove, that 
 it could not have been produced by the 
 mere people^ but mufl have been the work 
 of artifts, and men of fuperior abilities. 
 
 The art of language appears to confifl in 
 four things. I. In expreffing accurately 
 and diflinctly all the conceptions of the 
 human mind. 2. In doing this by as few 
 words as poflible. 3. In marking the con- 
 nection that thofe words have with one a- 
 nother. And, laftly, The found of the lan- 
 guage mufl be agreeable to the ear, and of 
 fumcient variety. Before I enter more 
 particularly into my fubjecl, I will make 
 fome general reflections on thefe four re- 
 quifites ; and what I am to fay, will be the 
 
 better
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 7 
 
 better underflood by what I have already Ch. i. 
 faid of the imperfections of barbarous Ian- 
 guages, of which a language of art is al- 
 moft in every particular the juft reverfe. 
 
 And, frft^ with refpect to the conceptions 
 to be exprefTed by the words of the lan- 
 guage, I have already obferved, that a few 
 words are fufficient for the purpofes of bar- 
 barous life, in which there are but few 
 wants, and confequently few arts necef- 
 fary to fupply thofe wants ; but in civi- 
 lized life, the number required is prodi- 
 gious ; efpecially if, in fuch a life, not 
 only the necefTary arts, but thofe of plea- 
 fure and refinement, and likewife fciences 
 of pure curiolity and fpeculation, are culti- 
 vated. To be convinced of this, we need 
 only confider, iwo, That the number of 
 individuals, not only of all the feveral 
 kinds, but of any one kind, is confidered 
 as infinite : not that it is truly fo, and 
 flrictly fpeaking ; for, in a finite fpace, 
 fuch as this our earth, or what of the 
 heavens we fee, it is impoffible there can be 
 an infinite number of any thing ; but it 
 is fo with refpect to our capacity of com- 
 prehenfion, and to the ufe of language ; 
 and it is for this reafon that, as I have 
 
 more
 
 8 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. i. more than once faid, there can be no lan- 
 V ^ V> ^ g ua g e expreffing individual things only. 
 The firft part therefore of the art of lan- 
 guage, and the foundation of all the reft, 
 is reducing this infinity of things to cer- 
 tain clafles, called by the logicians genus 
 and fpecies, according as they are more or 
 lefs comprehenfive. But even this, with- 
 out fome further art, is not fuiEcient to 
 prevent fuch a multiplication of words, as 
 would make any language unfit for ufe : 
 For though the number of fpeciefes is, 
 flriclly fpeaking, farther from infinity 
 than the number of individuals ; yet with 
 refpedl to our capacity, they alfo may be 
 confidered as infinite. In proportion as 
 our knowledge advances in the feveral arts 
 and fciences, we are daily difcovering new 
 fpeciefes of things. Nor does the mofl 
 learned man in the world know one hun- 
 dredth part of thofe which nature has pro- 
 duced ; but if even fuch as he knows 
 were to be exprefled all by feparate words, 
 entirely different one from another, fo that 
 the one could not fuggeft the other, it is 
 evident, that the memory would be greatly 
 overburdened, and confequently the lan- 
 guage unfit for ufe ; and yet it is necefTary 
 
 for
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 9 
 
 for clear and diftinct expremon, that every Ch. I. 
 fpecies of thing fhoukl be denoted by a fe- v ^ v>< 
 parate word ; and not only muft the fpe- 
 ciefes of fubftances be fo denoted, but 
 but thofe of qualities, actions, and ener- 
 gies. The barbarous languages, as we 
 have feen, by expreffing feveral things by 
 one word, have run into very great con- 
 fulion ; and inftead of faving the multi- 
 plication of words, have greatly increafed 
 it. Some other way therefore was to be 
 devifed to prevent words from increafing 
 to an unwieldy number : and this was 
 done in a way, which, now it is invented, 
 appears very natural and obvious, though, 
 from what has been faid of the barbarous 
 languages, it is evident it was not of fo 
 eafy invention ; and that was by expreffing 
 things which in their nature are con- 
 nected together, by words which have alfo 
 a connection with one another. 
 
 As this is one of the chief artifices of 
 language, it merits to be explained at fome 
 length ; and I do not know any example 
 more fit to explain it than the names of 
 numbers. It is necefiary for the purpofe 
 of an enlarged fpliere of life, that every 
 individual number, at lead to a very great 
 
 VOL. II. B extent,
 
 io THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. i. extent, mould have a particular name. 
 
 ^^^ For with refpec~l to numbers, it would not 
 be fufficient for the ufe of life to divide 
 them into claffes or fpeciefes, as we do o- 
 other things, fuch as even and odd, pri- 
 mary and compofed, fquare and cube, &c. ; 
 but the particular numbers muft be ex- 
 preffed. Now thefe are really infinite, at 
 leafl in pqffibility ; and if fuch of them on- 
 ly as we have occafion to ufe, were to be 
 expreffed each by a different word, that a- 
 lone would make a language much too 
 bulky for ufe. The way therefore that has 
 been contrived, is to give different names 
 to particular numbers, to a certain extent, 
 as e. g. to the extent of ten, as is pracflifed 
 by the European nations, and alfo by fome 
 of the barbarous * ; and then to turn back a- 
 
 gain 
 
 t 
 
 * This is the cafe of the Hurons, as we have feen, 
 vol. i. p. 375.; of the Algonkins, Hontan, vol. 2. p. 2 17.; 
 of the inhabitants of the ne\v-di (covered ifland of Otahitee, 
 vol. i. p. 376. But all the barbarous nations have not fo 
 perfect an arithmetic. The Cyclops, in Homer, counted 
 his flock by fives, which Homer calls Ti/ttrafcy. The Caribbs 
 count in the fame way, likewife the Blacks of the coaft 
 of Guinea. Ariftotle, if I am not miftaken, fpeaks of a 
 barbarous nation of his time, whofe arithmetic went no 
 farther than four : and that of certain favages upon the 
 banks of the river Amazous, according to Monf. de la 
 
 Condamiue,
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. n 
 
 gain as it were, and reckon ten and one, Ch. I 
 ten and two, &c. giving names to the new ^ > ~ 
 numbers compounded of the names of the 
 old. In this way we go on, reckoning 
 till we come to twice ten ; which may be 
 exprefTed, and I believe is exprefled in 
 moft languages, by a word analogous to the 
 names of two and ten ; and in like manner 
 we count three tens, four tens, &c. till we 
 come to ten tens : but that, in all languages 
 that I know, is exprefled by a word quite 
 different. Then the reckoning goes on till 
 it comes to ten hundred, and then another 
 
 new 
 
 Condamine, went no farther than the number three ; by 
 which I do not underftand that they counted no farther 
 than three, but that after they had come to three, they 
 turned back, as we do when we come to ten, and faid, 
 Three and one, &c. as we fay, Ten and one. It may feem 
 furprifmg, that a nation, after they had gone fo far as 
 to feparate from the mafs of multitude three units, and 
 put them together, Ihould not have gone a little far- 
 ther, before they turned back, at leaft as far as the num- 
 ber of their five fingers ; but we know, from many o- 
 ther fafts, how flow the progrefs of invention has been. 
 However obvious therefore a thing may appear to us, 
 nurfed in the bofom, as it were, of arts and fciences, we 
 ought not from thence to conclude that it was fo to the firfh 
 men, who had every thing to invent : and to one who 
 confiders this matter rightly, it will rather appear fur- 
 prifmg, that thofe other nations ihould have come the 
 length of the decimal arithmetic praclifed by us, and 
 B 2 have
 
 12 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. i. new name is devifed to exprefs that num- 
 ^~*~^ her ; and fo the reckoning goes on again 
 till it comes to ten thoufand, to which the 
 Greeks have given a particular name, viz. 
 a myriad. But further in this nomen- 
 clature they have not gone ; whereas we 
 have gone further, and given a name to 
 ten hundred thoufand, viz. a million ; 
 and in this way we go on as far as we can 
 conceive, without any new names to num- 
 bers. 
 
 This example will ferve at leaft to ilhi- 
 flrate one method that has been devifed by 
 
 have been fo far as complete arithmeticians as we. Per- 
 haps it was the number of the ten fingers that firft led 
 men to this method of calculation. But I rather think 
 it was fcience and philofophy : for the number ten is the 
 completion of number, in fo far as it contains numbers 
 of all different kinds, even and odd, primary and com- 
 pofed, perfeft and impericft, fquare and cube ; and from 
 thence it is laid to have had its name of f (M in Greek, 
 which is fuppofcd to be derived from Sf^nat, figni- 
 fying to contain. It was therefore very proper to make 
 this number the cardinal number, upon which, as upon 
 a hinge, all the other numbers fliould turn. See Jat/i- 
 
 blichi Comm. jr. Nicom. Arithmetic. If this be fo, it is 
 
 evident that no barbarous nation could have fixed this 
 boundary of the infinity of numbers, but mufl have 
 got the invention from fqme other nation, confide - 
 rably advanced in arts a.nd fciences, in the fame man- 
 ner, as I fuppofe, that thofe barbarous nations who 
 fpeak a language of art, have not invented it, but bor- 
 rowed it from other mere civilized nations, 
 
 the
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 13 
 
 the artificers of language to fave the multi- Ch. i. 
 plication of words, namely, competition ; 
 which is ufed when the idea to be expreffed 
 is compofed of two other ideas, to which 
 names have been already given. This is 
 fo common in all the languages of art, 
 that it is needlefs to give examples of it. 
 I mall therefore only add, that I am per- 
 fuaded there are many more compoiitions 
 of words than are commonly known ; and 
 that fuch etymologies given by gramma- 
 rians, however fantaflical or far-fetched 
 they may fometimes feem, are many of 
 them very well founded. 
 
 But fuppofe the idea for which a name 
 is fought, is not compounded of two i- 
 deas, but is connected with or related to 
 another idea, what is to be done in that 
 cafe ? And the method is not to invent a 
 new word, as is done in the barbarous 
 languages ; but with fome addition to or 
 change of the word already invented, to 
 exprefs the idea connected with that of the 
 old word : and this method is what is 
 called derivation^ which is of fovereign ufe 
 
 in all the languages of art *. 
 
 But 
 
 1 Thefe derivative words, in the language of Ari- 
 ftotle's philofophy, are called jr/>vtyi ; and he fays they 
 
 differ
 
 14 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 h. i. But fuppofe that the idea continues the 
 very fame, but fome addition made to it, 
 fuch as that of time, perfon, relation to 
 any thing elfe, or any other necefTary ad- 
 
 differ from the original words T true*, Arijlotlis Ca~ 
 tegories in the beginning; which, as his commentator Am- 
 monias Hermeias has very well explained it, means the 
 change of the word in the laft fy liable. The inftances 
 which Ariftotle gives of fuch paronymies, is that of ypeift- 
 ftartM( from ypappnx, and difpuof from dvipm. But al- 
 though, in thefe inftances, the adjeftive may be derived 
 from the fubftantive, it more frequently happens that the 
 abftraft noun, as it is called, that is, the noun expreffing 
 the quality abftraftedly, is derived from the adjeftive, 
 which is the word that exprefles the quality in concrete, 
 that is, conjoined with the fubftance. Thus from bonui t is 
 derived bonitas, from good, goodnefs, &c. although fuch de- 
 rivation be contrary to the order of nature ; for, in the order 
 of nature, the abftraft quality is prior to the quality join- 
 ed with any fubftance. And it was perhaps for this reaibn, 
 that Ariftotle chofe the two inftances above mentioned, 
 where the derivation appears to be according to the or- 
 der of nature. But in other paflages, without regarding 
 the grammatical etymology at all, he derives words ac- 
 cording to the order of things in nature. Thus from 
 x/>cor?, he derives x<uxf> and from XOUUMTIW, /ixf, (fee 
 Categor. fy Amman. Comment, fol. 136.), though the gram- 
 matical etymology be directly contrary. And his com- 
 mentator has carried this philofophical etymology fo far, 
 as to derive Ian, the third perfon of the prefent of the 
 indicative of the verb ^ from o'v ; that is, that he de- 
 rives the word affirming that any thing exifts, from a 
 word denoting the abftraft idea of exiftence. De In- 
 ter fret. fol. 45. 
 
 junft,
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 15 
 
 juncl, what is to be done in that cafe ? And Ch. I 
 there likewife the artificers of language 
 have devifed a way of faving the multipli- 
 cation of words, which is of kin to the 
 method laft mentioned, but is different 
 both as to the form of the variation, and 
 the meaning of the word when varied. It 
 is commonly known by the name of fac- 
 tion or inflection, and is ufed for the pur- 
 pofe of forming the cafes of nouns and 
 tenfes of verbs in the learned languages. 
 
 By thefe three great artifices, the two 
 firft things which I require in a language of 
 art may be performed, and all the feveral 
 fpeciefes of things, fo far at lead as we 
 know them, and all their different qua- 
 lities and properties, may be diftinctly ex- 
 prefTed, in fb few words as not to make 
 the language cumberfome and unwieldy, 
 like the Chinefe written language, which 
 confifhs of fo many characters, no lefs it is 
 faid than eighty thoufand, that no man li- 
 ving perfectly underftands it. But even after 
 this is done, the buiinefs of language is 
 not completed : for there remains ftill the 
 third thing that I require in a language 
 of art, which is perhaps more difficult 
 than any thing I have mentioned ; and 
 
 therefore,
 
 16 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. i . therefore, as I have fhewn, was of lateft 
 invention ; I mean, marking the connec- 
 tion and relation that words have to one an- 
 other, or, as it is commonly called, fyntax. 
 For it is evident, that any number of words, 
 expremng in the mofl clear and accurate 
 manner the feveral things they ftand for, 
 would convey no meaning at all, if they 
 were not fome one way or another con- 
 nected together. For though the bare 
 utterance of the words, would let us 
 know that the fpeaker had the ideas affix- 
 ed to the words ; yet, without fome 
 connection of thofe words, there would 
 be no Jpeecb, becaufe there would be 
 neither affirmation nor denial, prayer or 
 command exprefled, nor any other ope- 
 ration of the mind ; and therefore, as 
 the bufmefs of language is to communi- 
 cate to one another the operations of our 
 minds, it is evident, that unlefs the 
 words are connected, the purpofe of lan- 
 guage could not be anfwered. Here then 
 is a new clafs of words to be invented ; 
 and a numerous clafs too, if we confider, 
 that fubftances muft be connected with 
 fubflances, qualities with fubftances and 
 with one another, and both with verbs, or 
 
 words
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 17 
 
 words exprefling afling or fuffering. Thefe Ch. i, 
 relations, it is evident, muft be very ^"^^ 
 various and numerous ; and they mufl be 
 exprefled either by feparate words, or'by 
 forne change of one or other, or both, of 
 the words betwixt which the connection is 
 to be expreiTed. 
 
 The laft requifite of language I men- 
 tioned, refpecls the found : as to which 
 three things may be obferved, ift, That 
 the words, in order to exprefs fuch a prodi- 
 gious variety of things, mould be very 
 much varied in the found. It is therefore 
 neceflary that they mould not confift of 
 vowels only, or a few confonants, like the 
 words of the barbarous languages, but be 
 diftinguifhed and articulated by as many 
 conibnants as pofiible, but fo as not to 
 render the found harm and difagreeable. 
 For, 2</0, A language fuch as we are fpeak- 
 ing of, muft be of eafy pronunciation ; 
 and not only the facility of the operation 
 of the fpeaker muft be ftudied, but alfo 
 the pleafure of the ear of the hearer, yio, 
 The words muft be of a moderate length, 
 not, like thofe of the barbarous languages, 
 enormouily long ; and particularly the ra- 
 dical words muft be ihort, otherwife there 
 
 VOL. II, G cannot
 
 i8 THE ORIGIN AND Part II, 
 
 Ch. i. cannot be either comrtofition or derivation 
 without enlarging the words immoderately. 
 The declinable words alfo, in order to 
 admit a fufficient variety of inflection, 
 fhould be of a moderate length ; and not 
 only for thefe reafons, but for the fake of 
 the eafv pronunciation of the language, 
 the words ought not to be excemvely long. 
 Having premifed thefe general obferva- 
 vations, which will ferve to explain what 
 is to follow, I will proceed to confider the 
 feveral parts of which language is 
 pofed. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 The ivorks of art prior to the art itfelf. The 
 analytical method fallowed in this inquiry. - 
 The formal part uf language to be firft ana", 
 lyjed. Both the form and matter muft have 
 been analyfed before the writing art 'was in-, 
 vented. The nature oj that difcovery. 
 
 2. A LL the works, both of nature and of art, 
 are compounds, which the fenfe pre- 
 fents to the mind. Thefe it is the bufinefs 
 of fcience to analyfe, and refolve into their 
 
 principles.
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE; *9 
 
 jprineiples, or conflituent parts. But not Ch. 2 4 
 only the works of nature exifted long be- 
 fore any fuch analyfis was made, but even 
 thofe of art, at leafi to a certain degree. 
 For we are not to imagine, that arts were 
 invented a priori^ by difcovering the prin- 
 ciples firfl, and from thence deducing the 
 confequences ; on the contrary, men began 
 by practifing ; very rudely and imperfectly 
 no doubt at firft ; but as they improved the 
 practice, they began to difcover the prin- 
 ciples, and at lafl acquired fcience enough to 
 analyfe the art, and deduce it from its prin- 
 ciples. In this manner all arts have beert 
 invented, and among others the art of 
 language. But the progrefs was very flow 
 from practice to principles ; and accor- 
 dingly men had the ufe of language long 
 before they knew any thing of the gram- 
 matical art, by which language is analy- 
 fed ; and in like manner men fung, and 
 played on inflruments, while yet no fcale 
 of mufic was known, nor any art invent- 
 ed by which a tune could be refolved into 
 the feveral notes of which it is compofed. 
 And in many nations of the earth at this 
 day, thefe and many other operations of 
 art are performed, without knowledge of 
 G 2 the
 
 20 THE ORIGIN AND Part IT. 
 
 Ch. 2. the art itfelf ; that is, of its principles. 
 
 v " orN ~ / As therefore the compound is firft in order 
 of time, at leaft with refpecl to us and our 
 perceptions ; fo compofition in the feveral 
 arts, and particularly in language,, is 
 much eaiier than the analyfis : for by imi- 
 tation merely we can compofe, or by na- 
 tural fagacity without imitation, which 
 was the cafe of the firft inventors of 
 arts ; but we cannot analyfe without fcience. 
 Accordingly, how many people do we fee, 
 that have not only the ready ufe of lan- 
 guage, but fpeak very properly, without 
 the leafl knowledge of the grammatical art ? 
 But though composition be fo much eafier 
 and more obvious than analyfis ; yet this 
 laft is the method of fcience, being that 
 which conflitutes the very nature and e- 
 fence of fcience ; for nothing is fcien- 
 tifically treated of, that is not refolved in- 
 to its elements, or firft principles. So that 
 fcience does not follow the order of our 
 perceptions, which begin with the com- 
 pound, but the order of nature, accor- 
 ding to which the elements or principles of 
 all things are firfl. As therefore we pro- 
 fefs to treat of language fcientifically, we 
 fhall begin with analyfing it, and then we 
 
 mall
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 21 
 
 {hall proceed to the competition of it ; and Ch. 2. 
 this method we thipk the moft proper, 
 becaufe the compound, in this matter of 
 language, is well known to every one, as 
 the competition is praclifed by every one ; 
 whereas, if the compound were not fuffi- 
 ciently known, it might be proper to pro- 
 ceed in a different method, and begin with 
 it. 
 
 All the works of art, as they are com- 
 pofed by man, fo they can be analyfed by 
 him *. And the beft method of attaining 
 
 a 
 
 * Every analyfis is a divifion, but every divifion is not 
 an analyfis ; that is to fay, in logical language, divifion 
 is the genus, and analyfis the fpecies. Any whole may 
 be divided into the parts which compofe it, as a body 
 may be divided into its different members ; but fuch a 
 divifion is not that which we call analyfis, becaufe the 
 members of a body are parts of the body, when it is con- 
 ftituted or formed, but they are not the principles which 
 conftitute or form it, or, in other words, they are not the 
 principles or elements of the body. Now it is the divi- 
 fion into thefe laft that I call analyfn ; which therefore 
 differs from the other divifion in this, that it divides the 
 fubjecls into parts more minute and fubtile, not obvious 
 to fenfe or common apprehenfion ; but which being dif- 
 covered, fhew the nature of the fubjeft, becaufe they 
 fhew the principles which conftitute it. And it is for this 
 reafon that analyfis is the method of fcience. The me- 
 thod of divifion, or diuretic method, and the analytical 
 method, being two ways of inveftigaling the idea or de- 
 finition
 
 22, THE ORIGIN AND Part It,- 
 
 Ch. 2. a perfect knowledge of them is, firfl to take 
 them down, as it were, in this way, and 
 then to put them up again. Thus if a man 
 would perfectly under Hand the nature of 
 a watch, or any other machine, he mould 
 begin with taking it down, and confidering 
 by itfelf every wheel and fpring of it, and 
 then he mould learn to put them all to- 
 gether again : and in this matter of lan- 
 guage, the method in which we teach chil- 
 dren to read is, firfl to make them analyfe 
 words into letters, or elemental founds, 
 and then we teach them to combine thofe 
 letters into fyllables, and the fyllables in- 
 *to words ; and it is evident, that if we 
 taught them in any other way, they would 
 
 finition of any thing, are different from the analyfis and 
 divifion of which we are fpeaking ; but wherein the differ- 
 ence confifts does not belong to our fubjeft to explain. 
 I fhall only add, that the beft example of the diseretic 
 method to be found in Engliih, and among the beft 
 in any language, is what Mr Harris has given us in 
 his dialogue concerning Art, of which he has mod 
 accurately investigated the nature according to this me- 
 thod, in the manner that is pradtifed by Plato in the So- 
 fhifta and Politicus. The analytical alfo and fynthetical 
 methods cf reafoning, are different from the analyfis and 
 fynthefis which I am here treating : but to explain, 
 wherein that difference coafifts, would be aifo foreign to 
 Our prefent purpofe. 
 
 be
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 23 
 
 be imperfectly taught. In this manner Ch. 2, 
 therefore we propofe to treat of language ; 
 beginning with that firft and principal a- 
 nalyfis of it, and of every compound, 
 whether of art or nature, I mean into mat- 
 ter and form. With this divifion of lan- 
 guage we fet out in this work, and we 
 muft never lofe fight of it. 
 
 But this analyfis is too general to ex- 
 plain any thing particularly ; it will there- 
 fore be neceiTary to analyfe each of thofe 
 parts feparately by itfelf : and I will be- 
 gin with the form^ that is, the founds of 
 language, not conlidered as founds mere- 
 ly, but as founds fignificant. In treating 
 of the barbarous languages, I conlidered 
 the material part firil ; but in exami- 
 ning the languages of art, I think it better 
 to follow a contrary method, and begin 
 with the principal part, that is, the form, 
 which the artificers of language appear to 
 me to have chiefly confidered, as no doubt 
 they ought to have done, in framing 
 the founds of the language. Which of 
 thefe two parts was, in order of time, 
 firft analyfed, and made the fubjecl: of art, 
 may be queftioned ; but my opinion is, 
 hat no language, complete both in found
 
 24 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 2. and fenfe, could have been framed, with- 
 ^^^^ out knowing the principles and elements 
 of both the matter and the form ; for though 
 fuch a language, when formed, may be 
 iifed without the knowledge of either ; yet 
 it could not, I think, have been formed 
 without the knowledge of both. If this be 
 true, the writing- art, which in order of 
 time was certainly pofierior to the art of 
 language, was not fo great a difcovery 
 as is commonly imagined. For the gieat 
 difficulty of that difcovery, was the ana- 
 lyfis of the found of a language into its e- 
 lements ; fo that upon the fuppofition that 
 this had been done before, when the art of 
 language was formed, there remained no" 
 thing to be done, but to find out characters 
 to mark the elemental founds already difco- 
 vered. And that the invention of writing was 
 no more than this, appears to me from the 
 Egyptian ftory which Plato has preferved 
 to us *, of that king of Egypt, who, when he 
 was told by Theuth, the inventor of letters, 
 that he had found out an art of memory, 
 faid, after the invention was explained to 
 him, that it was not an art of memory , 
 
 * In Pkxdro, fug. 1240. edit. Ficiai. 
 
 but
 
 I 
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 25 
 
 but of reminifcence. Now reminifcence {up- Ch. 2. 
 pofes forgetfulnefs, which your art, faid 
 that wife king, encourages ; becaufe men 
 trufting to it, will not exercife their me- 
 mories, nor fludy to record their know-r 
 ledge in their own minds, where it is bed 
 preferved. This ftory feems plainly to 
 fuppofe, that what this Egyptian Mer- 
 cury had difcovered, was not the ana- 
 lyfis of language into its elemental founds, 
 which was a great and a ufeful difco- 
 very, tending much to the improvement 
 of language, and which certainly would not 
 have been difapproved by the Egyptian 
 king ; but only a method of recording 
 thofe founds, of which indeed it may be 
 juilly queftioned, whether it has upon the 
 whole contributed to the improvement of 
 knowledge. And perhaps the Druids were 
 in the right, who, as Julius Csefar tells 
 us, did not make ufe of letters, to record 
 their philosophy and theology, though 
 they knew the Greek letters, becaufe they 
 thought the ufe of them impaired the 
 memory. 
 
 VOL. II. D CHAP.
 
 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 General plan of this fecond part of the work. 
 Analyfis of the formal part of language 
 into 'wards. Divi/ion of words into t'wo 
 kinds , nouns an4 'verbs. - Su bdi e ui/ion of 
 'verbs into 'words expreffiing the accidents 
 of fab/lances^ and thofe expr effing the af- 
 feclions of the mind, 
 
 Ch. 3. ^1 "HE method therefore in which I 
 JL propofe to treat this fubject of a 
 language of art is, firft to analyfe the for- 
 mal part of it, which will be the fubject 
 of this firft book ; then to analyfe the ma- 
 terial part of it, which will be done in the 
 fecond ; and the third book will treat of 
 the cotnpofition of each : and in this way 
 it is hoped the reader will have a complete 
 view of the whole theory of language. 
 For it is not the defign of this work to ex- 
 plain minutely every part of the gramma- 
 tical art ; but to give a general view of 
 the whole, and to explain the philofophi- 
 cal principles upon which it is founded. 
 If therefore we any where enter into mi-r 
 
 nute
 
 Book t. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE; 27 
 
 hute difcumons, it will be of fuch par- Ch. 
 ticulars as we think have not been fuffici- 
 ently explained by other writers upon 
 grammar. 
 
 To begin then with the analyfis of the 
 formal part of a language of art, or of 
 the founds of it confidered as fignificant : 
 This analyiis is very limple ; becaufe all 
 language, confidered in this way, is ulti- 
 mately refolvable into words. For as Ari- 
 ftotle has denned a word, it is a found fig- 
 nificant, of which no part is by itfelf 
 fignificant * ; what is lefs therefore than 
 a word, fuch as a fyllable, or a letter, does 
 Hot belong to this analyfis, but to the a- 
 
 * <t>uv irw,(t9tvf<xVt fif ftipt! Wiv Itrn x6* avro trWjuavTfxoy. Poetic, 
 
 cap. 20. Oppofed to this is the definition of the com- 
 pound Koyet, which, according to the fame philofopher, is 
 
 ?uv o-uvSerw, iSf ivtet /xtp x6' ura (rvucuvii TI. This COmpofitiotl 
 
 of words, making a complete fenfe by itfelf, is what we 
 call in Engliih a fentence, of which I (hall fay more when. 
 1 come to fpeak of the compofmon of language. In the 
 mean time, we may obferve, that ^-ot, as defined here 
 by Ariftotle, is ufed only in one fenfe of the wordj 
 namely, to fignify the matter and form of language join- 
 ed, or as we exprefs it in Englifh without ambiguity, 
 fyeech. But it fignifies alfo the formal part by itfelf, and 
 which is diftinguiftied from the other by the epithet of 
 ivJuxfltrof ; whereas, fyisch is \fyo; 7rpofcpix.es, See the note 
 on chap. i. book i. of part i. 
 
 D 2 naJyfis
 
 28 THE ORIGIN. AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 3. nalyfis of the material part, or found, of a 
 language. 
 
 Words then being the leaft parts of lan- 
 guage confidered as fignificant, or fpeech^ 
 as I {hall chufe to call it in one word ; the 
 next queftion to be confidered is, Of how 
 many kinds words are ? or, as it is com- 
 monly exprefled, how many parts of 
 fpeech there are ? The common divifion i& 
 into eight parts ; noun, pronoun, verb, 
 participle, adverb, prepofition, conjunc- 
 tion ; to which the Greeks add for an eighth, 
 the article ; but the Latins, wanting the 
 article, complete the number by the inter- 
 jection. But though this divifion may ferve 
 the purpofe of ordinary grammar, it will 
 not be fumcient for a philofophical in- 
 quiry, fuch as this, into the nature of 
 language, which requires that every thing 
 of fpeech mould be confidered relatively to 
 the nature of the things expreffed by it. 
 And therefore I prefer that divifion of the 
 parts of fpeech that has been given both 
 by Plato and Ariflotle *, into noun and 
 
 'verb ; 
 
 * Ariftotle has given this divifion in his book of Inter- 
 pretation, and Plato in the Sophifta. It is true, that 
 Ariftotle, in his Exoteric, or popular work upon Poetry, 
 
 cap. 20.
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 29 
 
 verb ; and I will endeavour to fhew, that all Ch. 3. 
 the other parts of fpeech above mentioned, ^^^ 
 may be fitly referred to one or other 
 of thefe two. My reafon for preferring 
 this diviiion is, that it refers, as I underftand 
 it, to that grand divifion of things contain- 
 ed in the Categories, or Predicaments, (the 
 doctrine of which I hold to be the founda- 
 tion of all philofophy,) into jubftance and 
 accident ; for although the categories are 
 ten in number, the nine lail are all acci- 
 dents *, that is, things which have no fe- 
 
 cap. 20. has given us another divifion, more fuited to the 
 capacity of thofe for whom he wrote that book, viz. into 
 noun, verb, article, and conjunflion : but 1 prefer that 
 which he has given in his philofophical work, fuch as 
 his book of Interpretation undoubtedly is ; efpecially as 
 it is fupported by the authority of Plato, who certainly 
 meant to give a general divifion of the pares of fpeech, 
 without reference to any particular art or fcience, fuch 
 RS logic or dialectic. 
 
 * The Creek word for accidents, viz. cT^&CVx.ara, de- 
 notes this their nature better than the Latin word which 
 we have adopted. It is to be obferved, that I,ufe accident 
 here in its moft general fignifkation, denoting every qua- 
 lity or property of any thing, whether ejjentiat, or what 
 is commonly called accidental, that is contingent; in 
 iliort, whatever is inherent in another thing, without 
 which it cannot exift ; and in this large fenfe, the Greek 
 tvord ff^fifrx9f is alfo ufed. 
 
 parate
 
 3 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 3. parate exiftence by themfelves, but exift 
 in other things ; whereas fubftance, the 
 firft of the Categories, has fuch a pre-emi- 
 nence of exiftence, that it exifts by itfelf, 
 independent of other things. Now a 
 noun is a word expremve of the thing 
 exifting in this laft manner, fuch as, a man, 
 or a horfe, or what the mind donfiders as 
 exifting in this manner, though it really 
 do not fo exift, as fhall be afterwards ex- 
 plained. The verb, on the other hand, I 
 underftand to denote every accident of any 
 kind belonging to fubftance ; whatever, in 
 fhort, can be predicated of any fubftance 
 as a property or accident, whether it be 
 quality, quantity, aclion, or fuffering, re- 
 lation, or connection with any thing elfe. 
 This clivifion, I think, muft be allowed 
 to be fufficiently comprehennve, and td 
 exhauft the fubjedl. For every thing in 
 nature is either fubftance^ or forne quality, 
 energy, paflion, or relation of fubftance, 
 that is, in one word, accident of fub- 
 ftance ; or, if any one diflike that word, 
 on account of its ambiguity, he may call 
 it, with Mr Harris, attribute of fubftance. 
 It comprehends alfo mind, and all its e- 
 
 nergies
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 31 
 
 nergies and affections of whatever kind *. Ch. 3. 
 
 This defcrijkion of the verb may appear 
 too general ; but if we want to make it 
 more particular, we may confult Ariftotle's 
 book of Categories, where we find all the 
 feveral kinds of accidents , being ranged, as I 
 faid, into nine clafles, fuch as quantity, 
 
 quality, 
 
 * This defcription of the noun and verb, appears to 
 be different from that which is given by Plato in the So- 
 pbijta, p. 183. edit. Ficini, where he fays, That a 
 verb is a word expreflmg aftion, and a noun a word de- 
 noting the attor* And this is no doubt the common no- 
 tion of thofe two grammatical terms ; and it will coin- 
 cide with my notion, if by aftion is underftood, not only 
 aftual energy, but the quality, faculty, or power, by 
 which any thing energifes ; and if by agent we underftand 
 the fubjeft in which that faculty or power refides. That 
 in this way Ammonius underftood Plato, is evident from 
 his commentary upon Ariftotle's book of Interpretation, 
 fol. 33. ; and as it fo perfectly coincides with my notion 
 upon this fubjetf, I will give the words- of it. 'Ex vof yd 
 (meaning Socrates in the Cratylus) TO 
 
 Xaf av xaTlo-xituJpo-jUEvov) oa-rsp TO. pipetTO. Tav t raxo\6'Tuv, TKT"IO-T(, rav 
 ,v*Kp_^JvTuv Tif vc-taif, ftifs.tift.ara v(. Auyov Si, TOV 1% a/u.poit, rars 
 e^ofidTOf xai TH p"nf4ctTO( (7vyx.fi fitvcv, as av KCU avrof Sifi TI rvrav, xat 
 TUV tv ra "Sofia-Tri pStVTv, ttfo T 'Aftfarl^vs ftovx TU Xo'yw x.vflu( fflftt, 
 
 TO Ivofta xai TO fina. TiGiptvof- Thus, according to the o- 
 pinion of this excellent commentator, it was the doclrine 
 both of Plato and Ariftotle, that the parts of fpeech 
 were two, the noun and the verb ; the firft denoting 
 fubftances, the other the properties of fubftances : and 
 indeed there can nothing exill in nature, but tbingt t 
 
 and
 
 32 THE ORIGIN AND Part 1L 
 
 Ch. 2.' quality, relation, doing, fuflering, &c. ac- 
 in0 curately defcribed and explained. Among 
 thefe, the two lafl I mentioned, viz. doing 
 and fiifTering, or, as they may be expreffed, 
 action and paffion, fo far as they relate to 
 the mind of the fpeaker, are to be parti- 
 cularly attended to in the matter of lan^- 
 guage ; becaufe all fpeech whatever, be- 
 fides what it may exprefs concerning the 
 nature "of things, does of neceflity exprefs 
 fome energy, pailion, difpofition, or, as 
 I would chufe to call it by one word, af~ 
 feftion, of the mind of the fpeaker : for it 
 denotes his joy, grief, furprife, or fome 
 other paffion ; or it communicates his 
 prayers, wifhes, commands, or volition 
 of any kind ; or it limply declares the 
 judgement of his mind concerning any 
 thing, that is, affirms or denies. As 
 therefore the expreffion of thefe accidents 
 or attributes of the mind of the fpeaker are 
 
 and their qualities. So that whatever more parts of 
 fpeech we make, they can only be fubdivifions of the 
 members of this grand divifion ; and accordingly I have 
 endeavoured to bring under one or oiher of thefe two 
 heads, all the other fix parts of fpeech that are common- 
 ly reckoned, and I hope I have done it without any 
 flraining or difficulty. 
 
 effential
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 33 
 
 effential to fpeech, I would chufe to fepa- Ch. 3, 
 rate them from other accidents, which ^^^ 
 may be exprefTed or not by fpeech, and tq 
 confider them by themfelves, calling them 
 the affeftions of the fpeaker s mind^ and 
 leaving to the accidents of fubflance the 
 common name of accidents. We may 
 therefore fay, that every word expreffes 
 fubflance, or accident, or the affections 
 of the mind of the fpeaker. The firfl 
 is what I call a noun, the other two are 
 verbs. 
 
 Thefe three are fometimes exprefTed fe-r 
 parately by diflinct words, fometimes twq 
 of them together, fometimes all three. 
 When the fubflance is expreffed feparately, 
 it makes, what is commonly called, % 
 fubflantive noun ; when the accident is 
 expreffed feparately, it is a prepofition, 
 adjective, or conjunction, which, accor- 
 ding to my notion, are to be ranked under 
 the verb ; and if any affection of the mind 
 of the fpeaker be feparately expreffed, it is 
 either an interjection, or a fpecies of verb 
 known by the name of the fubflantive 
 verb, fuch as ejfe in Latin, or to be in En- 
 glim, which denotes no more than the af- 
 fection of the mind of the fpeaker, either 
 
 VOL. II. E affirming^
 
 34 THE ORIGIN AND Part IT. 
 
 Ch, 3, affirming, that is, averting that the thing 
 is, or commanding, praying, or ivifrnng, 
 that it Jhonld be. But of this verb more 
 hereafter. 
 
 In thefe inftances, the three things 
 I mentioned are expreffed feparately : but 
 as, in nature, all things are mixed with all ; 
 fo, in fpeech, the exprefiron of them is often 
 alfo mixed. Thus the fubftance and acci- 
 dent are frequently expretfed by the fame 
 word ; as fene x in Latin, and djild in En- 
 glim ; the firil of which denotes an animal 
 of our fpecies, with the quality of being 
 old ; the other exprefles the fame fub- 
 ftance, but with the oppofite quality of 
 being young. They participate therefore 
 of the nature both of the noun and verb j 
 but as flibflance is by its nature more ex- 
 cellent than any quality or attribute, it 
 predominates in the appellation, and they 
 are both called nouns. That part of fpeech 
 foo commonly called an adjective, joins the 
 accident with the fubfhmce, fuch as the 
 \vords good, ill, and the like ; but with this 
 difference, that in fuch words the expref- 
 fion of the fubftance is indefinite or un- 
 afcertainecl, fo that it may be applied to 
 any fubftance yrhatfoever ; whereas, in the 
 
 firft-
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LAN#UAGi 35 
 
 firft-mentioned inftances, the fubftance is Ch. 4 
 definite or determined. The quality there- ^^ 
 fore predominates in the adjective. For this 
 reafon I think it is improperly ranged un- 
 der the noun, and ought to be afcribed to 
 the verb ; as mall be afterwards more par- 
 ticularly explained : and I fay the fame of 
 the participle. Accident, and the affection of 
 the mind of the fpeaker, are joined toge- 
 ther in tliofe parts of fpeech that are com- 
 monly called <vtrbs ; as in the expreffion, / 
 run, where the word run expreiles not only 
 the action of running, but the energy of 
 the mind of the fpeaker affirming that 
 action to exift. This is, I believe, the ex- 
 premon of the verb in ail languages. But 
 in the learned languages all the three are 
 exprefled, as in the Latin word curro^ by 
 which the fubftance is exprefTed that runs, 
 the action of that fubftance, and the energy 
 of the mind affirming it to exift *. 
 
 Thus we fee that thefe three things are 
 
 * The expreffion of the energy of the mind in verbs, 
 is much fuller and more accurate in Greek. Thus rp^a 
 affirms the a&ion, rpi^t commands it, rpi^oi^i wifhes it, 
 and the fubjimctive mood express that the action is not 
 fimply and absolutely affirmed, but in dependence up- 
 on fomething elfe. 
 
 E % exprefTed
 
 ^6 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 3. exprefled either feparately or together ; and 
 ^-^^ if together, either in pairs, as fubftance 
 and accident together, or accident and 
 the affection of the fpeaker's mind ; or all 
 three together, as in the inftances laft 
 mentioned. 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Of the noun, and its threefold divifion ; and 
 the fubdivifion of the laft kind of it. 
 
 Ch. 4 T JAving thus given a general account 
 ^^^ JLJl of this divifion of the parts of fpeech 
 into noun and verb, I come now to ex- 
 plain each of them more particularly, be- 
 ginning with the noun. And as I have 
 taken this divifion from the Categories ; fo> 
 in explaining it, I will follow the doctrine 
 of thofe higheft genera, as laid down by 
 Ariftotle ; and in this way I hope to be 
 able to give a fatisfaclory philofophical ac- 
 count of this part of language, by refer- 
 ring it to the nature of things, of which 
 it ought to be the reprefentation. 
 
 A noun, as I have faid, is a name for
 
 Book I, PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 37 
 
 a fubftance ; that is, as Ariftotle has de- Ch. 4. 
 fined it, a thing which exifts by itfelf, 
 and not in any thing elfe. Of fubftance, 
 he diftinguifhes two kinds. One is the 
 particular or individual fubftance ; fuch as 
 Peter, John, this or that horfe, and all 
 fuch natural fubftances ; and likewife all 
 artificial fubftances, fuch as this or that 
 houfe or fhip ; in fhort all fubftances of 
 whatever kind, immaterial as well as ma- 
 terial. This kind of fubftance neither 
 exifts in any fubjecl (which is common to 
 all fubftances), nor is predicated of any 
 fubjecl: ; and it is, in his language, called the 
 frft or primary fubftance * ; becaufe, in the or- 
 der of our perceptions, fuch fubftances are 
 firft, and the ideas of all other fubftances 
 are derived from them. The name which 
 expreffes this fubftance is called, in the 
 common language of grammarians, a pro- 
 per name ; but if we have a mind to fpeak 
 more philofophically, and according to the 
 doclrine of Ariftotle, we may call it a pri- 
 mary name or noun f . The fecond kind of 
 
 fubftances, 
 
 * Ariftot. Categ. cap. . 
 
 f Quintiliari tells us, lib. i. cap. 4. that fome Latin 
 grammarians gave the name of notocn only to proper 
 
 names ;
 
 38 THE ORIGIN AND PartU. 
 
 Ch. 4. fubflances, according to Ariftotle, are 
 ideas of fubflances, which we form by 
 abflracHon from individual fubftances, 
 fuch as the idea of a man, a horfe, or 
 the like ; and of this kind are not only 
 the lowed fpeciefes, fuch as the two in- 
 flances mentioned, but alfo the higher 
 genera, fuch as animal, body, and the like. 
 The words by which this kind of fubflance 
 is denoted, are commonly called appellative 
 nouns ; but, if we have a mind to adopt 
 Ariflotle's language, may be called fecon- 
 dary nouns. 
 
 Thus far, and no farther, the nature of 
 things goes, in the divifion of fubftances. 
 But the human mind, for the purpofes of 
 life, as well as for the ufe of fcience, has 
 created artificial fubflances, to which it 
 has given names ; and thefe make a third 
 land of nouns, commonly called abjlratt 
 nouns. The things denoted by fuch 
 nouns are accidents, which the mind abf- 
 
 names ; diftingulfliing the appellatives by the name of vo 
 cahilum, or appellatio. And in this manner likewife. Dio- 
 nyfius the Halicarnuffian, in his treatife of competition, 
 fefi. 2. informs us, that fome Greek grammarians fpoke, 
 didinguiining OM.UX, that is a proper name, from v><w>o/:;a, 
 an appellative noun. 
 
 tracl?
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 39 
 
 tracts from the fubftances in which they Ch. 4. 
 are inherent ; and by making them a fe- v> ^ 
 parate object of its contemplation, beflows 
 upon them a kind of feparate existence, 
 which they have not from nature. Of this 
 kind are the words blacknefs, ivhitenefs^ 
 goodnefs^ "wifdom, and the like, which 
 {landing for ideas that are confidered by 
 the mind as fubftances, have not only all 
 the form of fubftantive nouns, but are 
 made the fubjects of proportions, and of 
 predication, as much as real fubftances. 
 Thus we fay whitenefs is a colour, juft as 
 we fay man is an animal ; and we fay 
 goodnefs is amiable, in the fame manner 
 that we fay that any individual is fo. This 
 will be further evident, if we compare this 
 kind of noun with the adjective or verb, 
 from which, according to the common 
 ufe of language, it is derived ; for the ad- 
 jective or verb necefTarily implies the idea 
 of foine fubftance in which it is inherent, 
 nor does the mind conceive it without fuch 
 fubftance. Thus, when good {imply is 
 named, we are not fatisfied, but we afk, 
 what is it that is good ? but we fpeak and 
 argue about goodncfs, without inquiring, 
 pr fo much as thinking, about any fub- 
 ftance
 
 40 THE ORIGIN AND Part IT. 
 
 Ch. 4. fiance to which it belongs. This noun, 
 as I have faid, is commonly known by 
 the name of an abftraff noun, though the 
 fecond kind of noun is like wife the name 
 of an abftract idea ; but as it appears to 
 be, and truly is, a greater power of ab- 
 ftraction to feparate the quality from the 
 fubftance, than the general fubftance from 
 the particular, it is therefore called, by 
 way of pre-eminence, an abftrafl noun. 
 
 Of this third kind of noun there are 
 fome fpeciefes which deferve particular 
 notice. And firft, there is one of them 
 made by joining the article to the infini- 
 tive of a verb ; for the nature of this 
 mood being to denote the action of the 
 verb {imply, with the addition only of 
 time, but without any expreflion, either of 
 perfon, or of the affection of the mind of the 
 fpeaker, by the article being prefixed it 
 becomes a noun, having all the variety of 
 cafes which nouns have, and being like 
 them made the fubjecl: of predication. For 
 10 7Tf>a.TTeiv in Greek, is as much a noun as 
 rr/=a^/c, (though the laft only be called a 
 verbal noun), with this difference, that ^aj? 
 exprefTes the action of the verb, without
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 41 
 
 the circumftance of time ; whereas TO Ch, 4. 
 TTfxtTTM expreiles that the action now exifts, 
 as TO Trpx&t that it did exift in fome former 
 time. And this appears to me to be the 
 great advantage of this kind of expreffion, 
 that by it we can denote, not only the fimple 
 action, which is done by the verbal noun, 
 but alfo the time of the action *. In Eng- 
 lim we do this, not by the infinitive on- 
 ly, but by the participle alfo ; for we fay, 
 both, To do good is commendable, and, The 
 doing good is commendable ; we fay, The 
 having done good gives pleafure upon reflec- 
 tion, and, To have done good^ &c. 
 
 Another fpecies of this noun is form- 
 ed by joining the article to the adjec- 
 tive in the neuter gender ; as when they 
 fay in Greek, TO HXKOV, or a'yaOcy. By this 
 manner of expreffion the adjective no 
 longer denotes a quality concrete, or in- 
 herent in a fubject, but a quality abftrafl ; 
 with fome difference however betwixt it 
 and the abftract noun ; for xa\*ec is not 
 precifely the fame with the TO *ot*.ot, as mall 
 
 * It is on account of this kind of noun that I have 
 not put into my definition of noun, what Ariftotle has 
 added, emu x.?*, without time. 
 
 VOL. II. F be
 
 42 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 4. be fhewn afterwards. This idiom too we 
 have in Englifh ; for we fay the good, and 
 the fair. In the fame way the Greeks 
 form nouns of their participles, as the 
 70 T^XCY, and the TO now. We have the fame 
 form of a noun in Englifh ; for we fay, 
 the running, and the doing : but the mean- 
 ing is different ; for in Englifh it denotes, 
 as I have already obferved, the aclion of 
 the verb ; whereas, in Greek, it fignifies 
 the agent. 
 
 All thefe three kinds of nouns I call by 
 the common name of fubftantives, diftin- 
 guifhing the fir ft and fecond by the names 
 of primary and fecondary fubftantives, ac- 
 cording to the nature of the fubftances 
 they exprefs. The laft may be called ideal 
 or fictitious fubftantives, being entirely of 
 the mind's own creation ; but I chufe to 
 call them by their common name of abf- 
 nouns. 
 
 CHAP,
 
 Book I. PROGRESS of 4 LANGUAGE. 
 
 v. 
 
 Of pronouns. ~ The neceffity of inventing 
 them. The nature and different kinds of 
 them. 
 
 AL L the objects of human knowledge, Ch. 
 and confequently of difcourfe, are ^ 
 either generals or particulars. The know- 
 ledge of generals, as I have already had 
 occalion to obferve, is by far the more va- 
 luable knowledge, as by it we know eveii 
 individuals ; for we know nothing of Pe- 
 ter, James, or John, by hearing them 
 named, or even by feeing them, unlefs 
 we know the fpecies to which they belong* 
 But the knowledge of individuals is alfo 
 abfolutely neceffary for human life, and 
 in common life the greatefl part of our 
 converfation is concerning individuals. 
 Now the number of individuals is infinite, 
 at leaft with refpec"l to our capacities ; yet 
 the purpofes of life require, that in the 
 ufe of fpeech they mould be fingled out, 
 and diftinguifhed one from another. Here 
 F 2 is
 
 44 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 5. is one of the great difficulties that the in- 
 *~~ y ^ J ventors of language had to ftruggle with : 
 let us fee how they got over it. 
 
 It may be thought that proper names 
 for the feveral individuals, will ferve to 
 diftinguifh them. But, in the frjl place, 
 it is impoffible that all the individuals 
 which may be the fubjecl: of difcourfe, 
 mould have particular names, at leaft fucn 
 as are known to the fpeakers and hearers ; 
 even the perfons who have occaiion to con- 
 verfe together may not know one another's 
 names, idly, Suppofe that the fubjecfts of 
 the converfation have all names, and that 
 thofe names are known to the parties, the 
 fame name may be common to feveral in- 
 dividuals, and indeed it is impollible that 
 every individual fliould have a different 
 name ; there muft therefore be fome way 
 of marking, that the name ufed by the 
 fpeaker is the name of the individual 
 whom the hearer knows, and of no other. 
 And laftly, Suppofe this difficulty got o- 
 ver, and that the parties were agreed a- 
 bout the name, as applicable to the fame 
 individual known to them both, it would 
 be tedious, and a great incumbrance to the 
 difcourfe, if the name was to be repeated 
 
 as
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 45 
 
 as often as the object was mentioned ; and Ch. 5, 
 accordingly we obferve it as a defect in the 
 language of children, that inftead of ufing 
 the pronoun /, they name them! elves *. 
 
 Names therefore will not folve the dif- 
 ficulty, and fome other way muft be de- 
 vifed. The only way that feems poflible 
 is, to divide the fubjects of converfation 
 into certain clafTes. But into what clafTes ? 
 The common divifion into fpeciefes, by 
 which the infinity of things is limited and 
 circumfcribed, will not ferve the purpofe ; 
 for the thing here to be done, is to dif- 
 tinguiih the individuals of the feveral fpe- 
 ciefes, not the fpeciefes themfelves. We 
 muft therefore try fome other way of 
 claiung the fubjecls of difcourfe ; and 
 fuppofe we mould divide them into fuch 
 as are prefent during the difcourfe, and 
 fuch as are not. The diviiion is fuffi- 
 ciently comprehenfive ; for every fubjecT: 
 of converfation muft either be prefent or 
 not prefent. But I doubt it will not ferve 
 the purpofe neither. The objects prefent 
 indeed might be pointed out by the fpeak- 
 er to the hearer ; but we are inquiring at 
 prefent how they are to be diftinguifhed 
 
 * This is an obfervation of Dr Smith in his Diilertation 
 on the formation of Languages. 
 
 bv
 
 46 THE ORIGIN AND PartIL 
 
 Ch. 5. by words, not by figns or geftures. Now 
 '^ though the diftincftion in general, might, no 
 doubt, be marked by words betwixt objects 
 prefent and objects not prefent, how are the 
 feveral particular objects prefent or abfent, 
 to be diftinguifhed from one another ? for 
 there may be many objects prefent during 
 the converfation, and the number of thofe 
 that are not prefent is without bounds. 
 
 But this divhlon, though it do not folve 
 the difficulty, leads to another diftinc- 
 tion that may perhaps do the bufinefs : for 
 of the fubjects of converfation prefent, 
 there are two which muft neceflarily be 
 prefent, and which, by their natures, are 
 limited and determined ; I mean the fpeak- 
 er, and the hearer, or the perfon to whom 
 the difcourfe is addrefTed. And every fub- 
 ject of difcourfe muft of necemty be either 
 the fpeaker, the hearer, or fome third ob- 
 ject different from both. Here then is an- 
 other divifion, equally comprehensive as 
 the former : let us try whether it will not 
 anfwer the purpofe better. 
 
 If either the fpeaker or hearer be the fub- 
 ject of the difcourfe, there is no more ado 
 but to invent two words to defign and diflin- 
 guifh them from one another. And thefe 
 
 words
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 47 
 
 words are called pronouns. The one (land- Ch. 5. 
 ing for the fpeaker is called a pronoun of 
 the Jirft perfon ; and the other, which ftands 
 for the hearer, or perfon addrefled, is faid 
 to be a pronoun of the fecond perfon. But 
 what fhall we do with the third fubjecls of 
 converfation, fuch as are neither the one 
 nor the other ? How are they to be mark- 
 ed by words ? Here again a difficulty 
 meets us : let us try what can be done to 
 get over it. 
 
 The objects of this third kind are either 
 prefent, or they are not prefent. If pre- 
 fent, and that there is but one of them, 
 the bufinefs is eafy ; for we have no more 
 ado but to invent a word, as in the former 
 cafe, to denote this third fubject of con- 
 verfation, which is prefent, and then we 
 have three pronouns, one of the firft per- 
 fon, one of the fecond, and one of the 
 third. And accordingly, in all the regu- 
 lar languages, there is a pronoun of this 
 third order, which is commonly known 
 by the name of the demcmftratvue pro- 
 noun ; fuch as hie in Latin, c in Greek, 
 and this in Englifh : and if there be more 
 of thofe objects prefent, which are made 
 the fubjecls of difcourfe, they are exprefl- 
 
 ed
 
 48 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 5. ed by the plural of this laft pronoun, in 
 v ^ v ^' the fame manner as when there are more 
 fpeakers or more hearers, they are ex- 
 preiTed by the plural of the two pronouns 
 of the firft and fecond perfon. But if it be 
 further neceffary, among the feveral fub- 
 jecls of difcourfe prefent of the third kind, 
 to diftinguiih and feparate one from the 
 reft, that can be done in words by the 
 name only, or by defcription. And thus 
 much with refpecl to the fubjecfls of dif- 
 courfe prefent. 
 
 But what mall we fay to the infinite 
 number of objects not prefent, which may 
 be the fubjedls of difcourfe ? How are they 
 to be fingled out, and the knowledge of 
 them conveyed to the hearer ? And if we 
 reflect a little, we muft be convinced, that 
 this cannot be done, without reference to 
 fbme previous knowledge which the hearer 
 has of this objec"l ; for if we fuppofe him to 
 know nothing at all of it, neither the name, 
 nor the fpecies to which it belongs, nor any 
 circumftance at all concerning it, by which 
 it may be known and diftinguimed from 
 other objects, it is impoflible that any 
 knowledge at all can be conveyed of it to 
 fuch a man, otherwife than by his fenfes, 
 
 that
 
 Book I* PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. . 49 
 
 that is, by producing the object to him. Ch.$* 
 But fuppofe the object had been mention- 
 ed before in the difcourfe, and that in this 
 way he has come to the knowledge of it, 
 any word marking a reference to the ob- 
 ject before mentioned, and denoting that 
 it is the fame with the object now men- 
 tioned, will be fufficient to fingle out and 
 diftinguifh that object from others. And 
 here we have another pronoun of the third 
 perfon, which ferves to diflinguifh fub- 
 jects of the converfation that are not pre- 
 fent. Of this kind are is and ilk in Latin, 
 a/roc and knetvot in Greek, it, he, Jhe, or 
 that, in Englifh. , 
 
 The bufinefs of pronouns, as I have ob- 
 ferved, is chiefly to diftinguifh indivi- 
 duals. Prifcian has gone fo far as to make 
 it their only bufinefs * ; and certainly the 
 pronouns of the firft and fecond perfon 
 are only applicable to individuals, as like- 
 wife that of the third perfon, if the object 
 be prefent ; but if it be not prefent, the 
 pronoun may apply either to individuals 
 or generals, according as the one or other 
 
 * Pronomen eft pars oratlonis quse pro nomine pro- 
 prio uniufcujufque accipitur. Prifcian, lib. 12. 
 
 VOL. II, G happens
 
 50 THE ORIGIN AND Part II, 
 
 Ch. 5. happens to be the fubjec"l of difcourfe. 
 
 The pronoun is undoubtedly to be 
 
 ranked under the noun ; for it ftands for 
 
 th noun, as the name imports, and al- 
 
 wavs denotes a fiibflance of one kind or an- 
 
 j 
 
 other : but it exprefTes fomething more ; 
 for the pronouns of the firft and fecond 
 perfon mark a reference to the fpeaker and 
 hearer. When I ufe the pronoun /, it is 
 the fame as if I faid,. This man here 'who 
 fpeaks to you ; and when I ufe thou^ it is 
 the fame thing as if I faid, This man here 
 to 'whom I f peak. The demonflrative pro- 
 noun of the third perfon, refers alfo to an 
 object prefent, but different from either 
 fpeaker or hearer ; and when I ufe it, it 
 is the fame thing as if I faid, This objeft 
 'which is here prefent : for all thofe three 
 kinds of pronouns agree in this, that they 
 all refer to an object prefent *. But the 
 other pronouns of the third perfon always 
 
 refer, 
 
 * This I hold to be the reafon why one of them is 
 fometimes ufed for the other : for, in the Greek trage- 
 dies, the demonftrative pronoun i r f or Ih of the third 
 perfon is ofcen ufed for the pronoun of the firft ; and 
 then the fpeaker talks of himfelf in the third perfon, in 
 the manner above mentioned, as if he faid, This per/on 
 here who fpeaks to you. Mr Harris has given an example 
 
 of
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 51 
 
 refer, not to objects then known for the Ch.5. 
 firft time, but to fuch as the hearer had 
 been informed of by the preceding part of 
 the converfation ; fo that they always de- 
 note objects recognifed, or known the fe- 
 cond time *. All nouns whatfoever, and 
 indeed all words, fuppofe in the hearer a 
 previous knowledge of the thing denoted 
 by them, otherwife they would not be in- 
 telligible. But the difference betwixt pro- 
 nouns and other nouns is, that the pro- 
 nouns fuppofe the knowledge of the ob- 
 ject, either from its being prefent, or 
 from its having been before mentioned, 
 but not any other kind of previous know- 
 ledge. 
 
 As my intention is not to write a gram- 
 mar, but only to obferve what is curious, 
 philofophical, and of moft difficult inven- 
 tion in language, I will not enter into any 
 more particulars on the fubject of pro- 
 nouns, nor explain all the different kinds 
 
 of the Latins ufing their hie in the fame way, from that 
 line of Tibulius, 
 
 Quod fi militibus parces, eric HIC quoqne miles. 
 
 Hermes t fag. 36. 
 * Tf hvrifxs yvucia;. See Hermes, fag. 6$. 
 
 G 2 Of
 
 52 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 5. of them. Mr Harris has very properly 
 ^~*^~* divided them into praepofitive and fub- 
 junclive, according to their order in the 
 fentence ; and he has, with his ufual ac- 
 curacy and elegance, explained the nature 
 of that fubjunctive pronoun commonly 
 called the relative, fuch as qui in Latin, 
 'who or 'which in Englifh. And I think it 
 is not improperly called the relative by 
 way of eminence, becaufe it marks not 
 only that relation which all the pronouns 
 of the third perfon, except the demon- 
 ftrative, have to the object mentioned be- 
 fore, but alfo the relation that it has with 
 the fyntax or conftruclion of the fpeech, 
 which it joins together, and as Mr Har- 
 ris exprefles it, renders more compact *. 
 
 From this account of the pronoun, the 
 following definition of it may be extract- 
 ed : A pronoun is a word denoting a fub- 
 Jlance^ not direftly^ but by reference either to 
 fomething prefent, or fomething mentioned in 
 the preceding part of the difcourfe. 
 
 Before I conclude this chapter, I muft 
 obferve, that this part of fpeech is fo ne- 
 ceflary, that the moll barbarous langua- 
 
 * Hermes, pag. 79,
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 53 
 
 ges have it, even the Huron, as I have Ch. 5. 
 obferved. Thofe favages indeed have not 
 the power of abftradlion fo much as to 
 form a feparate idea of it, and exprefs it 
 by a diftinct word ; but they always throw 
 it in with the fignification of other words, 
 particularly of the verb : and yet even fo 
 expreiled, it fliows that they have been 
 fo far philofophers, as to make in fome 
 fort the analyfis above mentioned of the 
 fubjedls of difcourfe, into the fpeaker, the 
 hearer, and fome third perfon or thing. 
 But necemty will make philofophers even 
 of favages. 
 
 CHAP. VI. 
 
 Of the article, and the various ufes of it. 
 
 THis part of fpeech very well deferves Ch. 6 
 a chapter by itfelf ; for, if I mif- 
 
 take not, it is of as fubtle fpecula- 
 i 
 
 tion as perhaps any thing belonging to 
 language, particularly as it is ufed in 
 Greek. It is not a neceifary part of 
 fpeech, for it is very feldom ufed by Ho- 
 mer
 
 54 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 6. mer * ; and it is not at all ufed in the 
 moft antient dialect of Greek that is 
 preferred to us, I mean the Latin. And 
 in the Ionic dialect it is ufed indifcrimi- 
 nately, either as an article or a relative 
 pronoun. The appropriating of it there- 
 fore, for the purpofe of an article, as is 
 done by all the Attic writers, appears to 
 be a refinement of the language in later 
 times. But wherein this refinement con- 
 fifts, has not, I think, hitherto been fufE- 
 tiently explained, nor any fatisfying ac- 
 count given of certain ufes of it. 
 
 The Stoics, as we are informed by 
 Prifcian f , reckoned the article among the 
 pronouns ; and both Apollonius and The- 
 odorus Gaza Ipeak of it as a relative pro- 
 noun, diftinguimed only from the common 
 relative by its poiition in the difcourfe ; 
 and therefore they call the one the prtpo- 
 Jitroe article, and the other the fubjunfti*ve J. 
 But I hope to be able to mew, that its of- 
 fice is different from that of a pronoun of 
 
 * S, , TO, is frequently ufed by Homer, in place of the 
 relative a,-, , 5, but very feldom as an article. 
 
 f- Lib. i. pag. 574. See alfo Hermes, pag. 74. 
 xai T/>orxrix.B s"9/>ov. See Hermes, fag. 78. 
 
 any
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 55 
 
 any kind, and that it deferves very well Ch. 6. 
 to be ranked by itfelf among the parts of 
 fpeech. 
 
 All the words of a language are either 
 the names of individual things, or gene- 
 ral terms ; that is, in the language of 
 grammarians, either proper names or ap- 
 pellatives. The article in Greek is applied 
 to both j for they fay o 2ax/>aTUf, as well as 
 o wfyoTToc. But they muft be both the name 
 of fubflances of one kind or another ; for 
 the ufe of the article, as well as of the pro- 
 noun, is to fingle out and diflinguifh fub- 
 flances from one another, though it does 
 it, as I mall mew, in a different manner. 
 We will begin with confidering it as ap- 
 plied to proper names. 
 
 The application of it in this way, may 
 appear, at firft fight, altogether unnecef- 
 fary ; for a thing feems to be fufficieiitly 
 defined and diflinguimed, by being mark- 
 ed by a name. And accordingly, Mr 
 Harris thinks, that the article added 
 to the name of Socrates is a mere pleonafm, 
 or that it can be of no ufe, unlefs perhaps 
 to diflinguifh fexes *. And it would be fo, 
 
 * Hermes, fag. 226, 
 
 if
 
 56 THE ORIGIN AND Part IL 
 
 Ch. 6. if there had never had been but one So- 
 ^*~^ crates in the world : for then it would 
 have been as unneceffary, and as infigni- 
 ficant a pleonafm, to add the article to So- 
 crates, as to add it to the pronouns of the 
 firft and fecond perfon, which point out 
 particular perfons that cannot poffibly be 
 confounded with any other. But we all 
 know, that among the Greeks, as well as 
 among us, the fame name was common to 
 many individuals ; nor indeed is it pof- 
 fible, by the nature of things, that there 
 mould be a feparate name for every indi- 
 vidual. And in this very inftance, there 
 have been more of the name of Socrates 
 than one ; an& particularly, as I remem- 
 ber, there is an ecclefiaftical hiftorian of 
 that name ; and, even while Socrates li- 
 ved, there was another Socrates, who is 
 introduced in one of Plato's dialogues, 
 and diftinguifhed by the name of Socrates 
 younger. How then is this Socrates to be 
 diftinguifhed from any other ? It is, I fay, 
 by the addition of the article ; and that in 
 two different ways. 
 
 In the firft place, if the name was men- 
 tioned before in the difcourfe or writing, 
 the article denotes a reference to that for- 
 
 mer
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 57 
 
 mer mention ; and it is the fame as if we Ch. 6. 
 faid, the before -mentioned Socrates * fo 
 that the article ufed in this way, denotes 
 an object of fecond or repeated know- 
 ledge f. And in this ufe of it, it comes 
 very near to the relative pronoun, or fub- 
 junli<ve article, as it is called by the 
 Greek grammarians. And there are only 
 two differences betwixt them : frft, The 
 pofition in the difcourfe, the article being 
 always prefixed to the noun, from whence 
 it is called the pr<pofiti t ve article^ but the 
 other fubjoined to it. idly^ The relative 
 connects the difcourfe, and makes one 
 fentence of two, which the article does 
 not. 
 
 But fecondly, The article is applied to 
 Socrates, even though he be mentioned for 
 the firft time. What is the meaning of it 
 
 * This is the ftyle of our deeds, in which the greateft 
 accuracy of expreflion is obferved ; for though the name 
 be ever fo often mentioned, it is always with the addi- 
 tion, the faid, the forefaid, or the above-mentioned. This 
 tedious repetition, which clogs and incumbers the ftyle 
 of our writs fo much, would be faved, if we ufed the ar- 
 ticle in the way the Greeks do, and the ftyle would be as 
 well connefted as it is, without fuch gouty joints, to ufe 
 an exprcffion of my Lord Shaftlbury's. 
 
 f Tiif Stvrtpoc; 3>vo-faf, 
 
 VOL. II, H in
 
 58 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 6. in fuch a cafe ? Is it not there at leafl a 
 mere pleonafm ? I fay not ; and that it has 
 flill a reference to the previous knowledge 
 of the hearer or reader ; not that indeed 
 which he has learned from the preceding 
 difcourfe, but that which he is fuppofed 
 to have had before ; for who knows not 
 Socrates the great philofopher ? The ar- 
 ticle therefore is added to Socrates, to 
 mark his being generally known ; and in 
 this way, added even to a general name, 
 it will point out a particular perfon. 
 Thus, o WOWTK denotes Homer, b forup De- 
 moflhenes ; and added to a much more 
 general name than any of thefe, viz. K- 
 8/>Tcf, it denotes the public executioner in 
 Athens ** 
 
 But fuppofe the name never mentioned 
 before, and fuppofe it likewife not to be 
 the name of any famous perfon generally 
 known, then I fay the addition of the ar- 
 ticle would be altogether improper : and 
 accordingly it is never ufed ; for they fay, 
 in fuch a cafe, Sowxifr (for example) r/v **- 
 
 Mjuavcff or So<n*A.f Tit wop.*.- 
 
 By this life of the article it is clearly dif- 
 tinguiftied from the relative, which it 
 
 * See Hermes, peg. 222. 
 
 feems
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 59 
 
 feems otherwife fo much to refemble ; for Ch. 6. 
 the relative is never ufed in that fenfe. ^^^ 
 But it would feem at firft fight, that when 
 it refers only to the former mention of the 
 perfon or thing, it might be fupplied by 
 fuch pronouns as Vc? and t^cc in Greek, 
 hie and ills in Latin, this and that in Eng- 
 lifh. But all thefe exprefs fomething differ- 
 ent ; for with refpedl to the demonftra- 
 tive pronouns, ro?, hie, and this, they 
 exprefs the thing with particular empha- 
 fis, and point it out as it were with the 
 finger. It is in this way that Virgil men- 
 tions Auguftus Casfar, in that fine com- 
 pliment he pays him in the 6th JEneid, 
 
 Jiic vir, hie /?, tibi quern promitti fepius 
 
 audis, 
 Auguftus C&far, Divum genus. 
 
 And in the fame way we fay in Englifh, 
 This is the man who is deftined to fave a 
 flate, or to do any other great thing. As to 
 the other pronouns above mentioned, keixec, 
 ille, and that, they mark reference indeed ; 
 but in contradiftinclion to the demon- 
 ftrative pronouns juft now mentioned, .*W 
 and hie ; for they denote that the object is 
 t confidcred as prefent, or under the 
 H 2 eye
 
 60 THE ORIGIN AND Part IT. 
 
 Ch. 6. eye of the hearer, as it is reprefented 
 v - orsj when the other pronouns are ufed. As to 
 aVo? in Greek, is in Latin, and he in Eng- 
 lifh, they are ufed by themfelves, with- 
 out being joined to any name, which the 
 article never is * ; and they refer only to 
 an object formerly mentioned, but never 
 to any knowledge of the hearer, other 
 than what he has got from the difcourfe. 
 As to aWoc, when it is ufed in the fenfe of 
 the Latin ipfe^ the difference betwixt it 
 and the article is manifefl. 
 
 It fometimes happens that a perfon is 
 more diftinguifhed by his country, his pro- 
 femon, or any other quality, than by his 
 name. In that cafe the article is added to 
 the adjective denoting the quality, and not 
 to the name ; as 'AiroMj>lofot o Mpmauoc, T[>v$uy 
 
 o "yfHX.ju.uotTDiof, $apmo<; I Tpls uVareyo-af y ? where 
 
 * The article indeed is not always prefixed to the 
 name, but fometimes follows it, but never at any great 
 diftance ; whereas the pronouns I have mentioned, avro ft 
 is, and he, may be at a very great diftance from the name 
 to which they refer. 
 
 f Mr Harris, pag. 231. very properly obferves the 
 difference that there is betwixt adding the article to the 
 proper name, and to the adjective or participle fubjoin- 
 ed, in the inftance which he gives, o nroxf^tiof yv/u.faa-ixpxxo-af 
 triut^, and o yv/jwx<riKFXi>ffct; TlreXf/iaMf tTi/uvSn, or rather 
 
 t
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 61 
 
 it may feem that the article is joined to Ch. 6. 
 the adjective or participle, contrary to the 
 rule we have laid down. But it is truly 
 joined to the noun, only with the addition 
 of an epithet. And fo much for the ufe of 
 the article when it is joined with a proper 
 name. 
 
 The article, when prefixed to general 
 names, fuch as wtyoiros, is of more various 
 ufe, and therefore muft be more accurate- 
 ly confidered. For that purpofe let us exa- 
 mine what wfyuffoe by itfelf, without the 
 article, fignifies. And I fay it denotes any 
 {ingle individual of the fpecies, without 
 diftinclion or difcrimination ; and there- 
 fore the logicians tell us, that in propo- 
 fitions it is the fame with nV V9/>Tflf. Thus 
 <u&fQirot in KIVKOS is the fame as T/V wtywroc '& 
 MOW, being both particular propofitions, 
 not univerfal *. In like manner the plural 
 of the word, without the article, denotes fe- 
 veral individuals of the fpecies, but likewife 
 without any diflinclion or difcrimination ; 
 fo that as vutyavtQ is the fame with r/VaV- 
 is the fame with 
 
 1 See Ariftotle rtpi Iffuntait, and his commentator 
 Ammnnius, pag. 70. and 89. See alfo Philoponus's 
 commentary upon the Firfl Analytics, pag. 7. 
 
 We
 
 62 THE ORIGIN AND Part K. 
 
 Ch. 6. We are next to confider the alteration 
 ^^^^ that the addition of the article makes. 
 What do I mean when I fay o axtymm, or in 
 Englifh the man ? My anfwer is, that it 
 is in this ufe likewife of the nature of a re- 
 lative. And firft, it refers to the foreknow- 
 ledge which the hearer had by the perfon be- 
 ing mentioned before ; fo that o drtpenroc, or the 
 man, is the aforefaid man ; and o* aV9/>a?rei or 
 the men, are the aforefaid men. And in this 
 way we talk of a man or men without 
 naming them ; and even though they 
 have not been named in the preceding part 
 of the difcourfe, but only fo defcribed as 
 that it may be known what man or men 
 are meant. Or fecondly, in this expref- 
 iion the article may have the fame refer- 
 ence to common knowledge or notoriety 
 as when it is applied to a proper name, as 
 in the inflance above given of I dfyoiroc for 
 the common executioner in Athens ; and 
 in our ordinary way of fpeaking we fav, 
 the city, the ri*ver, that is, the city or ri- 
 ver well known to the hearer ; for that is 
 what is chiefly defigned by this kind of 
 expreffion, not the dignity or excellence of 
 the objedl : for we fpcak fo of the city we 
 live in, or the river near us, however in- 
 
 confiderable
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 63 
 
 confiderable that city or river may be. It Ch. 6. 
 is true indeed that the notoriety may, in 
 many cafes, arife from the dignity or ex- 
 cellence, as in the inftances above men- 
 tioned, of the poet and the orator ; but it 
 is the knowledge of the hearer, from 
 whatever caufe it proceeds, that makes this 
 ufe of the article proper. 
 
 Thus it appears, that the article being 
 prefixed to the general term aV8/a^ f , makes 
 a particular term of it, denoting an indi- 
 vidual of the fpecies. But fuppofe I have 
 a mind to preferve the generality of the 
 word, and to denote by it the fpecies it- 
 felf, what am I to do ? The ufe of the 
 word by itfelf, without the article, expref- 
 ies only, as we have feen, fome indefinite in- 
 dividual of the fpecies ; and with the ar- 
 ticle it expreffes ftill an individual, but 
 definite. Is there then no other way of 
 denoting the fpecies, but by a circumlo- 
 cution, fuch as TO etloc TV wfipum, the fpecies 
 of man? There is in the Greek language, 
 and it is by the ufe of the article, for 
 dttyoiroc, in Greek, denotes the fpecies as 
 well as the individual, as in this propofi- 
 tion, wfyuTToe WTI &or* And this will hold 
 
 though
 
 64 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 6. though the fpecies be mentioned for the 
 ^^ firfl time. 
 
 That fuch is the fact, cannot be denied ; 
 but how is it to be reconciled with my no- 
 tion of the article's being a relative word, 
 referring to fome previous knowledge of 
 the fubjecl ? My anfwer is, that it is as 
 much relative in this inftance, as when it 
 is prefixed to Socrates, or any other indi- 
 vidual well known : for it refers to a 
 knowledge which mufl be much more ge- 
 neral than that of any individual of the 
 fpecies, I mean the knowledge of the fpe- 
 cies itfelf, which every body is fuppofed 
 to know ; whereas there are but few in- 
 dividuals of any fpecies that are generally 
 known. 
 
 But how can the fame article denote 
 both the fpecies and the individual of the 
 fpecies ? My anfwer is, that there is an 
 ambiguity no doubt in the expreilion, con- 
 fidered fimply by itfelf ; but it muft be 
 apparent from the context, whether the 
 perfon is fpeaking hiflorically of an indi- 
 vidual man, or philofophically of the fpe- 
 cies. But there is no impropriety at all 
 tliat the fame expreflion of individuality 
 mould be applied both to the fpecies and 
 
 the
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 65 
 
 the individual of the fpecies. On the con- Ch. 6. 
 trary, it would have been an impropriety, '* xv% ~' 
 if the fpecies had been joined with any 
 word denoting number or many : for the 
 fpecies itfelf is truly an individual of the 
 kind, as much as any particular under it, 
 and is fo called by Ariflotle *. And it is 
 not only one itfelf, but it makes one of the 
 things under it ; for things are faid to be 
 one and the fame, becaufe they are of the 
 fame fpecies. 
 
 This philofophical ufe, as it may be 
 
 * Ariftotle calls it the n/u.ai ra *$*, and in Plato's lan- 
 guage it is faid to be one of the many, and Ariftotle car- 
 ries it fo far as to fay, that when *? is added to a 
 
 general term fuch as aidpa-ro;, a TO xaQo\v 0-n/u.airei, o.A\' In 
 
 *.n$tK\i. The meaning of which is, that any word fucii 
 as r f , implying divifion into parts, though it exprefs 
 that all thofe parts are comprehended, and therefore 
 r.ui in xa5ax, yet it does not denote the general fim- 
 ply, or the idea of the thing, c-npa.nn T!> xa9<?\. See Amrnon* 
 ttifttf^itfixc, fol. 81. Now if TTK( avSpaxof does not exprefs 
 this one idea, and if 3^5roc fimply does not exprefs ic 
 neither, as is evident from this very paffage of Ariftotle, 
 it remains, that the only proper expreffion for it, is the 
 general term, with the article in the fingular number, 
 which, by its nature, denotes fmglcnefs or individuality, 
 and therefore is applied, not only to the individuals of fpe- 
 ciefes, as we have feen, but to monadic things, fuch as the 
 antients fuppofed the fun to be. And accordingly they 
 fay in Greek & x wf . See Amm. fol. 78. ubi fupra. 
 
 VOL. II. I called,
 
 66 THE ORIGIN AND PartIL 
 
 Ch. 6. called, of the article, ferves to explain an- 
 other ufe of it, which has been obferved, 
 but not accounted for, fo far as I know ; 
 which is, to mark the fubject of a propofi- 
 tion, and thereby diftinguifh it from the 
 predicate or attribute. In the frjl place, 
 it is to be obferved, that the fubjecl: is not 
 always marked by the article, but by o- 
 ther definitives *, fuch as jrac, all, or every 
 one, and others to be afterwards mentioned. 
 And fometimes the fubjecl: is altogether 
 without any definitive, as in the proposition 
 above mentioned, aV0/><7rcf im MMC, where 
 arflft'Toc is the fubjecl:, but no wife limited 
 or defined. 
 
 idly, As the fubjecl: has not always the 
 article, fo neither is the predicate always 
 without it ; for Arjitotle mentions a pro- 
 pofition, where both the fubjecb and the 
 predicate have the article, viz. >$CKJ r/ TO 
 ayoL^or j\ This makes a good deal of puzzle 
 in the cafe, for clearing which it is necef- 
 
 * I ufe this word of Mr Harris's, to tranflate the 
 .Greek logical term -rforftcpts-fiof, which fignifies an ad- 
 dition to the fubjedt of a propofition, by which the lati- 
 tude or extent in which it is to be taken is determined. 
 
 t Ariftot. Anatyt. prior, lib. I. et Phiiopon. comm. 
 fol. 85. 
 
 fary
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 6,7 
 
 fary to explain a little of the doctrine of Ch. 6. 
 proportions. 
 
 In the mofl fimple proportion there mufl 
 necefTarily be fomething affirmed or de- 
 nied, and fomething of 'which it is affirm- 
 ed or denied. The firfl is called the pre- 
 dicate^ or t what is predicated, in Greek T 
 KOLTvyofiipivcY ; the other is called the Jubjeff, 
 -TO vTTOKetuwov. Now this predication can on- 
 ly be in two ways : for either it mufl be 
 as the genus of the fpecies, as when we fay, 
 man is an animal, where animal, the more 
 general idea, is predicated of the lefs ge- 
 neral idea comprehended under it ; or, 
 2 dly, The accident is predicated of the fub- 
 je<5l in which it is inherent, as when we 
 fay, man is white, where ivhite is the ac- 
 cident predicated of man the fubflance \ 
 
 * Ammonius, in his commentary upon the predicaments, 
 pag. 59. mentions two other ways of predicating, which 
 he calls -xa.fo. fvrn and XT o-t/^&frixe? ; but they may be ea- 
 fily reduced to one or other ot the two I have mentioned. 
 There are fome proportions wherein an accident feems to 
 be predicated of an accident, as when we fay, goodnefi is 
 amiable, ivifdom is profitable. But the cafe is, that ivJf- 
 dom and goodnefs, in fuch proportions, as they have the 
 form of nouns, fo they are confidered as expreffing fnb- 
 ftances, in which the accidents amiable and profitable are 
 inherent. 
 
 I 2 This
 
 63 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 6. This is the nature of the predicate. As to 
 v ^ v>-/ the fubjecl:, it is either an individual or a 
 general ; and if a general, it has one or o- 
 ther of the following four definitives^ or 
 irpofflwpiffuoi, two univerfal, and two parti- 
 cular. The univerfal is either affirmative^ 
 which is exprefTed by the word *-ar, or ne- 
 gative, denoted by the word W. The par- 
 ticular definitives are in like manner either 
 affirmative or negative ; the affirmative is 
 nc, the negative is * ? . Or, if it has none 
 of thefe definitives, it has the article. Or, 
 laftly, it has no limitation of definition 
 -whatever. And this is all the variety that 
 the nature of the thing will admit. If 
 If the laft is the cafe, we have feen already 
 that it does not denote the fpecies, but 
 fome undetermined individual of the fpe- 
 cies. We have alfo feen, that **s aVfywa-ec 
 denotes all the individuals comprehended 
 under the fpecies, that is, the many ; but 
 not the one, or the fpecies itfelf. As to 
 the other definitives T/V, $f, and ' *<*<;, it is 
 impoflible that they can denote the fpecies. 
 It therefore remains, that when the fpecies 
 considered as one, is the f abject of the pro- 
 polition, it can only be marked by the ar- 
 ticle, according to the philofophical mean- 
 ing v. T hich I have given to it when prefix- 
 ed
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 69 
 
 ed to a general term. And accordingly, Ch. 6. 
 Philoponus has obferved, in the paffage above ^^^ 
 quoted *, that we can fay, tofyome kvn ^vtu f - 9 
 
 OF mtyttTrof itrrt y/xx^ar/fcoc ; but WC CantlOt fay, 
 'o m&arifife tff'n xsyxef, or o oufyuTfoc tirri yflXjUua.Tix.oc ; 
 
 becaufe fuch properties belong only to cer- 
 tain individuals of the fpecies, not to the 
 fpecies itfelf. 
 
 And thus it is fliewn in what cafes, and 
 for what reafon, the fubjedl of a proportion 
 is marked by the article. But it remains 
 to be inquired how this comes to be a dif- 
 tinguiihing mark, and why the predicate 
 of a proportion has it not as well as the 
 fubject ; why, e, g. do we only fay, o a^a,*^ 
 
 ftrn ucr, but not, o fltrfl^awif ten TO uov. 
 
 The only one of the definitives above 
 mentioned that has the leaf! refemblance 
 to the article, is ir*f. Now let us inquire, 
 whether it could be faid, TTC aVfy>?rcc wn TTOLV 
 &cr ; but it is evident that this cannot be 
 faid, and fo Ariftotle has told us f . And 
 the reafon is plain, namely, that this 
 would be affirming that every man is e- 
 very animal. Now although <**; afy ovef dif- 
 fers, as I have faid, from a aVfyoTcc in this, 
 
 * Cotum. in Ar.aJyt. prior, fol. 7. 
 
 t J 1 '/ 1 ' *tPW*Ci >ntJ Ammw. Comm. n. 81, 
 
 that
 
 yo THE. ORIGIN AND Part IT. 
 
 Ch. 6. that the one exprefles all the individuals of 
 the fpecies, whereas the other denotes the 
 fpecies itfelf confidered as one : yet it 
 would be as abfurd to fay, that the fpe- 
 cies man is all animals, as that every man 
 is all animals *. 
 
 We cannot therefore fay that o wfyuvof 
 WTI Trot* uov, becaufe we cannot fay that ^ac 
 ax8/>wTpf tin TTOLV {pa* ; and for the fame rcafbn 
 we cannot fay that o u&ftnrot \<m TO (,uw, be- 
 caufe we cannot fay that the fpecies man is 
 the fpecies animal ; or, in other words, 
 that the general idea of man and animal 
 are the fame : for when we fay that ani- 
 mal is predicated of man, we mean that 
 it is predicated in the firft fenfe I mention- 
 
 * Ammonias, in his commentary upon the book of In- 
 terpretation, obferves, that the article has the power of 
 the univerfal definitive rf, only with this difference, 
 that the article expreffes the whole as one, but *<*>- all the 
 parts. I will give the whole paffage : K< ydf arfp-jxof 
 
 ov, xai oif av, xal raj av6pa>Te{ Jaov' TO yap apSpcv TM Juvdfti]/ '%ft 
 TW xaSoXH TrfOcr$i-pKT/j.v of fioA'n Ofii&a xpof T~I xipari T f(f Xis, aAXa TO 
 fi.lv cifdpoi rri Ivwret TrpwftYM TU xa6o'x iarox.aju.tva. AID xai rat ftovxiixov 
 txao-Tii, YM.I TUV uToftav trvvraTfTTai, xai yap o \if X( ya[jnt xa< o 2iix/>arf. 
 'K'OTE iff xal tfi ra v^ipi^ovrcf Ktyotfai ran o t u.o(rroi^ar, a; orav a xoiyTri; 
 ei-iraij.iv, o prirup. To <Ti na.f ra r\9 run vr' avrv aitipipoitlxut. 
 
 t'rom which palFage it is evident, that Ammonius's 
 opinion, concerning the ufe of the article in propofitions, 
 is the fame \vith that of Philoponus ; and indeed it appears 
 to be the dcftrinc of the whole Peripatetic fchooJ. 
 
 ed
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 71 
 
 ed as the genus of the fpecies ; and the Ch. 
 meaning of the proportion is, that man 
 participates of the general idea of animal. 
 The idea therefore of animal, is more gene- 
 ral than that of man, which is compre- 
 hended under it ; fo that it is impofftble 
 we can affirm the whole genus animal of 
 man, any more than we can affirm the 
 whole fpecies man of any individual. For 
 though we can fay, Scj^arw i* zfyviros, we 
 cannot fay, Sax/jar^? 'ivnv o a'cG/x^c? ,- and for 
 the fame reafon we cannot fay, * wfyoiroc vm 
 TO OK. For in the one cafe a'r0/>o?rof is the 
 predicate, and &or in the other ; and there- 
 fore if wtyoiro; cannot admit the article, it 
 is clear that &w cannot admit it neither. 
 And the reafon is the fame for both, name- 
 ly, that as one individual does not contain 
 the whole fpecies, fo neither does one fpe- 
 cies contain the whole genus. In ihort, 
 to exprefs it in that way, would be to con- 
 found genus and fpecies, fpecies and in- 
 dividual, and to make no diftinclion be- 
 twixt what contains and what is contained. 
 And thus I have fhewn, that the article is 
 properly applied to the fubjecl: of a propo- 
 fition when it denotes the fpecies, but can- 
 not
 
 72 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 6. not be applied to the predicate in fuch pro- 
 pofitions as the one I have mentioned. 
 
 But what fhall we fay of the propofi- 
 tion mentioned by Ariflotle, How 'am TO *- 
 yatBov ? This proportion he fays is different 
 
 from the following, nlcw 'VSTH a'yaflcr ; fb 
 
 that, according to Ariflotle, the addition 
 of the article makes a difference of the 
 fenfe, and therefore o dafy&tst tan or is a 
 different propofition from aV0/>jrcc ivri &ov. 
 Thus much then is eflablifhed by the au- 
 thority of Ariflotle. But what is the mean- 
 ing of this propofition concerning pleafure ? 
 for Ariflotle has not told us, but has left 
 .tis to guefs. Philoponus his commenta- 
 tor, in the paffage above quoted *, thinks 
 that it is a predication of the firfl kind a- 
 bove mentioned, by which the general is 
 -predicated of the particular under it ; and 
 he makes &om to be the genus, and a'ya0r 
 the fpecies ; fo that the proportion is, that 
 good is a fpecies of pleafure, as man is a 
 fpecies of animal. But by what rule does 
 he fo determine ? why may not a'y6r be 
 the genus, as well as u'Sor* ? I think there 
 is nothing either in the fenfe, or the ex- 
 preitLon, to make us determine otherwife. 
 
 * Comm, in Ar.alyt. prior, pag. 85. 
 
 But
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 73 
 
 But my opinion is, that it is not a propo- Ch. 6. 
 fition of that kind ; but that the meaning 
 is, that the idea of pleafure, that is, the 
 $ jlow, is the fame with the idea of good, or 
 the TO ayafloc ; fo that they are only two 
 names for the fame thing. 
 
 Befides thefe ufes of the article, there is 
 another that I have already mentioned 
 when I was treating of nouns, viz. that 
 of making fubflantives of adjectives, and 
 of certain parts of verbs. But of this it is 
 heedlefs to fay more, as the only ufe of 
 the article, in fuch cafes, is to mark, that 
 the word to which it is joined is ufed as 
 a noun, though it have not the form of a 
 noun ; fo that it is truly not an article, 
 but an indication of a noun. 
 
 From what is here faid of the article, 
 the following definition of it may be col- 
 lected. " It is the prefix of a noun, 
 44 denoting {imply that the noun to which 
 44 it is prefixed, is the fame with that which 
 44 was before mentioned, or is otherwife 
 44 well known *." 
 
 The 
 
 * I rank it, as well as the pronoun, under the noun ; 
 becaule it cannot be without the noun, and is truly a 
 certain modification of the noun, though it do not fland 
 
 VOL. II. />
 
 74 THE ORIGIN AND PartIL 
 
 CJi. 6. The great ufe of it appears from what 
 has been faid. And the want of it muft 
 be acknowledged a great defect in the 
 Latin tongue, efpecially in philofophical 
 writing ; for the Latin, by reafon of this 
 want, cannot diftinguifh the unity of the 
 fpecies, from the multitude of individuals 
 under it, nor the fpecies itfelf from any 
 undetermined individual of it. It cannot 
 diftinguifh among individuals, thofe that 
 are indefinite and unknown, from thofe 
 that are definite and known. It cannot 
 diftinguifh betwixt the fubject and the predi- 
 cate of a proportion. It cannot fimply re- 
 fer to any object, without fome particular 
 emphafis. And laftly, It cannot connect 
 together the fubjects of die difcourfe, by re- 
 
 for th noun, as the pronoun does. It exprefles alfo the 
 accident of relation ; fo that it is of thofe words that have 
 a mixed fi^niHcation, and participate both of noun and 
 verb. I have faid prefixed to a noun ; and this is always 
 the cafe, though the following noun be forretimes not 
 expre/Ted, but underftood, as in this exprsffion, 'E.*. T ap 
 
 T ( iTnlav awipfSmfarv, o (JLH vr' A%t)to( a it Lira IIar/9xXu, where 
 
 'EXT"? is underftood as following the firft article, and Sar* 
 pedon the fecond. I have faid that it fimply refers to 
 what is previoufly known, becaufe in that way it is dif- 
 tinguifhed, as I have obferved, from certain pronouns 
 which refer alfo, but with a'particular indication, or /ara. 
 Jr^fi*. as the Greek grammarians exprefs it. 
 
 ferring
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 75 
 
 ferring them one to another, but leaves the Ch. 6, 
 reader or hearer to guefs, whether they be 
 the fame that were mentioned before or not. 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 
 Of the ufe of the article in French and Eng- 
 lijh. 
 
 THE learned grammarian, ifanyfuch Ch.y. 
 mall deign to read my work, may ^^^ 
 perhaps find fault that I mould, in this 
 inquiry into the nature of a language of 
 art, fpend any time upon languages that 
 have not been formed according to the 
 rules of art, by grammarians and philofo- 
 phers, as the Greek language undoubted- 
 ly was, but have grown out of vulgar ufe, 
 being mongrel dialects, and the corrup- 
 tion of better languages, from which they 
 derive any thing good that is in them. 
 But we ought to confider, that fuch as 
 they are, they are now almofl the only 
 languages in which even the learned write, 
 fmce the writing in Greek, which was ne- 
 ver much praclifed in the weftern world, 
 K2 is
 
 76 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 7. is now entirely given over, and the wri- 
 ting in Latin very much difufed, OP 
 fo ufed that it were better altogether 
 laid afide likewife. In fuch circumftances, 
 it is of importance that the feveral langua- 
 ges of Europe, now almoft the only lan- 
 guages in which fcience is delivered, mould 
 be cultivated and improved, as much as 
 their dinted genius, and original faulty 
 conftitution, will admit. And our Eng- 
 lifh is, among thofe dialects, one that I 
 think more capable of improvement than 
 any other. Befides, the perfection of fuch 
 a language as the Greek, is never better 
 feen than when contrafted by the defects 
 of lefs perfect languages. Having faid thus, 
 much by way of apology for this chapter, 
 I proceed. 
 
 The ufe of the article is, no doubt, a 
 great advantage which both the French and 
 Englifh have over the Latin : An advan- 
 tage which they derive from their northern 
 anceflors ; for the French, though it be 
 for the greater part corrupted Latin, has 
 a great mixture in it of the Teutonic and 
 Celtic ; and the Englilh, we know, is a, 
 dialect of the Teutonic or German, the 
 parent of which is the Gothic, a language, 
 
 as
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 77 
 
 as I have had occafion already to obferve, Ch. 7. 
 much more perfect than the prefent Eng- 
 lifh ; and which, among other things 
 belonging to a perfect language, has 
 an article. But we are not to imagine 
 that the French and Englifh languages have 
 an advantage over the Greek, by ha- 
 ving two articles in place of one : on the 
 contrary, the ufe of the particles, a and 
 an in Englifh, and un in French, com- 
 monly called articles , is really a defect in 
 thofe languages ; for they are truly nume- 
 rical words, denoting one, for which the 
 French have no other word than this that 
 they call an article. Now what occafion is 
 there for a term of number to denote an 
 indefinite individual of any fpecies ? This 
 is properly done in Greek by the limple 
 noun. Now fuppofe any foreigner, learn- 
 ing to fpeak Greek, ihould think proper 
 to add the numeral aV, and inflead of 
 aatywxoe mould fay, 'c wtiftnw, would not 
 that be reckoned a folecifm, and a corrup- 
 tion of the language ? Now this article, 
 in French and Englifh, has, I am perfua- 
 ded, arifen from fuch ignorance and cor- 
 ruption of a better language. 
 
 But mould not this article, if it is to be 
 ufed at all, have a plural ? For, as we ex- 
 
 prefs
 
 78 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 7. prefs aV0/>a?roc by " # man," why have we not 
 a plural for that article, to exprefs mtyuirot, 
 but are obliged to fay {imply men in the 
 plural, and that with no very determined 
 fignification ? For we know not exactly 
 whether it mean fome men, many men, 
 or moji men ; whereas the Greek wfyoirot 
 denotes the fimple plurality of indefinite 
 individuals of that fpecies. In this parti- 
 cular I think the French language is more 
 uniform and confiflent : for they have a 
 plural for this article, viz. des ; and des 
 hommes in French, is precifely artya in 
 Greek. 
 
 As to the proper article the in Englifli, 
 and le in French, let us firft, according 
 to the order in which we proceeded with 
 refpedl to the Greek article, confider the 
 application of them to proper names. And 
 the rule is, both in French and Englifh, 
 that they are not applied to proper names, 
 unlefs it be when two or more of the fame 
 name are mentioned : then we fay, in or- 
 der to diflinguim the one from the other, 
 the Peter, e. g. that you faw, the Howard 
 that did fuch a thing ; though this is not 
 properly an exception to the rule, becaufe 
 the article is not added to the proper name 
 
 fo
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 79 
 
 fo much as to the perfon fo and fo defcri- Ch. 7. 
 bed, juft as we add it to an appellative 
 noun, as when we fay, the man who did 
 fo or fo. Neither is it an exception to the 
 rule in French that they ufe it in pro- 
 per names, as La Fontaine ; for there it is a 
 part of the name, not the article added 
 to the name. But it is an exception to 
 the rule, and a whimfical one too, that 
 when we give a plural to thofe proper 
 names, we then add the article. Thus we 
 fay, the Howards, or the Stewarts and the 
 French in like manner. It will be faid, 
 that this is to diftinguifh families from one 
 another. But why not diftinguifh, in the 
 fame manner, individuals, when there are 
 more than one of the fame name ? why, 
 for example, fpeaking of a particular 
 Howard, do not we fay, the Howard, (as 
 the Greeks fay Kra/>), meaning either the 
 Howard before mentioned, or a Howard 
 fo famous that every body knows him. 
 
 Another exception to the rule, both in 
 French and Englifh, is, when we fpeak of 
 certain great natural objects, fuch as great 
 rivers, or great mountains ; for we fay, the 
 Thames, the Severn, the Alps, the Appen- 
 nines, &c. ; and the French do the fame : 
 
 and
 
 So THE ORIGIN AKD Part II. 
 
 Ch. 7. and alfo when we fpeak either in French br 
 Englifli of nations, we add the article ; for 
 we fay, the French, theEngliflj, les Francois, 
 les Anglais. But by a ftrange caprice of 
 the Englifh language, when *ve fpeak of the 
 country thofe nations inhabit, we drop the 
 article, and fay, France, Spain, &c. : but the 
 French, in this, as well as in many other 
 things, is more regular than our language ; 
 for they fay, la France, /' Efpagne, 8cc. And 
 the Greek muft be allowed to be more u- 
 niform and confident than either, as it pre- 
 fixes the article to all proper names, of e- 
 very kind, except when they are firfl men- 
 tioned, and are not of things or perfonS 
 generally known. And fo much for the 
 ufe of the article in French and Englifli, 
 when applied to proper names. 
 
 When applied to a general word, it dif- 
 tinguimes the individuals of the fpecies, as 
 in Greek, by referring either to the former 
 mention of them in the difcourfe, or to 
 the previous knowledge of the party to 
 whom the difcourfe is addrefled. Thus 
 we fay the man, when we fpeak of a man 
 before mentioned ; we fay alfo the poet, and 
 the orator, referring to fbme famous poet 
 or orator, well known to the hearer, though 
 
 not
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 81 
 
 not before mentioned ; and we fay alfo, Ch. 7,. 
 as I obferved before, the river, and the 
 mountain, though neither of them be con- 
 fiderable or famous, but only in the neigh- 
 bourhood of the parties, and fo well known 
 to them. 
 
 With refpecl: to the philofophical ufe, 
 as I call it, of the article, for denoting the 
 fpecies, the French are regular and uni- 
 form ; for they apply it to all lubftances, 
 natural or artificial, and even to abftradl 
 nouns. Thus with refpect to animals, 
 they fay, /' homme, le cheval, V ours, &c. ; 
 with refpect to vetegables, le bled, Vo- 
 tive y la vigne, &c. ; as to minerals, they 
 fay, r or, leplombe, lefaltpetre\ and fpeak- 
 ing of the elements, la terre, /' eau, 
 V air, le feu ; and as to artificial fubftan- 
 ces, they fay, le chariot, la char rue, la 
 bouffole ; and as to ab {tract nouns, they fay, 
 la vcrtue, la fageffe, &c. 
 
 In Engliih there is a ftrange variety in 
 this matter. And in the firfl place, with 
 refpecl: to animals, we fay, fpeaking of 
 the fpecies, the liw, the borfe, the bear, 
 tec. ; but with refpect to our own fpecies, 
 we always fay man limply ; as to vege- 
 tables, we fay, the olive, the ijinc, the pome- 
 VOL. II. L granate*
 
 82 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 7. granate, &c. But we commonly fay corn 
 fimply, and its different fpeciefes, fuch as 
 wheat, barley^ and oats. I fay commonly, 
 for it is the misfortune of our language, 
 that the ufe of it is not fo much fixed as of 
 the French ; and whoever will try to re- 
 duce it to rules, will find very near as many 
 exceptions from as inftances of the rule. 
 As to minerals, I think we always exprefs 
 them without the article ; for we fay, 
 gold is the heavieft of metals, Jilver is more 
 difficult to be refined than gold, and the like. 
 As to the elements, we always fay earth 
 fimply ; for when we fay the earth, we 
 mean the globe of the earth. But as to the 
 words denoting the other three elements, 
 we ufe them indifcriminately, either with 
 or without the article ; for we fay air, or 
 the air, fire, or the fre, 'water, or the 'wa- 
 ter. As to artificial fubftances, we fay, 
 the -plough, the compafs, the quadrant, fpeak- 
 ing of the fpecies ; but we do not com- 
 monly fay the houfe, the coat, unlefs fpeak- 
 ing of a particular houfe or coat. But 
 when we exprefs the fpecies, we common- 
 ly ufe the particle a ; for we fay a hotife is 
 a great convenience, a coat keeps one 
 warm. And laftly, as to abftracl nouns, 
 
 we
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 83 
 
 we never ufe it at all : for, though we Ch. 7, 
 fay the goodnefs, the ivifdom of God ; yet 
 when we fpeak of thofe qualities abflracV 
 edly, without reference to any fubject in 
 which they are inherent, we fay goodnefs^ 
 ivifdom, and the like ; although the analo- 
 gy of language require, that as fuch words 
 denote fubilances of the mind's creation, 
 and have in every refpedl the form of 
 fubflantive nouns, they mould likewife 
 have the article prefixed ; and accordingly 
 it is fo uniformly in Greek. 
 
 Another philofophical ufe of the article is, 
 to diftinguim the fubject of a proportion 
 from the predicate, in the manner I have 
 explained. This obtains both in French 
 and Englifh. In our tranflation of the 
 New Teftament, we have a remarkable in- 
 flance of it, upon which a very important 
 article of faith depends. It is in the be- 
 ginning of the gofpel of St John, where 
 it is faid that 0eo? w o Aoyoc. Here, according 
 to the idiom of the Greek language, Asyc? 
 is undoubtedly the fubjecl, and tec the 
 predicate. And accordingly we have 
 tranflated it, the Word was God. There is 
 another inftance of the fame correclnefs of 
 tranflation in the beginning of the Book of 
 L 2 CcnetSy
 
 $4 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 7, Gene/ts, where it is faid that God called 
 V " x ' v ~ vJ the light day, and the darknefs night. Here 
 the article added to light and darknefs, de- 
 notes that they are the fubjects of the two 
 proportions *, But though this be accor- 
 ding 
 
 * Our tranflators of the Bible certainly underftood 
 their own language very well, though they may have 
 jnutaken. the fenfe of ihe criminal, as I fee they have of- 
 ten done in tranflating the New Teftament. As to their 
 errors in translating the Old, I muft refer to thofe who are 
 learned in the Hebrew ; but I will venture to fay, that if 
 they had taken the fenfe of the Hebrew from the Septuagint 
 trauflation, they would not have erred fo often. I will 
 s/ive but one inftar.ce, where, by not following the Septua- 
 Tint, they have made unintelligible a paflage in the 
 books of Mofes, containing a moft fubiime doftrine of 
 theology It is in the book of Exodus, ch. iii. where God 
 appeared to Mofes in the burning bufh. and being a(ked 
 bv Moles what his name was, " God faid unto Moles, I 
 "AM THAT I AM ; and he faid, Thus fhalt tliou fay 
 *' unto the children of Ifrael, I AM hath lent me unto 
 ' you." Thefe words have to me no meaning. But in 
 the traaflation of the Septuagint, ihe paifage runs thus. 
 
 Kxi fiXf* o Qiif vp'o; Moiuo-riv liyuv 'Eya /-< 'o'ilN xctl Tfy, KTU( lpnf 
 TOi'f uioij lrftt>i\, 'O"ilN Tra.\xf fj.t -xpi; v,f. 
 
 This way rendered, the p adage is not only fenfe, but 
 contains a. moft fubiime phllofophical truth, viz. that 
 God is the only being who can be faid properly to e.\//7, 
 fmce he only exills independently t and all other things have 
 their exiftence in kins. For in him ic live, mor?, and 
 have our being. In this fenfe the pafTage is underftood 
 by Etiicb'us, P>\-ff. Evangel, lib. 7. cap 1 1. And fo in- 
 terpreted it agrees exaclly with the famous infcription a- 
 
 botc
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 85 
 
 ding to rule, I dare not aver that it is the Ch. 7. 
 conflant ufe in Englifh ; for our great poet 
 Milton, who at the fame time was a great 
 matter of language, in putting this paflage 
 into verfe, has tranfpofed the article in 
 one of the proportions, and omitted it al- 
 together in the other. For he has fa id, 
 
 " Light the day, and Darknefs night 
 
 he nam'd ;" 
 
 by which, according to the rule I have 
 laid down, we are to understand that he 
 called the day Light ; and as to the other 
 propofition, it is not eafy to fay what to 
 make of it. For it is not the order of the 
 words in Englifh, any more than in 
 Greek, that mould determine the fubjec! 
 of the propofition ; for we may fay either 
 that the light he called Day^ or Day he 
 called the light. In order therefore to fave 
 the credit of Milton, I am very much in- 
 clined to agree with Dr Bentley, and to 
 
 bove the portal of the temple at Delphi. This infcrip- 
 tion was a fmgle letter, namely the letter E, the name of 
 which in Greek was ', which is the fecqnd perfon of the 
 prefent of the indicative of the verb >/, and iignifies thou 
 art, being, as Plutarch has interpreted it, the faluta- 
 tion of the God by thofe who entered the temple See 
 Plutarch, ds 6 afud Delph. 
 
 fuppofe
 
 86 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 7. fuppofe it an error of his amanuenfis, or 
 xv " vj after tranfcriber, and that he truly gave 
 it, 
 
 " And Day the light , the darknefs Night 
 he nam'd." 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 Of the genders and numbers of nouns. 
 
 'Aving thus treated of the different 
 lands of nouns, according to my 
 diviiion of the parts of fpeech, viz. the 
 fubflantive noun, the pronoun, and the 
 article, I will now proceed to confider three 
 accidents common to all nouns, and which 
 deferve a particular confideration ; I mean, 
 numbers^ genders^ and cafes. 
 
 And to begin with number, it is one of 
 the mod general affections of being ; for 
 things being {tripped of all their accidents, 
 and all the qualities that difference them 
 one from another, ftill retain the diflinc- 
 tion of one, two, or many *. It was there- 
 fore 
 
 * This tho-ight is very elegantly exprefTcd in the 
 third book of the Hermes, chap. 4, pag. 367. in thefc 
 
 words.
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. $7 
 
 fore fit that this fb univerfal property of Ch. 8, 
 things fhould be marked by fome variation ^""^ 
 of the word expremng the thing, and not by 
 a new word. And I think there is nothing 
 more bungling in the barbarous languages, 
 than their having recourfe to a new word to 
 exprefs the difference betwixt the fingular 
 and plural of any thing. Even the mo- 
 dern languages of Europe, however imper- 
 fecl in other refpects, do all exprefs thatdif- 
 tinclion by a variation of the fame word. 
 
 To exprefs in that way all the different 
 numbers of things, is by nature impof- 
 fible ; and if it ihould be attempted, even 
 to the length of /<?, which may be faid to 
 be the hinge upon which our arithmetic 
 turns, the word would immediately ap- 
 pear to be greatly incumbered and over- 
 loaded. Is there then no medium betwixt 
 unity and multitude ? and nothing elfe to be 
 expreffed by the numbers of nouns, but 
 fingular and plural 1 There is by nature 
 
 words. " By feparating from the infinite individuals 
 with which we are furrounded, thofe infinite acci- 
 ' dents by which they are all divcrfified, we leave no- 
 ' thing but thofe fimple and perfectly fimilar units, 
 ' which being combined make number, and are the 
 '' fubjecl of arithmetic."
 
 88 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 8. a medium, and that is the duad, for that 
 v ^' v "^ y is the paflage from unity to number. U- 
 nity confefledly is not number ; neither is 
 the duad number, (for number is denned 
 to be a multitude of monads *), but is a 
 flep towards number ; for there is a pro- 
 grefs in the principles of things, and e- 
 very thing does not arife from a fingle 
 principle. Thus the principles of body are 
 the point, the line, and the furface ; and of 
 number the principles are the monad and 
 the duad. . This was the philofophy of the 
 fchool of Pythagoras -f-. And it appears 
 to me to have been known to the artifts 
 who formed the Greek language ; and if 
 there were nothing elfe to convince me that 
 this language was the work of philofo- 
 phers, as well as grammarians, their ufe 
 of the dual number would be fufHcient. 
 It is true that the Gothic has this number 
 likewife, and we cannot believe that the 
 Goths were philofophers. But there are 
 many other things in that language, which 
 make it impofTible, in my opinion, that it 
 
 * nx3o; friovyJav. Euclid, lib. 7. 
 
 f See Jamblichus's Comm, on the arithmetic of Ni- 
 comachus. 
 
 mould
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 89 
 
 fhould have been the invention of a bar- Ch. 8. 
 barous nation. And therefore we mud V -"~ V "" J 
 fuppofe that they have learned to fpeak 
 from fome nation more advanced in arts 
 and fciences ; and that this nation was 
 the fame with that from which the Greeks 
 got their language, and all their other arts 
 and fciences, namely Egypt, we have en- 
 deavoured to mew, in the firft part of this 
 work, p. 442. 
 
 As to gender, it is founded upon the 
 diftinclion of fexes ; a diftincTion not com- 
 mon to all things, like number, but pecu- 
 liar to animals ; or if we have a mind to 
 carry it the greateft length, and take in 
 the vegetable, to animated fubftances : 
 all other things have no fex : and therefore 
 genders are naturally divided into mafcu- 
 line, feminine, and neuter ; which lafl, as 
 Dr Smith has very well obferved, is truly 
 a negation of fex *. 
 
 According to this diftinction, all words 
 denoting fubftances inanimate, mould be 
 of the neuter gender. But the artificers 
 of language have been pleafed to give the 
 variety of mafculine and feminine even 
 to fubftantives denoting inanimate things, 
 
 * Diflert. on the formation of languages, pag. 444. 
 
 VOL. II. M from
 
 90 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 8. from certain analogies and fimili trades, 
 very ingenioufly explained in the Hermes, 
 to which I refer the reader. 
 
 I mall only add further, on this fubject, 
 that the want of genders muft be account- 
 ed a very great difadvantage in any lan- 
 guage. For, in the firft place, it makes 
 the creation of a new word, or at lead 
 an addition to the old word, neceflary to 
 exprefs the difference betwixt the male and 
 the female of the fpecies. Thus in Eng- 
 lim, to denote the female of the wolf and 
 bear kind, we are obliged to fay a Jhe~ 
 wolf and a Jhe-bear^ inftead of the Latin 
 lupa and urfa ; and in order to denote the 
 female of the horfe kind, we have been o- 
 bligecl to invent a word quite different, 
 viz. mare^ inftead of the Latin equa from 
 equus. 2#/r, The genders of fubfbantives, 
 and their correfpondent adjectives, are of 
 lingular advantage in fyntax, allowing a 
 variety of arrangement and compofition, 
 which languages without genders cannot 
 pombly admit. And laftly, They give a 
 variety to the termination of thofe parts 
 of fpeech, which is very agreeable to the 
 ear, and contributes not a little to the har- 
 mony of the learned languages. 
 
 CHAR
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE* 91 
 
 CHAP. IX. 
 
 Of the cafes of nouns. 
 
 THE cafes of nouns are a matter of Cli. 9. 
 very great art ; and, as I have ta- 
 ken occaiion to obferve, were probably 
 the laft thing invented in the art of 
 language, and therefore may be prefumed 
 to have been of moil difficult invention. 
 And I think they are flill of more difficult 
 explanation than perhaps any other thing 
 in language. I own I am not fatisfied 
 with any thing I have feen on the fubjecl ; 
 and it is not unlikely that the reader will 
 be as little fatisfied with the account I am 
 now to give of them, though he will cer- 
 tainly approve of my attempt to explain 
 them from principles of philofophy, which, 
 though perhaps they may not apply to the 
 ufe of language, are fuch as I apprehend 
 cannot be controverted. 
 
 I have already obferved, that if any 
 
 number of nouns or verbs, of the clearell 
 
 and mod determined fignification, were 
 
 M 2 to
 
 g2 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 9. to be fet down together, but without any 
 **^~^ connection among them, they would not 
 conftitute fpeech, becaufe they would not 
 make fenfe, nor convey any fentiment of 
 the mind of the fpeaker. Connection 
 therefore is abfolutely necefiary for the 
 purpofe of fpeech. But how is this con- 
 nection to be marked ? I think only in 
 one of three ways ; either by words in- 
 vented for that purpofe ; or by fome 
 change and variation of the words that are 
 to be connected together ; or laftly, by 
 the pofition or arrangement of the words. 
 The modern languages of Europe connect 
 their fpeech chiefly by the firft and laft 
 method : for they either make the con- 
 nection by feparate words, fuch as prepo- 
 fitions ; or by placing the words together 
 they mark that they are to be referred to 
 one another. But the learned languages 
 ufe chiefly the fecond method ; and by 
 certain variations of the word, com- 
 monly known by the name of infleftion^ 
 mark its connection with other words in 
 the fentence. And when in this way the 
 connection betwixt noun and noun, or 
 noun and verb, or noun and prepofition, 
 is marked by a certain inflection of the 
 
 noun.
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 93 
 
 noun, that is what is commonly called a Ch. 9. 
 cafe. 
 
 But from what is this variation or in- 
 flection ? I fay, it is from the noun itfelf, 
 or that form of it which is commonly called 
 the nominative ; which I hold to be no cafe, 
 becaufe it is not inflected ; and in this I 
 am fupported by the authority of Ariftotle, 
 who every where fpeaks of the noun, and 
 the cafe of the noun, as quite diflinct: 
 things *. The nominative therefore, ac- 
 cording to this opinion, exprefTes the thing 
 fimply and abfolutely in itfelf, without 
 marking any connection or relation to any 
 thing elfe. For although it cannot ftand 
 that way in the fentence, but muft be 
 connected one way or another with fome 
 other word ; that connection is not mark- 
 ed by the nominative, but by that other 
 word, which, befides its own meaning. 
 
 ' O* 
 
 exprefles that connection. Thus homo, in 
 a Latin fentence, fignifies juft man but 
 it depends upon the form of fome other 
 word in the fentence, whether it is to be 
 the agent or patient of fome action ex- 
 
 * See Ariftotle's book ntpl lf^vxf. This too is the o- 
 j)inion of Sanftius in his Minerva, who, in fupport oi it, 
 quotes the authority of Ariilotie.
 
 94 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 9. prefTed by a verb, or whether it be in one 
 / ~ v ~ v -' way or another connected with another 
 noun. 
 
 All cafes have this in common, that 
 they exprefs a connection of one kind or an- 
 other, with fome other word in the fen- 
 tence, befides the principal thing denoted 
 by the noun. They are therefore confignifi- 
 cant of connection *, if I may be allowed the 
 word, juft as the verb is of time, and are 
 among the number of thofe words that 
 have a mixed fignification. But what is 
 the connection they exprefs ? for it is im- 
 poffible they can exprefs all the manifold 
 connections and dependencies that words, 
 or the things exprefled by them, have with 
 refpecl to one another. And if the arti- 
 ficers of language had attempted that, 
 they would have run into very great con- 
 funon, and overloaded the expreilion of 
 their words, as well as enlarged them to 
 an enormous fize. It was therefore only 
 the moft common and neceflary connec- 
 tions that could be exprefled in that way, 
 and thefe only the artifls who formed lan- 
 guage have exprefled. 
 
 But what are thefe connections ? If they 
 
 * ITee>s-fiT/4<yy. 
 
 are
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 95 
 
 are all to be comprehended under one ge- Ch. 9. 
 neral head, I fay they belong to the cate- 
 gory of relation ; for I inuft have recourfe 
 again to the Categories, in which, accor- 
 ding to my notion, the firfl principles of 
 all arts and fciences, and among others of 
 the grammatical art, are contained. It is 
 the moft general of all the categories ; for 
 it runs through them all, and is, as the 
 name given it by Ariilotle imports, the 
 refpedl which things have to one an- 
 other * : for it is not, properly fpeaking, 
 in the things themfelves, but in the mind, 
 which confiders them together, and from 
 that consideration forms the idea we call 
 relation. It cannot therefore fubfift, with- 
 out two things at leafl, fo that if any one 
 of them ceafes to exifl, the relation is at 
 an end. This makes it neceflary to dif- 
 tinguifti carefully betwixt the things them- 
 felves and the relation ; for the things 
 may fubfift without one another. Thus 
 Sophronifcus and Socrates, confidered as 
 fubftances, may fubfift one without the 
 other ; but the relation betwixt them of 
 
 * Ti ypss T is the name which Ariftotle gives this cate- 
 gory. 
 
 father
 
 96 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch 9. father and fon cannot fubfift without the 
 "^ exiftence of both. 
 
 But to fay in. general, that the cafes 
 denote relation, is not fufficient ; for there 
 are many different kinds of relation. And 
 Ammonius Hermeias, in his Commen- 
 tary upon Ariftotle's Categories, reckons 
 up to the number of eight of them *. 
 But I will take a divifion of them from 
 the Categories themfelves, through which, 
 as I have faid, this category of relation 
 runs, that will I think ferve my purpofe 
 better. And I take it from the general 
 divifion of all the categories into fubftance 
 and accident ; for every thing exifting, is 
 either fubftance, or the accident of fub- 
 flance. Now, according to this way of 
 coniidering relations, they are either of 
 fubftance to fubftance, of fubftance to ac- 
 cident, or of accident to accident. 
 
 Let us next apply this divifion to the 
 particular cafes, beginning with the geni- 
 tive, which, according to the opinion of 
 the Peripatetic fchool, is the firft cafe. 
 The expreflion of relation by it, appears 
 to me to be very various, and to run 
 though all the three members of the di- 
 
 * *Ef rscf rMTiryopittfi pkg. 96. 
 
 vifion
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 97 
 
 vifion juft now given. For it exprefles the Ch. 9. 
 relation of fubilance to fubftance, of fub- V -'' V ^ J 
 fiance to accident, and of accident to ac- 
 cident. 
 
 To begin with the firft : The relation of 
 fubftance to fubftance exprefied by the ge- 
 nitive, feems to me to be of three kinds. 
 For, firft, It exprefles the connection of 
 'whole and part, fo that the word in the 
 genitive cafe denotes the ivhole, of which 
 the other word fignifies a part. I will take 
 my examples from our Englifh idiom, which 
 ufes the prepofition of for the mark of the 
 genitive. In this fenfe of the cafe, we 
 fay, a tree of a forejl, a regiment of an 
 army, a man of a country. Or, 'vice verfa, 
 the word in the genitive denotes the parts, 
 while the other word fignifies the 'whole 
 which is cornpofed of thofe parts ; as 
 when we fay, a forejl of oak-trees, an ar- 
 my of fo many regiments, a country of fo 
 many diftricJs or provinces. And in gene- 
 ral we fay in Englifh, the parts of the 
 'whole, and the 'whole of the parts *. What 
 
 * In Greek the cafe is varied. For they fay, pip,, or 
 titpo: rS <J*.y ; but they fay, OKW rcic fttftr:. See Arijlot. 
 Categor. under the category of relation, 
 
 VOL. II, N the
 
 98 THE ORIGIN AND Part II: 
 
 Ch. 9. the reafon is of this feemingly oppofite re- 
 ^^^^ lation being expreiTed by the fame cafe, 
 fhall be immediately explained. 
 
 The fecond relation, betwixt fubftance 
 and fubftance, exprefied by the genitive, 
 is when the fubftance in that cafe has any 
 pojftffion, property, or poiver of any kind 
 over the other fubftance. Thus we fay, 
 the land or honfe of John, the fubjefls of the 
 king, the tenants of the landlord, the fervant 
 oj the majler, &c. 
 
 The third relation expreffed by this 
 cafe, betwixt fubftance and fubftance, is 
 when the fubftance in the genitive is the 
 caufe efficient of the other fubftance, or that 
 from which it proceeds. Thus we fay, 
 the fon of the father, the picture of fuch a 
 painter, or, in general, the ivork of either art 
 cr iiaturc *. I fay the caufe efficient ; for if 
 it is the caufe material, then the expreilion 
 is quite different, and the matter is in the ' 
 governing cafe, while the thing produced 
 of the matter is in the genitive. Thus we 
 lay, the ivood of the door, the ft ones of the, 
 
 * This ufc of the genitive, to fignify the cnufe pro- 
 duftiv-' .-,(" r,r,y lliing, is reckoned by the grammarians 
 f > prinoip.il a:i u'e of thii c:;le, that it has got its name 
 fro::; ic bo ji in Greek and Latin. 
 
 24UZ/7.
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 
 
 99 
 
 wall, and in general the matter of any Ch. 
 thing. And the expreffion is the fame if ^ 
 the caufe be the formal caufe. Thus we 
 fay, the idea or exemplar of a thing, the 1 
 Jhape or frame of a thing, and in gene- 
 ral, the form of any thing. This expreffiort 
 of the formal and material caufe, by the 
 genitive, falls under the firfl head of the 
 relation of fiibftaiices to one another, 
 namely, that of the part to the whole. 
 For the matter or form of a fubflance is 
 part of that fubflance, every fubftance 
 being compofed of matter and form ; and 
 therefore the expreffion reciprocates, or is 
 convertible, as in the cafe of the 'whole of 
 'the parts, and the parts of the 'whole, and 
 of the particular examples given above ; 
 for we fay, a door of wood, a wall of Jlones, 
 n thing offuch 'a JJjaps or form. 
 
 I am now to give the reafon of this reci- 
 procation, which I take to be this. When 
 two things are related, the relation muft 
 be mutual : if A is related to B, B muft 
 be related to A ; for A is to B as B is to 
 A in the correfpondent relation. If there- 
 fore the relation of A to B, is exprefled by 
 B being in the genitive cafe, there is no 
 reafon why the correfpDiident relation of 
 N a B
 
 ico THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 9. B to A fhould not likewife be exprelTed by 
 ^^^ A being in the genitive. For as the rela- 
 tion is mutual, there is no reafon why one 
 of the terms fhould be the leading or go- 
 verning word more than the other. We 
 fay therefore, the father of the fon, and 
 the Jon of the father, the king of the fub- 
 jeffs, or the fnhjefts of the king. But in all 
 fuch convertible expreilions, each of the 
 terms mull exprefs the relation, otherwife 
 they will not reciprocate. Thus we fay, 
 the Jon of the father, or the father of the 
 fdn, becaufe both the terms father and fon 
 exprefs the relation. But let us fuppofe 
 that one of the terms does not exprefs the 
 relation : let us take, for example, the 
 term man inftead of fon, I can fay the fa- 
 ther of the man ; but I cannot convert the 
 expreflion, and fay the man of the father, 
 .becaufe the terms in that expremon are not 
 correlatives * ; the term man being much 
 
 * Thefe correlatives are, in the language of Ariftotle, 
 called aiTirfffoi/Tx, which very well expreifes their quality 
 of being convertible. They are fully explained by A- 
 riltotle in the Categories, more fully I think than he 
 commonly explains any thing, in thofe books of abitrufe 
 philofophy, which he did not intend for publication , and 
 if any thing is wanting, it is fuppiied by his commenta- 
 tor Ammonius. 
 
 more
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. loi 
 
 more general than father, and expreffing Ch. 9. 
 no relation at all. 
 
 It may be afked, why we can fay the 
 father of a man, but not the man of a fa- 
 ther ? And I think a reafon too can be 
 given for this. When I fay father, I ex- 
 prefs a relation, namely that of caufe ; 
 and as the correfpondent relation of effect, 
 is, as we have feen, denoted by the genitive 
 cafe, therefore the genitive which follows, 
 is naturally applied to exprefs this corre- 
 fpondent relation ; whereas, when I ufe 
 the general term man, I denote no relation 
 at all, and therefore the genitive that fol- 
 lows is altogether ambiguous ; for it cannot 
 exprefs a correfpondent relation, as in the 
 other cafe, and therefore it may exprefs 
 any relation fignified by the genitive, 
 fuch as that of power or property ; fo that 
 it may mean that the man is the property 
 of the father, and then it will be under- 
 flood juft as if we faid, the ox of the fa- 
 ther. The like reafon may be given why 
 we can fay, the Jon of a man, but not the 
 man of a Jon. 
 
 And to Ihew that it is the correlation of 
 terms, and nothing elfe, that makes the 
 expreilion convertible, let us take an in- 
 
 Itance
 
 102 THE ORIGIN AND Part if; 
 
 Ch. 9. fiance mentioned before, viz. the houfe of 
 ^^"^ John. This expreflion is not convertible, 
 becaufe the terms are not correlatives, that 
 is, do not exprefs correfpondent relations j 
 for John exprefles no relation at all. But 
 let John be changed for a term that has a 
 relation to houfe , or any other fubjecl of 
 property, and let us fay proprietor in place 
 of it ; then we can fay, the houfe of the 
 proprietor, or the proprietor of the houfe. 
 
 Here it may be objected, That houfe is a 
 general term, expreffing no relation. But 
 the anfwer is, That the article the deter- 
 mines it to be a particular houfe, which 
 is the fubjecl: of property. And it makes 
 the exprefTion the fame, as if we faid the 
 property of the proprietor, or the proprietor 
 of the property. 
 
 It is the force of the fame article that 
 makes it proper to fay the ivood of the door, 
 as well as the door of the 'wood : for though 
 wood be a general term, not expreffing 
 relation ; yet by the addition of the ar- 
 ticle, and by the genitive which follows, 
 it is made to fignify a particular piece of 
 wood, which is the matter .of the door ; 
 and the expreflion comes to the fame thing 
 as if we faid, the matter of the form, or the 
 
 form
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 103 
 
 form of the matter ; for the word door, with Ch. 9. 
 the addition of the article, neceffarily implies ^^^ 
 a particular form, as well as wood, with the 
 fame addition, implies a particular matter. 
 And to be convinced of the force of the 
 article in this cafe, let us leave it out, and 
 fay 'wood of door ; I deny that fuch expref-^ 
 mon would be proper to exprefs what is 
 denoted by the other, or indeed to exprefs 
 any thing. 
 
 The general rule therefore in all fuch 
 cafes is, that the leading or governing word 
 mufl denote the relation, otherwife the 
 expreflion is improper, or ambiguous ; 
 and if the phrafe is convertible, then 
 the correfpondent relation mufl be expref- 
 fed by the other term *. 
 
 The next relation exprefled by the geni- 
 tive, is that of accident and J usance ; and 
 this relation is the natural relation betwixt 
 accident and fubflance, by which the one 
 is inherent in the other as its fubjecl: ; ancl 
 
 * I hope what is here faid, will folve the difficulties 
 ftarted by Dr Smith, in his ingenious treatife above 
 quoted, on the Formation of Language, concerning 
 the expreflion of the genitive ; and (hew, rhut the rela- 
 tion exprefled by it is not altogether vague and unde- 
 lineable, as he feems to fuppofc. 
 
 it
 
 104 THE ORIGIN AND Part IT. 
 
 Ch. 9. it is the fubftance that is marked by the 
 " v " v ^ genitive. Thus we fay, the ivhitenefs of a 
 fivan, the bravery of a man, the fercenefs of 
 a lion. Such expreflions do likewife in the 
 life of language reciprocate ; for we fay, a 
 man of bravery, a lion of fercenefs : and the 
 reafbn is, that man being a fubjecl: in 
 which qualities are inherent, and bravery 
 being a quality which muft neceffarily be 
 inherent in feme fubftance, man and 
 bravery are confidered as correlatives as 
 much as fubjecl and accident, of which 
 we fay, the fubjeft of the accident, as well 
 as the accident of the fubjecl:. 
 
 The third and lafl expreflion by the ge- 
 nitive, is the relation of accident to acci- 
 dent, which is the fame relation as -that 
 jufl now mentioned, namely, the relation 
 of accident to fubftance. For the accident 
 in the genitive cafe is confidered as a fub- 
 ilance in which the other is inherent as 
 an accident, fuch abftracl nouns de- 
 noting fubftances of the mind's creation, 
 and being therefore accounted fubftantive 
 nouns. Thus we fay, the beauty of holmefs, 
 the happmefs of virtue. 
 
 In this manner I have endeavoured to ac- 
 count for the conflructicn of the genitive 
 
 with
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 105 
 
 with a noun. It appears fometimes to be go- Ch. 9. 
 verned by an adjective, as in the expref- 
 fions, plenus vini, cupidus gloria. But in fuch 
 a cafe the adjective ought to be analyfed 
 into the parts of which it is compofed. 
 Thefe are a quality, and fome fubftance 
 in which that quality is inherent : for an 
 adjective exprefTes the quality concrete ; 
 whereas the noun that is formed from 
 it denotes it abftract. The expreflion, 
 refolved in this way, fignifies plemtudo vi- 
 7z/, or cupido gloria, belonging to fome 
 fubjecl. The genitive therefore, in fuch 
 cafes, is truly governed by a noun, and 
 exprefTes the fubjedt, of which the noun is 
 the accident : for it is an accident of glo- 
 ry to be defired, and of wine to fill any 
 thing. 
 
 And this will account for fome expre- 
 iions which have very much puzzled 
 grammarians, fuch as that of Lucretius, 
 nee fum animi dubius ; for when it is ana- 
 lyfed in the manner juft now mentioned, 
 it is nothing elfe than dubietas animi inhe- 
 rent in fome fubftance. 
 
 This cafe is alfo commonly thought by 
 the grammarians to be governed by a verb ; 
 but I am of opinion, that in fuch inflances 
 
 VOL. II, Q there
 
 io6 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 9. there is either an ellipfis of a fubftantive, 
 ^ as when they fay in Greek war i t n, or in 
 Englifh, to drink of the ivine, the word /xipoc, 
 or part^ is underftood ; or elfe there is an 
 ellipfis of a prepofition, which I fee is the 
 opinion of Sanclius in his Minerva, as 
 when it is faid in Greek Tn^o^ran x/9, or in 
 Englifh, it is made ofjtone, the prepofition 
 is underftood in the Greek phrafe, and 
 in the Engliih it is exprefled *. 
 
 As to the genitive cafe, when it is joined, 
 with a prepoiition, it denotes no more than 
 its connection with the prepofition ; for 
 the relation then is not exprefled by the 
 cafe, but by the prepofition. 
 
 The expreilion of the dative is motion. 
 This is none of the categories ; becaufe 
 all the categories have a fixed and de- 
 termined exiflence ; whereas motion is 
 nothing but tranfition or paflage from one 
 ftate to another, fo that it is only the 
 
 * The Latins imifate this way of fpeaking of the 
 Greeks, as in the verle of Virgil quoted by Mr Harris, 
 
 Implentur ve/erif Bacchi, pinguifque farina; ; 
 \vhich is a pnre (3i"ecifrn ; for in Greek it is jn^TXavrai 
 ?v, where the prepofition T* or \i*o is to he underftood. 
 If the expreffion had been Latin, it would have been im- 
 plsr.tur v:><o t where the prepciilion ?x or de governing 
 'the ablative is underilooj.
 
 Book L PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE: 107 
 
 road, if I may fo fpeak, to a category, not Ch. 9. 
 a category itfelf. It is however nearly al- 
 lied to the categories, and runs through 
 four of them, viz. fubjlance, quantity ^ qua- 
 lity ', where ; and therefore is treated of by 
 Ariflotle in his book of Categories, by way 
 of fupplement or appendix to the doctrine 
 of thofe higher genera *. 
 
 The motion expreiTed by this cafe is not 
 motion in general, But motion to the thing, 
 which is in the dative cafe. And accor- 
 dingly in Englifh it is exprefTed by the 
 prepofition to ; as when we fay, give to 
 him, go to him, come to him, and the like. 
 As to motion from the thing, it is not ex- 
 preffed by this cafe, but by a prepofition. 
 It is indeed exprefled by the Latin abla- 
 tive, which is a variation that the Latins 
 have made upon the Greek dative ; but e- 
 ven then it is commonly fuppofed by 
 grammarians to be by virtue of a prepofi- 
 tion, either expreffed in the compofition 
 of the verb, or underflood. In Englifh it 
 is denoted by the prepofition from, and 
 fometimes by two prepofitions, out and of^ 
 as when we fay, I came cut of the city. 
 
 * Ammon. in Categor. fol. 170. 
 
 O 2 Motion
 
 I0 8 'f'HE ORIGIN AND Part If. 
 
 Ch. 9. Motion therefore to a thing, is the pri- 
 ^~^* J mary idea of the dative cafe. But there is 
 a fecondary idea which refults from this, 
 and that is the idea of approximation, con- 
 tiguity, application, juxtapofition, and junc- 
 tion. It is in this fenfe, that the dative is 
 joined to the word like in Englifh, fimilis in 
 Latin, and i/tow in Greek, and to many 
 other words denoting comparifon, fuch as 
 comparo, confer o y xquiparo, &c. For all 
 fuch companions are made, by placing the 
 things as it were together ; and when a 
 thing is faid to be like another thing, the 
 the meaning is, that it approximates or 
 comes near to that thing, fo as to be near- 
 ly the fame. It is in a fenfe analogous to 
 this, that the dative in Greek, and the ab- 
 lative in Latin, is ufed to fignify the 
 inilrument with which any thing is done, 
 as Z'pei iifak, gladio interfecit ; for there mufl 
 be an application of the fword to the body, 
 or of the body to the fword, before that 
 operation can be performed. In Englifh 
 we exprefs it in the Latin form, by the 
 mark of the ablative, and fay he was kill- 
 ed lulth or by a fword. 
 
 The accufative alfo relates to motion, ex- 
 preiTmg the relation that there is betwixt 
 
 the
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 109 
 
 the attwn and the >/>#, or the effeft of the Ch. 9. 
 action : for it denotes either the mere 
 paflive fubjeft of the action, as when I 
 fay, Petrus interfecit JOH ANNEM ; or it de- 
 notes the refult of the action, and the ef- 
 fect produced by it, as when I fay ,faber fe- 
 cit c A T H E D R A M . This is the account which 
 Mr Harris has given of this cafe * ; and as 
 I agree with him perfectly in it, I will add 
 no more upon the fubject, except to ob- 
 ferve, that as this cafe neceflarily relates to 
 action, it cannot be conftrued, except 
 with a verb, unlefs where there is an el- 
 lipfis of a prepofition ; as when Virgil 
 fays, 
 
 Os humerofque deo fimilis. 
 
 As to the vocative cafe, the expreflion of 
 it is very fimple ; for it has nothing to do 
 with the nature of things, but denotes on- 
 ly the operation of the human mind ad- 
 dreffing itfelf to, or calling upon, any per- 
 fon or thing. 
 
 Thefe are the connections and relations 
 of things which I understand to be ex- 
 prefled by cafes. And it may be obferved, 
 
 * Book 2. eh. 4. pag, 232. of the Hermes. 
 
 that
 
 no THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 9. that they are common and ordinary con- 
 nections, fuch as we have occafion to ex- 
 prefs every moment in difcourfe. For no- 
 thing is more common than the connec- 
 tion of part with ivhole, of property or pof- 
 fejjlon with the proprietor or pojjejfor^ of 
 caufe and effect, or of accident and fub- 
 jlance. Thefe are the connections exprefTed 
 by the genitive. And as to motion, ex- 
 prefled by the dative, it is that by which 
 every caufe is connected with its effect. 
 And as there muft necefTarily be a fubjedi 
 of every action, the connection exprefTed. 
 
 by the accufative is fuch as mufl occur e- 
 
 .* 
 very time we mention any action. And 
 
 that connection betwixt the perfon who 
 calls upon another, and him who is called 
 upon^ exprefled by the vocative, is of daily 
 ufe in the common intercourfe of life. - 
 But beiides thefe ordinary connections, 
 there are numberlefs connections, depen- 
 dencies, and relations-, which, as I have 
 faid, it is impoflible to exprefs by any va- 
 riation of the word ; and therefore the 
 artificers of language, have denoted them 
 by prepoiitions, conjunctions, and ad- 
 verbs *. 
 
 * See Dr Smith upon tins fubjeft, 
 
 The
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. in 
 
 The modern languages of Europe fupply Ch. 9, 
 the want of cafes by prepofitions, except ^^^ 
 with refpecl: to the accufative, which they 
 mark only by its pofition next to the verb 
 that governs it. How imperfect this man- 
 ner of expremon is, compared with the 
 antient, may appear from the following 
 conuderations. In the frjl place, our 
 compofition is clogged and incumbered, 
 and our ear fatigued by the conflant repe- 
 tion of fuch harm monofyllables, as of, to, 
 ijuith, from, by. idly, It cramps us ex- 
 tremely in the arrangement of the words, 
 and denies us that freedom of compofition, 
 which gives even the beauty of numbers 
 to the antient profe *. ^dly, The differ- 
 
 ent termination of the cafes gives a va- 
 riety to the found of the Greek and Latin, 
 and prevents that tedious repetition of the 
 fame found, which is unavoidable in the 
 modern languages, let us take what pains 
 we will upon the competition. 
 
 * See what Dr Smith has very Jngenioufiy faid upon 
 this fubjeft, in the end of his treatife upon the Forma- 
 tion of Languages, where he has fhewn the defedts of 
 our Englifh compofition, from a fruitlefs attempt of Mil- 
 ton's to imitate the beauty of the antient. There could 
 not have been a more happy inftance chofcn for the pur- 
 pofe. 
 
 It
 
 i 12 THE ORIGIN AND Part II, 
 
 Ch. 9. It may be thought tl at the expreflion of 
 x " v " xj the relation, by the inflexion of the word, 
 is not fo clear as when it is exprefTed by a 
 feparate word. But I can perceive no dif- 
 ference ; for domus PETRI is juft as clear 
 an expreflion as the houfe of Peter, or PE- 
 TER'S houfe\ where, by the way, we may 
 obferve, that we have endeavoured to 
 enlarge a little the ftinted idiom of our 
 language, by forming this kind of geni- 
 tive, by the addition of the letter s to the 
 termination of the nominative ; and I 
 think the Greek dative, or Latin ablative, 
 expreflfes, with equal clearnefs, all that we 
 exprefs by four prepofitions to, with, from> 
 and by. 
 
 There are fome moderns, who think that 
 the formation of cafes by the inflection of 
 the noun, fo far from being a matter of 
 art, proceeds from the want of art, and is 
 truly a defecl in thofc antient languages ; 
 for, fay they, the perfons who framed 
 thofe languages, not having the faculty of 
 abftraclion to fuch a degree as to feparate 
 thofe relations from the feveral things to 
 which they belong, were obliged to throw 
 them into the lump, as it were, with the 
 fignincation of the noun, and to exprefs 
 
 all
 
 Book t. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 113 
 
 all by one word, with fome variation in- Ch. 9. 
 deed, in order to prevent ambiguity arid 
 confufion. In this way, fay they, the 
 barbarous nations at this day continue to 
 exprefs different things by the fame word, 
 which is allowed by every body to be a 
 defecl: in their language ; whereas the mo- 
 derns, being more philofophers than thofe 
 antient matters of language, and having 
 acquired a greater faculty of abftraction, 
 have formed the ideas of thofe relations fe^- 
 parated from the fubjecls to which they 
 belong, and have invented words to ex- 
 prefs thofe ideas, by which they have gi- 
 ven a beautiful fimplicity to the flrudhire 
 of their languages, that is not to be found 
 in Greek or Latin. 
 
 To this fo plaufible plea in favour of 
 the moderns, I anfwer, That whatever o- 
 ther defecl: there may have been in the for- 
 mers of the learned languages, we cannot 
 accufe them of wanting the power of ab- 
 ftraclion ; for that they had abftracl ideas 
 of relations, is evident from the words 
 that they have invented to exprefs them 
 feparately by themfelves, I mean the pre- 
 poiitions, fome of which in Greek exprefs 
 relations, very near as hard to define as 
 
 VOL. II. P thofe
 
 ii4 THE ORIGIN AND Parti!. 
 
 Ch. 9. thofe exprefTed by the cafes. Nor do 
 I know any thing in the Greek lan- 
 guage more difficult to be underftood 
 than the exact: meaning of their pre- 
 pofitions, either by themfelves, or in com- 
 petition. They have carried this ope- 
 ration of the mind fo far, as to abilract 
 accidents from fubftances in which they 
 are neceflarily inherent, and make a kind 
 of fubftances of them by themfelves, 
 known by the name of abftrafl nouns. In 
 like manner, they have diftinguifhed in ac- 
 tions three things that are always joined 
 in nature, the action itfelf, the attor, and 
 the fubjefl of the action, and have expre- 
 fed each of them by diftinct words, con- 
 trary to the cuflom of barbarous langua- 
 ges, which exprefs all three together, as 
 they exifl in nature. We muft not there- 
 fore imagine, that becaufe they chofe to 
 exprefs the relations of the cafes, not by 
 a new word, but by a variation of the 
 fame, they had not any feparate idea of 
 thofe relations. We might as well con- 
 clude, that becaufe they chofe to exprefs 
 perfons and times, as well as aftion, by the 
 inflections of the verb, that therefore they 
 had no diftinct idea of perfons, and the 
 different modifications of time ; which 
 
 however
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 115 
 
 however it is certain they had, as they Ch. g 
 have exprefTed them by diftincl words. 
 The fad: appears truly to have been, that 
 they had as diftinct ideas as we, of all the 
 feveral relations, accidents, and circum- 
 ftances of things ; but in forming the lan- 
 guage, they had the ikill to diftinguim 
 betwixt fuch of them as might be exprefled 
 by inflection, without overloading the 
 word, and fuch as could not be fo exprefled ; 
 and thefe laft they denoted by feparate 
 words, fuch as prepofitipns and adverbs. 
 This mafterly Ikill the firft barbarians 
 who fpoke had not, nor could not be ex- 
 pected to have ; and therefore they, with- 
 out diilinction, exprefs many different 
 things, and fometimes whole fentences, by 
 the fame word, which has produced thofe 
 inconveniencies that I have elfewhere taken 
 notice of. As to the much boa fled fimpli- 
 city of the modern languages, the antient 
 are fo far fimpler than they, as they ex- 
 prefs the fame things by fewer words. 
 This indeed is the effect of great art, and 
 an art not eafily underftood or practifed ; 
 but we ihould remember the Greek pro- 
 verb, Fine things are difficult *.
 
 ii6 THE ORIGIN AND Part II, 
 
 Ch. 9. is there any thing fine in any of the arts, 
 v " orv " / that is not of difficult practice. As to the 
 moderns who formed the prefent languages 
 of Europe being philofophers, or men of 
 fcience of any kind, the pretence is ri- 
 diculous, fince it is well known, that 
 they were formed by barbarians out of 
 better languages, which they corrupted 
 for want of knowledge of the grammati- 
 cal art, and of the beauties and excellen- 
 cies of the languages they wanted to learn. 
 I think therefore I may conclude this 
 chapter, with the words of Chancellor Ba- 
 con, in a pafTage quoted from him by Mr 
 Harris, where, fpeaking of this very fub- 
 JQct, viz. of the declenfions and conjuga- 
 tions of the antient languages, and the want 
 of them in the modern, he adds, ' Sane 
 ".facile quis conjiciat (utcunque nobis ipfi 
 ' placeamus) ingenia priorum feculorum 
 " noilris fuiffe multo acutiora et fubtilio- 
 
 *' fO * " 
 
 ra. . 
 
 Bacon de augraentis fcient. VI. 
 
 CHAP.
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 
 
 CHAP. X. 
 
 Of the 'verb commonly fo called. Its nature ^ 
 and the things expreffed by it. 
 
 THE verb, in the large fenfe in which 10 
 I underftand it, I divide into decli- Vx-w^ 
 nable and indeclinable ; under the firft, 
 comprehending the verb commonly fo call- 
 ed, the participle and the adjective ; and 
 under the laft, the adverb and the con- 
 junction. In this chapter I propofe to treat 
 of the verb commonly fo called. 
 
 This part of fpeech is the moft artificial 
 and complex of any, and is juftly efteem- 
 ed the glory of the grammatical art. It 
 therefore deferves to be accurately explain- 
 ed ; for which purpofe it will be necefTary 
 to recollect what was before faid, that 
 whatever is expreffed by any word, is ei- 
 ther fubflance, accident, or an energy of 
 the mind of the fpeaker. It was alfo faid, 
 that this laft was expreffed by the fpecies 
 of verb we are now (peaking of ; and that 
 it was either affertion, (that is, affirming or 
 denying), or volition j and the volition 
 
 expreffed
 
 n8 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 10. exprefled by the form of the verb was 
 
 ^^^ twofold, wifhing or commanding ; for 
 
 there is no verb of this kind, which does 
 
 not either aflert, wi(h, or command *. 
 
 It was alfo obferved, that the thins: 
 
 o 
 
 which is affirmed, wifhed, or command- 
 ed, or as it may be exprefled in one word, 
 the aflion of the verb, is necefTarily im- 
 plied in the fignification of the verb ; for 
 if we were to affirm, that we do affirm, 
 or did affirm, the energy itfelf, in fuch 
 a cafe, would be the thing affirmed. 
 
 The expreffion therefore of thefe two 
 things, the energy of the mind of the 
 fpeaker, and the action of the verb, is ef- 
 fential to every verb in every language. 
 There is alfo the expreffion of the perfon 
 or thing, of which the action of the verb is 
 affirmed, or which is commanded to perform 
 or fuffer that action, or which is the agent 
 or fufferer of the action prayed or wifhed 
 
 * This nece{T,iry implication of the affection or difpo- 
 fition of the mind of the fpeaker, in the fignification of 
 the verb, could not efcape the obfervation of fo accurate 
 a grammarian as Apollonius. And accordingly he makes 
 it a principal and diftinguifhed part of the verb, TOI S 
 
 fi'i/j.a(7il^aiptTu: -rafxnarai fi <\.\>XIKI> JixSta-i;. De jjntaxi, lib. 
 
 cap. 13. 
 
 It may be obferved here, that under luijijing I includ? 
 interrogating ; for every man that interrogates, willies 
 or clcfirss to be informed. 
 
 for }
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 119 
 
 for; and thefe perfons, According to the C. io 
 cliftinctions of firft, fecond, and third, VxN " Nl 
 which I have explained under the article 
 of pronoun, are diftinctly expreffed, toge- 
 gether with their numbers, by the inflec- 
 tion of the verb in the learned languages. 
 Thus TV*, in Greek, exprefles that the 
 perfon who performs the action of beating 
 is the fpeaker ; rvTrrett , that it is the perfon 
 fpoken to ; TV*, that it is fome third per- 
 fon. Again, TVTTTI, in the imperative, ex- 
 prefTes that it is the perfon to whom the 
 difcourfe is addreffed that is commanded 
 to beat ; TUTTTITU, that it is fome third perfon 
 who is fo commanded. Laflly, T^TCI/M ex- 
 preffes that it is the fpeaker who is the ob- 
 ject of the wiih, that is to fay, it is wifh- 
 ed that the fpeaker may perform the ac- 
 tion of beating ; TV-TTOK wifhes that the per- 
 fon who is fpoken to may perform that ' 
 action ; and TVTTTOI that fome third perfon 
 may do it. 
 
 Thefe three things therefore, the energy 
 of the mind of the fpeaker, aliening, com- 
 manding, or warning ; the thing afferted, 
 commanded, or wifhed, or in one word the 
 aftion of the verb ; and laftly, the perfon 
 or thing to which that action relates in one 
 or other of the manners jufl now mentioned ; 
 
 are
 
 130 THE ORIGIN AND f>art & 
 
 C. 10. are three things exprefled in this fpecies of 
 V ^ >r0 verb. And there is a fourth thing fignifi- 
 ed by all verbs of this kind, and that is, 
 the exigence of the action of the verb ; for 
 when we affirm any thing, we aflert that 
 it does exift ; when we command it, we 
 defire that it Jfjould exift ; and when we 
 wifh for it, it is that it may exift. This 
 general idea therefore of being or exiftence 
 is implied in every verb, whatever the ac- 
 tion of it may be. But there is one kind of 
 verb which exprefles nothing elfe for its 
 action but fimple exiftence, fuch as the 
 verb effe in Latin, and to be in Englifh. 
 It is called by the Latin grammarians the 
 fubftantive verb ; but in Greek it is deno- 
 minated, as Mr Harris has obferved, by 
 a much more proper name, fignifying 
 existence *. This may be called the funda- 
 mental or radical verb, being the fimpleft 
 of all verbs ; for it only exprefles two of 
 the four things above mentioned, viz. 
 extficncc, and the energy or affection of the 
 mind, which are both eflential to the ex- 
 premon of every verb commonly fo called ; 
 and therefore this verb is implied in all o- 
 ther verbs, every verb being refolveable 
 
 nto
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 121 
 
 into it and the participle. Thus amo isfum C. 10. 
 amans, rfi%u is &p T^X, and fb on through v>x ^ rN ^ 
 all the tenfes. In Englifh we make ufe of 
 this form of expreftion, and I think it is a 
 beauty of our language, particularly in the 
 exprellion of the future ; as when we fay, 
 / am to do fuch a thing ; which I hold to 
 be a paulo poji futurum, much more than 
 the Greek tenfe which bears that name. 
 
 Betides thofe four things principally ex- 
 preffed by the verb, there is an adjuncl, 
 which is neceflarily implied in every verb 
 of this kind, and therefore is made part 
 of the definition of a verb by Ariftotle *, 
 I mean time. The reafon of which is, that 
 in the expreffion of every verb the idea of 
 exiflence, as we have feen, is necefTarily 
 implied : now all things here below exift 
 in time, and all the diflinclions of time 
 are applicable to them ; for they are, 
 were, and r will be. And if the curious 
 reader further defires to know the reafon 
 of this, it is becaufe all fublunary things 
 being generated and corrupted, are in a 
 conflaiit flux or motion, betwixt genera- 
 tion and corruption. Now where -ever 
 
 * 'Pa St If i TO rpocrtifjutuov xpovov. Stiiftot, df Interpret, cap. 3. 
 
 VOL. II. C therc
 
 122 THE ORIGIN AND Part II f 
 
 (3. 10. there is motion, there muft be time ; for 
 ^""^ time is nothing elfe but the interval which 
 the mind perceives betwixt what is prior 
 and fubfequent in motion *. But bendes 
 fimple exiftence, all other verbs, except 
 the fubflantive, denote fome kind of ac- 
 tion or operation; and hence it is that a 
 verb is commonly faid to be a word der 
 noting action )-. 
 
 The 
 
 * Tort if>y,u.iv ycymvxi xpitov, orav ra XfOTtpy xsci urfpa iv TJ xi- 
 y>'tr aiyBntriv Aata-^fy. Natural, aufcillt . lib. 4- Cap. 1 6. 
 
 See the whole pafl'age tranfcribed, and mofl elegantly 
 and correclly tranflated, by Mr Harris, in the Hermes, 
 pag. 107. 
 
 j- This is not a complete definition, as jt leaves out 
 the energy of the mind of the fpeaker, which, as we 
 have feen, is eiFential to this kind of the verb. It is ajfo 
 an incomplete definition, by which a verb is faid to be 
 a word of affirmation : Firft, Recaufe it takes in only 
 the energy of the mind ; and 2dfy, Hecaufe it does not 
 exprefs the three feveral kinds of this energy, but rnen- 
 tions only one of them, viz. affirmation. 
 
 It may be obferved, that there are things in nature 
 that are eterpal and immutable, and have nothing to do 
 with change or motion, nor by confequence with time ; 
 and the verbs which we ufe in fpeaking of them, ought 
 therefore to have no tenfes : but there are no fuch verbs 
 in any language jhat I know ; for even the fubftantive 
 ycrb, which denotes exigence merely, has tenfes like 
 pthcr verbs. Thcfe eternal and immutable things, 
 fhough they do not eiilt in time, yet have duration, 
 
 which
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OP LANGUAGE. 123 
 
 The reafon why no other part of fpeech C. ' 6* 
 implies the fignincation of time is, that 
 no other part of fpeech implies any energy 
 of the mind, afTerting or willing the thing 
 expreiTed. Thus when we ufe a word de- 
 noting a fubftance, or any quality of a 
 fubftance, fuch as black or white, there 
 is nothing in the terms we ufe, expreiling 
 Or implying that the mind afferts that 
 thofe things do exift, or wills that they 
 fhould exift. 
 
 In the learned language's^ the different 
 
 Vhich is a more general idea than time, and is expre/Ted 
 in the Greek philofophy by the word ui j, and in La- 
 tin by the fame word in the Eblic dialect cevum ; but as 
 there is no motion in fuch beings, fo that the mind can- 
 not diftinguifa what is firft and lift in th'em, therefore 
 time does not apply to them. 
 
 Ariftotle, in his books, De /Vafurali /Ittfcultatione, 
 has very properly obferved, that if there were no circu- 
 lar, that is, motion revolving into itfelf, there would be 
 no certain or determined meafure of time ; not but the 
 rnind would dift inguifli what is firft from what is laft in mo- 
 tion, and confequently have the perception of the interval 
 betwixt, as we have when we diftinguifli betwixt the diffe- 
 i j ent thoughts or motions of our own minds ; but if it were 
 not for the circular motion of the celeRial bodies, we 
 lliould have no ftandard whereby to meafure that inter- 
 Val, and ihould only have a confuted idea of it, fuch as 
 \ve have of any fpace or interval of which we have no 
 meafure. 
 
 diftindlions
 
 124 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 10. diflinctibns of time are marked by dif- 
 ^~^-^ ferent inflections of the verb. But the 
 modern languages of Europe have not 
 many tenfes of that kind, and none at 
 all in the paflive voice. Their tenfes there- 
 fore are moftly formed by the affiftance of 
 other verbs, which they call auxiliary verbs, 
 but which themfelves have but few tenfes. 
 Of this kind in Englifh are have, am, 
 Jhall, and 'will ; and in French avoir and 
 ctre. 
 
 . From this account of the kind of verb 
 we are now fpeaking of, I think the fol- 
 lowing definition of it may be drawn. 
 It is a word principally fignificant of 
 accident, of the energy of the mind 
 of the fpeaker relative to that acci- 
 dent, of the fubftance to which the 
 accident belongs, and it is coniignificant 
 of time*." 
 
 This 
 
 * Tn this definition, I have included nothing but what 
 is efTential to the verb, and which is exprefled in it, 
 either directly, or by implication. The expreffion of ac- 
 cident, under which I comprehend both action and exift- 
 ence, is absolutely 1 neceflary in every verb ; fo is alfo 
 the energy of the mind of the fpeaker; and there- 
 fore they are both directly exprefTed even in the verbs of 
 modern languages, otherwife they would not deferve the 
 
 name 
 
 "
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 125 
 
 This adjunct of time to the verb, ma- C. 10. 
 king what we commonly call tenfes, is of v-orN-; 
 fuch importance in language, that it well 
 deferves a chapter by itfelf. 
 
 CHAP. XI. 
 
 Of tenfes. 
 
 Othing can be more accurate than the C. 1 1 . 
 
 philofophy of time given us by Mr 
 Harris in his Hermes ; and his application 
 of it to the tenfes cf verbs is new, and very 
 ingenious. But as his fyftem, however 
 perfect in fpeculation, does not appear to 
 me adapted to the ufe of any language, I 
 will give another that I think is more 
 practical, leaving it to the reader to chufe 
 that which he likes beft. 
 
 I think all grammarians are agreed, 
 
 name of verbs. As to the other two, viz. the fubftance 
 to which the accident belongs, that is, the perfon of the 
 verb, and likewife that neceflary adjunct of all verbs, 
 viz. time, they are implied in the verbs of all modern 
 languages, but only diredtly expreffed in fome of them ; 
 whereas they are both fo exprefled in the learned langua- 
 
 that
 
 126 THE ORIGIN AND PartlL 
 
 . n. that whatever variations or modifications 
 there may be of tenfes, there are but three 
 fimple and original tenfes, viz. the paft, 
 the prefent, and the future. But the pur- 3 - 
 pofe of language could not be ferved by 
 this fimple divifion of time ; there ard 
 therefore various modifications of the fimple 
 times exprefled by the verb ; and of thefe 
 I am now to fpeak. 
 
 In the firft place, it is to be obferved^ 
 that thefe is one part of the exprefiioii of 
 the verb which is always of the prefent 
 time, I mean the energy of the mind of 
 the fpeaker ; for he always affirms, wifhes^ 
 or commands, at the time xvhen he fpeaks ; 
 and which, it is to be obferved, is what 
 is called the prefent time in grammati- 
 cal language. It is therefore only to the 
 action of the verb that the variety of times 
 is applicable. 
 
 The firft divifion of thofe fimple times 
 which I mall obferve is, that the action 
 is denoted to be either perfect or im- 
 perfect, or indefinite ; the meaning of 
 which lafl is, that it is not determined by 
 the expreflion, whether it be perfecl or 
 imperfect, that is, completed or not com->- 
 
 pleteci,
 
 Bookl. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 127 
 
 pleted, at the time that is mentioned by C. 1 1 
 the fpeaker *. 
 
 In applying this divifion to the feveral 
 tenfes, we will begin with the prefent : 
 for though the pad be firft in the order of 
 nature, the prefent is the immediate per^ 
 ception of the mind ; ancj it is with re- 
 fpecl to it that the paft and future are de- 
 nominated. And the firft thing to be con- 
 fidered is, whether or not this divifion 
 does at all apply to the prefent. And I hold 
 it does not, properly fpeaking ; for the 
 prefent is by its nature always imperfect : 
 and I agree entirely with Scaliger, in the 
 paffage above quoted, that the expremon 
 prtfens-perfcftum cannot be borne, if it be 
 examined with accuracy. For Prifcian has 
 very properly defined the prefent time to be 
 that of which part is paft, and part to come ; 
 and therefore, fays he, it is called by the 
 
 * This divifion of the fimple tenfes into perfect and 
 imperfefi, appears, from a paflage quoted in the Hermes, 
 to have been difcovered by one Grocin in England ; only 
 he has not added the third member of the divifion, which 
 exprefies neither the one nor the other. This divifion 
 Scaliger, De caujts ling. Lat. juftly commends as very a- 
 cute and ingenious, and approves of it entirely, except 
 with refpeft to the prefent-ferfia, of which I fliall fpeak 
 by and by. 
 
 Stoics,
 
 128 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 1 1 . Stoics an imperfeft time *. But out of 
 this imperfect time, as the fame Prifcian 
 has very well obferved, there grows a per- 
 fect time f. Thus, to ufe the inftance that 
 Prifcian gives, if I have written but a part 
 of the verfe or line, and am ftill conti- 
 nuing to write, I fay, fcribo <uerfum, I 
 write, or am 'writing the verfe ; but if I 
 have jufl finimed it, fo that the work is 
 completed, then I fay, fcripfi verfum^ or, 
 as it is expreffed without ambiguity in 
 Englifh, / have 'written the verfe. This 
 tenfe is called the preterite-perfect, or fhort- 
 ly the prater-perfect ; and, as the name im- 
 plies, denotes a pad action, but which is 
 considered as completed and perfected at 
 the time it is mentioned by the fpeaker, 
 as will be more fully explained afterwards. 
 This tenfe therefore I think ought not to 
 be ranked under the prefent, or confidered 
 as any fpccics of it ; but mould be held 
 rather to belong to the paft, though con- 
 nected with the prcfcnt. Neither does the 
 
 * See the paflage quoted at large in the Hermes. 
 
 f Ex eodem igitur prxfenti r.ajcitur etiam perfrflum ji 
 f uim ad fin cm pcrveniat inceptum, ftatim ulimur prxterito- 
 tsrfrfo. 
 
 diftinclion
 
 Book I. PROGRESS oj 1 LANGUAGE. 129 
 
 diftinction of indefinite, in my opinion, C. 1 1 . 
 apply to the prefent tenfe, as the expref- ^^^ 
 fion of it necefTarily denotes an imperfect 
 action. I cannot therefore make the dif- 
 tinction that is made in the Hermes, be- 
 twixt ypoupo) and Tvy%a.ru yj>y.$w, as if the firft 
 denoted an indefinite or aoriftical prefent, 
 and the other an imperfect or continued 
 prefent. I think there is no more difference 
 betwixt thefe two, than there is betwixt iypxp ov 
 and 'tTvy^ccroy y?a.yuv, which Mr Harris acknow- 
 ledges are the fame ; or than there is be- 
 twixt fcribo and fcnbens fum^ which Mr 
 Harris has alfo fet down, as fignifying the 
 fame thing ; or if there be any difference 
 
 betwixt ypoupu and rvy^av^ yfaqw, QT iypaitpor 
 
 and irvyxxroY ypxfav, it muft be this, that the 
 one expremon imports, that the action of 
 'writing is contingent or accidental ; where- 
 as y/saipw fimply denotes the action, without 
 the addition of that circumftance. 
 
 With refpect to the paft tenfe, I think 
 it admits this diflinclion, of perfect, im- 
 perfect, and indefinite. And firft, I think 
 I ypx^ei, I wrote, or did write *, is clearly an 
 
 aorifl, 
 
 * This I hold to be the true aorift in EngUIh, though 
 it be fet down in our common grammars as the imperfeft 
 part tenfe ; for they tranfhte fcribtbam, I wrote or did 
 
 VOL. II. R write,
 
 *3 THE ORIGIN AND Part IT. 
 
 C. 1,1. aorift, as it is called by all the gramma- 
 rians, expreffing {imply that the action is 
 paft, without expreffing whether it was or 
 was not a perfect or complete action at that 
 time. The prater- perfect yty^a. denotes, as 
 I have already faid, not only that the action 
 is paft, but that the action was completed, 
 and is confidei'ed as a complete action at 
 this prefent time. The plufquam-perfect 
 fytypctyeir, I had written^ alfo denotes that 
 the action was completed, but at fome paft 
 time ; and iyfxocr, I 'was writing, denotes 
 that the action is paft, but was not then com- 
 pleted, but ftill going on, and therefore 
 it is called the imperfeffi. 
 
 As to the future, it appears to me to 
 have likevvife all thofe three distinctions 
 that I have obfcrved in the paft. For I a- 
 gree with Mr Harris, that yo*^ u > QT/cribam, 
 exprefTes the future action indefinitely, 
 without determining whether it be perfect 
 or not. And it is certain, that yt-//>a$>6>f ic-o- 
 pm, or, as the Latins very happily exprefs 
 it by one word, fcripfero^ denotes the fu- 
 ture action perfect, though there be fome- 
 
 yvrite, whereas it fliould be tranfl.ited, / ivas writing. 
 For we have not in Engl'lii, as they have in French, a 
 fkcti^n of the verb to exprefs it, but inuft ufe the auxi- 
 Jiary \vith the participle. 
 
 thing
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 
 
 thing more in the expreilion of it, as I {hall C. 1 1 
 obferve afterwards * ; and I think that 
 ypzpM e:ro//a; may be made a tenfe of, to de- 
 note an imperfeft future, fuch as is ex- 
 prefTed by the Englifh phrafe, I foall be 
 writing, though there be not in any lan- 
 guage, fo far as I know, any fledlion of 
 the verb expreffing fuch a tenfe. 
 
 Thus far therefore we have gone in the 
 explanation of the tenfes ; but I think not 
 
 * The paulo pcft futuruw, as it is commonly called, 
 is in my opinion a tenfe which expreffes the future -perfect; 
 and no more. For proof of this, I appeal to the follow- 
 ing pafTage in PlatO, 'Eav yap apa. tftot fcfy rtta, THTMV; ruy aii- 
 
 Qp'jruv, DV trv o/>a<T, auTfx.a ^a\a <? rtflvavai, TtSvn^iTat vrcf ov av o%n- 
 ka r/va. <?o rSf xtfaXof aUTav Kanaywai S&v, ncntayaf la-rai UUTIKOL 
 fjM\a. xa/ Soi/axTiov Stic xiitiut, Sn<r^ia-fj.iw<i la-rat, ara (J.tya lyo Jua- 
 (jLO.1 It T TOA. Go KG. f>. 469. edit. Serram. Here it is 
 evident, that Ti9vn%iT<xt anfwers exactly to >.&>; Icrat, and 
 ^ittr^ia-fitvov iVrai, which are clearly perfect futures. There 
 is another example that I recollect from the Alceflis of 
 Euripides, where Admetus, fpeaking to his wife, lays, 
 
 'EtrTai -raJ 1 ' tcrTcti, (JLI\ rpicrh(* \-jru <r lya 
 K.&1 Ja;rv o^ov, xxi flavaj-' j,cc>? yvtii 
 Movn XEHA>!");, KVTlf avTi O-H TOTS' 
 TcvJe KvSfct vvftfn Ec-o-aAif X(>ocr$&iy%tTai, 
 
 Here XDUWSI can fignify nothing, but KIX.X^CV)? ia-r ; for, 
 fo far as I know, this tenfe is always uied in a paffive 
 ligniucation, and we may obferve, that the perfect fig- 
 hificatioh of it is fitly marked by the reduplication pre- 
 fixed, which in Greek is the mark of the perfect. 
 
 This account of the tenfe, I know, is different from 
 the common, by which it is made to fignify, as the name 
 given it imports, an immediate future : but for this Sig- 
 nification of it I can find no good authority. 
 
 R 2 far
 
 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Far enough to explain fully and diflinctly 
 the nature and ufe of them. For I think 
 fomething more is wanting, to give a clear 
 notion of the prseter-perfect for example, 
 or of the phi- perfect, than juft to fay, 
 that the one denotes an action perfected 
 at the prefent time, and the other an ac- 
 tion that was perfected at fome pad time ; 
 and particularly the ufe of the prater-per- 
 fect, and the diftinction betwixt it and the 
 aorift, has not been fufficiently explained in 
 any book that I have feen : for further 
 explanation of it, I think it will be necef- 
 lary to make a divifion of the tenfes not hi- 
 therto mentioned, and which was fuggefl- 
 ed to me by the ufe of the modern langua- 
 ges. The divifion I mean is into fimple 
 and compounded. The fimple are the 
 three I firft mentioned, viz. the paft, pre- 
 fent, and future, with the threefold dif- 
 tinction of perfect, imperfect, and indefi- 
 nite ; but of thele fimple tenfes, there are 
 various combinations, which are now to 
 be explained. 
 
 To find out all the different combina- 
 tions of thefe three tenfes, is a problem of 
 arithmetic, the folution of which would 
 be of very little ufe in the prefent inquiry : 
 for I am perfiiaded there is no language 
 
 that
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 133 
 
 that by any form of the verb expref- C. n 
 fes all thofe feveral combinations ; e. g. 
 there is no one tenfe of any verb, that ex- 
 prefles that the action of the verb is, was, 
 and 'will be ; neither is there any, fo far 
 as I know, that denotes, that the adlion is 
 and ivill be, or f was and t w ill be *. But 
 there are three of them which are to be 
 found in feveral, viz. the paft with the 
 prefent, the paft with the paft, and the 
 paft with the future. 
 
 The firft combination makes the tenfe 
 I have already mentioned, -viz. the prseter- 
 perfecl:. , It is exprefTed in Greek by one 
 word, yey/=a?>a ; but in Englifli and French, 
 it is expreiTed by the aiuftance of the auxi- 
 liary, / ha<ve written, J'ai ccrit ; which 
 makes the compondon of it apparent ; for 
 
 * Homer, Iliad t b. 2. v. 117. fpeaking of Jupiter, fays, 
 
 Now there is no language, fo far as I know, that exprefies 
 by any one fle&ion of the verb, or even by the afliflance of 
 auxiliaries, both the hvy-t and xw-, that is, the pu.lt with 
 relpeft to the time of the fpeech, and the future. I fay, 
 ivith refpeft to the time of the Jpeech r ior tlicre is a com- 
 pounded tenfe, as we fhall piclcntly fee, which exprefles 
 a future and a puft afuon ; but then the paft action is 
 likewife future with refpcft to the time of the fpeech. 
 
 the
 
 134 THE ORIGIN AND Part If. 
 
 C. 1 1 . the auxiliary being in the prefent tenfe, 
 and the participle in the paft tenfe, fhews 
 plainly that it is mixed of both tenfes. I 
 have already ob ferved, that this tenfe de- 
 notes an action paft, and alfo an action 
 perfect. I have likewife faid, that this a6- 
 tion is neverthelefs confidered as fome way 
 prefent. It now remains to be explained, 
 how an action, perfectly pad, can in any 
 way be faid to be prefent : and the diffi- 
 culty feems to be the greater, that this 
 tenfe applies, not only to actions that admit 
 ' of continuance and repetition, as when I 
 fay, / hews loved^ I have refolded ; but to 
 actions that do not admit either, as when 
 I fay, / have built a houfc, I have killed a 
 man. 
 
 In order to explain this matter, we muft 
 conlider that the prefent of grammarians is 
 different from the noiv or inftant of philo- 
 fophers. For this admits of no extenfioii 
 or divifion any more than a point, and 
 is no part of time, but the boundary of it, 
 as a point is of a line ; whereas the prefent 
 of the grammarian has a certain extenfion. 
 If ir be allied, v/hat that extenfion is ? I an- 
 fwcr, It depends upon the fpeaker to make 
 it greater or lefs as he chufes j he may 
 
 make
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 135 
 
 make it an hour, a day, a month, &cc. C. n. 
 When he does fo, all the parts of the day 
 or month, as well as the inflant when he 
 fpeaks, make all together the prefent now. 
 A portion therefore of pad time is taken 
 into fuch a prefent, and in this way an action 
 that happened in that pad time, is confir- 
 dered as prefent. 
 
 If therefore the fpeaker exprefles what 
 portion of pad time he takes into the pre- 
 fent now, there feems to be little difficulty 
 in the matter. Thus if I fay, / have built 
 my houfe this year, This day I have 'written a 
 letter, it is plain, that I make in the one 
 cafe the year, in the other the day, the 
 prefent time ; and therefore the adlion, 
 though pad, is fitly expreffed by a form 
 of the verb that denotes the prefent, as 
 well as the pad. 
 
 But fuppofe I make no fuch circum- 
 fcription of time, nor fet any bounds to 
 the now, dill I can fay, I have built a 
 houfe, I have written a letter, I have re- 
 folved to do fuch or fuch a thing. In 
 what fenfe then are thefe pad actions pre- 
 fent ? My anfwer is, In their effeffs, which 
 in fuch expreffions are always confidered as 
 prefent, though the action, be pad. 
 
 In
 
 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 In order to explain this further, it is to 
 be confidered, that the effect of fome ac- 
 tions is a work which remains after the 
 action or energy is over. Thus, when a 
 mafon builds a houfe, or I write a letter, 
 the houfe and the letter remain after the 
 energy of building or writing is paft. 
 While therefore the houfe or letter exifls, 
 I ufe this tenfe properly, and fay, that / 
 have built the houfe or 'written the letter ; 
 b.ut fuppofe them both deftroyed, I can- 
 not fay properly, / have built the one or 
 'written the other. 
 
 But further, there are actions which 
 end in energy, and produce no work that 
 remains after them *. What mall we fay 
 of fitch actions ? Cannot we fay, *we have 
 danced a dance, played a tuns^ taken a ivalk t 
 and the like ; and yet how can fuch ac- 
 tions, fo perfectly paft that no traces of 
 them remain, be faid in any fenfe to be 
 prefent ? My anfwer is, That the confe- 
 quences of fuch actions, refpecting either 
 the fpeaker, or fome other perfon or thing, 
 are prefent ; and what thefe confequences 
 are, appears from the tenor of the di- 
 
 * This I;ift kind of aftion, is in Greek failed 
 the ether is y-i;. 
 
 courfe.
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 137 
 
 courfe. Thus I fay, / have taken a walk, C. 1 1 . 
 and am much the better for it ; / have played 
 the tune, and am much p leafed with it ; I have 
 danced one dance, and incline to dance no 
 more. In thefe inflances the action is paf- 
 fed, and no work left behind it ; but the 
 confequences remain, and are prefent, and 
 therefore the double time is properly ufed. 
 I may alfo fay, I have taken a ivalk, and am 
 going to drefs ; but fuch an expreifion falls 
 under the firit ufe I have mentioned of 
 this tenfe, when the bounds of the now 
 are extended, fo as to take in a portion of 
 the pail ; for in this expreflion I compre- 
 hend both actions in the fame portion of 
 time. 
 
 It may be obferved, that the prccter- 
 perfect ufed in this lafl way, of denoting 
 the confequences of a pad action as pre- 
 fent, may be applied even to actions that 
 produce works, but which are deftroyed : 
 for I may fay, / have built a houfe, -which 
 has cojl me much money, though the houfe 
 be burnt ; but if I mention only the 
 building the houfe, without any confe- 
 quences, I cannot ufe that tenfe, after the 
 houfe is deftroyed. 
 
 Thus it appears, that the prater-perfect 
 VOL. II. S is
 
 138 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C, 1 1 . is properly ufed, either when the paft ac- 
 * > "' tion is comprehended in the prefent noiv , 
 or when the effects of it, viz. either the work 
 produced by it, or the confequences of it, 
 are ftill exifting. In fuch cafes the expre- 
 fion of the tenfe denotes, that the action, 
 though paft, is confidered as prefent. But 
 fuppofe a certain portion of time is expref- 
 fed, that is cut off and feparated by fome 
 known boundary from the prefent noiv, 
 I cannot, in fuch a cafe, ufe a tenfe that 
 involves any coriideration of the prefent, 
 nor does the ufe of language consider that 
 action as any wife prefent. Thus I cannot 
 fay, / have built a houfe loft year, I have 
 played a tune yejlerday ; but I muft ufe the 
 aorift, and fay, / built the houfe lajl year, 
 and played the tune yejlerday ; which mews, 
 that the firft and capital ufe of this tenfe 
 is, to exprefs an action comprehended in 
 the prefent noiv ; fo that if there be a cir- 
 cumfcription, which feparates it from the 
 noiv, and throws it into a portion of paft 
 time, this tenfe cannot be ufed. 
 
 And here we may obferve a propriety in 
 our Englifh idiom, which is not in the 
 French. Both the French and we fay, I have 
 done a thing to-day j but they fay, in the e- 
 
 vening.
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 139 
 
 vening, J* ai le fait ce matin whereas We G, 1 1. 
 fay, /did it this morning, if the morning v - x " v>< ^ 
 be pafled. 
 
 As to the aorifl of the part, I have al- 
 ready obferved, that it does not determine 
 whether the action be perfected or not ; 
 but it is alfo indefinite in another refpecl, 
 that it does not determine whether the noiv 
 is to be taken into that pafl time, or whe- 
 ther the action is, in any of the refpecls 
 above mentioned, to be confidered as pre- 
 fent. In fhort, it does not determine whe- 
 ther the tenfe be compounded, or a fimple 
 paft tenfe ; and it is in this fenfe, as I ap- 
 prehend, that it is called an aorift by the 
 antient grammarians. It is on account 
 of this fimple fignincation of the pafl 
 that it is fo much ufed in hiflory, which 
 commonly fpeaks of events only as pafl, 
 without any relation to the prefent ; 
 xvhereas the orator very often mentions 
 pafl events with a view to the prefent 
 time, and therefore frequently ufes the 
 praEter-perfecL 
 
 From this account of thefe two tenfes, 
 it is evident that they may be both pro- 
 perly enough applied to the fame event : 
 for if I confider the event limply as pafl, 
 
 S 2 vntllOUC
 
 140 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. IT. without taking into my confideration the 
 prefent, I ufe the aorift ; whereas, if I 
 any wife refer to the prefent, the com- 
 pounded tenfe, which expreffes both the 
 pad and prefent, is the proper tenfe. Thus 
 I fay, Pie killed a man, and r was banged. 
 Here the aorift is the proper tenfe, be- 
 caufe the expremon has no relation to the 
 'prefent ; but if I fay, he is to be hanged, 
 then the proper tenfe of the verb kill is 
 the prater-perfect, and I mould fay, He 
 has killed a man, and is to be hanged. 
 
 The ufe of thefe tenfes is, according to 
 my obfervation, the fame in Greek that it 
 is in Englifh, particularly as to what I laft 
 mentioned, of both being applied to the 
 fame event in different refpects. In De- 
 mofthenes's oration againft Ariftocrates, 
 whom he accufes of tranfgrefling a de- 
 cree, he ufes the prseter- perfect 7ra/>a&m, he 
 has tranj'grejjed, or the aorift *&?*, he tranf- 
 grejfed, juft as he confiders the tranfgremon 
 of the decree, either as prefent by its ef- 
 fects and confequences, or {imply as paft. 
 
 The examples I have given, I hope, are 
 fufficient to explain my meaning con- 
 cerning the ufe of thefe two tenfes. I will 
 however give two more ; one from the 
 
 tranflation
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 141 
 
 translation of our Bible, and the other C. 1 1 , 
 from Ariflotle's philofophical works. The Vxvx- 
 tranflators of our Bible, though, as I ob- 
 ferved before, they may not have perfectly 
 underflood the original, did certainly imder- 
 ftand their own language very well ; and ac- 
 cordingly I hold the Englifh Bible to be the 
 befl ftandard of the EnglHh language we 
 have at this day. In tranflating that pious 
 fentence of Job, after every thing was taken 
 from him, they make him fay, The Lord 
 gave, and the Lord hath taken away ; bleffed 
 be the name of the Lord : where we have both 
 tenfes mod properly ufed. If in place of 
 gave, the aorifl, they had ufed the com- 
 pound tenfe hath given, it would have 
 been improper, becaufe what the Lord 
 gave was at that time taken away, fo that 
 the action of giving^ could not in any 
 way be faid to be prefent ; whereas the 
 next verb take, is mod properly in the 
 compound tenfe, becaufe his wealth then 
 continued to be taken away. But if he 
 had faid fo after he had got back his 
 wealth, it would not have been proper, 
 and he mufl have faid, the Lord gave, and 
 the Lord took aivay, becaufe the action of 
 
 taking
 
 142 THE ORIGIN AND Part II, 
 
 C. 1 1 . taking was then altogether pafTed, with- 
 out any confequences of it remaining. 
 
 The other example is from Ariilotle's 
 Phyfics, where, fpeaking of the power 
 that makes bodies defcend, he fays *, K/m, 
 x.xt xtxHwt, If moves z/, and has moved it ; by 
 which he means, that while the body gets 
 continually frefli impulfes from gravity, it 
 retains the former impulfes, fo that the 
 power is always accumulating, and the 
 motion confequently always accelerating ; 
 and our modern difcoveries have afcertain- 
 ed that the velocity is as the fquare of the 
 times. Here therefore the prater-perfect 
 tenfe is moft properly ufed to denote that 
 the confequences of the former impulfes 
 flill continue. 
 
 I muft further obferve, that there is an 
 ufe of this tenfe in the imperative mood, 
 very frequent in Euclid, who, when he de- 
 fires you to make a diagram, ufes the 
 word yeyfct? 0*> ; which imports, firfl, that it 
 mall be defcribed, and then being defcri- 
 bed, mall continue to ferve for the demon- 
 flration. 
 
 The Latin language, among its other 
 defects, has but one tenfe to exprefs both 
 
 Pbyf. An fruit, lib. 7. cap. 6. p. 406. 
 
 the
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 143 
 
 the aorift and the prater-perfect ; forfcrig/i C. 1 1 
 with them ftands for both ey/>avU and yi- 
 7/>a<pa *. I do not think, as fome gram- 
 rians feem to do, that the Latin is a cor- 
 ruption of the Greek, as the French or I- 
 talian are of the Latin ; but I think it is 
 a dialect of the Greek, which came off 
 from the parent - language, and was 
 brought to Italy by Enotrus or Evander 
 before the Greek was perfectly formed, 
 and particularly before their grammarians 
 had learned to diftinguifh betwixt the 
 fimple pad, and the paft which takes in 
 the prefent. 
 
 There is one very peculiar ufe which the 
 Latins make of their preterite, obferved by 
 Mr Harris, by which they not only do not 
 include the prefent, but exclude it ; fo that 
 thetenfe is neither an aorift, which does not 
 exclude the prefent, nor is it a praeter-perfect, 
 which does include the prefent, but fome- 
 thing betwixt the two. In this fenfe Virgil 
 
 4 
 
 * In the expreflion peril, fo common in the Latin co- 
 medy, the perfect has undoubtedly the meaning of 
 the prater- perfeft in Creek. Alfo in that paflage of 
 Virgil, where Dido fays, Vixi, et quern dederat curfum 
 fertuna peregi, vixi undoubtedly lignifies Gita>ut. I be- 
 lieve however it is more commonly ufed in an aoriftical 
 fenfe ; and accordingly it is always the hiftorical tenfe in 
 Latin. 
 
 fays,
 
 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 fays, FuiMUs7>o.r, FUIT Ilium, etingens glo- 
 ria Dardanidum. In like manner Tibullus, 
 Vivite f dices, memores et invite noftri, five 
 E RIM us five nos fata FUISSE volent. And 
 in the fame fenfe Cicero fays of the confpi- 
 rators whom he had put to death; Vixe- 
 runt, in all which inflances it is evident, 
 that the tenfe excludes the prefent. 
 
 But there is a fenfe in which both the 
 Greeks and Latins ufe the aorifl, which 
 I have not yet mentioned, and which I 
 think is not commonly obferved : it is to 
 exprefs, that the action is of a nature to 
 happen frequently, and not at any deter- 
 mined time, either paft, prefent, or to 
 come. Thus Ifocrates fays, 'ox/yc? xporot tn- 
 
 XVJTE rac ruy fayXai- <7UKnGe<a? . And Horace, fpeak- 
 
 ing of the exercifes and labours that it was 
 neceifary to undergo in order to gain a 
 prize in the games, fays, Qui cupit optatam 
 curfu contingere tnetam, mult a TULIT FECIT- 
 que pucr, SUDAVIT et ALSIT, ABSTINUIT 
 venere et vino, &c. Again Virgil fays, 
 Non aliter quam qui adverfo *vix famine lem- 
 bum remigns fubigit : ft brachia forte RE- 
 MI SIT, atque ilium in pr accept prono rapit al- 
 veus amni* ; where it may be obferved, that 
 the perfect remifit is joined with the pre- 
 
 * Georgic. I. v. 201. 
 
 fcnt
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 145 
 
 fent fubigit and rapit ; fo that it appears C. 11, 
 the Latins exprefled this frequency of ac- ^ 
 lion at indetermined times by the prefent, 
 (as we do commonly in Englifh), as well as 
 by the perfect. There are many more 
 paflages to be met with, both in Greek 
 and Latin writers, in which this tenfe oc- 
 curs, and which are not to be explained 
 unlefs we give to the tenfe the fenfe I have 
 mentioned. And fo much for the firft com- 
 pounded tenfe. 
 
 The next is called the plufquam-perfeff ; 
 and is a competition of the paft with the 
 pad, which is denoted by the Englifh ex- 
 premon, / had 'written, where we have 
 both the preterite of the auxiliary verb, 
 and the paft participle of the principal 
 verb. It exprefTes, that the action of the 
 verb is pafled, not only with refpect to 
 the prefent noiu, but alfo with refpect to 
 another action likewife paft ; fo that there 
 is a fecond paft action plainly implied in 
 the tenfe, and which is always exprefled 
 either in what follows or goes before in 
 the difcourfe. Thus when I fay limply, 
 / had . written my letter, it is evident I 
 refer to fome other paft action ; and I ex- 
 prefs it, if I add, iv hen you came in. And 
 
 VOL. II. T I
 
 146 THE ORIGIN AND Part II, 
 
 ]. 1 1 . I hold, that the times of thofe two pail 
 actions are joined together, fo as to make 
 only one paft time ; and the only difference 
 I know betwixt this tenfe and the preter- 
 perfect is, that in the place of the prefent 
 being joined to the paft, fo as to make of 
 the two but one prefent time, the laft paft 
 here is joined to the fir ft paft, fo as to 
 make together but one paft time. The 
 firft action therefore muft be prefent, in one 
 of the ways above defcribed, when the laft 
 action happened, in order to make the ufe 
 of this tenfe proper. And as thofe two 
 tenfes have fo great an affinity, we fee, 
 that in the learned languages, the pluf- 
 quam- perfect is formed from the prefer- 
 perfect, as iyvyf^w from yty/xxpa, and fcrip- 
 ferarn fromfcrifi/i. 
 
 The laft combination I mentioned, was 
 that of the paft with the future, where 
 we are to underftand, that the action is 
 likewife future with refpect to the time of 
 the fpeech, and only paft with refpect to 
 another event, likewife future ; fo that 
 with refpect to the prefent time, that is, 
 the time of the fpeech, it may be faid to 
 be a combination of future with future, 
 This tenfe is exprefled by competition in 
 
 Greek
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LAN T GUACE. 147 
 
 Greek as well as Englifh : for in Greek C. 1 1 . 
 they fay, yt-ypatpuf i<rop.a.t, and in Englifh, / v- '" v " >- ' 
 Jhall have written, where the junction of 
 the future and pail is manifeft from the 
 expreilion ; but the Latins have been fo 
 lucky as to hit upon one form of the verb 
 to exprefs it, fcripfero. The tenfe plainly 
 exprelFes a future action, and it implies an- 
 other future action, with refpect to which 
 the firfl future action is paft, and which 
 other future action is always exprefTed in 
 fome part of the difcourfe. Thus when I 
 fay, I Jhall have ivritten the letter, it 
 plainly expreiTes a future action, and alfo 
 that it is pa{Ted with refpect to fome o- 
 ther future action ; and if I add, 'when he 
 will come in, then I exprefs likewife that 
 fecond future action. 
 
 This is the beft account I am able to 
 give of the tenfes of verbs ; in which I 
 have taken no notice of the fecond future and 
 fecond aorift of the Greek verbs ; becaufe I 
 agree with thofe grammarians who think 
 that they have no fignification different 
 from the firfl futures, and nrft aorifts, 
 and are no more than the obfolete prefents 
 and imperfects of the old theme of the 
 verb, which were flill retained after the 
 T 2 new
 
 148 THE ORIGIN AND - Part II. 
 
 j. u. new theme came into ufe, but were ufed as 
 different forms of the future and aorift ; fo 
 that they only ferve to enrich the analo- 
 gy, and make the founds of this fo va- 
 rious part of fpeech, {till more various. 
 Neither can I admit that there is any fuch 
 tenfe in the Greek, or any other language 
 that I know, as what is called in the Her- 
 mes the inceptive^ fuch as //.e*ju y/a<pr, or 
 rather yf*-^&v, (for that is more commonly 
 ufed), which is faid to be the incepti<ve- 
 prefcnt. I know there are inceptive verbs 
 in Latin, as there are defiderative verbs in 
 Greek ; but there is no form of any other 
 verb that expreffes either the one or the 
 other. For as to //ex\ y/a4r, it is plainly 
 a future, as much as fcnpturus fum ; and 
 the only difference that I know betwixt it 
 and ypx^o is, that /** not only expreffes 
 futurity, and therefore is joined with the 
 future infinitive, but alfo very often im- 
 plies deliberation, efpecially in the Attic ufe 
 of the word. 
 
 CHAP.
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 149 
 
 CHAP. XII. 
 
 Continuation of the fame fubjecJ. Authori- 
 ties in fupport of the doctrine of the tenfes 
 laid doivn in the preceding chapter. Dr 
 Clarke's fyftern upon this fubjefl examined. 
 
 I Should be forry if the reader thought C. 1 2, 
 that I gave the doctrine of the Greek ^^^ 
 tenfes, laid down in the preceding chapter, 
 for a difcovery of my own. All I pretend 
 is, to have explained more fully, I think, 
 than has hitherto been done, what the an- 
 tients have delivered upon this fubjecl ; 
 and particularly Theodoras Gaza, whom 
 I reckon among the antients, though he 
 lived as late as the fifteenth century, on 
 account of his learning, and the elegance 
 and accuracy of his Greek flyle. He has 
 left us a Greek grammar in that language, 
 wherein he has explained foine things be- 
 longing to the art, in fo maflerly a man- 
 ner, that while I am reading him, I am 
 fometimes difpofed to forget the refugee 
 Greek, and think that it is Ariftotle I am 
 
 fludying.
 
 150 THE ORIGIN AND Part II, 
 
 C. 12. fludying. He is ihort upon the tenfes, as 
 
 v ^ v> ^ upon every thing elfe, and has given us 
 
 little more than definitions of them, but 
 
 fuch definitions as agree perfectly with my 
 
 notion of them. 
 
 The prefent he defines TO o/s-ra/moc xa/ '- 
 TIMS ; from which it appears, that being im- 
 perfeft, was, according to his notion, of the 
 efTence of the prefent time. Nor does he 
 feem to have any idea of a prefent that was 
 aoriftical, that is, did not determine whe- 
 ther the action was perfect or imperfect, 
 any more than of a prefent which was 
 only inceptive. 
 
 His definition of the prater-perfect is, 
 
 TO TTCtflKYlKV^OS OLfTl XflC/ iYTiMi; TV tUffTUTOf. HerC is 
 
 plainly laid down the compofition which I 
 fuppofe in this tenfe, of the prefent and the 
 paft ; but with this reftriction and limita- 
 tion, that it muft have been lately paft ; 
 that is, it muft have happened in a por- 
 tion of time paft which connects with 
 the prefent noiv^ not being divided from 
 it by any boundary or limit, which I 
 have made to be an eflential part of the 
 fignification of this tenfe. He further 
 fays, that it muft be prefent as well as 
 paft ; but then it muft not be goln.; on, 
 
 which
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 151 
 
 which is the cafe of an action expreffed by C. 12 
 the prefent tenfe, but it muft be comple- 
 ted ; fo that it is paft, perfect, and prefent. 
 That the meaning of this expreffion, 
 the perfect of the prefent, is no other than 
 that the action, though prefent, muft not 
 be imperfect or going on, but perfect and 
 complete, is evident from the fame au- 
 thor's definition of the imperfect tenfe, 
 
 VIZ. TO 7TlX.fiXTtTy.IMOY KOi} Ot-TtKi^ TV TTOLpU^n^iyV ; by 
 
 which this tenfe is diftinguifhed, firft, 
 from the prefent, whrch is aVtxtc, or im- 
 perfect like wife, but then it is irwra^tw, 
 and not n wa.^^, that is to fay, of the 
 prefent, not the paft ; and fecondly, it 
 is diflinguifhed from the preter- perfect, 
 by its going on, and not being prefent. 
 
 And the names given to thole two tenfes, 
 agree with the definitions of them : for in 
 Greek the preter- perfect tenfe is called 
 7ra.pot.Kei/Mot;, which fignifies lying beftde, de- 
 noting that the action, though paft, is 
 befide or contiguous to the prefent ; and 
 the imperfect is called ^sarar/x^, that is, 
 extended, or going on, by which it is ef- 
 fentially diftinguimed from the preter- 
 perfect. 
 
 Dr Clarke, in his edition of Homer, 
 
 has
 
 i5 2 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 12. has given us, in one of his notes upon the 
 beginning of the Iliad, a perfect fyftem, as 
 he feems to think, of the tenfes of the Greek 
 language, not without a good deal of cften- 
 tation, and reprehenfion of other gramma- 
 rians. He divides all time, as I do, into 
 pojl, prefent, and future. He alfo makes 
 the diftinction of the action being perfect 
 or imperfect ; but then he applies this dif- 
 tinction to the prefent, which I have 
 {hewn is by its nature, and according to 
 the definition of Theodorus Gaza, always 
 imperfect. And the examples that he 
 gives of a prefent action being perfect, 
 will apply only to an action that is pafl, 
 but is confidered as prefent, in the man- 
 ner above explained. 
 
 I cannot agree with him neither, that 
 cosnabo in Latin, or Wrwa in Greek, is an 
 imperfect future. For I think they are 
 clearly aoriftical, not determining whether 
 the future action be perfect or imperfect. 
 And as to the account he gives of ctznavero, 
 1 JJjall have flipped, that it is a perfect fu- 
 ture, it is an improper defcription of the 
 tenfe, becaufe it does not fully exprefs its 
 nature ; for the future action expreiTed 
 by that tenfe, is not only perfect and com- 
 pleted,
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OP LANGUAGE. 
 
 Dieted, but it is paft with refpect to ano- C. 12. 
 ther aftion ; fo that it is truly a compound- ^"^ 
 ed time, fuch as I have explained it, of 
 the future and the paft ; by which we are 
 to underftand, as I have already obferved, 
 that both the times are future with refpect 
 to the now) when I fpeak, but the one is 
 pafled with refpecl to the other. And I 
 have" alib obferved, that this is a com- 
 pounded tenfe that the Greeks have not in 
 one word$ nor can they exprefs it other- 
 wife than as we do, by a circumlocution, 
 fuch as ItletTTvmw wo pal, in which the com- 
 pofition is jufl as vifible as in our Englifh 
 expreffion. 
 
 Dr Clarke's account alfo of the plufquani- 
 perfect is very incomplete ; for all he fays 
 of it is, that it is the perfect of the paft. 
 But that definition does not diftinguim it 
 fufiiciently from the aorift ? tMaa., which may 
 be ufed to exprefs an aclion as perfectly paft 
 as that expreifed by the plu-perfedl ivt^iKw&v. 
 But the true notion of that tenfe is what I 
 have given, namely, that it is a compo- 
 fition of the paft with the paft, both paft 
 with refpecl to the time when I fpeak, 
 and the one paft with refpecl to the other. 
 And there is this further, as I have ob- 
 
 VOL. II, U ferved
 
 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 ferved in the Greek plu-perfecl, that 
 the action it exprefles is not only paft, 
 with refpect to another time likewife paft, 
 but it is to be considered as prefent in one 
 or other of the fenfes above mentioned at 
 that other pall time. In fhort it is the 
 prefer- perfect applied to a pafl time, in- 
 flead of being applied to the prefent. And 
 in this way many ufes of this plu- 
 perfect tenfe in Greek that feem extraor- 
 dinary, may, if I am not much miftaken, 
 be eafily explained. It will not however 
 explain the ufe of this tenfe in fome pafla- 
 ges of Homer, if it be true that the tenfe 
 there is really the plu-perfecT: ; but this 
 I hold not to be the cafe *. 
 
 Thus 
 
 * The pafTages in Homer I allude to, are the follow- 
 ing. In the firft Iliad, fpeaking of Jupiter, he fays, 
 
 'AxA.' ar.iai <Jiv titrro' Qin; a'j fi^aro yvtzv. 
 
 v. 512. 
 
 Now vert here is fuppofed by all grammarians, fo far as 
 I know, to he the plu- perfect of the verb f.fun, and 
 therefore, according to my notion of the meaning of that 
 tenfe, fhould fignify, that Jupiter had Icen fitting, and 
 was then fitting Jilent ; a fenfe which the paflage will 
 not bear. But I fay, that *CTO is not there the plu- 
 perfecl, but the firft aorift middle, which is ,'o-aTo, in the 
 3d perf. fing. and by a fyncope fia-ro, in the fame manner 
 as ft'xro is the 3d perf. fing, of the ift acr. middle, from
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 155 
 
 Thus it appears, that the general prin- C. 12. 
 ciples of the Doctor's fyfleni are errone- V - X ^' NJ 
 ous : and his explanation of the particular 
 tenfes is to me not at all fatisfaclory ; for 
 he does not fo much as attempt to explain, 
 otherwife than by giving examples, the 
 difference betwixt the aorift and the prae- 
 ter-perfecl:. And he makes a difference 
 betwixt the firft and fecond future in 
 Greek, which he does not explain even by 
 
 x\\op.at, according to Euflathius, By a like miftake they 
 make lKtiKa.ro and wppwro, to be plu-perfects in the fol- 
 lowing paflage. 
 
 Ai /K pa a<rTpof l\n\a.ro SouStiKioit 
 Kai J( duptKof TA.u<fa(<faX.H xpnpatrTo' 
 y.irpHf 6 , ifopetj ipvu.a. %poo; tpxof axovrav, 
 H 01 TA.O"TOV cpvro Sia. irpo Si (HTO.TO xctt T!!J* 
 AnporccTOv ' up o'/rof i~sypayt xpoa purof. 
 
 II. 4. v. 13^. 6, 
 
 Where it is plain that the plu -perfect will make no fenfe. 
 But the truth is, that ixuxaro is the sd aor. middle, form- 
 ed from the. verb Jx^i, in the fame manner as la-ra/^rt 
 is from the verb ,Yi)^i. And npnpna-To is the firft aorift 
 middle of the verb lfuia t the word being ^o-aTo, and by 
 fyncope, />O-TO, or Ipnpeicro, or tipvfmrro. And with this 
 account of thefe two tenfes agrees the tenfe that juft 
 goes before, viz. m, and the two that follow after, 
 fifa.ro and Ixryfei^t ; and fo the whole pafiage is uniform 
 and plain. And it may be obferved, that there is a 
 particular propriety in making wppo-T<> the middle voice, 
 fo that it denotes that the arrow fixed itfslf or lodged 
 in the breaftplate. 
 
 U 2 examples;
 
 156 THE ORIQIN ANJ> Part II. 
 
 C, 12. examples ; nor indeed is it pofBble to ex- 
 plain it, as there is truly no difference be- 
 twixt them. Then, in order to adjuft 
 his ratio temporum, as he calls it, to cer-' 
 tain paflages in Homer, he gives a mean- 
 ing to the plu-perfecl:, fuch as I am per- 
 fuaded it has not in any language of the 
 world ; for he makes it to fignify the quick 
 performance of the action. Thus, fays he, 
 i6n, the aorift, fignifies no more but fimply 
 he 'went ; but eew, the plu-perfect, de- 
 notes that he went quickly and fuddenly, 
 or, as we exprefs it in Englim, iv as gone 
 in an inftant. But this appears to me to 
 be a mere imagination of the Doctor, 
 founded upon a mifapprehenfion qf the 
 tenfe of the verb, or rather of the verb 
 
 iffelf*. 
 
 Though 
 
 * The Doctor feerns not to have known, or not to 
 have attended to it, that the Greeks were in ufe to form 
 new verbs from almoft every tenfe of the old verb, and 
 particularly from the praeter-perfefl, both active and 
 middle. Thus from the pneter- perfect middle, *-<rA.wx 
 of the verb *\>r<ru, they formed a new verb, which we 
 have in Homer, *fx\ryu ; and of the fame kind are Ttrpxo % 
 MM, both likewife Homeric verbs. From -rtfo,*, the 
 perfeft middle of the obfolete verb $nu, occido, they 
 formed the verb rtpow, or by fyncope rs^va, which occurs 
 fo often in Homer ; and from the fame tenfe of the old 
 
 verb
 
 Book!. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 157 
 
 Though I have thus animadverted a C. 12 
 little feverely upon the errors and defects 
 of the Doctor's fyftem, I muft allow him 
 the merit of being the firfl of the mo- 
 derns, fo far as I know, that has attempt- 
 ed to form any thing like a rational fyftem 
 upon this fubjecl. And I muft confefs 
 Ukewife, that he was the firft who 
 fet me a-thinking upon it. He was a 
 man of acute parts, and a good metaph^- 
 fician : but that was the occafion of his 
 error ; for it made him imagine that he 
 could, without other afliftance, form a 
 fyftem of grammar, or of any particular 
 part of it ; whereas, if he had been a man 
 lefs ingenious, he would have taken, it is 
 likely, the affiftance of the antient gram- 
 marians, whofe footfteps we cannot quit 
 in fuch inquiries without the greateft ha- 
 zard of going wrong ; and then he would 
 have avoided the errors he has fallen into 
 
 verb ftGu, terreo, which is found in Homer, they formed 
 the verb commonly in ufe, <po f u. And according to the 
 fame analogy, from the praster-perfcfi eexa. of the verb 
 Ca. or, as it is now ufed, , they formed a new verb, 
 GtGnu, of which &/. is the 3d perf. of the prefent ; and 
 therefore the Doftor might as well have made a plu- 
 perfefc of ffirrKryn, TITC^, $1$, which, by all gram- 
 marians, are allowed to be in the prefeat. 
 
 upon
 
 158 THE ORIGIN AND Part IT. 
 
 C. 12. upon this fubjecT: of the tenfes ; and if he 
 ^^ had ftudied more diligently the antient 
 commentaries upon Homer, he would 
 have corrected feveral blundering tranfla- 
 tions, which he has given of different 
 paflages of the Iliad *. 
 
 * As this cenfure of fo celebrated a Greek fcholar, 
 may appear to many not a little rafh, I will juftify it by 
 two inftances taken from the fame page of his tranfla- 
 tion of the firft Iliad. Neftor fays, fpeaking to Aga- 
 inemnon, 
 
 'ArpetXn, <ru Si Tta.\>t TIOV ftivof, ivrap tyuyt 
 tila-cojjL 'A^ixS/ p.t%tfjLM %o\oi t of ftiyct Tta.si 
 "EpMs 'A.%aiouri fiKtrai TTO\I/LU>IO xccxoTa. 
 
 which Dr Clarke has tranflated thus, 
 
 , tu autem compefce tuam iram : verum egf 
 Precabor Achillem deponere iram, qui magnum omnibus 
 P ropugnaculum Achivis eft belli malt. 
 
 Every intelligent reader, though he do not underftand 
 Greek, may perceive that Neftor ufes a very improper 
 argument, to perfuade Achilles to lay afide his anger, 
 when he mentions that he was the bulwark of the Greeks 
 in war. If this were Homer's meaning, he would nor, 
 in this paflage at leaft, deferve the commendation which 
 Ariftotle gives him, of excelling all other poets in fenfe 
 and argument, as well as diiftion, AI?* xaJ tizvoia. irarrzt 
 v*t F CcM.e<. Poetic. It is not therefore eafily to be belie- 
 ved, that fuch was Homer's meaning. But further, I fay, 
 that the words will not bear this meaning, and that the 
 Doftor has conftrued them improperly, when he has 
 made Merc-o^a* to govern 'A^IXW/, and tranflated them pre- 
 cabor Achillem ; for I deny that xio-o-^a/, either in the 
 ufe of Homer, or of any other Greek writer, governs the 
 
 dative,
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 159 
 
 dative, but always the accufative. And if this be fo, it Q j 
 is impoffible that the Doftor can be right in his tranfla- v^-yv 
 tion of the paffage. 
 
 But what then is the meaning of it ? A learned Greek 
 profeffor, of my acquaintance, conftrues ^oxov with A^\W/, 
 and underftands it to be a requeft to Agamemnon, to 
 lay a fide hii anger again ft Achilles. And 1 obferve, that 
 it is in this fenfe that Euftathius underftands the paflage. 
 But there are two objections to this meaning of it, one a- 
 rifing from the fenfe, and the other from the words. For, 
 in the firft place, it is faying the fame thing twice, Ne- 
 ftor having, juft in the preceding verfe, exhorted Aga- 
 memnon to appeafe his anger ; and accordingly Eufta- 
 thius acknowledges that it is inroMy M . But a repetition 
 of the very fame thing, in the very next line, is not a- 
 greeable to the manner of Homer, nor of any fenfible 
 writer, "idly, I fay, that %OKOV A^XW? for -^KOV *T' A x vix f 
 is not Greek, and cannot be juftih'ed by any good autho- 
 rity. Rejecting therefore this interpretation likewife, I 
 embrace one fuggefted to me by an ingenious gentleman 
 of Glafgow, Mr John Young, who is yet no profeffor, 
 but very well deferves to be one. He conftrues A^/xJTf 
 with ^e^fv, and underftands the meaning of the paffage 
 to be, requefting Agamemnon to forgive Achilles for hit 
 pajfion. That the words A^xiT/ /wSfjt"* x<>\ov will bear this 
 meaning, (and indeed I think they can bear no other), is 
 evident from a paffage of Herodotus, whom I hold to be 
 the beft interpreter of Homer's Janguage. It is where 
 Mardonius fends a meffage to the Athenians, in the 
 name of his mafter Xerxes, making him fpeak to them 
 
 tllUS, 'A0HNAIOI2I TA'2 'AMAPTAAA2 raf 1% ixftvwv if l/nt yt- 
 
 vDjcttvaf I1A2A2 METiHMi. lib. 8. cap 140. And the fenlc 
 of the paffage, thus underftood, is worthy of Homer : 
 for Neftor firft defires Agamemnon to appeafe his own 
 anger, for i underftand there is an emphafis in the word 
 Ttov joined with /*&(, and then he befeeches him to for- 
 give Achilles his paffion ; and to perfuade Agamemnon to 
 do fo, he ufes a very proper argument, viz. that Achilles
 
 160 THE ORIGIN AND PartIL 
 
 was of fo great ufe to the Greeks. And in this fenfe the 
 Brevia fiholia, afcribed to Mycellus, feetn to underftarid 
 the paflage, for they render fu^tv by a-vy^apra-xt. 
 
 The other pafiage in which the Doctor miftakes the 
 fenfe of his original, juft follows, in the anfwer which A- 
 gamemnon makes to Neftor. 
 
 *AX\* of u.1 p l9\ xipt iravruv 1/tfUJHti aAXo, 
 HOVTUV yctex xpaTtftv iflX, xtivTicreri <f' uvx<r<rnT t 
 fia.fi Sf ftifiaivav' CCTJV' w Xfittko^au lia. 
 
 Where the Doctor has tranflated the laft words in this 
 
 manner, 
 
 1 Qua minime perfuafurum puto. 
 
 Here there is a double error. For, in the firfl place, the 
 Doclor fuppofes the peribn to be changed from the firft 
 to the third ; for he underftands it to be, Ego Agamem- 
 non puto eum []i. e. Achilleni^ minitne perfuafurum. Now 
 in Greek there never is a change underftood of the per- 
 fon of the verb governing the infinitive ; but if there be 
 a change, it muft be expreffed ; Jo that if the words 
 were to be explained as the Doctor explains them, the 
 pronoun of the third peribn fhould have been exprefled, 
 and they fhould have run thus, / uro *;rw6ai St v , 
 ldly y The verb r^flw, in the middle voice, never lignifies 
 to perjuade, but to obey> which is agreeable to the reflective 
 fignification of the middle voice, as if it were to perfuadc 
 one's fe/f to do any thing. The meaning therefore of 
 the paflage is, / do not think that I foall obey hhfi in 
 thefe things, or, that I foall be pcrfuaded by him to do 
 thefe things. And I am the more furpriied, that the 
 Doctor has miftaken the fenfe of the word xaa-tc-fai here. 
 as he has rendered it rightly a few lines alter, v. 296. 
 where Achilles fays to Agamemnon, 
 
 to yr'p iyccy' en coi -rncriff&<ii ai'w. 
 
 which the Doctor has tranflated 
 
 Ncn enim ego amplius me tibi oltonperaturum puto. 
 But the pronoun o-oi, it would feem, in this paflage, di- 
 rected him to the true meaning. 
 
 CHAP.
 
 feook I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 161 
 
 CHAP. XIII. 
 
 Of the modes, perfons, numbers, and voices, of 
 *uerbs.-< Enumeration of the feveral things 
 expreffed by the verb. 
 
 THE modes or moods of Verbs, as they C. 13. 
 are commonly called, are no other 
 than thofe energies of the mind of the 
 fpeaker, which I have faid are effential to 
 the verb, expreffed by different forms or 
 inflections of it. Of thefe I have only- 
 mentioned three ; affirmation, exprefTed by 
 the mood called the indicative ; 'wijlnng, or 
 praying, exprefTed by the optative ; and com- 
 mand, expreffed by the imperative. The 
 interrogative is reckoned by fome among 
 the moods ; but as it is not exprefled by 
 any different form of the verb, but only 
 by particles, or by a certain arrangement 
 of the words, I do not chufe to call it a 
 mood : and for the fame reafon I do not 
 reckon a potential mood ; which even in 
 Greek is denoted by no inflection of the 
 verb, but by the potential or contingent 
 VOL. II. X particle
 
 *62 THE ORIGIN AND Part it 
 
 C. 13. particle V; and in Latin it is not exprefTecl 
 at all, (otherwife than by a circumlocu- 
 tion), as they have no fuch particle. The 
 fubjunctive I rank under affirmation ; for 
 it exprefles an affirmation qualified. The 
 indicative affirms abfolutely ; but the af- 
 firmation of the fubjunclive is connected 
 with, or dependent upon fome other affir- 
 mation. I therefore divide affirmation into 
 two moods ; the indicative, affirming ab- 
 Iblutely ; the fubjunclive, affirming rela- 
 tively or conditionally *. 
 
 As to the infinitive, I hold it to be no 
 mood, though it be commonly called ib ; 
 becaufe it exprefTes no energy of the mind 
 of the fpeaker, but fimply the action of 
 the verb, with the addition of time. It is 
 therefore either ufed as a noun, or it 
 ferves to connect the verb, with ano- 
 
 * When this conditional cr relative affirmation is a 
 contingency dependent upon will or inclination, the op- 
 tative mood is commonly ufed in place of the fubjun<5live, 
 cfpecially by the Attic writers. But it is remarkable, 
 that the optative mood is never once ufed by Euclid, 
 though the fubjuncTive be frequently ufed by him : the 
 reaibn of which is, that in mathematics nothing is con- 
 tingent or dependent upon human will, but every thing 
 aeceflary, 
 
 fhef
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 163 
 
 ther verb or a noun, and fo is ufeful in C. 13, 
 fyntax. 
 
 It is faid, that in Englifli we have no 
 moods, at leaft none exprefTed by the 
 form of the verb : and it is true, that in 
 the prefent uie of the language we make 
 but little diftinction of moods ; but in the 
 older Englifli writers, particularly Milton, 
 I obferve a fubjunctive mood conftantly 
 \ifed in the prefent tenfe j but it is no other 
 than the fir ft perfon of the prefent of the 
 indicative, without any variation of num- 
 ber or perfon. Thus Milton fays, " Al- 
 " though I love; Tho ugh thou love; Though 
 " he love ;" and many writers ftill preferve 
 that uie, at leaft in the third perfon. 
 
 The French have a regular fubjunctive 
 mood, which I think is a great beauty in 
 their language ; but the ufe of it is a mat- 
 ter of fome nicety, which very few fo- 
 reigners who fpeak the language attend 
 to. 
 
 Of numbers and perfons I have fpoken 
 under the article of the noun. In the 
 learned languages the numbers in verbs, 
 are marked in the fame way as in nouns, 
 viz. by inflection ; and the three perfons 
 are diftinguimed likewife in that way, 
 X 2 This
 
 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 This mortens the expreffion in thofe lan- 
 guages, by making the ufe of the pronoun 
 not necefTary, befides the advantage it 
 gives them in the variety of compolition 
 and arrangement which it allows. In 
 Engiim, as we have but very little varia- 
 tion of our verbs, they muft always be 
 accompanied by their nouns or pronouns ; 
 and not at a great diflance neither, for 
 fear of miftake or ambiguity. 
 
 As the French have the numbers and per- 
 fons of their verbs regularly marked by in- 
 flection, it appears to me fuprifing that they 
 do not avail themfelves more of fuch an ad- 
 vantage, but have their compofition rather 
 more Hinted and uniform than ours : and 
 this top by way pf improvement of their 
 flyle ; for, in their antient writings, there 
 is a much greater variety of ftructure and 
 freedom of compofition, particularly in 
 their old poetry; and therefore I prefer 
 what has been of late written in what 
 they call Jlilz de. Marott, (the name they 
 give to the ftyle of their old poetry), fuch 
 as Fontaine's tales and fables, to their 
 poetry of a more modern cafl. 
 
 All things in this fublunary world fuf- 
 fer as well as act, and therefore the agent 
 
 Of
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 165 
 
 of every action of a verb may fuffer in its C. 1 
 turn that very action. According there- 
 fore as the perfon of the verb acts or fuf- 
 fers, the verb aflumes a different form, 
 which we call a voice. When the perfon 
 afts, it is the acJive voice ; when he fuf- 
 fers, it is the pa/five. Moft languages 
 have no other ; but the Greek has a 
 third, called the middle voice, denoting 
 that the perfon both acts and fuffer s, that 
 is to fay, is the fubject of his own action ; 
 fo that the verb, in this form, very muph 
 refembles the reflected verbs of the French *. 
 Thofe who have ftudied the beauties of the 
 Greek language, muft know very well, that 
 this voice gives not only a beautiful variety 
 to the inflections of their verbs, but a great 
 concifenefs and emphafis to the expreflion. 
 From this account of the verb, we may 
 collect the feveral things expreffed by it 
 under one view, which may ferve for a 
 full defcription of it, in place of the fhort 
 definition I gave before. And it de- 
 notes, i mo, fome kind of action^ under which 
 
 * This form of the verb in Greek has not always this 
 reflefted fignification ; but is fbmetimes nothing more 
 than an adive verb, refembling the deponent verbs in 
 .J-,atin. See Kujler. de vocs media. 
 
 I
 
 i66 THE ORIGIN AND Part II, 
 
 C. 1 3. I include exiftence : for the idea of the action. 
 expreiTed by a verb, always implies, as I have 
 obferved, the idea of exiftence ; and there 
 is one verb which denotes nothing clfe for 
 its action but exiftence. 2^/0, The energy 
 of the mind of the fpeaker concerning 
 that action, affirming it, wiihing it, or 
 commanding it. 3/20, The agent, or per- 
 fon acting, and whether one or more. 
 4/0, The time of the action, and whether 
 it be a completed action or not. 5/0, The 
 fubject of the action is alfo expreiTed, if 
 it be the fame with the agent. All thefe 
 things are denoted by the (ingle Greek word 
 iv.o<ly.fj&r, fignifying, / did beat my felf\ as 
 was the cuftom of the antients upon oc- 
 canon of any great affliction. And laftly y 
 if the perfon fufFers the action of the verb, 
 inftead of being the agent, that alfo is 
 expreiied by a form of the verb. 
 
 Though the expreffion of the Greek 
 verb be fo various and manifold ; yet, as 
 I obferved before, there are only two 
 things that muft neceffarily be exprefTed 
 by the verb. The firft is the energy 
 or affection of the mind ; the fecond is 
 fome action, or at leaft exiftence. To be 
 convinced that thcfe two are efTential to the 
 
 nature
 
 Book!. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 
 
 nature of the verb, we may take the cafe C. 13. 
 of a verbal noun, fuch as curfus in Latin, 
 and afk, why it is not a verb as well as 
 c urro^ from which it is derived ? and the 
 anfwer is plain, that it exprefTes no energy 
 of the mind of the fpeaker who pro- 
 nounces this word ; nor does it affirm that 
 the thing exifls or does not exift ; nor does 
 it command that it mould or ihould not 
 exift ; nor does it wrfh that it may or may 
 not exift, but fnnply gives vis the concep- 
 tion of the mirid of the fpeaker. All the 
 Other thiflgs above mentioned may be ex- 
 preiTed by other words, as in Engliih our 
 moods, and the greatefl part of our tenfes 
 are. And in the fame manner, numbers, 
 perfbns, and voices may be exprefTed : and 
 they are fo expr'effed, for the greater part, 
 in moll of the modern languages of Eu- 
 rope ; but if the word wants the exprel- 
 iion of the energy of the mind, and of 
 action or exiftence, it ceafes to be a verb, 
 I mean in the common acceptation of the 
 "Word, and becomes fome other part of 
 fpeech. 
 
 There is another obfervation, that I like- 
 wife made before, and which is a confe- 
 quence of the preceding one, namely, that 
 
 the
 
 168 THE ORIGIN ANF> Part II; 
 
 C. 13. the fimpleft of all verbs is the fubftantive 
 ^^^ verb, exprefTmg nothing but the energy or 
 affection of the mind, joined with the 
 fimple idea of exiftence, the moft meta- 
 phyfical and abftract of all ideas, of which 
 time and place, and other univerfals, are 
 but adjuncts. It may therefore be called 
 the metaphyfical verb ; and if it were di- 
 verted of tenfes, moods, and perfons, as 
 it is of voices, it would be the philofophi- 
 cal verb that I mentioned before, fit to' 
 exprefs univerfal truths, which have no- 
 thing to do with time, perfons, or the dil- 
 
 pofition of the mind. But to return to 
 
 the Greek verb : 
 
 To exprefs all thofe feveral things above 
 mentioned, without any ambiguity or 
 confuilon, and thereby to fave the unne- 
 ceffary multiplication of words, inflead 
 of increafmg it, which we have fhewn to 
 be the cafe of the barbarous languages, 
 when they exprefs feveral things by one 
 word, muft be efteemed by every mail 
 who attentively considers it, a moft ex- 
 quilite piece of art ; and it is plain that 
 it muft have been the contrivance of men 
 who had ftudied the nature of things, and 
 could make the proper diftinclion betwixt 
 
 thole
 
 Book L PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 169 
 
 thofe things that could commodioufly be ex- C. 13, 
 prefTed by one word, and what could not. N - / '" v ~ o 
 
 But it may be faid, that this Greek 
 verb is too artificial a thing ; and that our 
 verb being more fimple, and yet doing the 
 bufinefs as well, is therefore preferable. This 
 objection I have already in a great meafure 
 anfwered ; and I mail only add here, that 
 fao^atpn is in one fenfe fimpler than the 
 Englifh expreflion, / did beat myfdf, be- 
 caufe it is fhorter. It is true indeed, that 
 to learn the ufe of a Greek verb, is a 
 matter of more pains and trouble than to 
 learn the ufe of an Englilh verb, as it 
 may be much eafier to ufe a clumfy, ill- 
 contrived machine, than one complete and 
 perfect in all its parts ; but if this lafl 
 machine, when the ufe of it is once learn- 
 ed, can be employed with as little or lefs 
 trouble, it is certainly preferable. Now 
 that is the cafe of the Greek verb ; for 
 no body will deny that it exprefles, in 
 fewer words, and without tedious repeti- 
 tions of the fame word, every thing that 
 can be cxpreffed by the Englifh verb : and 
 that the ufe of it is not fo very difficult to 
 be learned, but may be acquired without 
 rule or teaching, by practice merely, we 
 
 VOL. II. Y are
 
 170 THE ORIGIN AND Part If. 
 
 n 
 
 C. 13. are very fure ; becaufe we know that the 
 VX " V ~ NS-/ women and children in Athens fpoke the 
 Attic, as our women and children fpeak 
 Englifh ; and the people in general were 
 noted for elegant fpeakers, though very 
 few of them learned grammar, which was 
 a piece of education beftowed upon the 
 children only of people of the firft rank. But 
 further, 1 deny that the Englim verb, any 
 more than the Latin, anfwers all the pur- 
 pofes of the Greek. For, in the firft place, 
 we have no tenfe that anfwers to the pre- 
 fent paffive of the indicative among the 
 Greeks. For example, we cannot exprefs 
 -TVTTTITXI by any tenfe ; for though we fay, 
 hs zV beaten, that is rather the preter-per- 
 feel TITVTTTXI, denoting that the adlion is 
 finifhed, not going on, which is the 
 meaning of TV-TV, nor can we exprefs it 
 otherwife than by circumlocution, fuch 
 as, they are beating him. And in the fame 
 manner, the French mufl fay, on k bat, 
 whicK is not only multiplying words, but 
 changing the form of the verb from paf- 
 five to aclive. Neither have we a participle 
 prefent of the paffive voice, fuch as TUTTTO- 
 /rcf, any more than the Latins ; for our 
 participle beaten is a pad participle, as 
 
 much
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 
 
 much as the Latin verberatm. 
 this leads me to fpeak of the 
 fpeech next in order after the verb, viz. 
 the participle. 
 
 But before I quit this fo curious fubjeclof 
 the verb, I hope I {hall be permitted, even 
 by the greatefl admirers of the Greek lan- 
 guage, to obferve that fomething more 
 perfect of the kind might be perhaps con- 
 trived, than even the Greek verb. And 
 it does not appear to me to exceed the 
 power of human art, to form a plan of a 
 language more complete in every part than 
 the Greek ; and fuch they fay the language 
 of the philofophers of India, called the San- 
 Jcrit^ actually is, of which I {hall have oc- 
 calion to fay more in the fequel. As to the 
 verb, I have already obferved that feveral 
 more compound tenfes might be imagined ; 
 but whether they would not imbarrafs the 
 language too much, and make it too 
 complicated and difficult for common ufc, 
 is what I cannot certainly fey. But I 
 will mention one or two things, which I 
 think may be added to the Greek verb, 
 without any fuch confequence. And, 
 in the firfl place, it might not only 
 exprefs numbers and perfons, but, hke 
 Y 2 the
 
 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 13. the adjective, it might alfo have genders, 
 which is the cafe of the Hebrew and Arabic 
 verb \ and, as I am told by the learned in 
 thofe languages, occaiions no confulion or 
 imbarraffment in them, idly, The verbs 
 have more moods as well as tenfes ; and to 
 make the ftructure of the language com- 
 plete, they mould have at lead one more. 
 In order to explain what I mean, it is ne- 
 ceiTary to premife, that every language 
 that is in the leaft degree perfect, muft 
 have, belides the indicative, the impera- 
 tive, and infinitive moods, a fubjunctive 
 mood, which is, as I have obferved, a 
 form of the verb, denoting that what is 
 iignified by it is not affirmed abiblutely 
 by itfelf, but relatively to fome other verb to 
 which it is fubjoined, and upon which it is 
 dependent. And it is a very great defect in 
 our prcfcnt Englifh, (for it was npt al- 
 ways fo), that this mood is very little 
 u&d, or ufecl indifcrimmately with the in- 
 dicative. In Latin they have but one 
 mood of that kind ; but in Greek they 
 have two, viz. the fubjuiictive, properly 
 Jo called, and the optative, which, as 
 I have obferved, is v likewife ufed as 
 a fubjunctive. If the preceding, or prin- 
 cipal-
 
 Book T. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 173 
 
 cipal verb, is in the prefent tenfe, the .13. 
 proper mood of the depending verb is 
 the fubjundlive ; or if it be in the preter- 
 perfect, it is the fame on account of the 
 prefent time, which is involved in it, as 
 I have explained above : but if the prin- 
 cipal verb be in any other pafl time, the 
 proper mood of the depending verb is the 
 optative. So far is very well. But fup- 
 pofe the time of the principal verb is 
 future, ought there not to be a third 
 fubjunftive mood for the depending verb ? 
 But this even the Greek language has not, 
 but ufes, in place of it, the fubjundlive 
 mood properly fo called. 
 
 CHAP. XIV. 
 
 Of participles^ adjectives, prepofitions^ con- 
 j#n$ions 9 and interjections. 
 
 THE participle, though in our com- C. 14.. 
 mon grammars it be fet down in ^^^ 
 the conjugation of every verb as a part of it, 
 yet is truly a feparate part of fpeech ; for 
 it does not exprefs any energy of the mind 
 of the fpeaker, which, as I have faid, is 
 
 efTentia!
 
 *74 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 14. effential to the verb ; but it denotes th 
 ^ action of the verb, not abftracledly as a 
 verbal noun does, but inherent in, or be- 
 longing to fome indefinite fubftance ; and 
 therefore I have ranked it under verbs, in 
 my large fenfe of the word, and not un- 
 der nouns. It has however fo much of the 
 noun, as to have numbers and cafes ; and 
 as it neceflarily refers to a noun, and may 
 be conflrued with a noun of any of the 
 three genders, it has likewife all thofe gen- 
 ders. It has alfo fo much of the verb, com- 
 monly fo called, that it is confignificant of 
 time. Although therefore in my divifion of 
 the parts of fpeech, it is ranked under the 
 verb ; yet, in the common divifion, it ought 
 to be reckoned a part of fpeech by itfelf, fe- 
 parate both from verb and noun. 
 
 The adjective, in the common gram- 
 mars, is very improperly clafTed with the 
 noun ; for it is not a noun, for the fame 
 reafon that the participle is not a noun^ 
 viz. becaufe it denotes primarily a quality 
 or accident inherent in fome indefinite fub- 
 flance. It is therefore joined to any fub- 
 ftance, with which it agrees, as well as 
 the participle, in gender, number, and 
 cafe ; nor is there any difference betwixt the 
 
 two.
 
 pookl. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 175 
 
 two, except that the participle is config- C. 14. 
 nificant of time, which the adjective is not. ^^ 
 
 There are fome adjectives formed by the 
 Greeks from verbs, which deferve a particu- 
 lar notice, as they mew perhaps as much as 
 any thing in the language, the accurate and 
 philofophical genius of the formers of this 
 language. But of thefe I will fpeak in the 
 next chapter, under the article of deriva- 
 tives. 
 
 Prepofitions I likewife clafs under verbs, 
 as they denote relations of things ; not ab- 
 ftractedly, for then they would be nouns, 
 but inherent in their fubjecls, fo that they 
 are qualities which are not confidered as 
 having a feparate exiflence. The chief ufe 
 of them, as appears to me, is to exprefs 
 relations, which could not be conveniently 
 exprefifed by the cafes of nouns, fuch as 
 place, fituation, order, and many other 
 connections of things, which are obfer- 
 ved by grammarians, in the fignifications 
 they give to the feveral prepofitions. They 
 are of very great ufe in fyntax, and go- 
 vern a cafe, whereby we know the word to 
 which they refer. 
 
 To know the precife meaning of the 
 prepoiitions in the Greek language, and 
 to be able to diftmguifh the proper from 
 
 the
 
 iy6 THE ORIGIN AND Part IT. 
 
 . 14. the figurative fignification of theift, is a 
 ^^ matter of great nicety. There is fome- 
 thing begun iipon this fubje<l, by an au- 
 thor very eminent for his knowledge of 
 the language * ; but which I regret is not 
 finished. The ufe of them in compofition, 
 gives a particular beauty and accuracy of 
 expremon to the Greek language. They 
 Tife commonly enough two of them, and 
 fometimes three, in competition with their 
 verbs, by which they defcribe fo minutely 
 the action of the verb, that it is really a 
 kind of painting. Thus Homer, in de- 
 fcribhig \vater coming out of the foot of a 
 rock, ufes the word yV-x-?r/>-fer, by which 
 is defcribed, firfl its coming from bslo r w > 
 then its coming out, or gte/hingi and laftty 
 its running forward f . 
 
 The 
 
 * Dr Moor, PrcfcfTor of Greek in the Univerfity of 
 Glafgovr. 
 
 j- The prepofition, though compounded with the verb, 
 is often feparsted from it in the arrangement, particu- 
 larly by the poets ; and this has fometimes led into mif- 
 takes. Thus thofe famous lines of Homer, describing 
 Jupiter's nod, 
 
 H, xrti y.vxvi^Ti If' Ifputrt ycvcri Ktcvtw, 
 
 ' A.f.'.C.fi~izi J 1 ' ctfCL XCUTXI irffpzs-atTO avanTOf. 
 
 ^re, in a late translation, rendered thus. " He faid ; 
 " and with his dark ffiaggy brows the fon of Sa- 
 ?' turn nodded above," &c. where it appears, that the, 
 
 tranflator
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE* 177 
 
 The ad verb, as the name imports, is a fort C. 14. 
 of adjunct of the verb, and appears to me to ^^^ 
 be fuch a fupplement to the verb, as the 
 prepofition is to the noun ; for it expreifes 
 circumflances of time, place, manner of 
 
 tranflator fuppofed tlie prepofition I*} was to be under- 
 ftood by itfelf, and accordingly has rendered it by the 
 the Engliih prepofition, atove. What fenfe this makes, the 
 reader will judge. But to me it is evident that the pre- 
 pofition here, as in many other inftances, is disjoined 
 from the verb vwa-i ; fo that we fliould underftand it as if 
 it had been written fViv<u ; and then it will fignify, upon 
 that he nodded, or in confequence of 'what he faid he nodded. 
 And according to this fenfe, Virgil renders it by the verb 
 compounded with the prepofition ad, viz.annuit; where 
 he fays, fpeaking likewife of Jupiter, Ar.nuit, et totum 
 nutu tremefecit Olyinpum. And we may obferve, that 
 in the next line of Homer, we have the fame prepofition 
 compounded with the verb, in the word ixtppaa-aw, de- 
 fcribing the ftrong motion of Jupiter's hair. There is 
 another error in the tranflation of this paffage, viz. in 
 making Jupiter nod with his brows, which I think is 
 hardly to be understood in Englifti ; whereas it fhould 
 have been with his head: for the brows being fo re- 
 markable a feature, particularly in a face of great digni- 
 ty, are here put for the whole head, (as Euftathius has 
 obferved), by a figure common enough, and well known 
 by the name of fynecdoche, or a part for the whole. Nei- 
 ther is xuvc- exactly tranflated by dark foaggy ; for it 
 does not at all denote flaggy, but only the colour of dark 
 gray, fuch as that of the eye-bro\vs of a dark complexion- 
 ed man, well advanced in years. 
 
 VOL. II. Z aclion,
 
 yS THE ORIGIN AND PartlL 
 
 14. action, and the like, that cannot conve- 
 niently be exprefled by the verb. 
 
 As (ingle words are connected together 
 by the means of cafes and prepofitions, it 
 is fit alfo that fentences, and " members of 
 fentences, mould be connected together ; 
 and for that purpofe, a fet of words have 
 been invented, called conjunfiionf^ which 
 though they may feem often only to con- 
 nect words, yet it is truly fentences that 
 they connect. Thus when I fay, Peter 
 and James did fo or fo, it may feem that 
 the copulative and only joins the two 
 words Peter and James ; but it really joins 
 the fentences, Peter did Jo, and James did 
 fo. The grammarians divide them into fe- 
 veral claffes, which, as it is not my inten- 
 tion to write a grammar, I will not go o- 
 ver. I mall only obferve, that though 
 they all go by the name of conjunctions, 
 fome of them connect^ by disjoining, not by 
 joining. 
 
 The Greek language abounds more in 
 conjunctions than any language I know ; 
 and particularly it has two that no other 
 language, which I know, has, 1 mean, p.* 
 and ?. They are commonly reckoned of 
 t^hat fpecies of conjunctions, called adver- 
 
 fative.
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 179 
 
 fative. But it is only difference they mark, C. 14. 
 not oppofition ; and the ^ that precedes, 
 as it always does, does no more than let 
 you know that fomething different is to 
 follow, but which has a connection with 
 what went before. The Greeks too have 
 many particles, which appear to a perfon. 
 not well ' acquainted with the language to 
 be mere expletives. But they are not fo ; 
 for many of them not only connect the 
 fpeech, but alfo give an emphafis and figni- 
 ficancy to it, which it would not other- 
 wife have. Of this kind are In and ye, of 
 which laft it is very difficult to afcertain 
 the precife meaning : but it certainly has 
 a meaning ; and a man much converfant 
 in the Attic writers will defiderate it, if 
 it be any where wanting. And accor^- 
 dingly H. Stephen has often fupplied it, 
 where, in the MS, it has fallen out. 
 
 This abundance of conjunctions and par- 
 ticles is, in my opinion, one of the greateit 
 beauties of the Greek language ; for they 
 make what goes before refer to what fol- 
 lows, as well as what follows, to what goes 
 before, and fo make the fentence perfectly 
 clofe and compact, giving to the words 
 the fame connection that there is in the 
 Z 2 thought,
 
 180 ; THE ORIGIN AND Part II, 
 
 C. 1 4. thought, and making the ftyle to flow like 
 a dream in one continued tenor, without 
 any (lop or interruption. For I am fo far 
 from thinking that that disjointed compo- 
 fition, and fhort cut of ftyle, which is fa 
 much in fafhion at prefent, and of which 
 Tacitus, among the aiitients, is the great 
 model, is a beauty, that I am o opinion 
 it is the affectation of a deformity ; nor is 
 there, in my apprehenfion, any thing 
 that more disfigures a ftyle, or makes it 
 more offenfive to a man of true tafte and 
 judgement in writing. The antients knew 
 it as well as we do, and practifed it when 
 it was proper ; but there is no example of 
 any writer in a good age, or indeed of any 
 writer at all, compofing a whole work 
 in that ftyle, before Tacitus : but of this 
 I mail fpeak more hereafter. I mall only 
 add at prefent, that one of the greateft diffi- 
 culties of composing in Englifh appears to 
 me to be the want of fuch connecting par-*- 
 tides as the Greeks have. We fee how- 
 ever that the older writers in Englifh, 
 fuch as Milton and Lord Clarendon, have 
 pretty well fupplied that defect, and with 
 fuch copulatives as they had, have made 
 a ftyle flowing enough, and agreeable both 
 to the ear and the underftanding. Nor do 
 
 I
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 181 
 
 I know any thing in which they deferve C. 14, 
 more to be imitated by the later writers. 
 
 The only part of fpeech that remains to 
 be treated of is, what the Latin gramma- 
 rians have added, in place of the Greek 
 article, viz. the interjection ; as to which 
 I fhall only make an obfervation or two, 
 And in the frft place, it may be obferved, 
 that it expreffes one of the two things 
 which I have faid are elTential to the verb, 
 namely, the energy or affection of the mind 
 of him who ufes it : but it differs from 
 the affection expreffed by the verb in this, 
 that it expreffes only pqffion ; for it is the 
 expreffion of joy, grief, furprife, or fuch 
 like paffion. 
 
 2dly^ The interjections may be confidered 
 as remains of the moil antient language a- 
 mong men, that by which they expreffed 
 their feelings, not their ideas. They are 
 therefore the verba that Horace fpeaks of, 
 as ufed by the firfl men who fpoke, 
 
 >uibus 'voces fenfufjue notarent^ 
 
 and were prior to names^ which could on- 
 ly come after ideas were formed of things. 
 And the indeclinable words in every lan- 
 guage, may be confidered as remains of the 
 
 antient
 
 1 82 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 14. antient languages without art ; for the de- 
 
 Vx * v ^' clenfion of words is a thing of art, which 
 
 was not praclifed by the firft men who 
 
 fpoke. And fo much for the divifioa 
 
 of words into parts of fpeech. 
 
 CHAP. XV. 
 
 Dlvifion of 'words into primitive and de- 
 rivative. Defect of our modern languages 
 in -point of etymology. Excellency of the 
 Greek in that point. The 'whole Greek 
 languag^e derived from five combinations of 
 vowels in duads. 
 
 C i c A Nother divifion of words confidered as 
 V-VNJ JT\ fignificant, is into original and deri- 
 vative. What derivation, compofition, 
 and flection are, I have defined in the firfl 
 chapter of this book, and I have there 
 Ihewn that they are the three great artifices 
 of language. Of flection I have already 
 treated at pretty great length, under the 
 article of the noun and the verb ; and I am 
 'now to fpeak of derivation and compofi- 
 tion, both which I {hall include under the 
 
 name
 
 Book L PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 
 
 name of derivation; the only difference C. 15* 
 betwixt the twp being, that the derivative 
 word has only one parent, whereas the 
 compounded word has two. 
 
 A language that has no roots or derivation 
 at all, which is the cafe, as has been fhewn, 
 of the barbarous languages, muft be al- 
 lowed to be very imperfect. And on the 
 other hand a language that has not only 
 derivation, but all its roots within itfelf, 
 and of its own growth, is undoubtedly, 
 in that refpect at lead, a moil perfect lan- 
 guage. Now of all the languages that I 
 know, the Greek is in this, as well as 
 in other refpects, the moft complete. 
 
 The reader may perhaps be furprifed, 
 that in a work fuch as this, upon univer- 
 lal grammar, I mould refer fo often to the 
 ufe of any particular language. But he 
 fhould confider, that my chief purpofe in 
 this grammatical part of my work, is to 
 obferve what is moil perfect in the art, 
 and what confequently was of mofl diffi- 
 cult invention. Now, as I am not able 
 from theory merely, and a -priori, to form 
 the idea of a perfect language, I have been 
 obliged to feek for it in the fludy of the 
 Creek. What men of fuperior genius may 
 
 do
 
 THE ORIGIN AND Part It 
 
 C. 15. doinfuch fpeculations, I cannot tell; but 
 I know well, that ordinary men, without the 
 ftudy of fome model of the kind, would be 
 as unable to conceive the idea of a perfect 
 language, as to form a high tafte in other 
 arts, fuch as fculpture and painting, with- 
 out having feen the beft works of thofe 
 kinds that are to be found. It would be 
 doing injuftice to thofe fuperior minds, 
 who have in themfelves the ftandard of 
 perfection in all the arts, to judge of them 
 by myfelf ; but I am confident that my i- 
 dea of perfection in language would have 
 been ridiculoufly imperfect, if I had 
 known no other language than the modern 
 languages of Europe. It therefore deferves 
 to be conudered, whether it were not 
 worth the while of a curious man, and a 
 lover of knowledge, but who like me is ob- 
 liged to look abroad for patterns of per- 
 fection, to make a ftudy of the Greek 
 language, if it were for no other reafon, 
 but to difcover what is moffc perfect in the 
 moft curious, as well as moft ufeful, art a- 
 mong men. 
 
 There is nothing in which the modern 
 languages, and particularly our Englifh, 
 is more defective than in this matter of e- 
 
 tymology,
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 185 
 
 tymology, of which we are now treating; C. 15. 
 for in Engliih we have the roots of our ^ c ^- f 
 words fcattered through different langua- 
 ges, being either in the old Teutonic or 
 Gothic, which we do not underfhand, or 
 in other languages of Europe, fuch as the 
 French or Italian, or laftly in Greek and 
 Latin ; whereas the Greek, as I will en- 
 deavour to {how, is complete in itfelf, and 
 has all its words of its own growth. 
 
 That there is a wonderful generation of 
 words in Greek, no body who knows any 
 thing of the language can deny. The 
 verb is among them the mod prolific 
 part of fpeech ; for verbs not only beget 
 verbs, of which I have given fome fpeci- 
 mens in a preceding note, but alfo 
 nouns and adjectives without number, 
 which are produced not only from differ- 
 ent tenfes of the verb, but from different 
 perfons of the fame tenfe. Thus from the 
 preter-perfect pamve irvromu&i, of the verb 
 votto, are derived three nouns ; one from the 
 firft perfon, TTOIYIU* another from the fe- 
 cond, viz. a-wx ; and a third from the 
 third perfon, viz. iromw And in like man- 
 ner We have from Trpxwu, Trfay/ua, 'Trpxfa, 
 
 and TTfoLKT*?, and many fuch, all formed 
 VOL. II. A a by
 
 186 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 1$. by the fame rule, and with the fame fig- 
 nification, according to the different perfons 
 of the tenfe from whence they are derived ; 
 For what is derived from the firft perfon, 
 denotes the effect of the action-, or the 
 work performed by it ; what comes from 
 the fecond, the act itfelf, or the operation 
 of the agent ; and what comes from the 
 third, the actor or agent. And not only 
 do verbal nouns come from this tenfe, but 
 alfo verbal adjectives. Thus from the third 
 perfon of the perfect paffive of the two 
 verbs above mentioned, come TTO^TOI; and 
 ^ax-roc, denoting fomething that may be 
 done, or may be the fubject of action ; 
 and with th| addition of another termina- 
 tion, viz. -<y.oc, they denote that which by 
 its nature is fit to act ; for fuch is the 
 meaning of the verbals Tro/^r/xof and TTSOLKTI- 
 Kof *. And from the fecond perfon of 
 this tenfe, in foine verbs, is derived an- 
 
 * Ariftotle, in his ufe of thefe two verbs, has made a 
 nice philofophical diftinction betwixt them ; for * he 
 ufes to denote an action which produces works that re- 
 main after the a<ftion is pail ; whereas rfc-<na denotes an 
 aftion that ends in the energy, and leaves nothing be- 
 hind it. This diftinftion I mentioned before in explain- 
 ing the ufc of the preter-perfeft tenfe,. 
 
 other
 
 Book I. PROGRESS or LANGUAGE. 187 
 
 other adjective of different fignification ; C 15. 
 as, e. g. from e/wo-/, the fecond perfon of 
 the perfect pailive of Situ, is derived ^/aw^o 
 which fignifies having in itfelf the princi- 
 ple of life alU) non potentiA ; whereas the 
 verbals in -/KG? denote only that the princi- 
 ple is in the thing potenticl, non aflu. So 
 that we have derived from one tenfe of 
 this verb iou j firft the participle iup.twi 
 fignifying what has been lived ; then /- 
 TO?, fignifying what may be lived, or what 
 falls under the category of being lived ; 
 3dly, GIOTIKOC, what may live, or has the 
 principle of life in it potentially ; and laft- 
 ly C/aw/^of, that which has actually life in 
 it : and there is, befides all thefe, the pre- 
 fent participle of the paiTive voice Giv/woe, 
 fignifying what we can hardly exprefs in 
 Engliih, even by a circumlocution ; for 
 it denotes that which is in the a<5l of be- 
 ing lived at the time we fpeak. And thus 
 thefe feveral participles and verbals, deri- 
 ved regularly from the fame part of the 
 verb, exprefs this principle of life, confi- 
 dered either actively or pailively, and each 
 of thefe either atlu or potent id. So fruit- 
 ful is the verb in Greek, and fuch is the 
 A a 2 philo-
 
 i88 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 15. philofophical accuracy of expreffion in that 
 language. 
 
 This fo copious derivation from the 
 verb in Greek, naturally leads one to fu- 
 fpect that it is the parent word of the whole 
 language ; and indeed I believe that to be 
 the fact. For I do not know that it can be 
 certainly fhewn that there is any one word 
 that is undoubtedly a primitive, which is 
 not a verb, I mean a verb in the ftricter 
 fenfe, and common acceptation of the word. 
 By this the candid readet will not under- 
 fland that I mean to fay, that prepofitions, 
 conjunctions, and fuch like words, which 
 are rather the pegs and nails that faften 
 the feveral parts of the language together, 
 than the language itfelf, are derived from 
 verbs, or are derivatives of any kind ; 
 but he will underfland, that I mean the 
 the names of things, which are properly 
 the words of a language. One thing is 
 certain, that many nouns, in our com- 
 mon dictionaries, are fet down as primi- 
 tives, which are undoubtedly derived 
 from verbs *. And not only are words 
 
 of 
 
 * Thus tfoCat, metus, is fet down in H. Stephens'* Lexi- 
 con as a primitive ; whereas moil certainly it is a deriva- 
 tive,
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 189 
 
 of two or more fyllables fo derived, but C. 15. 
 even monofyllables of two or three letters, ^^^ 
 which one mould think would be primi- 
 tives, if there were any fuch in the lan- 
 guage *. 
 
 And not only does the fadt appear to be 
 fo, but there is good reafon why it ihould 
 be fo ; for unlefs we believe that names 
 were impofed upon things arbitrarily and 
 
 tive, as I had occafion to obferve before, from the old 
 Homeric Word p or fiSo^ai, the perfect middle of which 
 is xtipoCa. In like manner 3-pofx.oc, curfus, is commonly ac- 
 counted a primitive, and yet it is mod certainly derived 
 from the old- word <r f( ^, curro. The word #a\f, forf t 
 is alfo from rA.\, qttatio, the way in which lots were 
 antiently drawn, as we learn from Homer, Iliad, 3. 
 v. 316. In the fame way oo-o-o;, occulus, as Euftathius 
 tells us, is from Sa-a-a, video ; a-oof, falvus, from <raa, con- 
 fervo, or falvum fa do. And for the fame reafon fixer, a- 
 micusy is from ^\a, amo. And it is moft certain, that the 
 number of verbal nouns is very much greater than is 
 commonly imagined. 
 
 * Thus '^, a name for an eating worm, is derived 
 from Irra), Ixdo or confuma &, vu/tus, from orra or I*, 
 tofuni, video ; faf, lux, from yao, lucco ; XT^, a hare, 
 from a-TOo-a-a, faveo ; x5, an adverb, denoting what is 
 done or fuffered by the heel, from *.>w, dsjino ; and wf, 
 fes, is for the fame reafon derived from *-aua, a word of 
 like fignification ; and y%, ten a, a fliorter word than 
 any of them, is from -,c-.u, ig f -> an '^ verb preferred 
 to us in Homer, from whence >,<*, and by contraction ;>. 
 
 capricioufly,
 
 190 THE ORIGIN AND Part IL 
 
 C. 15. capricioufly, which cannot have been the 
 ^^^ cafe if the language was the work of art, 
 we mufl fuppofe that they were framed 
 with fome view to the nature of the things. 
 Now how do we know the nature of any 
 thing, but from what it acts or what it 
 fuffers ; for action and paflion are obvious 
 to the fenfe, whereas powers and faculties, 
 and what conflitutes the effence of things, 
 are hidden qualities, which are no other- 
 wife manifefted, but by thofe outward 
 effects. It was therefore very natural, and 
 indeed it was neceflary, that men, if they 
 followed a rule at all in the impofition of 
 names, fhould denominate things from 
 what they faw of their operations. Per- 
 ceiving, for example, an animal very ti- 
 morous, and that was apt to crouch and 
 fquat, and in that way to hide itfelf, was 
 it not very natural to denominate fuch an 
 animal, from a verb which iignified the 
 action of crouching or hiding ? and this 
 is the etymology, as I have obferved, of 
 the old Greek word for a hare. In like 
 manner, obferving a little infect that con- 
 fumed wood, it was very natural that 
 they fliould denominate this infect from 
 the verb fignifying to conjiime^ which is 
 
 the
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 191 
 
 the etymology of the Greek word above C. 15, 
 mentioned, denoting fuch an eating worm : v ^ vvj 
 And the name of our own fpecies is deri- 
 ved from the action of looking upwards *. 
 In like manner, the names of the ele- 
 ments are derived from verbs that de- 
 note their operations, and the effects they 
 produce f. 
 
 And by this way of giving names to 
 things, the artificers of language appear 
 to me to have followed the order of na- 
 ture, and of the invention of language ; 
 for the firft words that men ufed, when 
 they began to fpeak, were certainly words 
 denoting actions and feelings, 
 
 - Quibus 'voces fenfufque notarent. 
 
 For to communicate to one another their 
 feelings, or their operations, was the firft 
 ufe they had for language ; and what in 
 all probability give birth to the invention, 
 as I have fhewn in the proper place. 
 
 This fy item will no doubt appear extra- 
 ordinary to the young fcholar, who 
 
 f Thus fap is from ia, iifap from va, yaia. from ystu. As 
 
 to jrup, it is, as Plata informs us, not a Greek but a 
 Phrygian word. 
 
 knows
 
 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. i c. knows no more of the Greek than what 
 is contained in the common grammars 
 and dictionaries ; but it will not furprife 
 thofe who have ftudied univerfal grammar, 
 and have a more general knowledge of 
 languages : and particularly thofe who are 
 acquainted with the Hebrew, and other o- 
 riental languages, will think this fcheme 
 of derivation not at all extraordinary ; for 
 it feems now to be a point agreed among 
 all the learned in the Hebrew, that the 
 roots of it are all verbs ; and if it be true 
 that there is fuch a connection, as I fup- 
 pofe, betwixt the Hebrew and the Greek, 
 it is natural to believe that the fyftems of 
 the two languages iliould agree in this 
 fundamental point, however much they 
 may differ in other particulars. 
 
 But how far is this etymology to be 
 carried ? We have feen that verbs, as 
 well as nouns, are derived from verbs. 
 Where then {hall we ftop, and by what 
 rule {hall we determine that fuch a 
 verb is the radical verb, and that the 
 etymology goes no further? This is a 
 matter of moft curious fpeculation; and I 
 have formed a fyftem upon this fubjed, 
 by which I derive the whole Greek lan- 
 guage
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 193 
 
 guage from combinations in duads of the C. 15 
 w with the other five vowels a, *, /, , v, ^^ 
 the always being laft ; fo that aa, t, /*>, o, 
 /0, are the radical founds from which the 
 whole Greek language, various and co- 
 pious as it is, may be deduced. Thefe Qu- 
 ads are themfelves roots properly fo 
 called, that is, words fignificant ; and with 
 the addition of other vowels prefixed, and 
 of confonants, each in its order, form all 
 the roots of the language. But as the ex- 
 plaining this hypothefis, and anfwering 
 the objections which naturally occur to it, 
 would lead me into a greater detail of the 
 ftru<lure of a particular language, than is 
 fuitable to a work upon univerfal gram- 
 mar, I have thrown what I have to fay 
 upon the fubjedl into a diflertation by it- 
 felf *, annexed to this volume, which the 
 reader learned in the Greek language 
 may read if he think proper. I will there- 
 fore proceed to a more noble, as well as 
 more curious fpeculation, of which I gave 
 a hint in the beginning of this work, 
 namely, to inquire, whether words can in 
 any fenfe be faid to be natural expreflions 
 
 See Differtation i. 
 
 VOL. II. B b of
 
 xg4 THE ORIGIN AN> PartIL 
 
 C. 15. of ideas, or whether they be not merely 
 artificial figns, and from inftitution, not 
 from nature. 
 
 CHAP. XVI. 
 
 Whether 'words are by nature Jignificant, or 
 only by itiftitution. The arguments jl ate d 
 upon both fides. Conchifion, That the pri- 
 mitive ivords of a language have not any 
 natural refemblance to the things exprejjed 
 by them, but in perfe^l languages were 
 
 framed ivith a view to derivation and in* 
 
 jleciion. 
 
 C. 1 6. TN all languages of art, there is a certain 
 ^^^ JL number of words, for the fignification 
 of which we can account, I mean deriva- 
 tives ; and the more perfect a language is, 
 the greater number there is of thefe, and 
 the fewer roots. In the preceding chapter 
 I have faid, that the Greek language is fo 
 perfect in this refpecl, that its etymology 
 may be carried back to five duads of 
 vowels, which are roots themfelves, and 
 
 by
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 195 
 
 by compofltion with other vowels, and C. 16. 
 with fingle confonants, form all the roots 
 of the language. With refpecl therefore 
 to far the greater part of this language, 
 we are able to give a rational account of the 
 fignification of the words ; but the queftioii 
 now before us is, Whether the etymology 
 can be carried any further back, and whe- 
 ther any fatisfying account can be given, 
 why thofe roots fignify the things they 
 are ufed to denote, and no other ; or 
 "whether they are not to be confidered as 
 iigns of arbitrary inftitution ? 
 
 Upon this fo curio ITS fubjecl:, there is 
 nothing to be found in any antient au- 
 thor, fo far as I know, except what Plato 
 has left us in the Cratylus, and what we 
 have from an author not fo well known, 
 viz. Ammonius Htrmtias, a philofopher of 
 later times, in his commentary upon Ari- 
 flotle's book of Interpretation. But this 
 laft author has done little more than to 
 ilate the queftion, and explain the terms 
 of it *. There is a modern author that 
 has enlarged a great deal more upon the 
 fubject, I mean the French author of the 
 Mechanifm of Language, but from whom 
 
 * Pol. 28. 
 
 Bb 2 I
 
 196 THE ORIGIN AND Pare II. 
 
 C. 16. I confefs I have not received much in- 
 ^" v " Nw ' ftruclion. It is therefore from Plato only 
 that I have got any lights upon this fub- 
 ject, who has certainly faid a great many 
 ingenious things upon it ; and as the Ha~ 
 licarnaman informs us *, has the merit of 
 being the fir (I that treated the fubjecl of 
 etymology. 
 
 In this dialogue he introduces two per- 
 fonages, Qrutyftts, from whom the dia^ 
 logue has its name, and Hermogenes, who 
 differed very much in their opinions ; Cra- 
 tylus maintaining, that the names of things 
 are all from nature, (and this we are told 
 by Ammonius, in the above-quoted paf- 
 fage, and by Proclus in the commentary 
 which is afcribed to him upon this dia- 
 logue f , was the opinion of Heraclitus the 
 
 philofopher) ; 
 
 * Tltfl <ruverif. 
 
 f This commentary Is not printed ; but I had the ufe 
 ef a manufcript of it from the college of Glafgow. It is 
 one of thole manufcripts that was brought not long ago 
 from a religious houie upon Mount Athos, by Mr Ai'- 
 quieu, an Englifh gentleman of learning and curiofity. 
 Jt is not written by Proclus himfelf, but appears to have 
 been taken down, either from his mouth, or rather, I 
 think, compofed from memory, by one of his fchoJars, 
 who {eems to have been a ChriUiau. U is, I think, a 
 
 piece
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 197 
 
 philofopher) ; Hermogenes, on the other C. 16. 
 hand, maintaining, that the names of v 
 things were all from cuftom and arbitrary 
 inftitution, and that men might agree to 
 give what names to things they pleafed. 
 Betwixt thefe two Socrates is chofen um- 
 pire, and it is from his mouth, as it com- 
 monly happens in thofe dialogues, that 
 Plato delivers his own fentiments. The 
 dialogue is wrought up with wonderful 
 art, and all the beauty poffible of flyle and 
 competition. The character of Socrates, 
 who pretended to know nothing, is finely 
 kept up in it ; for when he becomes ety- 
 mologift, and gives the origin of the names 
 of fo many things divine and human, 
 he fays he had catched infpiration from 
 Euthyphron, an enthuuafl of thofe times, 
 with whom he had converfed that morn- 
 ing. But notwithftanding this infpiration, 
 the dialogue concludes fceptically as to the 
 
 piece of very little value, if the MS were more perfect, 
 or more correct, than it appears to be from the copy of 
 it which I have ufed ; for it is full of the mylticifm of 
 the Platonic philofophy ; upon which his followers of 
 thofe times improved fo much, that they appear to me 
 to have made it little more intelligible than the writings 
 of Jacob Behmen, or any other modern myftic. 
 
 queflion
 
 198 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 1 6. queftion in difpute betwixt the parties ; for 
 v ^ v>sj Socrates firft refutes Hermogenes, and then 
 Cratylus. Nor does he feem to aver any 
 thing pofitively, except that the nature of 
 things was not to be learned from names, 
 as Cratylus aiTerted, but from the things 
 themfelves, nor thefe again but from ideas. 
 So that Plato here, and almoft every where 
 elfe through his works, contrives to intro- 
 duce his favourite doctrine of ideas, with 
 which he concludes this dialogue. The 
 later Platoniils however, fuch as Proclus, 
 maintained it to be the opinion of Plato, 
 that the names of things were from nature ; 
 and upon this fubjecl they difputed with 
 the followers of Ariftotle, who, in his book 
 of Interpretation, fays very ihortly, but very 
 pofitively, that names were given to things 
 by convention or agreement, and that 
 none of them is from nature, but that 
 they are mere fymbols, and not natural 
 iigns. Ammonius endeavours in this, as 
 well as in many other things, to reconcile 
 thefe two philofophers. For I obferve, 
 that at that time, and long before that 
 time, as far back as the days of Ammo- 
 nius Saccas of Alexandria, the matter of 
 Plotinus, the faihionable opinion among 
 
 philo-*
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 199 
 
 philofophers was, that the philofophy of C. 16, 
 Plato and Ariftotle was the fame. But in Vx ~ >rNj 
 later times, and after the days of Proclus, 
 the breach betwixt thefe two fchools was 
 very much widened ; and as far down as 
 the taking of Conftantinople by the Turks, 
 We have Gemiilius Pletho, and Georgius 
 Trapezuntius, fiercely difputing with one 
 another, the one in behalf of Plato againfl 
 Ariflotle, and the other in behalf of Ari- 
 ftotle againft Plato. As to my own opi- 
 nion, I think it is evident, that though in 
 many things they agreed, for which rea- 
 fon I think the fludy of their two philofo- 
 phies mould never be feparated, yet they 
 differed in fome things, particularly on 
 the fubject of ideas ; and on this fubject 
 too, if it be true, that Plato really believed 
 that the names of things were from nature, 
 not from inftitution. 
 
 The firfl thing to be done, before we 
 proceed farther in this queilion, is to ftate 
 it fairly, and to explain what is meant, 
 by faying that the names of things are 
 from nature. 
 
 And, in the firjl place, it is evident, 
 that names are not the workmanihip of 
 nature ; for though we ihould fuppofe, 
 
 contrary
 
 200 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 1 6. contrary to what I have endeavoured to 
 ^ prove, that men have from nature the fa- 
 culty of fpeech, ftill the names would be 
 impofed by men, and not the operation 
 of nature. Nor is this the meaning o f 
 Cratylus in Plato, though I perceive that 
 Ammonius afcribes this meaning to him *. 
 But what he maintains is, that men in 
 impofing thofe names, had a regard to 
 the nature of the things fignified by them, 
 and framed them fo as by their found to 
 exprefs it. The ftate therefore of the que- 
 flion, as treated by Plato, is, Whether the 
 nature of the things is any way exprefTed 
 by the names given to them, and whether 
 that was the rule followed by men in im- 
 pofing fuch names ? 
 
 But there appears to be a queftion pre- 
 
 * Amman, ntpl Ip/wetx;, fol. 29. where he makes Cra- 
 tylus fay, that names are the workmanfhip of nature, <jv 
 ftivpyrftxra. rns fvo-tas ; that every name is by nature ap- 
 pointed for every thing, in the fame manner as each 
 fenfe is fitted for its proper objed; and th;it names are 
 not artificial likenefles of things, but natural, Juch as 
 fhadows, and the appearances of things in water. 
 This miftake of fo excellent a commentator, and who 
 was the inftruclor of two other very good comment a' , 
 viz. Sjmplicim and Johan. Philcponus, fh : ws !i * 
 can be trailed to in thofe matters, but the 
 thors theoifclves.
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 201 
 
 vious to this, namely, Whether any rule C. 16. 
 at all was followed in the impoiition of 
 names ; or whether it was not an a6l of 
 mere fancy and arbitrary will, according 
 to the opinion of Hermogenes ? And if it 
 can be mewn that men did follow a rule in 
 this matter, and were not guided by mere 
 chance and caprice, it will then be time 
 enough to inquire what rule they follow- 
 ed, whether that fuppofed by Cratylus, or 
 any other. 
 
 And here it may be obferved, that this 
 inquiry belongs only to the languages of 
 art ; for it is evident, from what has been 
 faid in the preceding part of this work, 
 that Barbarians follow no rule at all in 
 their languages, not even the moft com- 
 mon rules of grammar, far lefs can we 
 fuppofe them capable of fuch a refinement 
 as to think of adapting their words to the 
 nature of things^ Their languages are fo 
 artlefs, that they have not, as we have 
 feen, either compoiition or derivation ; 
 and therefore, whatever connection or 
 relation there may be betwixt the things, 
 there is none at all betwixt the words ex- 
 prefling them, fo little regard had they to 
 the nature of things in the impofing of 
 
 VOL. II, C c names.
 
 202 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 1 6. names. And accordingly, in fact, I be- 
 lieve it is abfolutely impoffible to give any 
 reafon, even the moil whimfical or capri- 
 cious, why any of their long vocal words 
 ihould denote one thing more than ano- 
 ther : Why, e. g. fhould not the long word 
 which I mentioned in the Efqiiimaux lan- 
 guage, fignifying little, denote much, or 
 *uice 'versa ? 
 
 Secondly, It may be alfo obferved, That 
 even with refpecl to the languages of art, 
 there is a great number of the words, of 
 which we can give a very fatisfaclory ac- 
 count, I mean derivative and compound 
 words. The more perfect a language is, 
 as I obferved before, the greater number 
 of thefe words there will be in it, and the 
 fewer roots. As to the Greek, I have en- 
 deavoured to (hew that there is a very 
 fmall number of roots. In other langua- 
 ges of lefs art, the number no doubt will 
 be greater. But whether the number be 
 great or fmall, it is plain that the prefent 
 queflion only relates to the roots of every 
 language. And accordingly, to that ifTue 
 the difpute betwixt Cratylus and Hermo- 
 genes is at lad brought by Plato *". 
 
 * Ibid. fag. 289. 
 
 The
 
 ook I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 203 
 
 The precife queftion therefore is, Whe- C. 16. 
 ther etymology can be carried any farther ^^"^ 
 than to the radical words of a language ; 
 and whether it will go the length of the e- 
 lements of which thofe words are compo- 
 fed ? Whether, in Ihort, any reafon can 
 be given why fuch and fuch elemental 
 founds, combined together in fuch or 
 fuch an order, mould denote fuch and 
 fuch things, and no other ? 'Or, is it not 
 more probable, that the artificers of lan- 
 guage, after having carried the art fo far 
 as to derive from a few words all the o- 
 ther words of a language, gave themfelves 
 no further trouble, but abandoned the reft 
 to fancy and caprice ? 
 
 It may be argued in fupport of this lafh 
 opinion, That there are certainly many 
 things among men of arbitrary institution ; 
 and it is impomble to maintain, that all 
 the figns of things which we ufe, are na- 
 tural ligns, and not fymbols, that is, 
 marks or indications of things by conven- 
 tion. Of this kind are fignals at fea or 
 land, letters in ciphers, and other ways 
 that men have devifed of communicating 
 their thoughts to one another when at a 
 diftance. That even the common letters 
 C c 2 of
 
 204 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 1 6. of the alphabet, can be, accounted no 
 s " orv> more than fymbols for fuch or fuch ele- 
 lemental founds, as it feems impomble to 
 give any rational account of the forms of 
 the feveral letters, or to render a reafon 
 why a, (e. g.) mould not (land for the ele- 
 mental found exprefled by b, or vice vend. 
 And with refpecT: to an alphabet of another 
 kind, which {lands for ideas, and not the 
 founds exprefling thofe ideas, I mean the 
 Chinefe alphabet, Monf. Freret, a moft 
 learned French academician, has maintain- 
 ed, that the whole Chinefe characters, a- 
 mounting, as it is faid, to no lefs than 
 eighty thoufand, are nothing more than 
 mere fymbols or figns of arbitrary infti- 
 tution, without any natural refemblance 
 to the things they exprefs * ; and the fame 
 may be faid of the Arabian or rather In- 
 dian ciphers, (for from that country they 
 came originally). Then as to the names of 
 the letters, it is obferved by Plato, that all 
 the Greek alphabet have names, fuch as 
 alpha, beta, gamma, &c. except four, viz. 
 *, y, o, and v, which are expreffed only by 
 
 * See his difcourfe on the principles of the writing-art, 
 contained in the i2th volume of the Memoirs of the A- 
 cadcmy <?f BsUes Lettres, edit. Awftdod. 
 
 the
 
 Book I. PROGRESS or LANGUAGE. 205 
 
 the founds of the letters *. Now, why C. 16. 
 not thefe as well as the reft ? or why is * 
 called by that name, and not by any o- 
 ther ? or why is not a called beta, or al- 
 pha ? Why have not the Latin letters, or 
 our letters, names as well as the Greek ? 
 and why do we found all the names of 
 the confonants in Englifh with an e, and 
 no other vowel, except the r, which we 
 found with an a ? And to fay no more of 
 the marks of language in writing ; with 
 refpect to the words themfelves, it is ad- 
 mitted, that no account can be given of 
 the names of numbers, nor of prepofitions 
 and conjunctions. And if every thing 
 muft be accounted for in language, Why 
 mould not a reafon be given for the dif- 
 ferent forms of inflection and derivation ? 
 Why is not the genitive put for the dative, 
 or one tenfe of a verb for another ? Why 
 Ihould not the derivative jrw^a ftand for 
 WWUTW, or vice 'versa ? In Ihort, as it muft 
 be admitted that no account can be given 
 of fome original words in language, the 
 beft way feems to be to make the rule ge- 
 neral, that every original word is of ar- 
 bitrary inftitution. 
 
 On the other hand, it mav be faid, That 
 
 ' 4 
 
 * Cratyl, pag. 271. edit. Ficini. 
 
 there
 
 2o6 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 1 6. there are undoubtedly many things among 
 v ^ v ^~ / men altogether arbitrary, and governed by 
 no rule or reafon. But thefe are things 
 that are not, nor cann9t, by their nature, 
 be comprehended in any art. Of this 
 kind are iignals at fea or land, letters in ci- 
 phers, or any fuch indicia^ or marks of any 
 thing which mufl be regulated by the pri- 
 vate confent and agreement of parties, not 
 by any general rule founded in the nature 
 of things, like matters of art, otherwife 
 they would not ferve the purpofe. Neither 
 are the forms of the letters of the alpha- 
 bet a proper fubjecl of art. The analyfis 
 of language into its elemental founds, 
 was no doubt a work, and a great work 
 of art ; and after that was done, it was an 
 ingenious thought to think of noting thofe 
 elemental founds by vifible marks, and 
 of fpeaking in that way to the eyes. But 
 here the art ended ; and Theuth the E- 
 gyptian, or whoever elfe it was that in- 
 vented the writing art, was at liberty to 
 make ufe of any marks he pleafed to dif- 
 tinguifh the different founds. Nor indeed 
 was this a matter that could, by its nature, 
 be fubjected to the rules of art. There 
 might however have been fome accidental 
 
 reafon
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 207 
 
 reafon (as it feldom happens that men C, 16. 
 act in any thing, without fome kind of v - x ~ v ^- / 
 reafon to determine the will to one thing 
 rather than another.) why fuch or fuch a 
 figure was chofen to exprefs fuch or fuch , 
 an elemental found. And there is a learn- 
 ed man in France of my acquaintance, 
 Monf. de Guignes, who was writing a 
 book, fome years ago, to prove, that the 
 forms of the Phenician or Hebrew cha- 
 racters, were derived from the Egyptian 
 hieroglyphic, which exprelfed the idea de- 
 noted by the word that was formed of 
 thofe characters ; fo that the characters 
 were the 'direction, as it were, of the hie- 
 roglyphic. And as to what Monf. Freret 
 fays of the Chinefe characters, it is a 
 miftake, which has been corrected by later 
 information from that country ; for by 
 comparing the more antient Chinefe cha- 
 racters with the modern, we perceive, 
 that the former were truly the figns, natu- 
 ral or allegorical, of the things they ex- 
 prefs ; and that the modern are thofe an- 
 tient characters abridged, or altered in 
 fuch a way, as every thing of that kind is 
 in a long courfe of time. And as to the 
 Arabian ciphers, that manner of nota- 
 tion
 
 208 THE ORIGIN AND PartIL 
 
 C. 1 6. tion of numbers, is no doubt a matter of 
 "^ great art, as well as great utility, and a 
 moft ingenious contrivance, unknown to 
 the Greeks and Romans. But the figures 
 of the ciphers themfelves were a matter 
 entirely of fancy, though it is not unlike- 
 ly that there may have been fome reafon, 
 of one kind or another, that determined 
 the inventors of this art to chufe one mark 
 for a number, rather than another. And 
 what I have faid of written language, may 
 be faid likewife of language that is 
 ipoken, namely, that though it be an 
 art, and the greateft I think of all arts ; 
 yet there muft necefTarily belong to it 
 things of arbitrary choice, that cannot be 
 reduced to any art. Such are the names 
 of ideas fo abftract as thofe of numbers ; 
 and fuch muft likewife be the names for 
 thofe pegs or nails of difcourfe, that we 
 call prepofitions, articles, and conjunctions. 
 But where-ever any thing belonging to an 
 art is capable of being fubjedled to rule, 
 and governed by certain principles, it will 
 undoubtedly be fo, if the art is perfect, 
 and will not be left to fancy or arbitrary 
 will. If therefore it can be {hewn why 
 the roots of any language mould be fuch 
 
 or
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 209 
 
 or fuch founds, rather than others, it is C. 16, 
 evident, that if this language be a complete 
 piece of art, the roots of it will be of that 
 kind. There mufl have been, as we ob- 
 ferved before, a progrefs in the art of lan- 
 guage, as well as in other arts ; nor is it 
 poffible that it could have been invented 
 all at once. We fee, in the barbarous lan- 
 guages, the beginnings of art : fome of 
 them have fome few words that feem to be 
 derived from others of like iignification ; 
 that would go on by degrees, till at laft 
 the greatefl part of the language would 
 become derivative or compounded words. 
 Then the artifls, we may prefume, would 
 proceed a little further, and try whether 
 the fyftem could not be completed by a- 
 bridging ftill more the number of roots ; 
 and giving a certain form to them, fuch 
 as appeared beft fuited to the nature of 
 things, or the genius of the language, 
 and fuch as would anfwer beft all the pur- 
 pofes of the language. For if we fee that 
 upon any fubjecl: art has gone very far, 
 we can hardly fuppofe that it will ftop 
 ihort till the whole is completed : e. g. 
 We have feen how far art has gone in the 
 formation of the Greek language, parti- 
 cularly in that part of it refpecling etymolo- 
 VOL. II. D d gy
 
 2io TH-E ORIGIN AND Part IT. 
 
 C, 1 6 . gy and derivation ; we are informed alfo, that 
 the art of the Sanfcrit or Bramin language 
 has gone fo far as to make roots of founds 
 that are not words of the language, nor have 
 any precife or determinate fignification, 
 but only denote a relation of one kind or 
 another to fome general idea *. Now, can 
 we fuppofe that the artificers of fuch lan- 
 guages would give over, like men wearied, 
 and abandon to mere fancy or whim the 
 choice of the radical founds, if any rea- 
 fon could be given why one kind of them 
 is more proper than another ? I there- 
 fore think it probable, that, if fuch 
 reafon can be affigned, it was followed 
 and made the rule in languages fo perfect 
 as the Greek or Sanfcrit. 
 
 The next inquiry is, what reafon we can 
 fuppofe would determine the artificers in 
 this choice of roots. And firil, is there any 
 thing in the found of the human voice, 
 that can exprefs the nature of the things 
 denoted by words ? This is averred by 
 Cratylus in Plato ; and it is his opinion we 
 are now to examine, after having firft re- 
 futed, according to Plato's method, the 
 opinion of Hermogenes, who maintained, 
 
 * See the Jefuit Dupon's account of this language in 
 vol. 14. of Ltttrcs edif antes et curieufis. 
 
 that
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. ill 
 
 that words were altogether of arbitrary in- C. 1 6. 
 ftitution. ^^ 
 
 And, firft, it may be obferved, that my 
 hypothecs of the roots of the Greek lan- 
 guage being verbs, as thofe of the Hebrew 
 certainly are, favours very much the ar- 
 gument of Cratylus, For as it is by cer- 
 tain actions of the organs of the mouth 
 that articulation is performed, it is natu- 
 ral enough to fuppofe, that by one kind of 
 action another may be imitated, or in 
 foine way exprefTed or reprefented. And 
 upon this fubject Plato has made fome very 
 ingenious obfervations, tending to mew, 
 that by the powers of the letters, different 
 kinds of motion may be expreffed. Thus 
 he fays, that by the confonant r is ex- 
 preffed any quick or rough motion ; on 
 the contrary, by / is exprelled a foft gliding 
 motion. What is fixed and prefled is ex- 
 prefTed by the confonants d and / ; and on 
 the other hand what is fwoln, puffed up, 
 or windy, is denoted by the hilling con- 
 fonant J\ or by the double or afpirated 
 confonants, fuch as , 9, ^, which requi- 
 ring a great deal of breath in the pronun- 
 ciation, are fit for that expreflion ; and all 
 this he illuilrates by many examples from 
 D d 2 his
 
 212 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 1 6. his own language *. And if the reader 
 wants examples from other languages, he 
 may confult the author of the Mechanifm of 
 Language, where he will find very many 
 inflances from different languages, parti- 
 tularly with refpecl to the expremon of the 
 letters / and r. And as to the vowels, 
 Plato fays, that by the pofition of the 
 mouth in the pronunciation of them, 
 the figure and magnitude of things may 
 be expreifed ; as, e. g. by the form of the 
 mouth, when o is enunciated, roundnefs 
 may be denoted ; and by the manner in 
 which a is pronounced, what is 'wide o- 
 fened, or expanded, or in general great, may 
 be fignified ; what is long by ,- and what 
 is flender, fharp, and piercing, by i f . 
 
 Thefe obfervations of Plato are certainly 
 fo far true, that there are, I am perfuaded, 
 in every language, many words which 
 exprefs the nature of the things fignified 
 by them ; and of thefe I believe the Greek 
 language affords as great a number as any. 
 But it is to be obferved, that all thefe words 
 exprefs founds of different kinds, and 
 
 * Pag. 292. edit. Ficini. 
 f Ibid. pag. 292. & 293. 
 
 therefore
 
 Book I. PROGRESS o? LANGUAGE. 213 
 
 therefore are faid by grammarians to be C. 16. 
 uerba ex fono fa5ia^ and it is to fuch words 
 only that the faux.-**, fo much talked of, 
 relates. Now there can be no doubt but 
 that founds may be imitated by the hu- 
 man voice, efpecially when modified by 
 articulation. But this kind of imitation 
 can exprefs nothing but founds, and there- 
 fore will go very fmall length in exprefling 
 the almofl infinite variety of the ideas of 
 the human mind ; and it is an expreflion, 
 as Plato obferves, that belongs rather to 
 mufic than to language *. For, as to 
 the expreflion of language, he requires, 
 that by letters, fyllables, and words, the 
 nature and eflence of things mould be ex- 
 preffed, even of this very thing found* 
 Now I muft confefs this appears to me 
 very difficult to be done by the power of 
 letters, however varioufly combined into 
 fyllables and words. Nor does Plato him- 
 felf feem to be confident that it can be 
 done ; but, as I obferved, concludes fcep- 
 tically upon the point. For it is evident, 
 that whoever formed a language upon this 
 plan, muft have known, or thought that 
 he knew, wherein the efTence of things con- 
 fifts ; that is, in other words, he muft 
 
 * Crafyl. pag, 290. 
 
 have
 
 214 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 1 6. have been a very great philofopher. And 
 ^ r ^ J accordingly Socrates, in Plato, when he 
 refutes Hermogenes, proceeds upon the fup- 
 pofition, that thofe lawgivers in language, 
 as he calls them, were philofophers of the 
 fedl of Heraclitus, who maintained that e- 
 very thing was in conftant flux and motion. 
 And upon this hypothefis he has given us 
 a great number of derivations, fome of 
 them fo whimfical and fo much forced, 
 that he himfelf, I am perfuaded, did not 
 believe there was any reality in them, but 
 gives them only as a kind of jeu d' efprit *. 
 And after having, in this way, explained 
 the names of many things, both divine and 
 human, when he comes to refute Cratylus 
 in his turn, he mews that feveral words 
 which he had mentioned before, may be 
 etymologifed upon a fyflem of philofophy 
 direclly oppofite, namely, that every thing 
 
 * Some of them contradict all the rules of etymology 
 and derivation ; e. g. he lays that x*xw is derived from 
 xx5f 'avai. And with refpeft to xaxof, from which it is 
 plain that xx< comes according to the common way of 
 forming noun fubftantives from adjeclives, he can give 
 no other account of it, except that it is a Barbaric word, 
 fuch as jri/p that he had mentioned before; fag. 285. edit. 
 Ficini. In the fame manner he might have derived ma' 
 lit'ia, in Latin, from male ire. 
 
 flands
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 215 
 
 Hands ftill and is at reft ; that in this the C. 1 6 
 efTence of every thing confifls ; and that 
 to perceive this {lability and fixednefs of 
 things, is knowledge and fcience *. In 
 Ihort, he unfays every thing that he had 
 faid before upon the fubject of thofe philofo- 
 phical etymologies, and very plainly {hews, 
 that from the names themfelves we can 
 infer nothing with refpect to the opinion 
 of thofe who impofed them concerning the 
 nature and eflence of things. 
 
 Two things therefore in this matter ap- 
 pear to me to be fufficiently evident : firffc, 
 that by combinations of letters in fyllables, 
 the nature of things, other than founds, 
 could not be exprefled with any degree of 
 diftinclnefs and clearnefs ; and, fecondly, 
 fuppoung they could, it does not appear 
 to me probable, that the artificers of lan- 
 guage had it at all in their view in form- 
 ing the roots of the language. 
 
 For proof of this laft, let us take for 
 example the roots of the Greek language, 
 in which I am perfuaded, if in any, this 
 refemblance betwixt the found, and the 
 thing exprefTed by it, is to be found. And 
 
 * Ibid. pag. 299. And upon this hypothcfis he ex- 
 plains the words {V/r^, &;>-, ( Vo/>i*, fw.un, &C.
 
 216 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 1 6. accordingly it is from this language that 
 Plato takes his examples. It is certain, 
 firft, That four at leaft of the five duads 
 are themfelves roots. Secondly, That if 
 all the other roots do not end in one or o- 
 ther of thefe duads, according to my hy- 
 pothefis, a very great number of them 
 does, fo that thofe letters are eflential parts 
 of fiich roots. Now, if by letters the 
 nature of things is exprefTed, I defire to 
 know how it comes that fo many things, 
 fo different in their nature, are expreiTed 
 by the fame letters. Thus a fignifies by 
 itfelf fp'iro. With different confonants pre- 
 fixed, it has fignifications quite diffe- 
 rent from this, and from one another. 
 Thus with a prefixed, it fignifies fo 
 go, as in &*<>> ; with a y prefixed, it figni- 
 fies fo beget or produce, which is the mean- 
 ing of the root ya.a ; with a X prefixed, it 
 forms the word Saw, which fignifies fo burn+ 
 or to divide ; with a prefixed, it makes 
 a<y, fignifying to live. In the fame man- 
 ner xau, KTO.U, ^aa, yaw, &c. are formed, all 
 having different fignifications. And alfo 
 when it is compounded with vowels, fuch 
 as * and < making the words taw and /&>, it 
 appears to retain nothing of its original 
 
 fignification ;
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 217 
 
 fignification ; and thefe words, though C. 16. 
 formed out of it, have no refemblance in 
 their meaning. And fuppofing we mould 
 go fo far in favour of Cratylus's Ivypothe- 
 fis, as to admit that thofe duads, though 
 making the greater part of the -roots, had 
 no meaning at all, and were to be coiifi- 
 dered only as terminations, it remains 
 to be accounted for, how thofe fingle let- 
 ters prefixed mould denote things fo diffe- 
 rent. Why mould C, for example, before 
 civ, fignify to go, while y before the fame 
 duad, fignifies to beget, and fo on ? and 
 why mould the fame confonant , for ex- 
 ample, prefixed to divers of thefe infigni- 
 ficant duads, denote different things, as 
 
 in a, G/w, bca>, Ct/w ? 
 
 A third obfervation may be made, that 
 fuppofing each letter of the alphabet was 
 by nature appropriated for expreHing fuch 
 and fuch things, and that the artificers of 
 language knew this, and made ufe of them 
 accordingly ; yet in order to fill up their 
 words to a proper length and fullnefs ojf 
 found, they mull have ufed other letters, 
 not having the fame fignificancy, perhaps 
 a contrary one, but which, with the figni- 
 ficant letters, made a pleafmg found, and 
 
 VOL. II. E e filled
 
 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 1 6. filled up the word agreeably ; fo that they 
 muft foon have feen that their attempt to 
 exprefs, by thofe elemental founds, the 
 nature of things would, in the progrefs of 
 language, come to nothing. For as Plato 
 has obferved, fo many other letters are 
 thrown in for the fake of the beauty or 
 magnificence of the found *, that die ori- 
 ginal fignificant letters are quite over- 
 whelmed and loft. 
 
 axsrptrwaf tvixa. And he has glVCll 
 
 a very rtriking example of it in the word <rxxipor>!r, where 
 there is only one letter, viz. f, which exprefles the idea 
 of hardnefs or roughnefs ; fo that all the reft of the let- 
 ters, and among others the x, which, as he obferves, 
 has a quite different fignificancy, are thrown in merely 
 to fill up the word. Cratyl. pag. 297. Fie. This ftudy 
 of the pomp and beauty of found may be obferved in the 
 derivatives of the Greek language, which have many 
 vtfelefs letters on that account, of which Plato gives one 
 example in the word xro*Tpov, where he fays that the is 
 thrown in merely for the fake of the found. I will give 
 the paffkge at length, as it contains the fubftance of 
 what I have faid above, exprefled with his ufual ele- 
 gance. '1 ft.ix.aptf, i* Jny-J OTI TO. Jffarec ao [J.tn ' TtSivroc. xara- 
 f^u<rrcct HSn Cro ruv ftJAo/tttvi'v rpayuf&Y aura, iriptriQtvTav ypd/tftec- 
 a. KCU i%aif,avTui, lvro/j.la.f ivfxa, xi jrxvTtt^tt rrpfpemnr, KO.I vvi 
 a\>ia7ftcrf:C.a x.a.1 \>TI<> ^fo'vii' tTTtt xai v TU xaTo'/rrp^i B <Tox cot iroirei 
 a< TO fa ; XXa TOIO.VTO. (oi/uat) xouciv 01 rn; /uiv 
 x6af Wsv ifpovrllovrtf, TO $i rof/.a, irxezTTovrff. f trt^faXXoyTtf 
 sxxa tri T Trpurot, mttfJL9.ro., T.-XJura.vTf ro/So-i (tr,f' av 'ita. dvBuxov 
 uvBvsci, o TI Tfori GvMrai TO ovof/.x' aa-trip nal THV fffiyya. <ivr< (rftyo{ 
 XX. Ibid. ^84. 
 
 Muft
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 
 
 Mufl we then retract what we enctea- C. 16. 
 voured to prove, that the artificers of the 
 Greek language did proceed upon fome 
 principles of art, when they formed the 
 roots of that language ? and rnufl we in 
 this cafe give up Leibnitz's maxim, that 
 there is a fufficient reafon for every thing ? 
 or may fome other reafon be given for the 
 impontion of thofe firft names, as Plato 
 calls them, befides what Cratylus has gi- 
 ven ? And I think there may. And in the 
 firft place, fuppofe we fliould fay that they 
 were chofen for the beauty and fweetnefs 
 of the found, it is evident from what has 
 been already faid, that the Greeks ftudied 
 this very much in the formation of their 
 language ; and it (hall be further made 
 appear, when I come to treat of the mate- 
 rial part or found of languages of art. 
 Would it therefore be thought incongru- 
 ous, or repugnant to the genius of the lan- 
 guage, if I mould fay, that thole duads of 
 vowels were chofen for roots, on account 
 of their fweet and flowing found ; and 
 that thefe, with the addition of confonants, 
 and other vowels, furnifhed a fufficient 
 number of flocks upon which to graft the 
 whole language ? 
 
 E e 2 But
 
 220 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 1 6. But, fecondly, it appears to me, that the 
 v-or>w ' Greeks had dill a more fubftantial reafon 
 which led them to chufe thofe duads for 
 the primitive founds of their language ; 
 and that was for the fake of flection and 
 derivation. It is evident, that they mufl 
 have formed their fyftem of flection and 
 derivation at the fame time that they fifc- 
 ed upon the radical words. For it is un- 
 doubtedly for the fake of derivation that 
 
 J 
 
 there are roots in any language ; and flection 
 is nothing but a fpecies of derivation ta- 
 ken in a larger fenfe. Now I have mown, 
 in the differtation annexed to this volume, 
 that no termination of verbs, fuch as all 
 the radical words in Greek are, could be 
 fo proper for all their variety of flection 
 and derivation as thofe duads, and that 
 from them, as from a plentiful fountain, 
 the whole Greek language flows with an 
 eafy defcent, and a moil copious flream. 
 And thus it appears to me, that it was not 
 without art that thofe radical founds of 
 the Greek language were chofen rather 
 than any other. And I am perfuaded 
 thofe who are learned in the Hebrew, if 
 they will confider the roots of that lan- 
 guage in the fame view, will find that there 
 
 is
 
 Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 221 
 
 is a like reafon for chufing them rather C. 16. 
 than any other. 
 
 And here I conclude the analyfis of lan- 
 guage confidered as fignificant : And fo far 
 as I have gone, I have endeavoured to de- 
 duce the principles of grammar from the 
 principles of philofophy, upon which all 
 fciences ought to be founded, otherwife 
 they never can be perfectly underftood, 
 nor truly deferve the name of fcience. In 
 this view I have divided and explained the 
 parts of fpeech, in a manner a good deal 
 different from the common, and all along 
 I have endeavoured to mew the great art 
 that appears in the ftrucTure of a regular 
 language. And particularly I have at con- 
 fiderable length explained thofe three great 
 artifices of language, flection, derivation, 
 and compofition ; and I have concluded, 
 that no part of a complete language that 
 is capable of art, is without art, not even 
 the formation of the radical words of the 
 language. I proceed, in the next book, to 
 analyfe the material part of language, or 
 language confidered as found merely. 
 
 BOOK
 
 222 
 
 BOOK II. 
 
 Analyfis of the MATE RIAL PART of LAN- 
 GUAGE. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 LANGUAGE is fo commonly ufed, and 
 of fuch facility in practice, that 
 men who have not fludied the art 
 are apt to think that there is no art in it : 
 on the other hand, men of curiofity, who 
 are not fatisfied with the practice, but 
 want to know the reafon of things, find 
 great difficulty in explaining the nature of 
 language, and giving a rational account 
 even of the common parts of fpeech, and 
 of their various ufes ; and nhey will be 
 convinced, if they take the trouble to read 
 the preceding book, of the truth of what 
 I faid in the beginning of this part of my 
 work, that a man, in order to be a com- 
 plete grammarian, muft have made no in- 
 confiderable progrefs in pnilofophy, even 
 
 in
 
 Book II. PROGRESS or LANGUAGE. 223 
 
 in the moft abftrufe parts of it. But there Intr. 
 is one fatisfa6lion from the fludy of the ^^ 
 works of art, and which, to the lover of 
 knowledge, is abundant recompence for 
 the labour it cofts him, that we can get 
 to the bottom in fuch fludy, and difcover 
 the firft principles of the art : whereas 
 in the works of God and nature, there is 
 a wifdom and contrivance of which we 
 cannot fee the end ; and therefore I doubt 
 whether, in fuch matters, the human fa- 
 culties can ever attain to perfect fcience. 
 
 The art of language is fo beautiful, and 
 of fuch wonderful contrivance, that an 
 ingenious man would think it well worth 
 his while to fludy it for the fake of mere 
 curiofity, and though his labours were to 
 be recompenfed by no profit. But the u- 
 tility of the fludy is very great. For, in 
 the firfl place, we learn by it to compare 
 different languages, and to pronounce with 
 certainty which of them is the moft ex- 
 cellent. Then we can diflinguifh betwixt 
 what is good and agreeable to rule in the 
 ufc of every language, and what is the 
 contrary ; fo that our judgement does not 
 depend upon fafhion or popular opinion, 
 which is prevalent in language as well as 
 
 in
 
 224 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Intr. in every thing elfe belonging to man ; and 
 ^~*~^ we are enabled to diftinguim what is or 
 ought to be fubjecled to rule in language, 
 from that -which by its nature muft be go- 
 verned by arbitrary ufe. Farther, the gram- 
 matical art is the foundation and ground- 
 work of all flyle and compofition of every 
 kind, whether in verie or profe ; for we 
 cannot ornament language, nor pretend 
 to invert the common idiom, or depart 
 from the rules of plain fpeech, unlefs we 
 know thoie rules, and how far they may 
 be varied connftently with the nature of 
 language in general, and the genius of 
 the particular language in which we corn- 
 pole. An exacl ftudy therefore of gram- 
 mar is indifpenfably neceflary for the ora- 
 tor or public fpeaker *. Nor muft the 
 
 poet, 
 
 * To this purpofe Cicero, fpeaking of Julius Cnsfar's 
 talent of oratory, fays, Solum quidem^ el quaji funda 
 mer.tum oratoris, vides locutionem emendatam et Latinam ; 
 cujus penei quos laus adhuc fuif, non fuit rationis aut 
 fcientif, fed quafi bon* confuetudinis* De Claris Oratori- 
 bus, cap. 74. And in the fame paflage, a little after, 
 he fays, That even in his time the Latin language be- 
 gan to be corrupted by the great confluence of ftrangers 
 to Rome : <j>uo magis expurgandus ejl fermo, et adhibenda, 
 tanquam obnijfa, ratio, qunf mutari non potejl, nee uten- 
 
 dum
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 225 
 
 poet, infpired as he is by the mufes, pre- Intr 
 tend to be exempted from the rules of this 
 art. What other learning is required for 
 excelling in poetry and rhetoric, I {hall 
 mention when I come to treat of thofe 
 arts. 
 
 dum pravifimd confuetudinh regula. And accordingly he 
 fays Caefar followed this rule : Ceefar autem, rationem ad- 
 hibens, confuetudinem vitiofam et corruftam purd et /' 
 corruptd confuetudine emendat. Itaque cum ad hanc ele- 
 gantiam verborum Latinorum (qua, etiamji orator nonjii, 
 et Its ingenuus civis Romanui, tamen necejjaria eft ) adjun- 
 git ilia oratorio ornamenta dicendi ; turn videtur tanquam 
 tabulas bene pittas collocare in bono lumine. Thefe paflk- 
 ges evidently fhew it to have been the opinion of Cicero, 
 that not only we cannot excel in oratory without the 
 grammatical art, but that we cannot be fure of fpeaking 
 correclly or properly, if we have not a rule fuperior to 
 common ufe, and by which we are able to correct that 
 ufe, when it goes wrong. 
 
 VOL. II. F f CHAP-
 
 226 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 CHAPTER . I. 
 
 . .^~'V ' s*W T 1 - iK f *5 T <*/* 
 
 Divifwn of the analyfis of the found of lan- 
 guage into three heads, articulation, ac- 
 cent, and quantity. 
 
 
 analyfis of fpeech or language, 
 X. confidered as fignificant, is fimple ; 
 for it can be refolved into words only, of 
 which we have explained the nature and 
 different kinds. But the analyfis of lan- 
 guage, confidered as found, is more va- 
 rious ; for explaining of which it will be 
 necefTary to recolledl what we faid above, 
 that the common matter of which both 
 mufic and language are formed, is the 
 human 'voice. But there is a higher genus, 
 of which we mufl take notice, viz. found ; 
 for voice is the found produced by the 
 breath of an animal, coming from his 
 lungs, through the wind-pipe and larynx, 
 and from thence through his mouth ; and 
 the efficient caufe of it, is fome movement 
 of the mind, or inward principle of 
 
 the
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 227 
 
 the animal *. This voice, varioufly modi- Ch. i 
 fied by the different pofitions and actions 
 of the feveral organs of the mouth, is 
 what we call articulate voice, as was before 
 explained : and as this is efTential to lan- 
 guage, the analyfis of it, confidered as ar- 
 ticulate found, is firft to be explained : 
 next we are to confider it as found limply ; 
 and in this refpecl it has either different 
 degrees of acutenefs or gravity, which are 
 called the profudy of language, or it has 
 different lengths of found, which make 
 what we call quantity. Thus the analyfis 
 of language, confidered as found, is three- 
 fold ; for it is either, of the articulation of 
 it, of the profody, or of the quantity f. 
 
 We 
 
 * Antmon. f T o *tpl Ip^wAxt' fol 25. His words are, 
 
 | fft^vx* J"OAvof, OTJV fid T*( <ruroAf nrs Saaxof 
 
 ivof a.xo TV xvivu.ovof o f.:rvji/*{- ap -irpotnrirTn 8pouf TW xa- 
 /sa^a apTtipia, xa< rn iiiripuoc t.roi r? yapyapeavi, xa< $10, TV: 
 TOTXi riva ^ v aurSwTov, xara Tito. op/j.riv rn; <^v^s 
 
 f This threefold divifion of the found of language, is 
 made by Plutarch in his mifcellaneous works, where he 
 fays, that three things at le;tft muft fall under the fenfe 
 of hearing, in the pronunciation of language ; the tone 
 or note, (which is what I call the profody) ; the time or 
 quantity, as we commonly call it ; and the articulation 
 of the fyllable or letter. His words are, 'A< y P <Wyxa<o 
 
 rpix tXa^ira HIO.I TO. TTITTTOVTCI &; TIIV uy.otiv^ if Qoyyovn xai ypovov 
 
 xai <ruxxaCv I yfav/xx; where I am furpriied to fiud that 
 F f 2 Mr
 
 228 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. i . We will begin with the analyfis of articu- 
 Vxv> ^ late found. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 The analyfis of articulate founds into letters. 
 Where and when this difcovery proba- 
 bly f was made. The nature of letters, and 
 the federal kinds of them. Perfection 
 of the Greek alphabet. Defeffs of the 
 Englijh. 
 
 Ch. 2. A Rticulate founds are refolveable into 
 
 *-^^-> i\ fintences^ ivords^ fyllables, and letters. 
 
 Of thefe laft only we propofe here to treat, 
 
 Mr Fofter, in his learned efTay upon accent and quantity, 
 traaflates the beginning of the pafTage in this way, p. 16. 
 " Three very minute things do neceflarily ftrike the ear 
 " at once." For this is neither the meaning of the 
 words, nor the fenfe of Plutarch, who, in a pafiage 
 which follows afterwards, fpeaks of the ear being able to 
 perceive and diftinguifh thefe three things, each from 
 the other, without which he adds that it is impoffible to 
 fee what is faulty in each of them, and what is not. See 
 Plutarch, torn. 2. fag. 1 144. Xyland. And Mr Fofter him- 
 felf has made it evident, that no Greek or Roman, in 
 thofe days, could have been at any lofs to diftinguifli 
 thofe three things in the pronunciation of their lan- 
 guage. 
 
 bccaufe
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 229 
 
 becaufe thefe are truly the elements into Ch. 2. 
 which language, conlidered as found, is 
 ultimately refolveable. The other three 
 are compofed out of them ; and therefore, 
 according to the method we have laid 
 down, they are to be treated of when we 
 come to fpeak of the compoiition of lan- 
 guage. 
 
 The analyfis of language into letters, 
 by which I mean the elementary founds, 
 (for I do not fpeak at prefent of the cha- 
 racters by which they are expreffed), was 
 certainly a great difcovery ; and I mould 
 have had no doubt, even if Plato had not 
 told us fo *, that it was firft made, if not 
 only made, in that parent- country of all 
 arts and fciences, I mean Egypt ; but not, 
 I am perfuaded, till after all the neceflary 
 arts of life were invented, government 
 and religion eftablifhed, and even foine 
 progrefs made in fpeculation and fcience. 
 It muft have been made, I think, much 
 about the time that men began to reform 
 the barbarous jargon they firil fpoke, and 
 form a language of art ; for which purpofe, 
 as I have faid, I hold that the knowledge of 
 
 * Plato in Pfitlebo, p. 374. edit. Ficir.i.
 
 30 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 2. the elemental founds, and their powers, 
 was abfolutely necefTary. I think it is 
 probable that it was not made all at once, 
 but, like the difcoveries in other fciences, 
 by degrees ; and it is not unlikely that 
 there was a ftop in the progrefs. They 
 would begin, no doubt, with diftinguifh- 
 ing words from the reft of the difcourfe : 
 this would not be difficult. Then they 
 would refolve words into fyllables, which 
 would not be fo eafy. But it is likely that 
 they flopped there for fome time, perhaps 
 for ages, (fo flow is the progrefs of hu- 
 man knowledge), before they came to the 
 laft refolution of fyllables into letters, 
 which however eafy and obvious it may 
 appear to us, was certainly a great work 
 of art; for letters in fyllables are fo com- 
 bined and incorporated together, that it 
 requires a very accurate difleclion to fe- 
 parate them. And what makes this con- 
 jecture the more probable, is the account 
 that Kempfer gives us in his hiftory of Ja- 
 pan, of the Japanefe alphabet, which he 
 fays is fyllabical. Now, if this be not 
 only a ihort-hand way of writing, and if 
 they really do not know the elemental 
 founds, then they, or whatever other na- 
 tion
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 231 
 
 tion they got thfeir alphabet from, muft Ch. 2. 
 have flopped, as I fuppofe the Egyptians 
 did, after carrying the analyfis the length 
 of fyllables. But be that as it will, it 
 would appear that the difcovery was fully 
 made, before a language of art came into 
 Greece ; at leaft there is no evidence that 
 any one elemental found was difcovered 
 by the Greeks, though they found out 
 new characters for them, of which more 
 hereafter. I hold therefore that the Greeks 
 got this difcovery from the fame country 
 from which they got the alphabet, that is 
 fo nearly connected with it. 
 
 Whether this Greek or Egyptian alpha- 
 bet contains all the articulate founds the 
 human voice is capable of uttering, may 
 juftly be doubted ; for it is very difficult, 
 if not impomble for us, to define and li- 
 mit exactly the powers of fo various and 
 excellent an animal as man, and to fay 
 precifely that they can go fo far, and no 
 farther. One thing I believe is certain, 
 that the Greek alphabet is the fullefl and 
 mod complete of any known ; fo that in 
 this refpect, as well as in many others, 
 the Greek language is the mod perfect 
 that we know. I incline however to be- 
 lieve,
 
 23* THE ORIGIN AND Part II, 
 
 Ch. 2. lievc, that there are founds to be found in 
 Vxv ^' other languages, that cannot be expreffed 
 by the Greek letters, or any combination 
 of them, and I mentioned one found that 
 is pronounced in the ifland of Otaheite, 
 which could not be pronounced by any 
 of our people that were there. 
 
 I have already given a general account 
 of the nature of articulation, and of the 
 great divifion of the elemental founds into 
 vowels and confonants *. The vowels, as 
 I have faid, are abfolutely neceflary for ar- 
 ticulation, being the vehicle, as it were, 
 by which the other letters are enunciated ; 
 or, as Plato exprefles it, the bond or tie 
 by which they are bound together f . It 
 is for this reafon that I believe all lan- 
 guages, even the moft barbarous, have 
 all the five vowels, either founded each 
 by itfelf, or mixed with other vowels. 
 They are not however the principal parts 
 of articulation, as I have elfewhere ob- 
 ferved, but are to be confidered only as 
 the cement that binds the confonants to- 
 
 * Vol. I, lib. 3. pag. 329. et feqq. 
 
 \ Plato in Sophijldy fag. 177. edit. Ficini. 
 
 gether.
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 233 
 
 gether, which therefore are the principal Ch. 2. 
 materials in the ftruclure of language. 
 
 The confonants are fubdivided into //- 
 quids^ mutes^ and the monadic or folitary 
 letter f. The liquids are diftinguifhed 
 from the reft of the confonants by this, 
 that they make of themfelves a kind of 
 beating or chopping noife * : and it is per- 
 haps for that reafon, that in pronouncing 
 their names, we prefix the vowel ; where- 
 as in the names of the other confonants 
 we poflpone it. They are four in num- 
 ber, /, w, , r, to which fome gram- 
 marians add the f: but I think it is bet- 
 ter that it mould ftand by itfelf, both on 
 account of the peculiarity of its found, 
 which is altogether different from that of 
 the reft of the letters f, and becaufe it 
 unites in the fame fyllable with many o- 
 ther letters with which none of the li- 
 quids will join ; for in Greek it goes be- 
 
 * Arljlot. Pcet. 
 
 f Dionyfius the Halicarnaffian fays of this letter, 
 that it makes a noife more brutal than human, therefore 
 the antients ufed it very fparingly ; and he fays there 
 were whole odes compofed without one a-, which he calls 
 
 ft/a? a<rfy/u.v(. Tiipl o-yyflff. Jefl, 1 4. 
 
 VOL. II. G g fore,
 
 234 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 2. fore, in the fame fyllable, all the mutes, 
 either afpirated or not afpirated, except 
 7 and & ,- whereas the liquids go before 
 none of the mutes in the fame fyllable. 
 
 The mutes in the Greek alphabet are hi 
 number nine ; and they are divided into 
 three claifes, according to the organs 
 which chiefly co-operate with the breath 
 in the pronunciation of them, three in 
 each clafs : 
 
 The firft are labial^ viz. - *, , , 
 
 The fecond palatine , viz. - K, y, %. 
 The third dental^ viz. - r, S, 0. 
 
 And each of thefe daffes is fubdivided in- 
 to three, which are faid to be of different 
 orders, the one being what is called te- 
 
 IIUIS, Viz. - JT, K, T- 
 
 The fecond middle^ , y, S. 
 
 And the third afpirated^ <p, %, 0. 
 
 This divifion is taken from the different 
 degrees of breath with which they are e- 
 nunciated, and which breath is faid to be 
 th.cjpirit of the letters. For if they are pro- 
 nounced with a gentle breath, they are 
 faid to be tenues, or {lender-founding let- 
 ters j if they are more flrongly enunciated, 
 
 then
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 235 
 
 then they are faid to be middle letters ; Ch. 2. 
 or if more ftrongly ftill, they are faid to Vx>rO 
 be af pirated or thickened, as I think it' is 
 better exprefTed by the Greek work launt * ; 
 for the afpiration is truly produced by 
 thickening, and as it were condemning the 
 breath, fo as to make a very forcible e- 
 nunciation. 
 
 Thus it appears that the artifts of lan- 
 guage knew perfectly the power of the fe- 
 veral elements ; the organs that were em- 
 ployed in pronouncing them ; and the 
 difference which the different degrees of 
 breath made in the enunciation of them. 
 In mort it appears, that the Greek lan- 
 guage was formed by men who had tho- 
 roughly ftudied, and minutely difTecfled, 
 the operation of the feveral organs of ar- 
 ticulation. And it may be obferved, that 
 they did not employ only the foft and 
 fweet- founding letters, but alfo the flrong 
 and rough, in order to give ftrength and 
 nerves to their language, as well as foft- 
 nefs and beauty. 
 
 * The tenues, on the other hand, are called ^,M>,, 
 which denotes that they are juft {imply founded, without 
 any addition of breath extraordinary. See the Halicar- 
 nafilan's treatife of Compofition, fitf. 14. in fine. 
 
 G g 2 It
 
 236 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 2. It may likewife be obferved, that afpi- 
 ration does not belong properly to confo- 
 nants, but chiefly and principally to 
 vowels, which by being afpirated them- 
 felves, communicate it to the confonants 
 that precede them ; for the confonants are 
 nothing but fo many different ways of e- 
 nunciating the vowel *. And it would 
 appear, that the afpiration of confonants 
 J was not ufed among the Greeks at firft ; 
 for in the oldeft dialect of Greek, namely 
 the Latin, though they afpirated vowels, 
 yet, according to the antient ufe of the 
 language, they did not afpirate confo- 
 nants. Thus they faid pulcros, not pul- 
 chros ; Cetegus, not Cethsgus ; triumpos, not 
 triumphos ; Cartaginem, not Carthaginem -f-. 
 As to the pronunciation of each parti- 
 cular letter of the Greek alphabet, it is 
 very well explained by the author I have 
 fo often mentioned, Dionyfius the Hali- 
 carnaffian J, in his moft accurate, as well 
 
 as 
 
 * This is the opinion of Scaliger, De caujis Linguae 
 Latin*. See alfo Aridities, lib. I. pag. 44. Meibomii. 
 
 \ Cicero Orator. 48. 
 
 \ As I have fo often quoted this author, and (hall flill 
 make more ufe of him in the fequel, I think it is proper 
 
 here
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 237 
 
 as moft elegant treatife of Compofition, Ch. 2, 
 where he has mechanically defcribed, with 
 the utmoft exadlnefs, the pronunciation of 
 each letter ; and, according to the beft of 
 
 my 
 
 here to give fome account of him. He flourifhed in the 
 time of Julius Caefar, and was one of thofe learned 
 Greeks that came to Rome, to inftrucT: the great men 
 there, after that city had become the capital of the 
 world, and begun to form a tafte for learning and the 
 fine arts ; for it was the fate of Rome, both in more an- 
 tient and later times, to be taught by Greeks. He 
 taught rhetoric, as appears from a paflage in his trea- 
 tife of Compofition. And he feems to have been 
 familiarly acquainted with fome of the greateft men 
 in Rome at that time, particularly with Pompey, be- 
 twixt whom and him there was an epiftolary corre- 
 fpondence, fome part of which is yet preferved to us. 
 He is beft known by his Roman hiftory, a work of great 
 erudition, as well as elegance of Compofition. But his 
 critical works are, in my judgement, the beft extant, both 
 for the matter and the ftyle. As to the former, it is e- 
 vident that he was thoroughly learned in the art ; and 
 accordingly he has treated every part of it that he has 
 touched, as a matter of fcience, which is more than I 
 can fay of fome of the antient writings upon the fubjeft, 
 and of hardly any of the modern. And as to his ftyle, 
 I think it is undoubtedly the beft that has been written, 
 fmce fine fpeaking, and fine writing, were dead arts, by 
 which I mean performed only by imitation of dead authors. 
 The period when thofe arts ceafed to be living, I fix at 
 the death of Alexander the Great ; or, if we have a mind 
 to bring it down a little further, the death of Demofthe- 
 aes. Since his time, ail writing of any value has been 
 
 from
 
 238 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 2. my judgement, they were pronounced in 
 r ^ J the manner we pronounce them in Scot- 
 land, with fome fmall differences which 
 it would be thought trifling to mention ; 
 
 for 
 
 from the imitation of him, or of the great authors that 
 lived before him, or at the fame time. And among thofe 
 writers by imitation, Greek or Latin, I give the firft 
 place to the Halicarnaffian. The MSS of him are very 
 faulty ; but his ftyle is fo perfpicuous, as well as elegant, 
 that it is not difficult to correct them, unlcfs where the gap 
 or the corruption is very great. The moft finifhed and 
 perfedl of his critical works, are his Judgement of Thu- 
 cydides, his treatife iizpl TC SavoTtrot T At/u.oa-6twf, and his 
 book ricpl <rvv8to-4if OVO/U.XTUV, the moft finiihed of all in my 
 judgement, and which luckily has come down to us en- 
 tire ; whereas the others are mutilated. Of it I ftiall 
 make very great ufe in what I fliall fay of the material 
 part or found of language ; for what he calls <rvvBrif, re- 
 lates only to that. 
 
 In general the reader will obferve, that through the 
 whole of this work, I make but little ufe of the Latin 
 authors in matters of philofophy, grammar, or criticifm ; 
 for though I have read fuch of them as are of any 
 note, who have written upon thofe fubjecls, I muft con- 
 fefs that I have not profited much by them, not even by 
 Cicero, who is certainly, upon the whole, the beft of 
 them. But the beft of them are little better than tranf- 
 lators from the Greek ; and fome of them I think not 
 good tranflators, becaufe, inftead of acknowledging fair- 
 ly the poverty of their language, as Lucretius does, and 
 ufing the Greek terms of art, they make words of their 
 own to exprefs them, which, for the greater part, are to 
 me not intelligible. Cicero particularly had a great 
 deal of that vanity concerning the language of his coun- 
 try,
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 239 
 
 for though I myfelf think nothing trifling Ch. 2 
 that belongs to fo noble and ufeful an art, 
 yet I know well that I do not live in an age 
 fuch as that of Auguftus Casfar, whenMefTa- 
 la, a noble Roman, and the firfl orator of his 
 time, wrote a book upon each letter of the 
 alphabet ; and Julius Csefar, as it is well 
 known, employed himfelf in writing upon 
 another part of grammar, when he had 
 upon his hands the mofl dangerous war in 
 
 try, which he is not afhamed to prefer even to the 
 Greek ; and therefore, both in his rhetorical and phi- 
 lofophical works, he has ufed the Greek terms of art 
 as little as poffible. Quintilian had lefs of it, for which 
 reafon I am more edified by what he has written upon 
 ftyle and rhetoric, (though he is certainly not near fo 
 good a writer as Cicero), becaufe he always makes him- 
 felf intelligible, by giving us the Greek word, as well as 
 the Latin translation of it. If he had not done fo, I 
 I ftiould not have underftood that appefitum fignified an 
 epithet, or that contrapofitum or contentio denoted that 
 common figure of rhetoric we call antithejis ; and much 
 lefs fhould I have known that inverjio fignified an alle- 
 gory. 
 
 Nor is this my judgement only of the Latin learning, 
 but it was the judgement of a very learned man, in a very 
 learned age, i mean Chancellor More ; who fays, that 
 the citizens of his Utopia made very little account of 
 the Latin learning, but applied themfelves almoft wholly 
 to the Greek. And a very learned man, though not in a 
 learned age, is, I find, of the fame opinion. See 
 Hermes, fag. 411. et frifl. 
 
 which
 
 240 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 2. which he was ever engaged. I will there- 
 fore fay nothing more upon this fubjecl of 
 elemental founds, except to obferve, that 
 the Latin was defective in them, by the 
 confeflion of the Roman authors them- 
 felves. For Quintilian has obferved, lib. 1 2. 
 cap. 10. that they wanted two of the fweet- 
 eft-founding letters in Greek, one of them 
 a vowel, and the other a confonant ; the 
 vowel is v, and the confonant Thefe 
 letters, fays he, we borrow when we ufe 
 any of their words, and by doing this he 
 adds, we give a pleafant and chearful 
 found to the language ; whereas, if we 
 were to ufe our own letters, the found 
 would be barbarous and uncouth. He 
 further fays of the found of their fixtli 
 letter, viz. f 9 what one would not have 
 believed, if it had been faid by any o- 
 ther than a Roman, namely, that it was 
 not like a human voice, or rather like no 
 voice at all, being breathed out through 
 intervals of the teeth ; which clearly fhews 
 the error of thofe who confound this letter 
 cither with the Greek ?, or the Eolic di- 
 gamma, of which laft Quintilian fpeaks 
 in the fame paflage, as of a letter quite 
 diftind: from the f. Of it he does not 
 
 commend
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 241 
 
 commend the found neither ; and though Ch. 2, 
 the Eolians retained it, from whom the 
 Latins had it, it appears that the politer 
 tribes of the Greeks laid it afide as a bar- 
 barous found. 
 
 As to our Englifh, we need not be a- 
 fhamed of our defects in elemental founds, 
 after what I have faid of the Latin. We 
 have not, any more than the Latins, the 
 vocal found of y , which, as the Halicar- 
 naflian has defcribed, is pronounced as 
 the French u ; whereas our pronunciation 
 of the u, is that of the diphthong eu, not of 
 the iimple found. Then in England they 
 do not pronounce the afpirated * or the x> 
 but found it juft as they do the fimple x, 
 which I obferve has led the printers there 
 into fome errors in their editions of Greek 
 books, fometimes printing the * for ^, or 
 verfa. 
 
 VOL. II. Hh CHAP.
 
 242 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 Of alphabetical characters. That they came 
 originally from Egypt. The additions made 
 to them by the Greeks no improvement. 
 Defefts of the Roman and Engliflj alpha- 
 bet. 
 
 A L though the notation of language in 
 L\ writing do not, ftrictly fpeaking, 
 belong to my fubjec"l ; yet the characters of 
 the alphabet are fo much connected with 
 the alphabet itfelf, that I cannot well avoid 
 faying fomething of them. 
 
 This difcovery, where-ever it was made, 
 was certainly not early made ; and a na- 
 tion muft have been far removed from a 
 ftate of barbarity, before they could have 
 fo much as thought of this invention. 
 They muft, I imagine, have firft invented 
 many other arts, befides the necefTary arts 
 of life ; and as the art of language is, no 
 doubt, among the firft arts that men cul- 
 tivate after they come out of the favage 
 ftate, I think it is highly probable, that an 
 
 arc
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 243 
 
 art of language was formed before alpha- Ch. 3. 
 betical characters were invented to exprefs ^^^ 
 the founds of it ; and as there does not 
 appear to have been any country, on 
 this fide of the globe, where arts were 
 cultivated fo early as in Egypt, I cannot 
 refufe my affent to thofe authors who give 
 to that country the glory of the invention. 
 And particularly Plato the philofopher, who 
 had been fo long in Egypt, and was not 
 free of partiality for his own country, but 
 no wife prejudiced in favour of the Egyp- 
 tians *, appears to me to be a moft unex- 
 
 ceptionable 
 
 " Plato, in his isth book of Laws, pag. 990. edit. Fi- 
 cini, accufes the Egyptians ofinhofpitality, even to fuch 
 flrangers as came among them for the fake of knowledge ; 
 and gives them, upon that occafion, the contemptible appel- 
 lation of fip^ara Nx*, a word which indeed, by its ety- 
 mological tignification, denotes every thing that is brought 
 up or nourilhed, but is commonly applied only to the 
 brute kind. The paflage occurs where he is fpeaking of 
 the manner in which thofe learned and curious flrangers 
 ought to be received in his city, after which he adds, 
 
 ra.f 
 
 NXV) (tnie xcpuy/xao-j aypioif. What he means by thofe 
 meats and facrifices, and harfh ordinances, by which 
 they drove away flrangers, is explained -by the wri- 
 ters of the life of Pythagoras, Porphyry and Jambli- 
 chus, who tell us, that the Egyptian priefts would not 
 II h 2 initiate
 
 244 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Sh. 3. ceptionable authority in the cafe, to which 
 ^v-o I have nothing that I can oppofe. 
 
 But if the invention of them was fb 
 late as I fuppofe, it is natural to believe, 
 that the Egyptian nation was not all that 
 time without fome way of conveying in- 
 telligence to the abfent, and to pofte^- 
 rity ; and the queflion is, what that way 
 was ? Some think they ufed what is call- 
 ed 
 
 initiate Pythagoras into the myfteries of their theology 
 and philofophy, though he was recommended to them 
 by their King Annan's, till he -had gone through a very 
 fevere novitiate, and had fubmitted to very hard rules, 
 
 trpwrayft.a.TX trx.*.vfct xai Ki^opicf^ivx rri; 'Exxvix>)f ayayr;, 3S Por- > 
 
 phyry exprefies it, in vita Pjthagorte, feft 8. among 
 which, no doubt, were thofe ftrange meats and facrifices 
 mentioned by Plato. And Clemens Alexandn'nus, 
 firom. i- further tells us, that circumcifion was one part 
 of the ceremony of his initiation. All which after he 
 had gone through with great patience and fortitude, 
 ' they taught him every thing he defired to know. By 
 theie means he became the moft learned Greek that ever 
 exifted, and I believe the moft learned man that ever 
 was at any time iri Europe. It would appear from this 
 paflage of Plato, that the fame probationary trial was 
 required of him, to which it is likely he did not fubmit ; 
 and it was probably for this reafon that, as Strabo tells 
 us, lib- 17. p. 806. they did not teach Plato every thino- 
 they knew : and perhaps they had not fo much to teach 
 him at that time ; for the Egyptians were then, and 
 had been for many years, under the dominion of the Per- 
 fians, and their priefls had no doubt loft, with the fplen- 
 dor of their hierarchy, and their authority in the ftate, a
 
 Bookll. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 245 
 
 ed hieroglyphics. But it is not proved to Ch. 3. 
 my fatisfaclion that hieroglyphics were at 
 any time the written language of Egypt, 
 in common ufe : for though there was 
 no doubt a great deal of fculpture upon 
 the Egyptian obelifks, and the walls of 
 their temples, reprefenting various forms 
 of things, and particularly of animals ; 
 and though there be no doubt that thofe 
 representations had fome allegorical or em- 
 great deal of their philofophy and arts. It was ftill 
 worfe in the days of Strabo, who tells us, ibid, that he 
 faw, himfelf, at Hieropolis, where once refided the raoft 
 learned college of priefts in Egypt, the ruins of their 
 houfes ; and there was no body then to be found in that 
 city of any knowledge, except fome inferior minifters of 
 the altar, who fhewed the antiquities of the place, and 
 performed to ftrangers much the fame office that the 
 Ciceronis in Rome do at prefent : whereas, when Pytha- 
 goras was in Egypt, it was an independent kingdom, the 
 moft civilized of any then in the world, and flourifhing 
 in philofophy and arts. 
 
 With refpeft to his own country, Plato does not praife 
 it in the abfurd manner that Diogenes Laertius does, 
 who fays, that not only philofophy, but even the human 
 race, began there. On the contrary, he acknowledges, 
 that the barbarians were more antient than the Greeks, 
 and that they got from the barbarians many arts and 
 fciences, particularly aftronomy. But he every where 
 infifts upon the diftinction betwixt Greeks and barbarians, 
 commending his own countrymen as of a nature more 
 gentle, humane, and generous, and as improving, and 
 carrying further every thing they had learned from the 
 barbarians. See Plato's Epinomis, fog. 1012. edit, bi.mi. 
 
 blematical
 
 246 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 3. blematical meaning, chiefly of the religi- 
 ous kind, as the name in Greek imports ; 
 I fee no reafon to believe that they ever 
 fupplied the place of writing any more 
 than our allegorical fculpture or painting, 
 or that they were at any time ufed for re- 
 cording events. One thing at leafl is cer- 
 tain, that they were not the facred charac- 
 ters of the Egyptian priefts ; for thofe cha- 
 racters were undoubtedly letters, not hie- 
 roglyphics * : and if thefe could not 
 
 be 
 
 * This is evident from both Herodotus and Diodorus 
 Siculus. Herodotus, fpeaking of the Egyptian, manner 
 of writing and computing, has thefe words, Tfa^^ura. y fa .- 
 
 fwt X.&L Xajr/JovToti ^tifoicri, 'ExXwf fttv, euro rov apiftpav mi TO, Strict 
 
 ftftVTIf TIV X.* 1 ? 01 ' AlJWXTlOl Jl, UTTO TilV cTfljfay tXl TO. CCpllTTlpU. Slr 
 
 pairtvicri Sf yfa.p.fx.ctci ^pfuvrccf y.al ra fjt.lv avrav ipa, to. it <fjuoT(x 
 
 xxra', lib. 2. cap. 36. ; where he exprefsly fays, that 
 the Egyptians ufed two kinds of letters, the one facred, 
 and the other papular. And Diodorus makes the fame 
 cliftinftion, where he tells us, that the priefts taught their 
 children two kinds of letters, the one called facrtd, and 
 the other of common ufe : natSiwa-t it ruf vivf '/ jim fyf ypa/*' 
 
 f.ara JiTTflt, T Tt i.pa xaXHufva, xai ra. xononpotv l^pvra. TI\V /i6xri. 
 
 lib. i. cap. 8 1. edit. Weffeling. And again, in the begin- 
 ning of the third book, comparing the cufloms of the E- 
 gyptians and Ethiopians, he fays, That among the E- 
 gyptians there were two kinds of letters ; one called vulgar 
 or popular, which every body learned ; the other called fa- 
 cred, which the priefts only among the Egyptians under- 
 ftood, the fon being fecretly taught them by the father : 
 but among the Ethiopians, thefe facred letters were of 
 
 common.
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 247 
 
 be the invention of a barbarous age, there Ch. 3. 
 is much lefs reafon to fuppofe, that thofe 
 
 fymbolical 
 
 COtnmon ufe : 'ihw yap 'PuyvVTms DVT'JV ypxpfixrcn, TO. ptv f- 
 fMtfti jrporvyoptvoft.tva ravretf /tcavSavHv, ra ff Ifpa. Y.a.KVfJ.Ha. leapi p.t v 
 rotf ' Aiyvxritif fiovuf yiva<rxv TWJ ilpf, rapa ray xxrtpuv It axoppn- 
 
 TH( 'ftXvBcCVOVTXf , f/XpX ft TOIf ' Ai&IO^lV TVTaf THT8<? XftlffQoU rSlf 
 
 Ttur./f. It is true indeed, that both Herodotus and Dio- 
 dorus, fpeaking of thefe letters, uie the word ypa^^*, 
 which in Greek is a general word denoting every kind of 
 drawing or delineation, whether in writing or painting. 
 But it is to be obferved, imo, That the word fimply 
 ufed, always fignifies what we call a letter, ido, When 
 it is applied to the facred characters, we cannot underftand 
 it in a fenfe different from that in which it is applied to 
 the popular, otherwife the divifion into facred and po- 
 pular would be altogether abfurd and unintelligible. Nor 
 is it pofflble to fuppofe that two fuch writers as Herodotus 
 and Diodorus would ufe the fame word, in the fame fen- 
 tence, in two fignifications fo different as that of elemen- 
 tal characters, or marks of found, and that of fymbolical 
 reprefentations of things. And, laft'y, If there were any 
 thing doubtful or equivocal in the matter, Diodorus has 
 removed all doubt, by exprefsly dillinguiihing betwixt 
 the ypocwxTa. fimply, or letters, and the ypxwurx li f ey\v- 
 f*x; for, in the paflage laft quoted, after having ex- 
 plained the ufe of the rpa^fMTa. among the Egyptians and 
 Ethiopians, he goes in the next chapter to the explica- 
 tion of the hieroglyphics, which he oppofes to the letters, 
 
 in this manner : Dip! $t ruv 'A<6<oT/xav voa^/^-trav, rSv -azf 'Ar/vx- 
 noif xa\u/Eav /tpoyXupuav, fnrtov, Iva. ptnSiv -xot.fa.Kenrui*iv rav ap^ato- 
 tutj&ftnetm 
 
 Thus it is evident, that thofe who confound the facred 
 characters of the Egyptians with hieroglyphics, are in 
 a great miftake, into which even the learned Lipfius has 
 fallen, as appears from his notes upon the nth book of 
 Tacitus's Annals, c. 14. But this error, both the very 
 
 learned
 
 248 THE ORIGIN AND Part IT, 
 
 Ch. 3. fymbolical reprefentations, containing, as 
 w ~ v " vj is generally fuppofed, deep myfleries of 
 
 religion 
 
 learned Dr Warburton, in his Divine Legation, and the 
 Count de Caylus, in his Collection of Antiquities, have 
 avoided ; and the latter has given us a fpecimen from 
 antient Egyptian monuments, of both the facred and po- 
 pular writing, as quite diftincT: from the hieroglyphical 
 characters. 
 
 As to the nature of this facred fculpture, it is agreed 
 by all, that the characters ufed in it, ftand not, like 
 alphabetical characters, for the marks of founds, but 
 cxprefs the things themfelves direftly and immediately. 
 zdo, Whatever they may have been originally ; yet, as 
 they are defer i bed to us by antient authors, and are ufed 
 upon obelifks, and other Egyptian monuments yet re- 
 maining, they are certainly fymbolical or enigmatical 
 reprefentations of things. This account is given of them 
 by Diodorus, in the paflage laft cited, where he fays, 
 that the figures ufed in hieroglyphics were thofe of ani- 
 mals of all kinds, the members of the human body, and 
 likewife the organs or inftruments of art, chiefly thofe 
 belonging to carpentry. For, fays he, this kind of written 
 language, does not exprefs its meaning by compofition of 
 Syllables, but by metaphorical or allegorical reprefenta- 
 tions of things, which, by ufe and exercife, are fixed in 
 the memory, and fo become familiar. ru/?fw TOHVI t^e 
 
 fj.iv TV*V; CCVTUV (i. C. TUY Itpvy \vfiKov ypaftftctTUv] 0/toivf loot; yavro- 
 Sxvoi; xcti axpa-Tpio(f *Av8ps>Tav, In ft opyavoif, xai /uaAira TOtTOnno/f. 
 $ yap it. TV( TUV cT/XXaCwn eruvQia'tuc ypctftftciTix.* Trccf avroif rev vro- 
 Ttb/jLivov \oyov aro<r<<f4'<nv, XA i% tftfcunof TUV fUTaypafoftfvav xat 
 
 f/.fTa^opof MVH^M o-uvSx)i^av>if He proceeds next to explain 
 the nature of this kind of writing among the Ethiopians, 
 and which he fuppofes to be the fame among the Egyp- 
 tians. " The fymbols they ufe," fays he, " are a 
 
 " hawk,
 
 Book II. "PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 249 
 
 religion and morality, fhould have been Ch. 3 
 the invention of fuch an age. 
 
 What 
 
 " hawk, a crocodile, a ferpent ; arid of the human bo* 
 '* dy, the eye, the hand, the countenance, and fuch 
 " like. And a hawk denotes every thing that is quickly 
 " done, becaufe this animal is the fwifteft of all birds, 
 " and therefore is ufed metaphorically, to denote every 
 " thing that is quick, or has any relation to quicknefs, 
 " in the fame manner as we ufe metaphors in fpeaking. 
 " The crocodile fignifies all kind of wickednefs or evil ; 
 " the eye, being the guard or keeper of the whole body, 
 " is the fymbol of juftice ; the right hand, with the 
 " fingers fpread, denotes the acquiring and collecting 
 " what is necefTary for life ; the left hand, clinched, 
 " denotes the cuftody and prefervation of tllofe things. 
 " The like may be faid of all the other figures from the 
 " human body, from inftruments of art, or other things. 
 " Of thefe reprefentations, having made the meaning 
 " familiar to them by conftant ufe, they eafily read 
 " what is written in that way." lib. 3. cap. 4. 
 
 Thus far Diodorus Siculus. There are many other 
 fymbols of the fame kind with thofe he mentions, which, 
 we find in other antient authors ; fuch as, a ferpent in a 
 circle to denote eternity, an eye on a fceptre to reprefenfc 
 a monarch, and the like ; but thefe are fufficient for our 
 purpofe. And I think Diodorus, in the paflage 1 have 
 quoted, has given us, in a few words, a very clear idea 
 of this kind of hieroglyphical writing. I fliall not there- 
 fore trouble myfelf with explaining fome other pafFages of* 
 antient authors upon the fttbjecl, particulafly two quo- 
 ted by Dr Warburton, and much infilled on by him ; 
 one from Porphyry, in his life of Pythagoras, which I 
 hold to be irretrievably corrupted, as well as many other 
 things in that \vork j and one from Clemens "Alexandri- 
 
 Vet. II. I i nus.
 
 THE ORIGIN AND Part IT. 
 
 Ch. 3. What then was the method ufed by the 
 S " ON "' Egyptians before the invention of letters 
 
 to 
 
 nus, which I likewife think is not found. Befides, the 
 authority of Diodorus, who lived in fo much an earlier 
 age, and was at fo great pains to inform himfelf concern- 
 ing Egypt, having been in the country himfelf, in order 
 to collect materials for his hiftory, is of much greater 
 weight than that of either of thofe two authors. 
 
 The next thing to be confidered is, When the ufe of 
 this enigmatical language began among the Egyptians ? 
 a queftion not of eafy folution. One thing appears to 
 me certain, that it could not have been the invention of 
 a barbarous age, and that the Egyptians muft have been 
 far advanced- in arts and civility, and even in philofophy, 
 before they could have thought of expreffmg their mean- 
 ing by fuch fymbols, fome of which allude to properties 
 of animals, and other natural things, not at all obvious. 
 Another thing feems to be allb certain, that the inven- 
 tion of letters was very early among the Egyptians ; for 
 they afcribe the invention to a god, viz. Theulb, who 
 was their Mercury. If therefore hieroglyphical writing 
 was ufed before the invention of letters, it muft have 
 been ufed before the reign of Menes, their firft king, 
 during the reigns of their gods ; that is, while the 
 Egyptians were learning arts and civility, which were 
 taught them by thofe firft kings, whom on that ac- 
 count they deified. That the remains of hieroglyphical 
 writing, upon the obelifks ftill preferved, are fo old, I 
 believe no body believes ; and Dr Warburton acknow- 
 ledges, that hieroglyphics continued in ufe long after 
 the invention of letters, Divine Legat. book 4. feft. 4. 
 pag. 145. It appears therefore to be certain, that at 
 leail thofe hieroglyphical monuments ftill extant, are 
 not fo old as the invention of letters. 
 
 We
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 
 
 to perpetuate the memory of events, or Ch. 3. 
 communicate knowledge to the abfent ? 
 
 I 
 
 We are next to inquire, for what purpofe this enigmati- 
 cal writing was employed ? And that it was not uied for 
 recording hiftorical events, which were intended to be 
 publilhed and made known to all the world, at leaft that 
 it was not fo ufed in later times, after the invention of 
 letters, a method of recording fo much more eafy and 
 obvious, I hold to be certain. Even the facred books of 
 the priefts, in which the hiftory of Egypt was contained, 
 do not appear to me to have been written in that lan- 
 guage. For otherwife Diodorus, who faw them, and 
 made ufe of them in compiling his hiftory, (lib. i. c. 69. 
 edit. Weflel.), would certainly have told us fo. And as 
 to their infcriptions, fuch as that upon the firft pyramid 
 built by Cheops, mentioned by Herodotus, expreffing 
 the fum that was expended upon the onions and garlick 
 eaten by the workmen who built it, this hiftorian has 
 informed us, that it was written in Egyptian letters, 
 yfoiff.f4.tx.ra, 'Aiyvxna (lib. 2- c. 125 ) ; as well as another in- 
 fcription, which he mentions upon another pyramid, of 
 which he has given us the very words tranflated into 
 Greek, (ibid. cap. 136-). And if more authority upon 
 this head were wanting, we have that of Tacitus, who 
 tells us, that Germanicus, in his travels through E- 
 gypt, faw at Thebes, which was even then in ruins, an 
 infcription Hill remaining, written in Egyptian letters, 
 (liter* Egyptiix ; an expreffion which, in Latin, without 
 any ambiguity, denotes only elemental characters), 
 which being interpreted to Germanicus by one of the 
 priefts, was found to contain an account oi the power 
 and opulence of this great city, which, at the time of 
 this infcription, contained feven hundred thoufand men 
 fit to bear arms, Annal. 2. cap. 60. Now we can hard- 
 1 i 2 ly
 
 252 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 3. I think it is highly probable, (and we 
 ^^^ C an fay no more of a thing fo far beyond 
 
 all 
 
 Jy fuppofe the obeli (ks y$t prcferved to be older than 
 this infcription, or the oldeft pyramid ; and as it ap- 
 pears that it was not the fafhion at that time to record 
 fafts of hiftory in this myfterious character, I think we 
 may fafely conclude, that the hieroglyphics upon the o- 
 belifks ftill to be feen, are not any hiiiorical record. I 
 am therefore of opinion, that however Kircher, that 
 learned Jefuit, may have erred in the explanation of the 
 hieroglyphics upon the obelifks, he is right in the main, 
 doctrine upon which all his explanations are founded, 
 namely, that the hieroglyphics contained myfteries of 
 religion and philofophy, which the priefls did not mean to 
 publifh to the whole world, but to keep ! axotfr.Telf among 
 themfelves. And indeed, if they were not ufed for hifto- 
 rical record, as I think I have Ihewn they were not, it is 
 difficult to conceive for what purpofe they could have been, 
 ufed, other than thatofmyftery and concealment. 
 
 This account of the antient ufe-of hieroglyphics, is 
 perfectly agreeable to what we read concerning them 
 in antient authors, particularly to the account which, 
 Pliny gives of two obelitks that he faw at Rome, of 
 which he fays, Infcripti ambo rerum nature interprcta- 
 tionem philofopkia Egyj>tioru?n continent lib. 36- cap, 
 14. edit. Harduini. Egypt we know was the land of my- 
 ftery, and both her religion and philofophy were covered 
 with that veil ; from thence it fpread all over the Eaft, 
 of which the wife men fpok.e in parables. It was im- 
 ported into Greece by their earlieft fages, who travelled 
 in Egypt, fuch as Orpheus and Mufasus ; for in the my- 
 Jitrifj which thofe fages brought from Egypt into 
 Greece, were contained the fubiimeft truths of religion 
 and philofophy, at firft exhibited only in allegoric fhew, 
 but at Jaft plainly revealed ;o thofe who were initiated 
 
 into
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 253 
 
 all record or memory), that the method Ch. 3, 
 they ufed was that moft natural and ob- 
 vious 
 
 into the greater myfteries, who were faid to be KVTO*T<HI, , 
 and to enjoy, as it were, the beatific viflon of the univer- 
 verfal nature, and the firft principles of things. See 
 Clement, dlexand. Jlrom. 5. ; Strabo, lib. 10. ; and Di- 
 vine Legat. book 2. fett. 4. pag> 163. The philofophy 
 too, which Pythagoras in later times brought from E- 
 gypt, wore the difguife of allegory and fymbol, and was 
 plainly taught by him only to thofe who had approved 
 themfelves worthy by a long novitiate. 
 
 This, according to my notion, was the only ufe of 
 hieroglyphics, after the invention of letters. But were 
 they ufed at all before that invention ? And if I faw any 
 reafon to believe that the Egyptians had lived as long 
 in a ftate of civility and arts, without an alphabet, as 
 the Chinefe have done, I fhould have been of opinion, 
 that they might have formed this myfterious philofophi- 
 cal language, though it does not appear that the cha- 
 racters of the Chinefe are of that nature. But as it is 
 certain that letters were invented very early in Egypt, I 
 think the probability is, that before this difcovery they 
 were not fo far advanced in philofophy, as to have any 
 fuch myfterious language ; and that, their only way of 
 recording things was by pictures or natural reprefenta- 
 tions, either at full length or abridged. From this pic- 
 ture-writing, I think it is likely that the firft forms of the 
 Egyptian letters were derived. And hence comes the 
 connexion which learned men have obferved betwixt their 
 alphabetical writing, and their hieroglyphics of later times ; 
 for it was natural enough, that with their hieroglyphics, 
 they fhould mix thofe antient characters ufed before the in- 
 vention of letters, which characters, like the hieroglyphics, 
 flood for the marks of ideas, not of founds. And per- 
 haps
 
 254 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 3. rious way of fpeaking to the eyes, I mean 
 by painting or carving natural reprefen- 
 tations of the things they meant to ex- 
 prefs. This we know was praclifed by 
 the Mexicans before the Spaniih con- 
 queft, and is at this day ufed by the 
 Indians of North America. But as this 
 way of recording things would be very 
 tedious, and take up a great deal of time ; 
 and as human inventio.ii proceeds but 
 very (lowly ; it is likely, that before the 
 difcovery of letters, fome way was con- 
 trived of abridging this picture-writing, 
 and making it more fit for common ufe. 
 The Indians of North America are not yet 
 fo far advanced ; but the Chinefe are. For 
 it appears to me certain, from the befl 
 information that I can get concerning the 
 Chinefe characters, that they were origi- 
 nally no other than the natural reprefenta- 
 tions of the things, which, in procefs of 
 time, were abridged, and at laft fo much 
 
 haps they might be neceflary for connecting together 
 the emblematical figures, and marking the connexion 
 and dependence they had upon one another : for, no 
 doubt, in the pufhire-writing, there \vould be fuch 
 marks of connection, which probably were figns of arbi- 
 trary uutitutioa. 
 
 Ihortened
 
 Book IT. PROGRESS OP LANGUAGE. 55 
 
 fhortened and altered, that we can now Ch. 3. 
 hardly fee in any of them the original 
 picture. 
 
 From thefe abridged pictures, I think 
 it is a very probable conjecture, that after 
 the analyfis of articulation was difcovered, 
 the characters ufed to exprefs the elemen- 
 tal founds were formed. Thus far at leaft 
 is certain, that many of thofe characters 
 which are found in antient monuments 
 of Egyptian alphabetical writing, are like- 
 wife to be found on their obeliiks *. 
 
 The great advantage which the ufe of 
 letters has above any other kind of wri- 
 ting, is, that it connects together fpeaking 
 and writing, fo as to make but one a*t 
 in effect of both. For letters ftand for 
 founds, not for the ideas exprefied by 
 thofe founds. And therefore, when the 
 founds are once learned, we fee how eafily 
 even our children learn the expreffion of 
 them by alphabetical characters ; whereas, 
 if the written characters are expreflive of 
 the ideas, not of the founds, then is die 
 written language, and the language that 
 
 * See the Count de Caylus's Collettion of Antiquitier^ 
 torn. i. fag. 65. et feqq. See alfo what Dr Warburtoa 
 has faid upon this fubjetf, in his Divine Legation. 
 
 is
 
 56 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 3. is fpoken, entirely unconnected, and each 
 ^~*^~* of them requires a feparate ftudy ; and 
 that of the written language, which is ib 
 much eafier to be learned among us than 
 the language that is fpoken, becomes a 
 mod intricate and difficult ftudy. Accor- 
 dingly, it is a facl well known, that the 
 Chinefe, after having learned the language 
 they fpeak, as we do ours, confume their 
 whole lives in learning their written lan- 
 guage, that is, learning to read. 
 
 It no doubt mewed a great deal of inge- 
 nioufnefs, to think of making founds vi- 
 fible, and the object of one fenfe, by that 
 means, to fall under the perception of an- 
 other ; but flill I am of opinion, that if 
 we fuppofe, as I do, that the analyfis of 
 the found of language was already made, 
 it was no more than an ingenious thought, 
 but not at all a great difcovery, at leaft 
 not to be compared to that of the analyfis 
 of the found of language *. For it was 
 
 no 
 
 * Plato gives us an account of the invention both of the 
 analyfis of the found of language, and of alphabetical 
 charafters. The firft is in the Philebus, p. 374 and the 
 other in the Phsedrus, />. 1240. edit. Ficini. And he a- 
 fcribes both to fome god or godlike man he calls 00,9, 
 the fame who in Greek was called 'Ep^;?, and in Latin 
 
 Mercury,
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OP LANGUAGE. 257 
 
 no more than finding out marks for what Ch. 3 
 was known before. And if we fuppofe v ^ >rN- 
 that die Egyptians, like other nations, 
 ufed fyinbols, or reprefentations of things, 
 before they knew the ufe of letters, it would 
 be no more than transferring that method of 
 reprefentation to the elements of found. 
 And accordingly, the learned academi-* 
 cian whom I mentioned before, M. de 
 Guignes, maintains, that the alphabetical 
 characters were made out of fuch repre- 
 fentations. If the notation of mime had 
 been invented before letters, which might 
 have happened, and perhaps did actually 
 happen, I mould have thought the difco- 
 very juft as great as that of letters, but 
 not to be compared to that moft won- 
 derful analyfis of mufical founds, for ex- 
 prefling which that" notation is ufed. 
 And therefore the onlv diftinction I make 
 
 y ^ 
 
 betwixt the two difcoveries, is, that the 
 
 Mercury. But there were feveral who bore that name 
 in Egypt ; and Plato does not fay that it was the fame 0m8 
 who invented both, but rather the contrary : for though he 
 mentions feveral other inventions of the f; /9 who invent- 
 ed letters, he does not fpeak of the analyfis of articulate 
 founds as one of them ; and I think it is more probable 
 that it was a Mercury before him who made that greater 
 difcovery. 
 
 VOL. II. K k one
 
 258 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 3. one which was firft, has the greateft me- 
 v ^ vxj rit. But I think the inventor even of 
 that one, mufl be contented to ihare the 
 praife with him who firft devifed a method 
 of making the ideas of the mind viiible ; 
 for there is really no difference betwixt 
 making ideas vifible, and founds vifible, 
 if the ideas are of things not viiible. 
 
 Whether there was a progrefs in the 
 invention of alphabetical characters, or 
 whether they were invented all at once, is 
 a matter of conjecture. If, as I fuppofe, 
 the analyfis of articulation was not made 
 at once, but that they ftopt at fyllables, 
 it is not unjikely that a fyllabical alpha- 
 bet may have been firft invented, fuch as 
 that of the Japanefe. If, on the other 
 hand, we fuppofe that there were no al- 
 phabetical characters invented till the a- 
 nalyfis of articulate founds was comple- 
 ted, there is no reafon I think to believe, 
 but that the whole alphabet would be at 
 once completed, and that a character 
 would be invented for every element that 
 had been difcovered ; for it is difficult to 
 conceive why the inventor mould have 
 ftopt fhort, and not gone through the 
 whole elements. 
 
 As
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 159 
 
 As to the utility of letters, I have faid Ch. r 
 already *, that the writing-art is not an ^ v ~ 
 art of memory^ but an art of reminifccncs. 
 And it is a moft certain fact, that the 
 practice of writing, fo far from flrengthen- 
 ing the memory, weakens it ; for this rea- 
 fon, that when we commit a thing to wri- 
 ting, we, as it were, difcharge the me- 
 mory of it. And accordingly, thofe 
 who cannot, or do not write, have much 
 more tenacious memories than thofe who 
 truft nothing to memory. I have likewife 
 faid, that I doubted whether the ufe of let- 
 ters had contributed to the improvement 
 of knowledge ; and if it b^true that it 
 weakens memory, as knov^plge depends 
 fo much upon memory, it muft be like- 
 wife true, that it retards our progrefs in 
 knowledge. Betides, as nothing improves 
 knowledge fo much as mutual intercourfe 
 and communication of our thoughts to 
 one another, fuch intercourfe is better 
 carried on by converfation, than by wri- 
 ting ; and therefore, if the frequent ufe of 
 writing has the effecT: of making converfa- 
 tion upon fubjects of fcience lefs frequent, 
 
 * Part 2. book i. ch. 2. in fne. 
 
 K k 2 which
 
 260 THE ORIGIN AND Pan II. 
 
 2h 3. which I doubt is the cafe among us, in- 
 -^-v>^ ftead of advancing learning, it will be a 
 hindrance to it. And accordingly I am 
 perfuaded, that learning flourished mofl 
 both in Greece and Egypt, when there was 
 leaft written upon the fubjecl. And par- 
 ticularly, in the Pythagorean fchool, the 
 mod learned fchool of philofophy that ever 
 was in Greece, we are informed, that no- 
 thing was committed to writing while 
 the fchool flourished, and not till, by the 
 perfecution of thofe philofophers in Italy, 
 it was broken and difperfed. Then in- 
 deed fome of them, for the fake of pofte- 
 rity, committed fome part of their philo- 
 fophy, but l^Pfelieve no great part of it, to 
 writing * ; and to thofe writings we owe 
 what is mod valuable in the philofophy of 
 Plato and Ariftotle, the firft of whom we 
 know purchafed fome of thofe books at a 
 .very high price j\ 
 
 It cannot however be denied, that in 
 other refpecls, the invention of writing 
 has many advantages. In the firft place, 
 It is a method of communication betwixt 
 
 * Jamllichus in vita Pytkagor*, feft. 253. 
 \ See Diogenes Laertius in vita Platonis, 
 
 abfent
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 261 
 
 abfent perfons, which, in many cafes, is a Ch. 3, 
 matter of great utility, as well as pleafure 
 and fatisfaction. idly, It is without doubt 
 the beft way of preferring the memory of 
 fa els and dates ; for though fcience, whofe 
 chief feat is the underflanding, may be 
 continued by tradition, and delivered 
 down from father to foil for many gene- 
 rations, not only without lofs, but with 
 increafe ; it is otherwife with facts, and 
 more^ fo flill with dates, which depending 
 folely upon memory, cannot be fo exactly 
 preferved by tradition only. And accor- 
 dingly, the facred books of the Egyptians, 
 fo far as we can learn, contained nothing 
 but facts, either of natural* or civil hiflo- 
 ry, and their dates ; for it does not ap- 
 pear that their geometry, aftronomy, or 
 philofophy, were recorded there *. But 
 3^/X, One principal ufe of it is, what 1 
 have already hinted, to preferve learning 
 againft fuch a calamity as befell it in Italy, 
 
 * Dibdor. Siculus, who made ufe of thefe books in 
 compiling his hiftory, lib. i. feft. 69. edit. Weffeling. does 
 not fpeak of their containing any thing elfe but fafts, /- 
 bid. fe ft. 44. And Plato, in the Timaus, p. 23. edit. Ser- 
 rani, fays, that all the memorable events that happen- 
 ed, whether in Egypt or other countries, of which they 
 had information, were fet down in thofe books. 
 
 when.
 
 262 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 3. when the Pythagorean philofophers were 
 maflacred, or driven out of the country * ; 
 or againft deftrudlion of men and arts, by 
 famine, peftilence, or inundations of bar- 
 barous nations, fuch as overfpread Europe, 
 and deftroyed the Roman empire. And 
 it is to the manufcripts that were faved in 
 that general wreck of philofophy, and all 
 
 This is a facT: that is little known- It is not mentioned 
 by any hiftorian, fo far as I know, that has come down 
 to us, except Polybius, who fpeaks of it only in paffing, 
 lib. 2- /. 175 ; and the text of Polybius is there mutilated. 
 But the faft cannot be doubted of: for it is related by 
 Jamblichus, in his life of Pythagoras, with many cir- 
 cumftances from authors whom he quotes that are now 
 loft. It was the greateft blow that ever learning got, 
 next to the deftruftion of the Egyptian hierarchy ; and 
 it would have gone near to have extinguished learning 
 altogether, if fome of them whoefcaped the mafTacre, had 
 not committed their learning to writing, left philofophy, 
 that beft gift of the gods to men, as Plato fays, fhould be 
 totally loft ; Jamb, ubi Jupra, feft. 253. Thofe writings 
 were, for a long time, concealed in the families of the 
 authors, being tranfmitted as a facred depofit, from 
 father to fon. But feveral of them at laft came abroad, 
 and were picked up by the philofophers of Greece, fuch 
 as Plato and Ariftotle ; the laft of whom, as I have had 
 occafion to obferve, published one of them under his 
 own name, I mean the book of Categories, which he has 
 made the foundation of his fyftem of logic ; and indeed it 
 contains the principles of all fcience. In faort, all the 
 good philofophy we have now in Europe, is little more 
 than fragments that had been faved out of this (hipwreck 
 of learning in Italy, one of the greateft events in die hi- 
 ftcry of learning, though fo little known. 
 
 fcience,
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 263 
 
 fcience, that we owe all the learning we Ch. 3, 
 have at prefent in Europe. 
 
 Having faid thus much concerning the 
 invention of letters, and the utility of 
 them, I will proceed to follow them from 
 Egypt to Greece ; whither they were 
 brought firft by the Pelafgi, and after- 
 wards by Cadmus, with fome variation, 
 no doubt, of the form. Whether there was 
 any addition made in Egypt to the firft 
 invention of them, is, as I have faid, a 
 doubtful point. But it is certain that af- 
 ter they came to Greece, there was no ad- 
 dition made to them by the Greeks of any 
 value. The original Egyptian letters were 
 fixteen in number, viz. five vowels, fir 
 mutes fimple and middle, four liquids, 
 and the folitary letter *. With thefe it is 
 likely there came a mark of afpiration, or 
 an h y fuch as we have in the Roman al- 
 phabet, and in fome antient Greek monu- 
 ments. To thefe Palamedes added marks 
 for the three afpirated confonants, and 
 alfo for the double confonant . Then 
 came Simonides, who added two other 
 characters for double confbnants, viz. -l> 
 and C, and likewife marks for two long 
 vowels, viz. the long * and the long . 
 
 But
 
 264 THE ORIGIN AND Part IT. 
 
 Ch. 3. But thefe additions, I fay, were no improve- 
 ments, but rather corruptions of the al- 
 phabet. For with refpect to the double let- 
 ters, they are at beft only an abridgement 
 of the orthography : but I fay further, 
 that two of them are equivocal characters ; 
 for Hands either for x? or ys, and ^ either 
 for or &. And as to the afpirated 
 letters, they too are no more than a 
 fhort-hand way of writing, fuch as that 
 which is ufed for marking the afpira- 
 tion of the vowels ; and accordingly the 
 Latins, and we too in Britain, mark our 
 afpirations very well, both of vowels and 
 confonants, by the original mark of 
 afpiration, viz. the letter h *, without 
 
 * This Is not, properly fpeaking, a letter, but a mark 
 of afpiration ; and accordingly was fo ufed antiently by 
 the Greeks, who wrote HXTOV in place of tV.*, as it is 
 now written. And the marks of the two fpirits, they fay, 
 were taken from the divifion of the antient mark of afpi- 
 ration, the one half of it, with a bend towards the 
 right hand, being ufed to denote the fpiritus aff>er t 
 and the other half, with a bend the other way, the fpi- 
 ritus Isnis. And here again we may obferve, that the 
 antient manner of writing was more fenfible ; for they 
 had only a mark for the fpiritus afper, judging it unne- 
 ceflary, as it really is, to have any mark at all for the 
 fpiritus Icnis. 
 
 Palamedes's
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 265 
 
 Palamedes's invention* And it may be Ch. j. 
 obferved, that this way of marking the 
 afpiration, mews the nature of it better 
 than Palamedes's chara6lers : for they have 
 probably led the grammarians into what 
 I hold to be a miltake, that the afpiration 
 belongs to confonants ; whereas it belongs, 
 as I have faid, primarily to vowels, and 
 only confequentially to the confonants, by 
 their being joined to afpirated vowels. Thus 
 when I write Cethegus in Latin, it is evident 
 that it is the vowel e that is afpirated ; where- 
 as, when I ufe Palamedes's character, and 
 write Ktflwyflf, it may be thought, and is 
 commonly thought, that the afpiration be- 
 longs principally to the confonant t. And 
 as to Simonides's marks for the long t and 
 long c, if he had carried the invention 
 farther, and devifed marks for all the long 
 vowels, it might have been fo far ufeful, 
 that it would have faved writing ; but as 
 he did not carry it fo far, he had much 
 better have let it alone altogether, and 
 then it is likely the old way of writing 
 would have continued, of doubling the 
 character when the vowel is long, of 
 VOL. II. L 1 writing,
 
 266 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Uli. 3. writing, for example, aa, when the a wa& 
 long *. 
 
 But though thefe additions, made by 
 the Greeks to the Egyptian alphabet, were 
 neither necefTary nor ufeful ; fome cor- 
 rections which they made upon their own 
 orthography, were certainly a great im- 
 provement. For the letter , among them, 
 flood for three different founds, the fhort 
 t, the long % and the diphthong , which 
 was the name of the letter. The long e 
 they expreffed, as I have juft now faid, 
 by doubling the character ; but it was- 
 certainly very blundering to make the let- 
 ter (land for the name they happened to 
 give it. They might as well have made a 
 Hand for the found a\pa, or for TX. In 
 like manner the letter o flood not only for 
 both long and fhort o, (which ambiguity 
 was removed by writing it double), but 
 alfo for the diphthong , probably for the 
 fame reafon that t flood for , namely, 
 becaufe was the name they gave the let- 
 ter. 
 
 * This was the antient praftice among the Latins, as 
 appears from Quinftilian , and probably alfo among the 
 'Greeks, See what 1 fay further of this fubjeft, when I 
 come to treat of accents. 
 
 Several
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 267 
 
 Several other obfervations might be Ch. 3. 
 made upon the Greek alphabet, but e- 
 nough has been faid of the alphabet of a 
 particular language : and I (hall conclude 
 this part of the analyfis of language, after 
 having made a few obfervations upon the 
 Roman and Englifh alphabet. 
 
 The Roman alphabet was, as I have 
 fhewn elfewhere, the antient Greek alpha- 
 bet, probably more antient than that 
 which Cadmus brought into Greece ; and 
 as I have faid, it was no worfe for want- 
 ing the additional letters invented by Pa- 
 lamedes and Simonides. Bat as the Latin 
 was a dialect of the JEolic, afld as the $Lo- 
 lic ufed very much the found of the 
 digamma, which refembled the found 
 of our w, the Romans had the fame 
 found, but did not ufe the character, ma- 
 king the letter u and v (for both forms 
 were ufed indifcriminately) {land both 
 for the vowel and the digamma ; for as to 
 their letter f, it neither exprefled the 
 Greek ?, nor the jEolic digamma, but a 
 found different from either, and a very 
 unpleafant one, as appears from the paf- 
 fage above quoted from Quinctilian, lib. 
 12. cap. 10. To fupply this defect in the 
 L 1 2 Latin
 
 268 THE ORIGIN AMD Part II, 
 
 Ch. 3. Latin alphabet, Claudius, the Emperor, 
 v -'~ v>w ' introduced the ufe of the TEolic digamma, 
 marked like a Roman F reverfed, which 
 is ftill to be feen in fome antient in- 
 fcriptions, but went out of ufe after his 
 death *. 
 
 As to our Englifh alphabet, it is cer- 
 tainly-very faulty. For the firlT: letter has 
 three founds: frft, the common found of 
 a ; then the found of the diphthong au ; 
 and laftly, the found of the Greek : and 
 yet there, is but one character to exprefs 
 all the three. Then the i fupplies the 
 double office, expreffmg both the genuine 
 found of that letter, and of the diphthong 
 ai. , in like manner, ftands both for 
 its own found, and the found of i ; and u 
 is fometimes the diphthong eu^ and fome- 
 times the plain vowel, or rather the diph- 
 
 * See what Mr Fofter has collected upon the fubjeft 
 of the digamma, pag. 122. of his Eflay, to which may 
 be added the paflage I quoted above from Quinctth'an, 
 lib. 12. cap. JO. ; and alfo what Mr Fofter has obferved 
 from Mr Dawes, concerning the effect of this digamma, 
 in making the preceding vowel long, as in the perfeft 
 tenfes of the third and fourth Latin conjugation ; for in 
 the preterite cupii and auJii, the firft /' is Ihort, but by 
 inferting the digarnma betwixt them, it becomes long, 
 as in cupivi and audivi, 
 
 thong
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 269 
 
 thong * ; for, as I obferved, we have not Ch. 3, 
 in Englifh the genuine found of that 
 vowel. Then, with refpect to confonants, 
 the c is an ambiguous character ; for it is 
 fometimes founded hard as the k, and 
 fometimes foft as the f\ and the t is of- 
 ten founded as Jh. And in the combi- 
 nations of confonants in fyllables, we do 
 not always give them the fame found ; for 
 the th in thing is a much flronger afpirate 
 han in then or though. 
 
 OH A P. IV. 
 
 Of the antient accents. That they ivere real 
 notes of mufic, diftincJ from the quantity 
 of the fy liable. What accent in Englifh 
 is? 
 
 I Come now to the analyfis of the fecond 
 part of the matter of language, of 
 which I propofed to treat, viz. the Profody. 
 And here I am to fpeak of a thing fo little 
 underftood in modern times, that fome e- 
 ven deny the exiftence of it ; I mean, the 
 inelody of language, as the ancients called 
 
 it;
 
 270 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 4. it ; which, as we fhall {hew in the fequel, 
 made a confiderable part of the beauty of 
 their competition. For the better under- 
 ftanding it, it will be neceffary to go back 
 to that higher genus which I mentioned 
 in the beginning of this book, namely, 
 found. For melody, as I have already ob- 
 ferved, belongs not to language, as arti- 
 culated voice, but as found, being com- 
 mon to it with mufic. 
 
 Sound is denned by antient authors to 
 be a percumon of the air, perceivable by 
 the fenfe of hearing *. Now found (imply 
 without articulation, may be confidered in 
 a threefold view. For it is louder or 
 fofter ; it is higher or lower, as to mufical 
 modulation, or, in other words, is acuter 
 or graver; or, laftly, it is of fhorter or 
 longer duration. The firfl of thefe diffe- 
 rences does not belong to the art of lan- 
 guage, (except fo far as concerns the pro- 
 nunciation of fyllables in Englifh, of 
 which I Ihall fay more hereafter) : for 
 men fpeak, and make other noifes, loud or 
 foft, as occanons require, which are too 
 many and various to be comprehended by 
 
 Yoyo; fAv IC-TI tr*.nyti 'AtfO( airSnm axo>i. 
 
 f l i'flcivr> fol. 25. See alfo Euclid, ff". Can. in initio. 
 
 rules.
 
 Book IT. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 271 
 
 rules. But the other two make part of Ch, 4, 
 the grammatical art, at lead in the antient 
 languages. 
 
 The firft of thefe, as I have faid, is 
 called profody \ a word which I obferve is 
 frequently applied very improperly to 
 quantity * ; for ?r/>ocr$/a in Greek exactly 
 anfwers to the Latin word accentus^ and 
 denotes that tune or melody which is an- 
 nexed to, or accompanies fpeech f : and 
 it is of the analyfis of this melody that I 
 am now to treat. 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 In the common Latin grammars, it is ufed to fignify 
 that part of grammar which treats both of quantity and 
 accent ; and it is fo ufed even in the learned Voflius's 
 grammar. 
 
 f This is the fenfe in which the word is conftandy ufeJ 
 by Dionyfius the Halicarnaflian, in his moll accurate 
 treadfe of Compofition, fo often quoted, particularly in 
 feft. 25. where he exprefsly diftinguifhes it from quanti- 
 ty ; for fpeaking of the accidents of words, he mentions 
 
 inTdfffif rs xa fva-TOkaf, x.a.1 xpoc-aSia;. Tile learned TheO- 
 
 dorus Gaza, in his grammar, fpeaks the fame lan- 
 guage, Hpoo-aSict trt racrif irota. rn( pxvr; 1-yyca/Li.u.aTV irpot vfa;a 
 
 r5 SKV Mty* ; and then he proceeds to define TJa,-> as that 
 of which the xp<xru$i<x was compofed. And Demetrius 
 Triclinius, an antient grammarian, gives the fame ratio 
 nominif that I have given ; for fpeaking of the marks of 
 accents and fpirits, he adds, 'A in xal xfoo-aSix; mo/,.** ? 
 
 rpos TW oSnv xa T>IV *xpav>!0-| TWV (ru\>.Cbttv CWTlKWKS> Prefat, 
 
 ad slriftopkan. 
 
 Like
 
 ^7 2 THE ORIGIN AND Part It. 
 
 Ch. 4. Like every other melody it arifes from 
 a combination of founds, and is refolve- 
 able into what is called ytioyyoe in Greek, 
 and in Englifh a note^ which is defined 
 by Ariftoxenus, an antient writer upon 
 mufic, to be " one flretch or extenfion of 
 the voice * ;" that is, as I underftand it, 
 a continuation of the voice in the fame 
 tone, without flop or interval, and with- 
 out change. 
 
 A note may have all the three qualities 
 of found above mentioned : for it may be 
 loud or foft ; long or fhort ; acute or 
 grave. But it is of this lafl quality only 
 that I am now to fpeak f . 
 
 And firft it is apparent, that acutenefs 
 and gravity are relative qualities, as well 
 as length and fhortnefs : for it is impoffible 
 to conceive a found either acute or grave, 
 but in relatibn to another found ; and in 
 general there is in mufic nothing abfolute, 
 
 * *av)f trrua-if liti jwav roetnv. Harmonic, lib. l.p. Ij. 
 
 f Thofe who are entirely ignorant of mufic, may ima- 
 gine, that loud and acute, grave and foft, in founds, are 
 the fame. But they are quite different ; for the found 
 of a cannon is one of the graved founds that can be made, 
 and at the fame time one of the Joudeft. 
 
 but
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 273 
 
 but it is altogether a fcience of ratios and Ch. 4. 
 proportions. But the queftion is, What 
 is it that makes this acutenefs or gravity 
 in founds ? And for folution of this que- 
 ftion, we muft go flill a little higher than 
 we have hitherto done, I mean, to an idea 
 more general than even that of found ', viz. 
 motion : for all found is motion ; and if 
 all things were at reft, there would not, 
 as Euclid fays, be either found or voice *. 
 It is therefore evident, that acutenefs or 
 gravity in founds muft be certain modi- 
 fications of the motion which produces 
 them. And Ariftotle has told us, that 
 when the found is acute, there is much 
 motion in little time ; when it is grave, it 
 is little motion in much time f . This is 
 
 * Euclid, fefl. Canon is, in initio. 
 
 f- Euclid has faid the fame thing, but at more length, 
 in the beginning of his Jeflio Canonis. His words are, 
 
 Tav fe Ktmcriav oil /u.tv 7rvx.t/OTipa.i W4, < Ji apaionpai' xai lit fi.iv, 
 xw.iOTtpai c^vTtpv; TTOHXTI TV; fQoyyvc, 0.1 Si apcuarepai Cr.pvTtpv;. "A- 
 yayxewv JE raj fj.it o%vTtpvc e'wxt, ftxtp tx. Trvnvoripivv xa jrXwwav <rwy~ 
 
 V.&TO.I XlvntrlUV' Ttff <? SapUTCfTV; (Itgt CorpUTf^Hi) tTfUTlip t% UpOClOTSpUJ 
 
 xi Ixao-irovav o-uyxflT x/voarav. From whence it appears, 
 that Euclid knew in iubftance the doflrine of our modern 
 philofophy concerning founds, though I am pcrftiaded 
 he never made experiments fuch as that German philofo- 
 pher made, .who difcovercd that a ftring of fuch a length 
 and fuch a thicknefs, and ftretched by fuch a \veight, 
 fo many vibrations in a fecond. 
 
 VOL. II. * M m truly
 
 274 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 4. truly faid, but fhortly : it therefore needs 
 to be explained ; and the difcoveries of our 
 modern experimental philofophy have en- 
 abled us to do it. 
 
 For it is now found out, that the per- 
 cuffion of the air, by which the antients 
 defined found, is caufed by the percuflion 
 .of fqme elaftic body, whofe vibrations, 
 thereby produced, being communicated 
 to the air, and by the air propagated to 
 the ear, produce the fenfation of hearing. 
 A firing or wire, flretched, has been found 
 the mod proper fubject for fuch experi- 
 ments. If the vibrations of this firing 
 are greater or lefs, that is, occupy more or 
 1 fs fpace, then is the note louder or fofter ; 
 if there are more or fewer vibrations in 
 the fame time, then is the note acuter or 
 graver ; and, laflly, if the firing conti- 
 nues to vibrate for a greater or lefs time, 
 without any fenfible variation of the found, 
 then is the note longer or fhorter : fo that 
 here we have the threefold divifion of 
 found above mentioned. 
 
 That there are all thefe differences in 
 mufic, no man will deny who has only a 
 n'atural ear, though he never was taught 
 the art ; and that two of them, at leafl, 
 
 take
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 275 
 
 take place in language, is as impoflible to Ch. 4* 
 deny. The only queftion therefore is with 
 refpecT: to the third, viz. the diftinclion of 
 acutenefs and gravity, whether it applies 
 to language. Nor was even this difputed 
 till of late. But Mr Fofter, in his eflay 
 above mentioned *, has made the matter 
 fo perfectly clear, that I will not fay a 
 word upon the fubjecl:. And indeed it ap- 
 pears to me, that nothing but abfolute 
 ignorance of the nature of the antient lan- 
 guages, or the moft violent prejudice, can 
 induce a man to be of another opinion. 
 One reafon, perhaps, that may have led 
 fome people into it, is the improper ufe a- 
 bove mentioned of the word profody^ by 
 applying it to quantity, and not to accent. 
 This, I imagine, has made Ifaac Voffms, 
 among others, believe, that quantity and 
 accent were the fame, or at leall that the 
 long fyllable always was accented f. An- 
 other 
 
 * This eflay did not fall into my hands till I had be- 
 gun to Write upon this fubjeft, and had formed the opi- 
 nion which I was glad to find fo well fuppcrted by Mr 
 Fofter. His effay is indeed full of excellent grammatical 
 learning, and has furniihed me with fevei'al authori- 
 ties, of which I have made ufe. 
 
 t The work of Ifaac Voflms I refer to, is what he 
 M m 2 has
 
 276 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 4. other probably has been, that there is no 
 accent fuch as the Greek and Latin ac- 
 cents, in any modern language, as I {hall 
 afterwards {hew. And, laflly, the im- 
 poilibility for us, that are not accuftomed 
 to it, to found thofe antient accents, has 
 perfuaded many people that it was as im- 
 poflible for the antients to do it. 
 
 Taking it therefore for granted, that 
 this antient profody was, as the name im- 
 ports, applicable to language ; the next 
 thing to be confidered is, how it was ap- 
 plied. And we are informed, by the antient 
 writers, that it was applied to fyllables ; 
 that is to fay, that different fyllables of 
 the fame word were pronounced with tones 
 differing in acutenefs and gravity, and 
 fomedmes the fame fyllable, as {hall be 
 afterwards more particularly explained. 
 
 But, in the frft place, it is to be ob- 
 ferved, that this fyllabic tone is very dif- 
 ferent from the general tone of a lan- 
 guage ; for each language has a particular 
 tone with which it is fpoken. But this 
 
 has written, De viriliui rythmi, et cantu pomatum; a 
 work written in fuch excellent Latin, that I read it with 
 pleafure, though I could find no feiiie or matter in it of 
 any value. 
 
 national
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 277 
 
 national tone, as it may be called, affecTs Gh. 4. 
 the whole tenor of the fpeech, not words 
 only, and much lefs fyllables. 
 
 2 dly, It is alfo to be diftinguiihed from 
 the tones of pamon or fentiment, by which 
 the feelings of the mind are expreffed ; for 
 thefe belong to words or fentences, not to 
 fyllables. 
 
 And, lajlly^ It is likewife to be diftin- 
 guifhed from the variation of loud and 
 fpft in difcourfe ; for we may raife our 
 voice in fpeaking, or fink it, without any 
 variation of the tone. And in this way we 
 may alter our voice, not only upon words 
 and fentences, but upon fyllables ; which, 
 as I mall fliew afterwards, is what we call 
 accent in Englifh. 
 
 But the antient accents are real notes of 
 mufic, or variations of the tone, by which 
 the voice is raifed higher, with refpecl: to 
 mufical modulation, upon one fyllable of 
 a word, than upon another : and this fyl- 
 lable is faid to have an acute accent, while 
 all the reft of the fyllables are pronounced 
 with what is called a grave accent ; that 
 is, they are pronounced upon a level with 
 the reft of the difcourfe, or in that 
 key in which the difcourfe is taken 
 
 up
 
 THE ORIGIN AND PartfL 
 
 Ch. 4. up *. For it is an invariable rule of ac- 
 ""^^ centing, both in Greek and Latin, that 
 only one fyllable of a word, how many 
 foever there be, has an acute accent ; for 
 it feems they thought, that the raifing the 
 tone upon more than one fyllable of the 
 word, would have made the pronuncia- 
 tion of common fpeech too various and 
 complicated, and too like chanting. 
 
 There is a third accent in thofe langua- 
 ges, called the circumflex, which is com- 
 pofed of the other two. This happens 
 when the tone is both raifed and deprefTed 
 upon the fame fyllable, which never can 
 be but when the vowel is long ; for a long 
 vowel in Greek and Latin was founded 
 like two Ihort vowels of the fame kind ; 
 and it was fo written, according to the 
 
 * That this is the true notion of a grave accent, is 
 evident from a pafTage of Dionyfms Thrax, in his fhort 
 but elegant treatiie of Grammar, publilhed by Fabricius, 
 in the 7th volume of his Greek library. He defines ac- 
 
 cent tO be, <t>arn( cnrtixmrf; fnatftccoyitj, KOLT dva.ra.<rn tv TV o|aa, * 
 
 So that thi grave accent is the fundamental or ordinary 
 level of the fpeech ; and therefore the mark of it is neye.r 
 ufed, except upon the laft fyllable of a word ; and then 
 it denotes not the grave, but the acute accent. For 
 what reafon this ftrange pra&ice has been introduced, I 
 never coulJ learn, nor do I fee any reafon for marking 
 two accents, more thaa for marking two fpirits. 
 
 antient
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 279 
 
 antient Latin orthography *. Such a fyl- Ch. 4. 
 lable therefore might be confidered as two 
 fyllables, upon one of which the tone was 
 raifed, and upon the other deprefled f . 
 And thus we fee that thofe languages had 
 in this matter, all the variety that the na- 
 ture of the thing will admit ; for every 
 fyllable among them had either an acute 
 accent, or a grave accent, or both. 
 
 But how much was the tone of the voice 
 to be elevated in founding the acute ac- 
 cent ? or was it left to the arbitrary will 
 of every fpeaker, to raife his voice more 
 pr lefs, as he thought proper ? If that was 
 
 * See what Mr Fofter has very well faid upon this fub- 
 jeft, in his Efiay, pag. 38. ; to which I will only add, that 
 in fome of the antient Roman monuments, particularly the 
 laws of the Twelve Tables, inftead of writing the character 
 double for the long i, they wrote a great character thus, /. 
 There is reafon to think, that the Greeks wrote in the 
 fame way, before they invented different characters to ex- 
 prefs fome of their long vowels. Plato, in the Cratylus, 
 pag. 282- if I underftand him rightly, fays, that they 
 wrote two epfdons in place of the eta, and the figure of 
 the omega is plainly the two omicrons joined together. 
 
 f In this "way the circumflex accent is explained by 
 Scaliger, De caufis lingua Latins, lib. 2. cap. 60. ; and 
 it is in this fenfe we are to underftand the antient au- 
 thors who fpeak of the circumflex, as being a middle be- 
 tween the acute and grave. 
 
 the
 
 280 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 4. the cafe, it is plain, that the antients, in 
 '* vv -' fpeaking, muft have often run into cant,; 
 for an elevation and fall of the voice, to a 
 certain degree, will make a kind of fing- 
 ing. But neither, in this refpecl, was the 
 Greek language defective ; for in it the 
 boundaries were fixed betwixt the melody 
 of fpeech and mufical modulation. This 
 appears from a paflage in Dionyfius the 
 Halicarnaflian's treatife, upon Compofi- 
 tion, that I have fo often quoted ; which 
 paflage, if it had been rightly underflood 
 by thofe who have argued againft the 
 Greek accents, it is impoflible, I think, 
 that they could have been of that opinion ; 
 for it not only proves the exiftence of fuch 
 accents, but explains moft accurately the 
 nature and meafure of them. I will there- 
 fore give the paflage rendered into Englifh ; 
 but before I do that, I will, for the fake 
 of thofe grammarians who know nothing 
 of the principles of mufic, explain a little 
 of the nature of mufical tones ; be- 
 caufe I fufpect it is the want of knowledge 
 of thefe which has made Mr Fofler's adver- 
 faries not give fuiEcient attention to this 
 pafiage. 
 
 The Greeks ufed the fame fcale of mu- 
 fic
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE;. 281 
 
 fie that we ufe, viz. the diatonic fcale, Ch. 4. 
 which rifes by certain intervals or degrees, 
 from any given pitch of the voice, called, 
 in the language of mufic, the fundamental^ 
 to that note which is known by the name 
 of oflave; and the degrees or intervals by 
 which the voice rifes to the oclave, are 
 meafured by numbers. And as the rife is 
 chiefly by what is called tones y the fcale- 
 has from thence the name of diatonic. The 
 interval of a tone is as 8 : 9, if it be a 
 greater tone ; or of 9 : i o, if it be a lefTer 
 tone : and there is a fmaller interval flill, 
 called a femitone, which is as 15 : 16. By 
 thefe intervals of tones, greater and lefTer, 
 and femitones, making all together feven 
 notes, beiides the fundamental, the voice 
 rifes in a natural and eafy afcent to the 
 odlave above mentioned, which has that 
 name from its order in the fcale, being the 
 eighth note, including the fundamental, to 
 which it is in the ratio of 2 : I . 
 
 Of thefe feven notes all our mufic is 
 compofed, as all the words of our lan- 
 guage are compofed of the four and twen- 
 ty elementary founds. For though in mu^ 
 fie we go far above the eighth note, it is by 
 the fame intervals ; fo that all further 
 
 VOL. II. N n progrefliom
 
 282 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 4. progrefllon upwards, is but a repetition of 
 the firft feven notes, the octave ferving al- 
 ways for a new fundamental. This way 
 we proceed upwards to a fecond, third, or 
 fourth ottave, or as far as any voice or in- 
 flrument will go *. 
 
 This fcale, though it has been found 
 convenient to divide it into the intervals a- 
 bove mentioned, yet is capable of being 
 divided into intervals very much fmaller. 
 And accordingly, in feme fpeciefes of the 
 antient mufic, the fcale was divided not only 
 into tones and femitones, but likewife in- 
 to third parts of tones, and even the fourth 
 parts of tones, which laft they called W/ f . 
 But in their diatonic fcale, they proceeded, 
 as we do, by tones and half-tones. This 
 progrefs we mark by numbers 2, 3, 4, 
 and fo on, reckoning the fundamental al- 
 ways one. And in like manner the an- 
 tients proceeded ; but what we call a, 
 fourth, they called the SiaTtff<raowr ; becaufe 
 
 * It is a curious problem, How It comes to pafs that 
 the power of nature can go no farther in mufical modu- 
 lation than an oclave ? The fact is undoubtedly fo ; 
 but I do not know that it ever has been demonftrated, 
 though I think it might eafily be fo, if this were the pro- 
 per place. 
 
 it
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OP LANGUAGE. 283 
 
 it went through four degrees, including Ch. 4. 
 the fundamental, viz. two tones and a v ^ vv-> 
 half above the fundamental. And the next 
 note, which we call the ffth^ confifling of 
 three tones and a half above the fundamen- 
 tal, they for the fame reafon called W^em. 
 And the odlave, which goes through all 
 the notes of the fcale, they called liautaow. 
 The other fleps of the progrefs they mark- 
 ed by words, as we do, expremng their 
 order. Thus the firft degree above the 
 fundamental they called S/TCW, as we call 
 it a fecond. 
 
 This being premifed, I come now to 
 the paflage before us, in which the Hali- 
 carnaman, after having laid it down, that 
 the beauty of compofition confifts in the 
 melody, rhythm, variety, and, laftly, what 
 is proper or fuitable to the fubjecl: ; and 
 after having told us, that the compofition 
 of words, even in profe, is a kind of mu- 
 fic, differing from finging or inftrumental 
 mufic only in the quantity, that is, the 
 more or lefs, not in quality or kind ; 
 and that words have their melody, rhythm, 
 and other things abo\e mentioned, as well 
 as mufic ; he proceeds to explain the me- 
 lody of words as follows. 
 
 N n 2 " The
 
 tc 
 
 CC 
 
 284 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 'Ch. 4. " The melody of common fpeech," fays 
 **** he, " is meafured nearly by one interval, 
 ' that namely which is commonly called the 
 ' S/a?rem. Nor does it rife beyond three 
 tones and a half towards the acute, nor 
 is it let down further towards the grave. 
 But every word has not the fame tone ; 
 " for fome are founded with an acute tone, 
 " fome with a grave, and fome have both. 
 " Of thefe lafl fome have the acute and 
 " grave blended together, in the fame fyl- 
 " lable, which are called circumfletted Jyl- 
 *' lable s ; others have them on different 
 " fyllables, each of which preferves its 
 " own proper accent, whether grave or 
 " acute, diftincT: and feparate from that 
 " of any other. In the diffyllables of this 
 " kind, the one is grave and the other a- 
 " cute, and betwixt thefe there can be no 
 " middle ; but in words of many fyllables 
 " of whatever kind, there is but one 
 " which is accented acute, while all the 
 " reft are grave. This is the melody of 
 " fpeech ; but vocal and inftrumental mu- 
 " fie ufe more intervals, not the lix-wri on- 
 ly ; for beginning with the S/aTao-ar, they 
 go through the lizx-im, the li*Ti<i<ra.fur, the 
 
 " * or (as it ought to be written) 
 
 " the 
 
 iC
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 285 
 
 '* the SITOW, the ^nomv, and, as fome think, Ch. 4. 
 " even the W *." 
 
 This paflage not only mews, as I have 
 faid, that the Greek accents were really 
 notes of mufic, but alfo gives us the mea- 
 fure of them, and further mark? the dif- 
 ference betwixt the melody of fpeech and 
 mufic : which he makes to confift in two 
 things ; jirft^ That the .melody of fpeech 
 does not rife above a fifth, whereas mufic 
 goes to an oclave, or much higher ; 2 J/K, 
 The degrees or intervals in mufic, either 
 
 * The pafTage is In the nth feftion of the treatife of 
 Compofition. It is too long to be here tranfcribed. 
 There is no difficulty in it to thofe who underftand the 
 language and the fubjecl ; nor was it poffible that the 
 author could have ufed clearer words to exprefs that the 
 accents were mufical tones. I fhall only obferve, that 
 
 when he fays i ^)| ciirao-K yt *.i|jf, 4 xa8' t f&oftoi Xo^ rctrro- 
 ftwiy Tf auTf Mytrat ra<rcut, the addition tO the WOrd At^if i 
 
 of the defcription of 8' t juop<v *oyv rarTo/ain, is only 
 to remove the ambiguity of this word in Greek. For 
 M%K fignifies either the whole ftyle and compofition, or a 
 fingle word or part of fpeech, in which laft fenfe it an- 
 fwers exactly to the Latin word diftio. In each of thefe 
 fenfes I obferve it ufed by the fame author in the third 
 feftion of the fame treatife. I have therefore tranflated 
 it fimply by word, which in Englifh is not ambiguous, 
 without the addition that Mr Fofter makes of " that is 
 " placed in a fentence," pag. 142. which appears to me 
 foreign to the fenfe of the author. 
 
 below
 
 THE ORIGIN AND Part It, 
 
 Ch. 4. below or above the fifth, are exactly 
 marked. But that was not the cafe in 
 fpeech ; for the voice did not rife exactly 
 to a fifth on the acute accent, but near to 
 to it, (wV tyys"*), fo as fometimes to- be a- 
 bove it, and fometimes below it ; and in 
 falling to the grave, they did not pitch 
 exactly upon the fourth, third, or any 
 particular note below it. And this muft 
 neceffarily have happened, as the voices of 
 the fpeakers were of greater or lefs com- 
 pafs, or their ear more or lefs juft. 
 
 But there is another difference betwixt 
 the melody of fpeech and of mufic, ob- 
 ferved by Arifloxenus *,. an d other antient 
 writers upon mufic, That the melody of 
 Ipeech is <iwi^, or continued, while mufi- 
 cal melody is Ww^aT/xof, or diftinguimed 
 by intervals ; by which is meant, that in 
 fpeech the notes fucceed one another fo 
 quickly, that the intervals can hardly be 
 perceived ; whereas the intervals in mufic 
 are eafily diftinguifhable, the different 
 
 * Arijioxen. Harmonics > pag. 9. in the Colle&ion of 
 Meibomius. See alfo Gauaentius, another writer on 
 mufic, contained in the fame collection. His words are, 
 
 *Oi flit fv rji Xsyixil, xa8' Sv \XiJxojf 
 TOI( TV Toro> TWTOV iitZtnai, pvr
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 287 
 
 notes being more exactly marked, and the Ch. 4. 
 voice refting longer upon them. And 
 therefore, fays our author, the language 
 of paflion is more mufical than common 
 fpeech ; becaufe, when we are affected by 
 paflion, we generally dwell longer upon 
 the fame note. 
 
 It appears therefore to be exactly juft, 
 what the Halicarnaflian fays, that the me- 
 lody of fpeech differs from mufical modu- 
 lation only in degree, not in kind *. 
 
 The 
 
 * The account I have here given of the antient mufic, 
 is taken from the authors in the collection of Meibomius. 
 As we are upon the fubject of analyfing language, it 
 may not be improper to obferve how wonderful the dif- 
 covery was of this analyfis of mufical founds, and of the 
 application of numbers to meafure the tones of a voice or 
 inftrument. I think it a greater difcovery than even 
 that of the analyfis of fpeech into its elemental founds j 
 becaufe there was there no application of numbers ; and 
 befides, that analyfis itfelf appears to me more eafy and 
 obvious. The difcovery is afcribed to Pythagoras, by 
 thofe writers upon mufic, and the authors of his life, 
 who tell a blundering ftory about his making experi- 
 ments with a tiring, ftretched by different weights. And 
 it is faid, he difcovered that the tones were in the ratio 
 of the weights, cxteris paribus ; whereas the fact is, 
 that they are as the fquare-roots of the weights. But 
 the cuftom of Pythagoras's fcholars was, to afcribe to him 
 as difcoverer every thing he taught them. And we 
 $nay as well fuppofe that his geometry, theology, and 
 
 every
 
 288 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 4. The chief objection that I believe many 
 ^^^ people have to this account of the accents, 
 
 is 
 
 every other fcience, taught in the fchool, was of his in- 
 vention. The truth therefore, I believe, is, that he 
 brought this fcience of mufic with him from Egypt, a- 
 long with other fciences, (for that he was the firft who 
 taught it to the Greeks, and gave them the ufe and 
 knowledge of the odlave, which they had not before, I 
 have not the leaft doubt). Nor do I think fuch a difco- 
 very could have been made, except in a country fuch as 
 Egypt, where there was a clafs of men fet apart for the 
 ftudy of the fciences. And befides this advantage, a 
 nation muft have lafted a long time, and advanced far 
 in other fciences, before they could have made fuch a 
 difcovery. Further, we know very well that mufic was 
 very much praclifed, not only in their religious ceremo- 
 nies ; but, as Plato informs us, it was made a part of 
 the education of their 1 youth, and regulated by law. 
 And 'he fpeaks of pieces of mufic of their goddefs InV 
 many thoufand years old, but which were ftill preferved 
 in his time. See Plato dt Legibui, lib. 2. p. 789. and 790. 
 edit. Ficini, Now I cannot conceive how they could 
 have been preferved for fo great a number of years, 
 with that religious exaftnefs which Plato fuppofes, un 
 lefs they were noted, or fome way or other put in wri- 
 ting. And if they had a notation of mufic, as well as- 
 of fpeech, it is evident that they muft have made the 
 analyfis of the one as well as of the other. 
 
 The antient art of mufic appears to me to be lefs 
 known to the moderns, than any other antient art ; and 
 accordingly they have fallen into great miftakes concern-- 
 ing it. I will venture to fay, that we have not even an 
 idea of their excellence in that art, becaufe we know no- 
 thing of two kinds of their mufic which were the moft 
 
 excellent :
 
 Book II. PROGRESS of LANGUAGE. 28 
 
 is the impracticability of them. For how, Ch. 
 will they fay, is it poiSble that the voice u "" 
 
 ihould 
 
 excellent : for we know nothing but the diatonic mnfic, 
 which they knew alfo ; but it was among them the mufic 
 only of the vulgar ; whereas the other two kinds, viz. the 
 chromatic and enharmonic, were the mufic of the learned, 
 and the connouTeurs. Now the mufic of thefe two kinds, 
 proceeded by intervals fo fmall, as a third or fourth part 
 of a tone, of which we have no practice, nor hardly ani 
 idea, except what we may get from an ^Eolus harp, or 
 the mufic of the birds. And the later antient writers 
 upon mufic tell us, that thofe two kinds of mufic were 
 much difufed in their time, and that hardly any bod/ 
 could be found that was able to praflife them. And 
 Plutarch, in his treatife of Mufic, fays, that even as 
 early as his tim6, the enharmonic, which was the mufic 
 tnoft efteemed and pracYifed of old, was quite neglefted ; 
 the intervals of it not underftood ; and they even went 
 fo far as to deny that the diviiion of the femitone, which 
 they called ttttrif, was perceptible by the fenfe, edit. Fro- 
 6en, p. 558. And there is a fragment preferred of Lon- 
 ginus, where, fpeaking of mufic, he applies to it this 
 v^rfe of Homer, KXror ow axvD^iy, WE n 'Sfar: " We only 
 " hear the fame of it, but know nothing of it." 
 
 Further, there are perfons among us fo ignorant, as to' 
 doubt, and even to deny, that the antients knew and prac- 
 tifed mufic in parts. The contrary of this may be proved 
 by many paflages in antient authors. I will mention only 
 two or three that I think have not been taken notice of. 
 The firft is from the Sophifta of Plato, fag. 177. edit. Fie. 
 where, fpeaking of letters, lie fays, fome of them join to- 
 gether to make fyllables, and fome of them do not. 
 Then he aiks, to what art it belongs to know what will 
 join or will not join with what ? The anfwer is, to 
 the grammatical art. Then follows, T ft /> rfc TO* S- 
 
 VOL. II. O o
 
 290 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 4. fliould ftart at once up to a fifth, from 
 one fyllable of a word to another, and of- 
 
 ten 
 
 3;4>v xau Gttfun ftoyyvt ; if 5x Jrf ; a /itv TKJ 
 
 x.a.1 fiM rt^vKi 'xuv yiyvaa-xwr, /4<mof' <?l /toi ffv\/tn{, a/u.wrof. The 
 
 meaning of which is, that as the grammarian knows what 
 articulate founds will mix together, and what will not ; 
 fo the mufician knows what notes of mufic will mix to- 
 gether, and what not. Now this mixture of founds, like 
 that of letters in a fyllable, can be nothing elfe but what 
 we call harmony. The next paflage I fliall mention is from 
 Plutarch, in his ^u^efttonesPla tonic*, where he very particu- 
 lary defcribes the way in which the acute and grave founds 
 mix together, and the effeft which that mixture produces. 
 
 The Words are, 'Oj-uf ^u yap o ra.^yt ytitTcti, Cocpv; fi o Cpet- 
 
 fa.iiop.iioi( x.ai cntoijryoi&tvoif 01 CpocSnf ixid\aeiv a 
 
 avT(Jv, Si ofioioxa&iutv, nfomv ry axoji rpfir^f, wv rup.$ana.v xa\3o-<. 
 
 Here we have harmony, or fymphony, as Plutarch 
 calls it, and the effe&i of it upon the ear, very well de- 
 fcribed. For, if J am not much miftaken, it will be 
 found by experience, that the acute ftrikes the ear firft 
 with a quick impulfe, and that we do not perceive the 
 mixture of the grave, till the acute begins to die away. 
 The third paflage I fliall mention, is from Longinus, 
 De Sublimitate, fed. 28. where, fpeaking of the figure 
 called peripbrafis, he fays, it is, with refpeft to the pro- 
 per expreffion, what the accompaniment in mufic is to 
 the melody or air, as it is commonly called. The words 
 
 are, Jf yap <v /twin* iia. rai xapapavav xxXw/u'vav o xvpia; pQoyytf 
 xfioi a7TOTi\aTcct, uruf M Triplfpxfftf woXXaxjf ffvfif&yyiTcit rn xu- 
 ftotoylz, xai f xctr^cv IxnroKv <ri;vi^. Here WC have 3. COn- 
 
 cert defcribed as exactly as is poffible. The xw/><of ^oyy f 
 is the proper expreffion for the air or melody, which is or 
 ought to be predominant through the whole piece ; and 
 if one were to tranflate into Greek accompaniment, one. 
 
 could
 
 Bookll. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 291 
 
 ten upon the fame fyllable, and then be Ch. 4. 
 let down again as many degrees, and as ^^^^ 
 
 fuddenly ? 
 
 could not find a more proper word to exprefs it than 
 xetpwf*' And it may be obferved, that in order to make 
 out the fimile, and apply the cafe of the periphrafe to 
 the concert, he ufes the word troves, which precifely 
 denotes confonance. The laft authority I mall mention, 
 is from the above-mentioned treatife of Plutarch, con- 
 cerning Mufic, where he gives the reafon why the fmalf 
 intervals of the enharmonic were not pra&ifed in his 
 time, namely, becaufe they could, not make a harmony 
 which fuited them, pag. 558. edit. Froben. When we 
 join thefe authorities to thofe commonly quoted from A- 
 riftotle, De mundo, and Seneca, it makes the matter, in my 
 apprehenfion, abfolutely clear ; and indeed the very de- 
 finition they give of confonance, or fymphony, as they 
 call it, decides at once the queftion, a-v^w* Si In, fays 
 Julian the Platonic, quoted by Ifaac Vofllus, in his trea- 
 tife, De viribus rybtbmi> Swn yxflovav q&vyyuv ofynrt xai - 
 fvrttrt fiafipovruv xar TO avro xrutrtf KKI xpao-jj : than which the 
 
 Greek language affords no words clearer to exprefs whac 
 we call harmony, and to diftinguifli it from melody, or 
 mufic by fucceffion. To all thefe authorities may be 
 added what our late travellers into the South fca tell us, 
 of the mufic of the New Zealanders in their concerts, 
 which they fay, to the beft of their judgement, was in 
 parts. This is a fa<5l in which our travellers, though not 
 learned in mufic, could hardly be miftaken. And if 
 thofe barbarians have fuch mufic, how can we fuppofe 
 that the Greeks and Romans had it not ? 
 
 Let us not therefore believe, that the antients were fo 
 ignorant of this fine art, as to know only mufic in fuccef- 
 fion, not in confonance. I believe, indeed, their har- 
 mony was not fo complicated as ours, in which the air 
 or melody is often loft ; but was more fimple, fo that not 
 O o 2 only
 
 2,92 THE ORIGIN ANP Part II. 
 
 Qh. 4. fuddenly ? But a very ordinary finger 
 finds no difficulty in this ; and I am per- 
 fuaded that any man who has the lead ear 
 or voice for mufic, could, by cuftom from 
 his earlieft youth, be brought to do it 
 with the greatefl eafe even in common 
 fpeech. Becaufe therefore we have not a 
 mufical language, we ought not to con- 
 clude that the Greeks or Romans had none 
 fuch. The Chineie, at this day, we are 
 
 Only the air was preferved, but the words fung to it 
 were diftin&Iy heard. No body can doubt but that this 
 was the cafe of the fongs of the chorus in tragedy. And 
 I am perfuaded, that when Horace's odes were fung both 
 to lyre and pipe, which he tells us was done, Epvd. 9. 
 the poetry was not for that loft. So that in the mufical 
 compofitions of the antients, there was joined together 
 the force of melody, harmony, and poetry ; and the 
 tnore antient the mufic was among them, the more fimple 
 it was. This Horace tells us of the mufic of the theatre : 
 
 7'i.bia, non ut nunc t or'fchalco juncia tttbxque 
 jJLmu/a ; fed tennis fimpiexque foramine pa.ii.co 
 silpirare et ade/e choris erat utilis, atque 
 I\ondum fpija nimis complete fedilia fiatu. 
 
 Art Pc'et. 
 
 And Plutarch, in his treatife of Mufic, gives this fimpli- 
 city as the characteriftic of the antient mufic. His words 
 
 are, Tin yap cxiyo^o^wav K< ri KjrAoTiiTa, x< rriv trtftvonTtt r 
 (tticrirJ!; sravrtAaf ap^a'txtiv etvai oT/f:CC;xi. Ofttljcula JrJora/ia t 
 
 fag. 551. edit. Frobenii. Where we may obferve the word 
 Myoxepeta, which, as I underftand it, denotes a fimple 
 harmony, or fmail accompaniment. 
 
 afTured,
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 293 
 
 aflured, have a language of that kind ; for Ch. 4. 
 they give different tones to their mono- 
 fyllables, of which their language entirely 
 confifts, and by this difference of tone, 
 they make the fame word to fignify nine 
 or ten different things. So that it woald 
 appear they have a greater variety of ac- 
 cents than even the Greeks, infomuch 
 that ftrangers among them think they are 
 finging rather than fpeaking. 
 
 Another objection is, That it is impof- 
 fible to reconcile this accent with quantity, 
 unlefs we were to lay the acute accent on- 
 ly on long fyllables. And accordingly I- 
 faac Voflius, in his treatife above quoted, 
 De viribus rhythmi^ maintains, that it is an 
 error to lay it any where elfe, and that in 
 this refped: the accentuation of our Greek 
 books is "altogether wrong. But it is he 
 that is in an error, not the books, and a 
 very mameful error for a learned man, 
 proceeding from his not diftinguiming ac- 
 cent and quantity : for in the fequel of 
 the pafTage above quoted from die Hali- 
 carnaflian, fpeaking of the violence which 
 the muficians of his time offered to the 
 profody of the language, he gives an in- 
 ftance from a chorus in the Oreftes of 
 
 Euripides,
 
 294 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 4. Euripides, where, in the word cVoTfoCare, 
 '~*^ J inftead of giving the acute tone to the 
 fyllable vpo, (which undoubtedly is a fhort 
 fy liable), the mufician who fet it to mufic, 
 or fecit modos^ according to the Latin ex- 
 premon, brought it down to the fourth 
 fyllable of the word, fciz. -a- ; and this, 
 by the way, is of itfelf evidence, if Dio- 
 nyiius had faid no more, that the accent 
 was a real tone of mufic. And befides, 
 Voffius ought to have known, that in a 
 Latin difTyllable there would, according 
 to his rule, have been no acute accent at 
 all, if the firfl fyllable was fhort, becaufe 
 the Latins never acuted the laft fyllable. 
 Now it is an invariable rule of accenting, 
 that there is an acute accent fomewhere 
 upon every word, unlefs it be an enclitic, 
 or ufed as an enclitic. 
 
 It is therefore moft certain, that a fhort 
 fyllable will bear an acute accent, as well 
 as a long ; and the facl: truly is, that the 
 acute note, by its quick movement, as a- 
 bove explained, tends rather to fhorten 
 than lengthen the fyllable. And accord- 
 ingly, in fome Latin words, when the fyl- 
 lable would be otherwife long by pofition, 
 it is mortened by being acuted, as in 6p-
 
 Bookll. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 295 
 
 time, servitus, pervelim, Pdmphilus^ where Ch. 4. 
 the antepenult fyllables being acuted, are ^^^ 
 thereby Shortened where they would other- 
 wife be long *. It is indeed true, that 
 according to our method of pronunciation, 
 (of which I {hall fay more afterwards), it 
 is very difficult, if not impoflible, for us to 
 acute a fyllable, without making it appear 
 long to our ears ; but we ought not from 
 thence to infer, that it was impomble for 
 the Greeks or Romans to do fo. I am 
 informed by a perfon whom I can be- 
 lieve f, that the learned among the Greeks 
 do, at this day, in their pronunciation, 
 make the diftinclion betwixt accent and 
 quantity. It is certain that they both 
 fpeak and write the antient language ; and 
 it is not at all improbable that they may 
 have likewife preferved the pronunciation 
 of it, with the amflance of thofe accentual 
 marks, which furely are not of modern 
 
 * This is an obfervation of Bifhop Hare, quoted by 
 Mr Fofter in his eft-ay, pag. 279. where there are other 
 quotations upon the fubjedt worth reading. 
 
 j- Dr Turnbull, who was long in the Eaft, and much 
 among the Greeks, having married a Greek woman, 
 and is a man of learning, as well as worth. He is now 
 in Florida, with the colony of Greeks that he carried 
 thither. 
 
 invention
 
 296 THE ORIGIN AND Part II, 
 
 Ch. 4. invention *. And Sir John Cheke, who 
 lived in the time of Henry VIII. fays, iii 
 one of his letters f, that he, and fome of 
 his learned friends, fpoke the Greek ac- 
 cording to the antient pronunciation, and 
 particularly according to the antient pro- 
 fody, obferving both accent and quantity. 
 I have only further to add, concerning 
 the Gfeek accents, that as there is nothing 
 in that language without art, that cart 
 be fubjedled ta the rules of art,, not even 
 
 * They are faid to have been invented by a famons 
 grammarian, Ariftophanes of Byzantium, keeper of the 
 Alexandrian library under Ptolomy Philopater and Epi- 
 phanes, the firft likewife, as it is fuppofed, that practi- 
 fed punctuation. Accentual marks, however, did not 
 become of common ufe till about the feventh century, 
 when we find them in manufcripts. It was certainly a 
 ufeful invention for preferving the genuine pronuncia- 
 tion of the Greek language ; I cannot however beftow 
 fuch an elogium upon the author of it as Mr Fofter does, 
 who fays, that pofterity has been more benefited by his 
 difcovery, than by the writings of any one profane au- 
 thor of antiquity, pag. 191. It does not appear that the 
 marking of the accents was ever tnuch practifed among 
 the Romans. Mr Fofter fays, he never faw but one 
 Latin book that had the accents marked throughout, and 
 that was Grammatics quadrilinguis partitions*, by Johan- 
 nes Drofaus. Paris. 1544. I have feen another, viz. a 
 Virgil in the pofleffion of the Earl of Hopetounj but I 
 have forgot where or when it was printed. 
 
 f Epijlol. ad Epifcop. Vinton.?. 284. 
 
 the
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 297 
 
 the choice of their primitive words, ac- Ch. 4. 
 cording to my hypothecs ; fo there are fix- ^^^^ 
 ed rules for the accents, which are to be 
 found in the Greek grammars, particular- 
 ly in that of Theodoras Gaza, who treats 
 it as a material part of the language, and 
 not as a thing of no ufe, according to the 
 opinion of fome among us. I have al- 
 ready obferved a great difference betwixt 
 the Greek and Latin, in the matter of ac- 
 centing ; the Latins never putting an acute 
 accent upon the laft fyllable, which the 
 Greeks frequently did ; fo that the Ro- 
 mans were all ^VTG^I, which gave to their 
 difcourfe, and to themfelves, the appear- 
 ance of great gravity, and even of haugh- 
 tinefs and aufterity *. But at the fame 
 time it gave an uniformity and fimilarity 
 to their accentuation, which made their 
 language much lefs fweet and pleafa-nt to 
 the ear ; and therefore, fays Quinclilian, 
 who makes this obfervation, when our 
 poets would make fweet- flowing verfe, 
 
 * Olymplodorus in drrftot. ^Tiopa, pag. 27. The paf- 
 fage is quoted by Fofter in his Effay, fag. 290. ; and 
 likewife another to the fame purpofe, from Gregory 
 Thaumaturgus, In laudations Origenti. 
 
 VOL. II. P p they
 
 298 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 4. they adorn it with Greek names *, fuch 
 '~*~* J was the effect in the judgement of Quinc- 
 tilian of thofe accents, which modern cri- 
 tics condemn as corruptions of the lan- 
 guage. 
 
 As to accents in Englifh, Mr Fofter, 
 from a partiality, very excufable, to his 
 country, and its language, would fain 
 perfuade us, that in Englifh there are ac- 
 cents fuch as in Greek and Latin. But 
 to me it is evident that there are none fuch ; 
 by which I mean that we have no accents 
 upon fyllables, which are mufical tones, 
 differing in acutenefs or gravity. For 
 though, no doubt, there are changes of 
 voice in our fpeaking from acute to grave, 
 and vice verfa^ of which a mufician could 
 mark the intervals, thefe changes are not 
 upon fyllables, but upon words or feiiten- 
 ces. And they are the tones of paflion or 
 fentrment, which, as I obferved, are to be 
 diftinguimed from the accents we are 
 fpeaking of. Nor mould we confound 
 with them either the general tone, which 
 belongs to every language, or the particu- 
 lar provincial tone of the feveral dialects of 
 
 * Lib. 2. cap. 10. See what Foflcr fays further upon 
 this fubjea, pag. 286. 
 
 the
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 299 
 
 the fame language. And there is. an- Ch. 4, 
 other difference -betwixt our accents and 
 the antient, that ours neither are, nor 
 can, by their nature, be fubjecled to 
 any rule ; whereas the antient, as we 
 have feen, are governed by rules, and make 
 part of their grammatical art. 
 
 But what do we mean then when we 
 fpeak fo much of accent in Engliih, and 
 difpute whether a word is right or wrong 
 accented ? My anfwer is, That we have, no 
 doubt, accents in Englifh, and fyllabical 
 accents too : but they are of a quite diffe- 
 rent kind from the antient accents ; for 
 there is no change of the tone in them ; 
 but the voice is only raifed more, fo as to 
 be louder upon one fyllable than another. 
 Our accents therefore fall under the firft 
 member of the divifion of found, which 
 I made in the beginning of this chapter, 
 namely, the diftinc"lion of louder, and foft- 
 er, or lower. 
 
 That there is truly no other difference, 
 is a matter of fa 61, that mufl be determined 
 by muficians. Now I appeal to them, whe- 
 ther they can perceive any difference of 
 tone betwixt the accented and unaccented 
 P p 2 fyllables
 
 300 *THE ORIGIN AND Part II* 
 
 Ch k 4. fyllables of any word ; and if there be 
 < ^* y ~^' none, then is the muiic of our language 
 in this refpec"l nothing better than the 
 mufic of a drum, in which we perceive 
 no difference except that of louder or fofter, 
 according as the inflrument is more or lefs 
 forcibly flruck. 
 
 This fort of accent is, if I am not much 
 miftaken, a peculiarity which diftinguimes 
 our language from other languages of Eu- 
 rope, particularly the French, which has 
 no fuch accents, at lead none fo flrong- 
 ly marked ; and a Britifh man, fpeaking 
 French, if he is not a perfect mailer of the 
 language, difcovers his country as much by 
 the emphans he lays upon particular fyl- 
 lables, as by any other mark. And I 
 am inclined to believe, that in the Latin, 
 from which the French language is for 
 the greater part derived, and likewife in 
 the Greek, there was little or no accent 
 fuch as ours ; one thing at lead is certain, 
 that no antient grammarian fpeaks a word 
 of it. 
 
 Of what ufe this accent is in our poetry, 
 and that it is by it, and not by quan- 
 tity, that our verfe is made, I {hall have 
 occafion afterwards to mew. 
 
 CHAP.
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 301 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 Of rhythm in general, and the divifion of 
 it into the rhythm of motion 'without found, 
 and the rhythm of found. Subdivifion of 
 the rhythm of found into five different fpe- 
 ciefes. Of that fpecies of it 'which is call- 
 ed quantity or metre. Verfe in Englijh 
 not made by quantity , but by ivhat f we call 
 accent. 
 
 I Come now to' analyfe the third and laft Ch. 5. 
 thing I propofed to confider belonging 
 to the found of language, namely quantity. 
 And, in treating of this, we mufl come 
 back again to the general idea of motion, 
 according to the antient method of treat- 
 ing matters of fcience, which was, to a- 
 fcend to what is mod general of the kind, 
 and from thence to delcend, marking the 
 feveral fubordinate fpeciefes. And in this 
 way the whole nature of the thing was 
 explained in its utmoft extent. In the 
 preceding chapter, we have confidered the 
 effects of quicker or flower motion in the 
 
 fame
 
 302 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 5. fame time, the firfl producing what is 
 called acute in found, the other what is 
 grave. We are now to confider the du- 
 ration of motion, or its difcontinuance, 
 and the effects which thefe produce. 
 
 Hitherto we have only confidered mo- 
 tion as accompanied with found ; but in 
 order to inveftigate thoroughly the fubjecT: 
 we are now upon, we muft confider it in 
 general, with or without found. In this 
 way confidered, if the mind perceives any 
 relation or analogy betwixt different mo- 
 tions, or parts of the fame motion, in 
 point of length or duration, then we have 
 the idea of what is called ryhthm. In this 
 moft general fenfe of the word, rhythm is 
 faid, by an antient writer upon mufic *, 
 to be perceived by three fenfes ; namely, 
 the fight, as in dancing ; the hearing, as 
 in mufic ; and the feeling, as in the beat- 
 ing of the pulfe. In all fuch motions, 
 perceived by one or other of thofe fenfes, 
 if the mind difcover any relation or ana- 
 logy, there is rhythm. The laft fpecies of 
 rhythm mentioned by this author, which 
 falls under the fenfe of touch, does not, 
 fo far as I know, make the fubject of any 
 
 * Ariftides in Mufic. lib. i. /. 31. Meibom. 
 
 art
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 303 
 
 art or fcience. What we are to fay of Ch. 5. 
 rhythm therefore will be confined to the 
 other two. 
 
 When in any motion falling under the 
 fenfe of fight, the mind perceives any re- 
 lation of parts, the antients called this by 
 the general term of rhythm, as belonging 
 to motion in general, or they called it /5^9- 
 (jiK r|//xof, as being without found ; and if it 
 was accompanied with movements or at- 
 titudes of the body, it was called '^^ v^- 
 fMLTfypiroe *. And this was the rhythm of 
 dancing, an art of great eftimation among 
 the antients, being among them an art of 
 
 * See Ariftotle in the beginning of his Poetics, where 
 he tells us, that the imitative arts, of which he there 
 fpeaks, viz. epic poetry, tragedy, comedy, the dithy- 
 rambic art, and the mufic of the flute and the harp, do 
 all imitate by rhythm, by words, and by harmony; and 
 thefe either afunder, or mixed together. 'AVXO-O.I /u.sv eJp.us- 
 
 vcci Tix\iat jroujvroti T'W /^.i/^ticrit Iv puSpa, x.a.1 \oya, x< apftovior rvrotf 
 
 ft, n %vpif, tuftryfttw: And a little after he fays, that 
 dancing imitates by rhythm only. 'AVT? Si TO pvBpp ^i^w- 
 TO.I, xjupif Kpftovia;, 01 TW ofjptTav ^perhaps faiSn; has fallen 
 
 OUt Or the M.O.J. Kcti ydp VTOI flu rav tr^jiuxTilo/^ivav pvQftxv 
 
 /Lci/itfyraj xaJ 6w, K! ra8, y.ai */>a|f. This was the pantomime 
 art, which, as I have obferved elfewhere, was brought 
 to fuch perfection in the days of Auguftus Cstfar, that 
 not only the things mentioned by Ariftotle, viz. man- 
 ners, paffions, and actions, but fentiments of every kind, 
 ^nd whole theatrical pieces, were reprefented by it. See 
 vol. \.pag. 309. 
 
 imitation,
 
 304 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 5. imitation, by which they reprefented cha- 
 racters, manners, and fentiments *. And 
 this may fuffice at prefent with refpect to 
 the rhythm of morion 'without found, as it 
 is the rhythm of motion 'with found that 
 is the fubjecl: of our prefent inquiry. 
 
 This rhythm is of two kinds ; for it is 
 either of founds not articulated, which 
 may be called nnifical rhythm^ or it is of 
 founds articulated, and that is the rhythm 
 of language. But before I come to fpeak 
 of either more particularly, it will be pro- 
 per to premife fome things concerning 
 
 * This rhythm of the movements of the body was 
 meafured by numbers, as much as the notes of mufic, as 
 appears from a paflage of Plato in the Pkilebus, p. 374. 
 edit, Ficini ; where, fpeaking of grave and acute founds in 
 nmfic, and their intervals, and the fyftems that are made of 
 thefe intervals, he adds, "A xariJWt? St xpcc-hv vxpiSo-rav *iv 
 
 roiV Ixofttvoif lx.enoi; xaAav aura 'APMONIA2. 'E rt rx7f WHO-HTIV 
 tu T <ru(itaraf Input. Toictvrct t'vovra ira^it yiyvyfjt.tvxy a. in Si 'API0- 
 MflN ^6fTp6!yTa, Six* aura tpoKTi f.vfiv; xa< MJrpa Tov^catJii. r TOm 
 
 this paflage it is evident, that they meaiured and marked 
 by numbers, the ratios, which the feveral movements of 
 the body had to one another in dancing, in the fame 
 manner as they meafured the ratios of the feveral notes 
 of mufic ; and I am perfuaded they had a notation for 
 the one, as well as for the other. This is an antient art 
 entirely loft ; and I believe it is not generally known that 
 it ever exifted, at leaft I have not met with any critic or 
 antiquarian that fpeaks of thofe movements of the body 
 being fo adjultcd and commenfurated to one another. 
 
 the
 
 feook II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 305 
 
 the rhythm of found in general, which, Ch. 5. 
 though it be eafily apprehended by the 
 fenfe, is of fome variety, and I think dif- 
 ficulty in the fpeculation ; nor do I know 
 any book, antient or modern, in which 
 it has been fully and fcientincally treated. 
 
 And firft, it is evident, that without 
 fome change of One kind or another in the 
 found, there could be no rhythm. For, 
 in one continued found of the fame tenor, 
 without interval, or diftinclion of parts, 
 the ear can perceive 1 no ratio or proportion, 
 and therefore there is neither rhytmh nor 
 number *. In order therefore to know the 
 nature of rhythm, when applied to found, 
 we muft confider the feveral changes and 
 modifications which found admits. 
 
 The nrfi and mod feiifible variation, is 
 when the found ceafes altogether. This 
 change is well known by the name of a 
 paufe or flop, whether in muiic or in 
 fpeaking : and it admits of two variations ; 
 for it is different according to the length 
 
 * This is obferved by Cicero : Numeric autem In con- 
 tmuathne ntillus eft : dfiintfio. et ccqnalinm et fxpe vario- 
 rum intervaltorum pcrctiflio, numsrum conficit ; qusm in ca~ 
 dsntibnf guttii, qu'jd intervallii dtftinguuntur, not are poffumuSf 
 in awni prjcibilisr.li n&n pr.'Tumtt*. De Grat. lib. 2. can. 48. 
 
 * * * -v <J A I 
 
 VOL. II. O q or
 
 306 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 5, or fliortnefs of the paufes, or according to 
 the frequency of them. So that, belong- 
 ing to this modification of found, we have 
 two fpecies of rhythm, the one produced 
 by the various lengths of the intervals, 
 the other by the various diftances or inter- 
 mediate fpaces betwixt thofe intervals. 
 For if the mind perceives any ratio be- 
 twixt the lengths of the intervals them- 
 felves, or of the diftances betwixt them, 
 then it has the idea of rhythm ;, and ac- 
 cordingly this is a great part of the 
 rhythm, or the mufic, as ic may be call- 
 ed, of a drum. And it belongs not only 
 to mufic and language, but to every kind 
 of noife in which the mind can obferve 
 and compare any intervals, as in the in- 
 ftance which Cicero gives, in the paiTage 
 above quoted, of the droppings of water. 
 
 Thefe are the rhythms produced by 
 ceflation of found ; and we are next to 
 confider thofe which arife from the changes 
 of found, without any ceflation or inter- 
 val, at leail fuch as makes a paufe, or is 
 diftinctly perceptible to the t ear. For in 
 every change, or different modification, of 
 the found, there is of neeeflity fome in- 
 terval. Thus, when a mufician, playing 
 
 upon
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 307 
 
 upon an inflrument, goes from one note to Ch. 5, 
 another, we are fure, from the change of 
 the operation of the hand, that there mud 
 be fome interval betwixt the two notes, 
 that is, betwixt the motion which produ- 
 ced the firil, and that which produces the 
 lafl. And as different configurations and 
 motions of the organs, are neceffary for the 
 enunciation of different fy llables, there muft, 
 for the fame reafbn, be neceflarily an in- 
 terval betwixt thofe fyllables. But as nei- 
 ther of thefe intervals is diftincT:ly percep- 
 tible to the ear, either in fpeaking, or play- 
 ing on an inflrument, they are accounted 
 for nothing in this argument ; and the 
 found of different notes of mufic joined 
 together without a paufe, and of fyllables 
 in fpeaking, and even of words, when 
 they are pronounced quickly, and without 
 any flop, is held to be continuous. 
 
 The queflion then is, What changes 
 continued found admits of, and what are 
 the rhythms thence arifing ? And there is 
 one obvious change which very flrongly 
 flrikes the fenfe, namely, that from louder 
 to fofter, or vice versa. This proceeds 
 from a flronger or weaker percuflion of 
 the fonorous body, which produces greater 
 Qq 2 vibrations.
 
 o8 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 !/ 
 
 Ch. .{. vibrations of the body, and confequently 
 X ~ V ~ N - J of the air. By greater vibrations, I mean 
 thofe which occupy greater fpace in their 
 courfes and recourfes. That there is a 
 rhythm of this kind, is evident from the 
 cafe of the drum, which, befides the two 
 rhythms of intervals above mentioned, 
 has alfo this third rhythm, arifing from 
 the mixture -of loud and foft, and thefe 
 three together make its whole mufic ; for 
 jt has neither variation pf tone nor length 
 pf found. 
 
 There is a modification of found fome- 
 
 thing akin to this laft mentioned, bu 
 
 carefully to be tliftinguimed from it, 
 
 which arifes from the different number of 
 
 vibrations in the fame time produced by 
 
 one percumon, according to which the 
 
 . found is graver or acuter. This modifica- 
 
 I have already treated qf, under the article 
 
 pf accent or projbdy, by which name it 
 
 was known ainong the antients, and by 
 
 th^m carefully diflinguimed from rhythm, 
 
 ^s a fpecies of thing altogether different, 
 
 though they havp been confounded by 
 
 modern writers. 
 
 The next variety in continued found 
 
 I fliail obferve, is that of quick and flow. 
 
 . .... ..... . f . . , j. 
 
 For
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 309 
 
 For as motion, which produces found, is Ch. $ 
 quicker or flower in the fame time, fo alfo 
 is found ; and this variety of found, ari- 
 fes from the percuflion, which, as I have 
 faid, produces it ; for as the percuflion is 
 more or lefs frequent in the fame time, the 
 found is quicker or flower. And this is e- 
 vident to the fenfe : for if we make but one 
 percuflion upon the fonorous body, the 
 found dies away flowly ; or if we repeat 
 the percuflions, but at intervals of fome 
 length, the found continues, but is flill 
 flow ; whereas, if we repeat them fail, it 
 is both continued and quick. And here 
 too we mufl likewife carefully diflinguifh 
 betwixt the acutenefs or gravity of the 
 found, and the quicknefs or flownefs of it : 
 for though in both cafes there be more 
 motion in the fame time, it is the quicker 
 and more frequent vibrations of the body 
 Jlruck y that make the note acute ; where- 
 as, in the other cafe, it is the more fre- 
 quent motion of the body Jinking, that 
 makes the found quicker, without altering 
 the tone of the fonorous body, whofe vibra- 
 tions continue flill to be of the fame num- 
 ber in the fame time. And if the percuflion 
 is not flronger, they continue to occupy 
 
 the
 
 310 THE ORIGIN AND Tart II. 
 
 Ch. 5. the fame fpace in their courfes and recour- 
 ^^^^ fes. And the only effect of the repeated 
 percuffion in that cafe, is to prevent them 
 from growing lower ^as the found decays. 
 And hence proceeds a fourth fpecies of 
 rhythm. For, if the mind perceives any 
 analogy betwixt the founds in point of 
 quicknefs and flownefs ; if, for example, 
 it perceives the one found to be equally 
 quick with the other, or twice as quick, 
 it has the idea of this kind of rhythm. 
 
 But the variety of nature does not ftop 
 even here ; for there is one variety yet to 
 be obferved in continued found, and 
 which brings us directly to our fubject. 
 It is the variety of long and fhort ; for as 
 the fame motion may be continued a mort- 
 er or longer time, fo may the fame found. 
 And that found which continues any 
 length of time, we call a long found, 
 and that which continues a Ihort time, we 
 call a Jhort found. And as this quality of 
 found depends entirely upon the time of 
 its duration, it is commonly known by 
 the name of time. 
 
 For explaining this quality of found, 
 and diflinguiming it from the quality a-r 
 ]bove mentioned of quick or flow, it is ne- 
 eefiary to obferve, that when found is 
 
 produced
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 311 
 
 produced by repeated percuflions, which Ch. 
 as they are more or lefs frequent, make it w ~ yrN 
 quicker or flower, it is not altogether con- 
 tinuous, as we have hitherto coniidered it, 
 nor one found, but feveral founds, in which 
 the ear, when attentive, perceives fome 
 diflinclion, though not fufEcient to make 
 what we call a paufe^ or interval. For 
 when the mufician repeats the fame note 
 by different percuflions, and more flill 
 when he changes the note, the ear per- 
 ceives that the founds are diflincl, and 
 not one and the fame. What is it then 
 that makes this famenefs or unity of found 
 to which the quality of long or fliort be- 
 longs ? And I fay it is continued motion 
 producing the found, not repeated percuf- 
 fions, as in the cafe of quick or flow found. 
 As, for example, when the fiddler, inflead 
 of repeating the percuflion of the firing 
 with the bow, (by which he only makes 
 the mufic either quicker or flower, as 
 the percuflion is more or lefs frequent- 
 ly repeated), draws the bow acrofs the 
 firing, with one continued and unin- 
 terrupted motion, flill keeping his finger 
 upon the firing in the fame poiition ; or if 
 the player upon .the flute continues the 
 
 fame
 
 312 THE ORIGIN AND Part It. 
 
 Ch. 5. fame infpiration of the breath, with die 
 ^~^ fame flops of die inftrument, then it is 
 one and the fame note, which is either 
 long or fhort, as the motion which pro- 
 duces it is continued longer or fhorter 
 time, without interruption or change. 
 
 That this is truly the nature of a long 
 note in mufic, is a fact well known to 
 muficians ; for every one of them will tell 
 you, that it is the continued motion of the 
 hand in ftringed inftruments, and the 
 continued infpiration of the breath in 
 wind inftruments, that makes a long note. 
 And when, by the nature of the inftru- 
 ment, there can be no continued found, 
 but only repeated percumons of the 
 firings, as in the cafe of the harpfichord, 
 the notes are all of the fame length, with- 
 out the diftinclion of long or ihort ; fo that 
 the only rhythm of this inftrument, 
 is the rhythm of intervals above ex- 
 plained, and of quick and flow. Nor has 
 it what is properly called time, but its' 
 whole mufic is a jingle of founds, differ- 
 ing in acutenefs and gravity, and diverfi- 
 fied by different paufes and flops, or diffe- 
 rent degrees of cjuicknefs or flownefs. 
 This is the nature of long and fhort in- 
 
 mufic
 
 Book II. PROGRESS of LANGUAGE. 313 
 
 mufic. And as to language, when we con- Gh. 5. 
 tinue the motion of the breath in the 
 pronunciation of a vowel for fhorter or 
 longer time, we make the vowel long or 
 fhort. When it is made long, it appears 
 to be doubled in the pronunciation. Thus 
 when we found a long, we found, as it were 
 aa ; and accordingly the antient La- 
 tins, as we mail fee afterwards, expreffed 
 the long vowel by doubling the character. 
 
 And this is the fifth and laft fpecies of 
 rhythm. For if the mind perceives any 
 ratio betwixt founds with refpedl to their 
 length or ihortnefs, then it has the idea of 
 this kind of rhythm, which in mufic is 
 commonly called time ; but in language 
 the antient authors call it by the name of 
 the genus, rhythm ; whereas, in modern 
 aiithors, it is commonly diftinguimed by 
 the name of quantity. 
 
 Thus I have endeavoured to explain the 
 different kinds of rhythm belonging to 
 found, which I have made to be five ; and 
 it does not appear that the nature of the 
 thing admits of any more. For all found 
 is produced by motion. Now all motion 
 is either interrupted by paufes or inter- 
 vals, or it is without fuch interruption. 
 
 VOL. II, R r If
 
 314 THE ORIGIN AND Part IT. 
 
 Ch. 5. If it be interrupted, either the intervals are 
 greater or lefs, or the diftances betwixt the 
 intervals are greater or lefs. And hence arife 
 the two firfl kinds of rhythm I mentioned, 
 belonging to the intervals of found. . A- 
 gain, if the motion be not interrupted, 
 then it is either more or lefs vehement ; 
 and hence arifes the third rhythm I men- 
 tioned, of loud or foft in found : or it 
 coniifts of parts, which the ear diftin- 
 guiihes ; and thence arifes the fourth fpe- 
 cies of rhythm, that of quick or flow, ac- 
 cording as the parts fucceed one another 
 qiv-ckly or flowly : or, laftly, the motion is 
 altogether continuous^ fo that the ear dif- 
 tinguifhes no parts in it, and then the 
 found is either long or fhort ; which makes 
 the fifth and lad fpecies of rhythm. All 
 kinds of rhythm therefore belong either to 
 the intervals of found, or to the found it- 
 felf confidered without intervals. Of the 
 firft kind are two fpeciefes of rhythm, of 
 
 the laft three *. 
 
 Of 
 
 * Suidas, in his Lexicon, tinder the word /Si/fl^f, after 
 fpeaking of the rhythm of mufic, has thefe words, 'o ^h 
 
 v rxi TM aXKuv pvlfiof XMTO. TO Gpa%v xec SpaSu ^xpax.Tnpt^trai. o 
 Si Iri r'i xpofofuxv \oyv, xaroi TO iu.ay.poy x/ Spa-^u, wnrtp poio; KO.I 
 
 (ilTfOt KtytTXf VX. l-Z-l Tifl roiBT/XttV <ff X6^4;y TCCUTX 0(OlprtTa(, a.Kt.0. 
 
 iuu ir TXV /xrof/xttv. Upon which paffage it may be ob- 
 
 ferved,
 
 Book IT. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 315 
 
 Of thefe feveral kinds of rhythm, the Ch. 5. 
 two firft, relating to paufes or flops, be- 
 long to language, as well as to mufic. They 
 are however no part of the grammatical 
 art, and therefore are not the fubjed: of our 
 prefent inquiry, but belong rather to an- 
 other art, namely rhetoric *. The third 
 kind, relating to loudnefs or foftnefs, muft 
 be, as I have already faid, by its nature, 
 as various as the different occafions of 
 fpeaking ; and therefore it is not, fo far as 
 
 ferved, imo, That there is no mention here at all of the 
 rhythm of intervals, for this realbn, no doubt, that the 
 rhythm of this fort was not reduced to any art. 2^, 
 With refpeft to the rhythm of found itfelf, there is, for 
 the-fame reafon, no mention of the rhythm of loud or 
 foft ; but the other two are mentioned, as being well 
 known in mufic, and comprehended in the art, viz. fhort 
 or long, and quick or flow, or, in the language of mo- 
 dern mufic, adagio and piano. But with refpeft to lan- 
 guage, or fpeech, he mentions only one of thefe two, viz. 
 long or fhort, which alone made what is called ^n-pon, or 
 metre. 
 
 * Under this head it is treated of by Cicero, lib. 3. 
 De Orators, cap. 44. where he lays, That flops in the 
 proper place belong to the art of fpeaking, and diftin- 
 guilh an orator from a vulgar juan. His words are, 
 Neque eft ex multis res ttna qnx magis oratorem ab itnpsrito 
 dicendi ignaroque diftinguat, quam quod tile rudis incondite 
 fundit quantum pot eft ; et id quod diclt fyiritu non arte deter- 
 minat : orator autem fie illigat fententiam verbii t ut earn nu- 
 miro quodam compleSatur et adftritfo et fo/uto. 
 
 Rr 2 I
 
 316 THE ORIGIN AND Part IT. 
 
 Ch. 5. I know, comprehended in any art. This 
 v ^ v ~ is alfo the cafe of the fourth kind, arifing 
 from different degrees of quicknefs or 
 flownefs, at lead fo far as concerns lan- 
 guage. So that it is only the laft kind, 
 relating to the length or duration of found, 
 which belongs to the grammatical art. 
 
 It is well known in mufic, as I have 
 faid, under the name of time. For as the 
 idea of time arifes from motion, fo by 
 time is motion of all kinds meafured, 
 and particularly the motion of mufic. I 
 {hall fay nothing further of this muiical 
 rhythm, except to obferve, that the an- 
 tients were very accurate in it, as in every 
 thing elfe ; for they meafured it by feet, 
 as they did the rhythm of their language, 
 and had dactyls and fpondees, and the 
 like, in their mufic, as well as in their 
 poetry *. 
 
 As to this rhythm in language, we have 
 the idea of it when we perceive any rela- 
 tion or analogy betwixt articulate founds 
 
 *.See the antient \vriters upon mufic, collected by 
 Meibomius. See alfo QjVinftilian, lib. i-cap.'io. where 
 he tells the ftory of Pythagoras, who allayed the violence 
 of a young man, by caufiog the mufician mutare tnoclos 
 in SPONB#v'M. 
 
 in
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 317 
 
 in point of length or duration. This defi- Ch. 5. 
 nition extends to all the founds of a Ian- 
 guage, words and fentences, as well as 
 fyllables : but the grammatical art confi- 
 ders it only in fyllables ; and then it is ex- 
 prefTed in Englifh, as I have already faid, 
 by the name of quantity *, which is the 
 proper fubjecl: of this chapter. It was 
 meafured among the antients by what 
 they called feet, which confided of fyl- 
 lables two or more ; and when the rhythm 
 was thus meafured, it took the name of 
 or metre. 
 
 * This property of the found of language, though it 
 
 be called in Englifh by the general name of quantity, is 
 
 only a part of the quantity of a language. Scaliger, in 
 
 his very learned work, De caujls ling, Lat. lib. 2. cap. 52. 
 
 makes it but a third part ; for, fays he, the voice in lan- 
 
 guage has three dimenfions, length, breadth, and height. 
 
 And Prifcian before him had faid, Vox, dum tangit audi- 
 
 tum, tripartite dividitur, fciz. altitudine, iatitudine, longitu- 
 
 dine. Habet quidem lit era altitudinem in pronunciations, la- 
 
 titudinetn in fpiritu, Icngititdinem in tempore. The fpirit, 
 
 which thefe authors call the breadth of the found, I have 
 
 already explained, under the head of articulation ; the 
 
 height too I have given an account of, under the article 
 
 of accent ; and I {hall only add here, that it is always 
 
 exprefled in Greek by the word T ao-/ f , though that be a 
 
 general name, which might apply to any of the three 
 
 dimenfions, and particularly to the length as well as to 
 
 the height. The length is the fubject we are now upon. 
 
 The
 
 318 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 5. The analyfis of this kind of rhythm is 
 into fyllables, which are either long or 
 fhort. And it was by the various combi- 
 nations of thefe, that the rhythm of their 
 language was formed, whether the loofer 
 rhythm of their profe, or the regular 
 rhythm of their verfe. But what at pre- 
 fent we are concerned with, is the nature 
 of their long and fhort fyllables, which 
 are the elements of this part of their lan- 
 guage. 
 
 And it is here, as in accents, or notes 
 of mufic, there is nothing abfolute, but 
 all is relative ; for there is not, nor cannot 
 be by nature, any fixed ftandard for the 
 length or fhortnefs of fyllables. All there- 
 fore that art can do, is to afcertain the ra- 
 tio that a long fyllable has to a fhort. And 
 this the grammarians have fixed to be as 
 two to one. And thus all fyllables in 
 Greek and Latin, compared together, are 
 either of equal length, or in the ratio of 
 two to one. It is not however exactly true, 
 that all fhort fyllables are of equal length, 
 or all long ; but fome fhort fyllables 
 are fhorter than others likewife fhort, 
 and fome long fyllables longer than o- 
 
 thers
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 319 
 
 thers *. But in the metrical art, this dif- Ch. 5. 
 ference is not attended to, and all the 
 fhort fyllables are held to be equal to one 
 another, and all the long f. 
 
 The next thing to be confidered is, What 
 makes a fyllable long or fhort ? And it is 
 either the vowel or the confonants which 
 follow after the vowel. If the Vowel be 
 long, the fyllable is neceflarily long, whe- 
 ther any confonants follow after the vowel 
 or not. If, on the other hand, the vowel 
 be mort, the' fyllable is fhort, unlefs two 
 or more confonants follow, either in the 
 fame fyllable, or in a fubfequent fyllable, 
 which neceflarily retard the pronunciation 
 fo much, as to make the fyllable long ; 
 but it is not fo long as if the vowel were 
 
 * This is obferved by the Halicarnaffian, in his excel- 
 lent treatife of Competition fo often quoted ; and he 
 exemplifies it with refpeft to the Ihort fyilables by the 
 words ofof, foSot, Tfoxof, s-pofos, where the firft fyllable is fhort 
 ia them all, though in the fecond it be longer than in. 
 the firft, in the third flill longer, and in the fourth long- 
 eft of all. And with refpecl to long fyllables, he fays, 
 there can be no doubt but that the vowel , with three 
 confonants before it, and one after it, as in the word a-****, 
 makes a longer fyllable than when it is fimply by itfelf. 
 fed. 15. 
 
 f "Ev &l TO~( //.irpixoif aJtvai <f or/ TTKO-X Cpa^ficc "<r, XOM itaa-x. 
 
 ttitY.p* Itrn. Lsfigin. lv x(oKryoft.rtoifj ad Hcf/haejlionis Enchel- 
 ridion. 
 
 long:
 
 320 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 5. long : and in fome cafes it is fhortened, as 
 when one of the two confonants following 
 is a liquid ; or though both be mute, it 
 fometimes happens, that if the acute ac- 
 cent is put upon it, the fyllable is fhort- 
 ened, as in the cafe of the word optime, 
 and fome others, which I obferved before. 
 And fo nice were the antients, that they 
 diftinguiihed by their pronunciation, whe- 
 ther the vowel in a fyllable, long by pofi- 
 tion, was of itfelf long or fhort *. 
 
 The only thing, therefore, in this ana- 
 lyfis that further remains to be confidered, 
 is, what it is that makes a vowel long or 
 Ihort. And I fay, a vowel is long two 
 ways ; either by continuing the impulfe 
 of the breath double the time that is fpent 
 in the pronunciation of a fhort vowel, and 
 fo enunciating the vowel in the manner it 
 was antiently written by the Latins f, as 
 
 I 
 
 * This obfervation I owe to Mr Fofter, who, in his 
 effay, p. 35- quotes a paffage from Gellius, where he 
 fays, in the word unttito, the firft vowel is pronounced 
 long ; whereas, in diftito, the^firft was pronounced Ihort, 
 though they are certainly both long by pofition. 
 
 f This was pracYifed, fays Quinftilian, lib. i. cap. 7. 
 down to the time of Accius, and even longer : Ufque ad 
 Accium et ultra porreflas fyllabas gcminis vocalibus fcrip- 
 
 ferunt*
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 32* 
 
 , i r ., ^ 
 
 I have already obferved, or by incorpora- Ch. 5; 
 
 ting it with another vowel, and making it s -' r>rv> 
 what is called a diphthong. If neither of 
 tihefe was done, it was a fhort vowel. 
 
 Such is the nature of the Greek and 
 Roman quantity; but I hold, that nei- 
 ther their quantity nor their accent, tho* 
 they make their languages mufical, and' 
 mofl pleafing to the ear, are eiTential to the 
 nature of language. It cannot be denied, 
 I think, to be poffible, that a language 
 mould be pronounced, without the fylla- 
 bles being diftinguimed by mufical tones. 
 And I have Ihewn, that this in facl: is the 
 cafe of the Englifh, and, for any thing I 
 know, of every other language in Europe; 
 I think it riiuft alfo be admitted to be pof- 
 iible at lead, that a language may be pro- 
 nounced fo as to make all the fyllables of 
 an equal length ; and the queflion is, How 
 this matter Hands with refpecl to the mo- 
 dern languages of Europe, and particu- 
 larly the Englifli ? 
 
 There arc fome learned men, fuch as Mr 
 Fofter, who would willingly afcribe to the 
 
 fsrunt. Thus, in place of emi, they wrote eetni ; in place 
 of ttlt, eedt ; in place of tibo, leibo ; in place of dico, delco ; 
 sn place of cogo, coago, &c. See Fofter, fag. 39. 
 
 VOL. II; 8 f Ensjliih
 
 3-22 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 5. Englifli lailguage every beauty to be found 
 in the antient Greek and Latin, and, a- 
 mong others, their quantity; and they 
 endeavour to make out, that our verfe runs 
 upon the fame kind of feet, and ahnoft as 
 many in number, as the Greek and Latin 
 verfe. On the contrary, a French au- 
 thor *, in a differtation publifhed in the 
 Memoirs of the Academy of Belles Lettres, 
 vol. 12. p. 91. concerning the comparative, 
 merit of the antients and moderns in point 
 of genius and learning, aflerts, that there 
 Is no quantity at all in modern languages, 
 and that their fyllables are neither long 
 nor fhort ; and that therefore the verfe, in 
 fuch languages, is only made by the num- 
 ber of fyllables, and the rhyme. Nei- 
 ther of thefe contending parties is, in my 
 apprehenfion, right ; but the truth, as it 
 often happens in fuch cafes, lies betwixt 
 them. 
 
 And, in the frft place, With refpecl: to 
 the Englifh, I think it cannot be denied, 
 that there are feveral fyllables in it which 
 are pronounced long : for we have diph- 
 thongs in our language, which, if they 
 are fully founded, are neceflarily long in all 
 
 * M. L'Abbs Gedoyn. 
 
 languages.
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 323 
 
 languages. Thus who can deny, that the Ch. 5. 
 diphthong oa is long in the word coat, and ^^^ 
 that the fimple vowel o is fhort in the 
 word cot) or cottage. The fame is true of 
 the diphthong oi and oy in the words oil, 
 boil, boy, and the diphthong ou and oiv in 
 the words hour, oivl, bo'wl, &c. We have 
 alfo fome iingle vowels that are pronoun- 
 ced fometimes like diphthongs, and make 
 the fy liable long. In this way the o is 
 frequently pronounced, as in the words 
 Holy, Ghojl, &c. where the o is founded 
 as if it were the diphthong oa. In like 
 manner, u is often founded as if it were 
 the diphthong eu ; and z as if it were 
 the diphthong ai ; and a too as if it were 
 the diphthong au. But I fay, firft, That 
 fuppofe all fuch fyllables were to be pro- 
 nounced fhort, as is generally done by 
 the common people in Scotland, it could 
 not be faid, that the language was eflen- 
 tially changed ; though, I own, the beauty 
 and variety of its pronunciation would be 
 greatly impaired. And for proof of this, 
 I think it cannot be denied, that the Eng- 
 lifh language fpoken in this way would be 
 underflood by an Englimman, and is ac- 
 tually underftood when fpoken fo by a 
 Scotch peafant, though perhaps he might 
 S f 2 be
 
 324 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 5. be at a lofs for fome words. Whereas, if 
 the Greek and Latin had been fo fpoken to 
 an antient Greek or Roman, I am perfaa-r 
 ded he would not have been able to make 
 fenfe of it. 
 
 But, 2dly^ I fay, That for one fyllable 
 in Engliih that is thus long, there are at 
 lead twenty that are, as the Frenchman 
 fays, neither long nor ihort ; that is, are 
 all equally either long or mort, as you 
 pleafe, without any perceptible difference 
 among them. For the vqwels among us, 
 unlefs where they are ufed as diphthongs, 
 have no fixed ftandard of quantity, nor are 
 diftinguifhed, as in Greek and Latin, into 
 long and mort ; neither are they made long 
 even by porhion, unlefs where there hap- 
 pens to be an accent upon the fyllable, as 
 in the word fub.altcrn ; where it is evident, 
 that the fyllable al ought to be long by 
 pofition : but, nevertheless, as it is not ac- 
 cented, it is clearly pronounced very mort. 
 And fuch is the vehemence of our accents, 
 that every fyllable which follows the accent- 
 ed, is not only ihort, but almoit loft in the 
 pronunciation. And the accented fyllable 
 itself cannot be faid to bjs long : for even 
 the acute accent among the antients, as I 
 obferved before, has a tendency to ihorten 
 
 the
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 325 
 
 the fyllable, and much more the rapidity Ch. 5. 
 with which our manner of accenting 
 throws out the fyllable. So that truly the 
 accented fyllable is not longer than the 
 reft, but only louder, and pronounced 
 with more violence. 
 
 If this be truly the genius of the Englifli 
 language, the reafon is plain, why we 
 neither have, nor can have, verfe made by 
 quantity, fuch as the Greek and Latin : 
 fcfr by far the greater part of the fyllables 
 being all of an equal length, we cannot fo 
 mix long and fhort together as to make 
 the rhythm of the antient poetry. 
 
 But what the Frenchman fays in general 
 of all the modern languages of Europe, 
 that their verfe is made only by rhyme, 
 and the number of fyllables, is not true 
 of the Englifli verfe : for the accent is 
 as neceflary to our verfe as the number 
 of fyllables ; and as for rhyme, it is not 
 neceflary at all. And when I come to 
 fpeak of our verification, I will endeavour 
 to*fhew, that by the means of our peculiar 
 manner of accenting, we make a better 
 kind of verfe, and of greater variety, than 
 any other nation in Europe. 
 
 But, in the mean time, if the reader is 
 
 not
 
 326 THE ORIGIN AND Part II 
 
 Ch. 5. not convinced by what I have faid of oui 
 ^^^ verfe being made by accent, and not b} 
 quantity, let him take any Englifh verfe, 
 whether blank or rhyming, long or mort, 
 and let him make every accented fyl- 
 lable either long, fuch as fome fyllables 
 which 1 have allowed to be fo in the Eng- 
 lifli language, or mort, as he pleafes, and 
 try whether that will alter the meafure of 
 the verfe, the fyllables ftill continuing to 
 be accented ; and if it does not, that, I 
 think, is demonflration, that it is not 
 quantity, but accent, which makes our 
 verfe. Take, for example, the firft verfe 
 of the Paradife loft: " Of man's firft difo- 
 " bedience, and the fruit." Here the five 
 accented fyllables are, mans, dif, be, and, 
 fruit. Now, take any or all of thefe, and 
 alter them, with refpecl to quantity, as 
 you pleafe, and you will not injure the 
 verfe. Take, for example, the firft, mans, 
 and make it moans, which is certainly a 
 longer fyllable, or make it mas, which is 
 a {horter fyllable, and the verfe is the 
 fame. Or take any of the unaccented fyl- 
 lables, and make them either longer or 
 Ihorter, and there will be no change in 
 the verfe. Thus the unaccented fyllable 
 
 frft
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 327 
 
 firft is certainly, according to the rules of Ch. $ 
 antient quantity, longer than dlf y the ac- 
 cented fyllable ; but make it morter, and 
 the verfe will be the fame. In like man- 
 ner, the unaccented fyllable dience, having 
 a diphthong in it followed by two confo- 
 nants, is certainly longer than the prece- 
 ding accented fyllable be ; but make it as 
 ihort as you pleafe, and you will not hurt 
 the verfe. 
 
 As to the French verfe, what the French 
 author fays is certainly true. For the only 
 thing that makes verfe in French is the 
 number of fyllables and tjie rhyme : for 
 even this laft is abfolutely neceffary, be- 
 caufe they want our accents. And accor- 
 dingly all their attempts in blank verfe 
 have been miferably unfuccefsful. At the 
 fame time, it cannot be denied, that they 
 have fome long fyllables in their language, 
 though I think not fo many as we. 
 
 My opinion, therefore, upon the whole, 
 is, that there is a certain hardnefs and 
 want of mufic in all the languages of Go- 
 thic or Celtic extraction, or that have a 
 mixture of thefe in them, which makes 
 them incapable of verfe, fach as by the 
 flexible and mulical genius of their Ian-
 
 528 THE ORIGIN AND Part If. 
 
 Ch. 5. guage the Greeks and Romans were able 
 
 ^^^ to form. 
 
 I will only add further upon this fub- 
 jec~l, that in treating of the antient rhythm, 
 I have considered it as altogether different 
 from their accents, that is, the melody of 
 their language. So it is treated by all the 
 antient authors ; and particularly by the 
 Halicarnaffian, in his treatife upon compo- 
 fition, fo often quoted. I therefore do not 
 approve of the defcription which Mr Fo- 
 fter in his Eflay has given of the rhythm 
 of the antient languages, as if it were a 
 mixture of accent and quantity. In mat- 
 ters of fcience, the ideas of different things 
 fhould be kept diftincl:, and exprefled by 
 different names : for, as I obferved be- 1 
 fore, I am perfuaded it was fome fuch 
 confufion in the ufe of the word profody 
 that contributed to lead men into the 
 ror concerning the antient accents. 
 
 CHAP.
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAG&. 329 
 
 CHAP. VI. 
 
 Continuation of the fubjefl of quantify. The 
 Greek and Latin verfe not read by us ac- 
 cording to quantity ', but in the manner t we 
 accent our oivn verfe. 
 
 UT I fay further, that not only we do Cn. 6. 
 
 \x""V" > *-/ 
 
 not pronounce our own verfe according 
 to quantity, but not even the Greek and La-* 
 tin, though it be admitted, that their verfe 
 is made by quantity. This is obferved by 
 Mr Fofler in his EfTay, (pag. 361). But I 
 think the fubject defer ves to have fome- 
 thing more faid upon it. 
 
 And, in the frjt place, If it be true, as 
 I fuppofe, that we pronounce our own 
 verfe entirely by what we call accent, and 
 not by quantity, there is nothing more 
 natural, and indeed it is .almoft neceffary, 
 that we fhould pronounce the Greek and 
 Latin in the fame manner. And I would 
 have Mr Fofter, who admits that we do 
 not pronounce the antient verfe according 
 to quantity, confider by what other rule 
 
 VOL. II. T t we
 
 330 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 6. we pronounce it. He will not fay it is by 
 antient accent, which he confeffes is attend^ 
 ed to by very few in practice, and rejected 
 by many even in theory. It remains, 
 therefore, that it can be pronounced only 
 by what I call EngliJ}} accent ; that is, by 
 founding one fyllable of the word louder 
 and ftronger than the reft. Now I think 
 it is impomble that we mould pronounce 
 the Greek and Latin verfe in this way, if 
 we did not fo pronounce our own. And 
 this to me is of itfelf demon ftration of the 
 truth of what I maintain, that our Englifh 
 verfe is not made by quantity. 
 
 But it will be faid, Is all the trouble 
 then loft that we beftow in learning the 
 quantity of .the antient languages? And 
 is it poilible to fuppofe, that thofe who 
 rejecl the antient accents, becaufe they in- 
 terfere as they think with quantity, do 
 not themfelves obferve quantity -in reading 
 Greek and Latin ? Or, if they obferve it, 
 how do they mark it, otherwi/e, than by 
 making the fyllables long or iliort ? My 
 anfwer is, That they mark it by accenting 
 the words as we do in Englifh. Thus, 
 e. g. in pronouncing the firft line of Vir- 
 gil's Eclogues,
 
 Bookll. .PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 331 
 
 Tityre 9 tu patul<e re Cubans fub tegmmc fagi, Ch. 6. 
 
 they mark the length of the firfl fyllable 
 of Tityre, by accenting it juft as we accent 
 the firft fyllable of this Englifli verfe, 
 
 Little tube, of mighty power, 
 
 or any other of thofe Englim verfes that 
 we may call Trochaic, if we are fond of gi- 
 ving antient names to modern things. 
 
 That this is not a proper way of mark- 
 ing a long fyllable, is evident. For, inflead 
 of making the fyllable longer, we make it 
 only louder and ftronger ; or if we make it 
 in any degree longer, it is not by length- 
 ening the vowel, which ought to be done 
 in this cafe, but it is by position. For, 
 by pronouncing the fyllable fo flrongly, we 
 do in effect double the confonant, and 
 pronounce it as if it were written Tittyre. 
 For, if we obferve attentively, we mall 
 find, that the found of the vowel is not al- 
 tered in any refpecl, but the flrefs of the 
 accent falls upon the confonant, which 
 neceffarily gives it that double found. And 
 to be convinced of this, let us write the 
 long i in Tttyre, as it was written antiently 
 by the Romans, that is, double, and pro- 
 T t 2 nounce
 
 332 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 6. nounce it accordingly, and we {hall fee 
 ^"^ what a different found it will make. 
 
 But fuppofing that the long fy liable 
 were thus properly marked, it is not fuf- 
 ficiently marked : for there are many long 
 fyllables that are not fo diftinguimed. Nor 
 is even this all : for there are many fhort 
 fyllables that have that mark, according to 
 our method of reading antient verfe. For 
 proof of both thefe proportions, I need 
 only appeal to the fame line of Virgil, 
 where the fyllable /w, though long, is not 
 accented ; and the following fyllable /KZ-, 
 though Ihort, is accented. In like man- 
 ner -/^, though long, is not accented ; and 
 the next fyllable r^-, though fhort, is ac- 
 cented. 
 
 If it be again afked, What long fyllables 
 then are marked by the accent ? my an- 
 fwer is, Very few. And if it be further 
 afked, What thefe few are ? I fay, The 
 penult fyllables of words of three or more 
 fyllables, and no other. This may appear 
 a little paradoxical ; but it is eafily proved 
 by induction. And, in the frft place, 
 With refpect to monofyllables, though 
 they may be accented, we cannot thereby 
 tell whether they be long or ihort, becaufe 
 
 we
 
 Bookll. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 333 
 
 we accent them according to their place in Ch. 6. 
 the verfe, not according to their quantity. 
 Nor do we diftinguifh, by our pronuncia- 
 tion, whether the vowel in them be long 
 or fhort. Thus, in the above line of Vir- 
 gil, the monofyllables tu and fub are both 
 long; yet they are not accented. And 
 though the vowel u in tu be long by its 
 nature, and not by position, yet we do 
 not diilinguifh it by our pronunciation. 
 And in the following line, 
 
 Nos patriam fugimus, et dulcia Imquimus arva, 
 
 et is long, and yet not accented. 
 
 Again, if the word be a diflyllable, the 
 rule in Latin, as Quinc'lilian tells us, is, 
 that the accent is never put upon the laft 
 fyllable. Now, though by accent he un- 
 doubtedly means what the antients called 
 accent, we have, in our practice, applied 
 the rule to our accents ; and accordingly 
 we never accent the laft fyllable in Latin. 
 Suppofe, therefore, the laft of a diflyl- 
 lable is long, it is not accented ; and the 
 firft fyllable, whether long or fhort, is ac- 
 cented. So that the length of it is not dif- 
 tinguifhed by the accent. 
 
 And,
 
 334 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 6. And, laflly, If the word confifl of three 
 or more fyllables, if the laft be long, it 
 cannot be marked by the accent, for the 
 reafon juft now given. If it confift of four 
 fyllables, and the firft be long, it cannot 
 be fo marked neither ; becaufe no accent 
 can be carried back beyond the third 
 fyllable. Again, if the third fyllable be 
 long, it will indeed be accented ; but fo it 
 will alfo be, if it be fhort, and the penult 
 likewife fhort. Therefore the length of it 
 is not diftinguifhed by the accent. The 
 only pomble cafe, therefore, remaining, is 
 the penult being long ; and then it is ac- 
 cented, and thereby diftinguimed from a 
 fhort fyllable ; for if it be fhort, it is not 
 accented. 
 
 Thus it appears, that we neither pro- 
 nounce the antient quantity as we mould 
 do ; nor, if we did, do we thereby diftiii- 
 guifh fufficiently the long fyllables from 
 the fhort. 
 
 The fact therefore truly is, that as we 
 read the antient languages, they have nei- 
 ther accent nor quantity ; fo that by our 
 barbarous pronunciation, we ftrip them 
 of all their native and genuine mufic, that 
 * is, their tones and rhythm, leaving them 
 
 nothing
 
 Book II. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 335 
 
 nothing in the place of it, but the mufic, Ch. 6. 
 if it may be fo called, of a drum, which 
 is all the mufic of our own language. 
 
 I do not however mean to difcourage 
 the ftudy of the rules of antient quantity. 
 It is no doubt a part of the ftudy of the 
 language ; and it is ufeful in practice, e- 
 veii with refpecl: to the Latin, as many of 
 their words of three or more fyllables have 
 the penult long ; and it mould be ftill 
 more ufeful in the pronunciation of the 
 Greek, as the genius of that language does 
 not hinder us from accenting the laft fyl- 
 lable, if it be long. But we ought not to 
 flatter ourfelves that we pronounce either 
 Greek or Latin as we ought to do, or as 
 the antients pronounced it. For I am per- 
 fuaded, what Scioppius fays is true, that 
 if Cicero were alive, he would hardly un- 
 derfland a word of a modern fcholar fpeak- 
 ing Latin, nor would fuch fcholar under- 
 ftand Cicero's Latin any better than he 
 would Arabic *. 
 
 It is neverthelefs true, what Mr Fofter 
 obferves, that notwithftanding the in- 
 juftice we do Greek and Latin poetry, in 
 
 * Scioppius, Ds ortboepia. See the paflage quoted by 
 Fofter, pag. 369. 
 
 the
 
 33 6 THE ORIGIN, &c. Part II. 
 
 Ch. 6, the pronunciation, it (till pleafes even our 
 ear more than any modern poetry. It is 
 a matter of fome curiofity to know how 
 this happens. And I believe it might be 
 accounted for otherwife than ftom the pre- 
 judice that fome people imagine we have 
 in favour of the antients ; and a fyftem 
 of antient profody (I ufe the word in 
 the common acceptation) might be gi- 
 ven, according to which we actually read 
 their poetry, very different indeed from 
 the antient profody, but more agreeable 
 to that of our own language. But fuch 
 an inquiry would lead me too far from my 
 prefent purpofe. I will therefore here 
 conclude my analyfis of the material part 
 of language, confiding of founds articula- 
 ted, accented, long, and fhort. 
 
 BOOK
 
 BOOK III. 
 Of the COMPOSITION of LANGUAGE. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 TH E method in which I have pro- 
 pofed to treat this fubjec"l, has not 
 been followed in any thing that I 
 have feen written upon grammar. But it 
 fiiits beft what I chiefly propofe in this 
 part of my work, which is, to mew where- 
 in the art of language confifls. For a 
 piece of art cannot be more thoroughly 
 known, than by being firfl taken down, 
 and each part of it fhewn by itfelf, and 
 then the whole put up again. The firft 
 part of this work we have already per- 
 formed, having analyfed language, confi- 
 dered both as fignificant of things, and as 
 found merely ; and we now proceed to the 
 Compofitwn of it, following the fame me- 
 thod, and beginning with the formal part, 
 or language confidered as fignificant. 
 
 L Un CHAP.
 
 338 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Of fyntax in general, and the three different 
 kinds of it. The difference betwixt lan- 
 guages^ barbarous and civilized, antient 
 and modern, 'with refpeft to the ufe of thefe 
 three kinds of fyntax \ 
 
 ! ' AS the analyfis of the form of language 
 J\L is {imply into words, fo the compo- 
 fition of it is as fimple, namely, into fen- 
 tences, by which I mean fuch a combina- 
 tion of words as of itfelf forms a meaning. 
 For this is the only competition of words 
 that grammar has any thing to do with, 
 larger combinations of them belonging to 
 other arts and fciences. 
 
 It has been already obferved, that any 
 number of words, how great foever, of 
 the cleared and moft precife figniiication, 
 thrown together without being fbme way 
 connected, would convey to the mind no 
 meaning, except that the fpeaker had fuch 
 or fuch conception ; but they would affirm 
 or deny nothing, wiih or command no- 
 thing,
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 339 
 
 thing, afk or inqiiire about nothing. Now Ch. i, 
 a fentence muft neceiTarily do one or other 
 of thefe things. 
 
 In order therefore to make a fen- 
 tence, the words that compofe it mud be 
 fome way or another connected together, 
 fo that the mind of the hearer may per- 
 ceive their relation, and dependency upon 
 one another. That part of grammar 
 which teaches us to connect words fo as 
 to anfwer this purpofe, is what is called 
 fyntax. It is the laft part of grammar in 
 the order of treating it ; but, as Theodorus 
 Gaza has well obferved, is the firft and 
 principal, being that for which every o- 
 ther part of the art is intended. For the 
 whole art is intended for the fake of fpeech, 
 which cannot be, unlefs words be con- 
 nected together. It likewife appears to 
 be the mod difficult part of the art ; and 
 therefore, as I obferved before, was lafl 
 invented, the barbarous languages being 
 remarkably deficient in that article. 
 
 This great bufinefs of language appears 
 to me to be performed in one or other of the 
 three following ways : for either the con- 
 nection betwixt the words is exprefled by 
 the words themfelves ; or, idly. It is ex- 
 preffed by fome other word ; or, Ififtly^ It 
 U u 2 is
 
 34 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch, i . is expreiTed merely by the words {landing 
 
 N- ^ vv- ' together in the fentence. 
 
 As to the firft, words, in the learned 
 languages, indicate themfelves their con- 
 nections, by genders, numbers, and cafes ; 
 and this in two different ways, either by 
 concord or by regimen. Concord is when 
 the words agree together in certain acci- 
 dents, fuch as thofe above mentioned. 
 Regimen is when they do not fo agree, 
 but the one, which is called the governing 
 word, produces fome alteration upon the 
 other. 
 
 This kind of fyntax, whereby the words 
 themfelves mew how they are to be con- 
 nected, is by far the moft artificial, par-' 
 ticularly with refpecl: to the cafes ; the re- 
 lations exprefled by which are, as I have 
 Ihewn, very difficult to be explained, and 
 comprehended in general definitions. I 
 ihall only add here, that as the great ufe 
 of cafes, as well as of genders and num- 
 bers, is for the purpofe of fyntax, what I 
 have already faid of thefe accidents of 
 words, will make it unneceflary for me to 
 fay any thing further here upon the fub- 
 ject. 
 
 J3ut fuppofe a language, of which the 
 
 art
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 341 
 
 art is fo imperfect that it has no cafes at Ch. I. 
 all, no genders of fubftantives, neither 
 genders nor numbers of adjectives, and 
 very little expreflion of numbers, even in 
 their verbs, which is the cafe of the Eng- 
 lifli, and, for the greater part, of all the 
 modern languages of Europe ; in what 
 manner are the words to be connected in 
 fuch a language ? It is evident it can only 
 be in one or other, or both the two ways 
 lad mentioned, namely, either by feparate 
 words, or by juxtapofition of the words to 
 be connected together; which laft way, as 
 we have elfewhere obferved, is almoft the 
 only fyntax of the barbarous languages ; 
 and as it is a great part of the fyntax of 
 the modern languages of Europe, fo far 
 at lead it muft be admitted, that thefe lan- 
 guages approach to barbarity. 
 
 But, with refpect even to the learned 
 languages, let us fuppofe that the relations 
 betwixt things are fuch, that they cannot 
 be expreffed conveniently by cafes, or flec- 
 tions of the word of any kind ; what is 
 then to be done ? In that cafe the rela- 
 tions are to be exprefled by feparate words, 
 called prepofitions, of which, as I have al- 
 ready explained the nature and ufe, and 
 
 dilling aimed
 
 342 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. i. diftinguimed betwixt the relations exprefT-? 
 cd by cafes, and thofe expreffed by prepo- 
 fitions, I will fay no more of them at pre- 
 fent. 
 
 Again, fuppofe the word is indeclinable, 
 fo that its connection with the other 
 word cannot be marked by any change of 
 it, which is the cafe of adverbs, conjunc- 
 tions, and the prepofitions themfelves, 
 then muft even the learned languages of 
 necemty fubmit to the barbarous fyntax a- 
 bove mentioned, and conned: the words to- 
 gether by juxtapofition. In this way adverbs 
 in Greek and Latin are connected with the 
 verbs or adjectives to which they belong, 
 and in like manner prepofitions and con- 
 junctions. 
 
 And thus it appears from induction, 
 that there can be no fyntax bu: in one or 
 other of the three ways above mentioned. 
 And it alfo appears, how far art in this 
 matter can go, and where it muft necelTa- 
 rily flop. 
 
 The general rules of fyntax, as well as 
 of every other part of the grammatical art, 
 and indeed of every art, muft be founded 
 in the nature of things. For, as the bu- 
 fmefs of fyntax is to connect words, which 
 
 ftand
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 343 
 
 ftand for ideas, and as ideas reprefent Ch. I. 
 things, it is evident that words muft be 
 joined together according to the nature of 
 the things they ftand for. For this reafon 
 it is that in fyntax, as well as in nature, 
 the fubftance is joined with the accident, 
 the action with the agent, or with the 
 qualities and circumflances of the action, 
 and both the action and agent with the 
 fubjecl of the action. But all this is fo 
 fully, accurately, and elegantly explained 
 by Mr Harris *, that I will not fay a word 
 more upon the fubject. 
 
 The differences betwixt the antient and 
 modern fyntax I have already noted ; but 
 it is very well worth while further to ob- 
 ferve the difference thereby produced, be- 
 twixt antient and modern compofition. 
 The difference which it makes with refpedl 
 to found, and the pleafure of the ear, I 
 mail obferve when I come to fpeak of the 
 compofition of the founds of language. 
 But, in the next chapter, I will obferve 
 what difference it makes in conveying the 
 fenfe. 
 
 * Hermts, look 2. cap. 3, 
 
 CHAP.
 
 344 THE ORIGIN ANZX Part II. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 The difference betwixt the arrangement of 
 words in antient and modern languages con- 
 
 Jidercd. The moji natural order of ar- 
 rangement ^ 'whether the antient or the mo- 
 dern. The advantages of the antient 
 Arrangement in conveying the fenfe of the 
 
 fpeaker. 
 
 Ch. 2. T Know it is the opinion of many, that 
 V -"" VN - / A the antient compofition, or arrange- 
 ment of words in fentences, however plea- 
 fing it might be to the ear, was hurtful to 
 the fenfe, as it diffracted the attention, and 
 hindered the mind from apprehending the 
 fenfe fo clearly and fully as it would other- 
 wife do ; that the modern arrangement wag 
 more natural, conveyed the meaning bet- 
 ter, and was therefore on that account 
 preferable. And I remember I heard one of 
 thofe gentlemen go fo far as to fay, that it 
 was impoilible that Demoflhenes's orations 
 could have been understood, if the words 
 had been fpoken in the unnatural order 
 
 in
 
 feook III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 345 
 
 iii which we read them. This is a que- Ch. 2. 
 ftion of fome curiofity ; and as it enters 
 pretty deep into the nature of language, 
 the reader will not be difpleafed to fee it 
 Examined at fome length. *ff 
 
 And I will begin with confidering what 
 thofe gentlemen call the natural order of 
 words in a fentenCe, and inquire for what 
 reafon the order we obferve is dignified 
 with that appellation. 
 
 In the arrangement of prepofitidns, ad- 
 verbs^ and conjunctions, to which I may 
 add articles, there is little difference, 
 as I have obferved, betwixt the an- 
 tient languages and ours. It is therefore 
 the arrangement of fubftantives, adjec- 
 tives, verbs, and, in fhbrt, all the decli- 
 nable parts of fpeech, that makes the chief 
 difference. Now, fubftantives are either 
 joined in fyntax with adjeclives, (under 
 which I comprehend participles, as I do 
 pronouns under fubflantives), or fubftan- 
 tives are joined with fubftantives, or, 
 Laftly, they are joined with verbs; and in 
 each of thefe ways, either by concord or 
 by regimen. Under this threefold divi- 
 fion, I think, every kind of combination 
 of words in fyntax may be included. And 
 
 VOL. II. X x let
 
 346 THE ORIGIN ANB Part II. 
 
 Ch. 2. let us now examine what is the order of 
 nature in all thefe combinations. 
 
 The firft I mentioned was that of fub- 
 flantive with adjective, that is, of fub- 
 flance with quality. And, firft, let them 
 be joined in concord. In fuch a junction, 
 one mould think, the natural order was to 
 place the fubftance firft, and the quality 
 or accident laft ; and yet the common ar- 
 rangement in Englifh is the direct con- 
 trary. For we fay, a good man, not a man 
 good: whereas, in Latin, they fay either 
 <uir bonus ^ or bonus <vir ; and the fame in 
 Greek. And the truth is, that the one 
 or the other of them may be put firft, 
 if it happens to be principally in the view 
 of the fpeaker. For though, in the order 
 of nature, the fubftance is undoubtedly 
 firft, becaufe it is that in which the acci- 
 4ent exifts, and without which it cannot 
 exift ; whereas the fubftance 'can exift 
 without the accident ; yet our thoughts do 
 not always follow the order of nature. So 
 that what is principal in nature, is fome- 
 times but fecondary in our confideration. 
 And it is with refpect to the arrangement 
 of the words as it is with refpecl to the 
 pronunciation of them : when we fay, a 
 
 good
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 347 
 
 good man, we may lay the emphafis either Ch. 2, 
 upon good or man y according as the one or v - x " v " Vi> 
 the other is principal in the difcourfe. And 
 for the fame reafon, we might put the one 
 or the other firft in the arrangement, if 
 cuflom permitted it : for there is nothing 
 in the genius or grammar of the language 
 to hinder it. And accordingly, if we add 
 another quality to the fubflance, we may 
 put the fubftancc firfl : for we may fay, 
 a man good and benevolent. And we fb 
 arrange it when we make a propofition of 
 it, as when we fay, The man is good. But 
 even in that inftance, there is no reafon 
 why we mould be confined to that mode 
 of compofition, and mould not be allowed 
 to fay, even in common ftyle, Good is the 
 man : whereas fuch an expreflion would 
 be tolerated only in poetry, though it be 
 fully as clear as the other. 
 
 As to the conjunction of fubftantive and 
 adjective in regimen, we fay, in common 
 ftyle, defirous of glory , full of ivine ; where- 
 as the Latins fay indifferently, gloria cupi- 
 dus, or cupidus gloria and vim plenus, or 
 fknus vim. Now, in fuch combinations, 
 it is not eafy to determine abftradlly which 
 is principal ; the perfon defiring a thing, 
 X x 2 or
 
 348 THE ORIGIN AND Part If. 
 
 Ph. 2. or the thing defired; the veflel containing, 
 ^^ or the thing contained. But whichever of 
 them appears from the tenor of the dif- 
 .courfe to be principal in the mind of the 
 fpeaker, and which, if he pronounce pro- 
 perly, he would lay an emphafis upon, 
 fhould be firfl in the compofition; and 
 therefore the language mould allow the 
 fpeaker the fame liberty that the Latin air 
 lows him, to place either of them firft. 
 This even the confined genius of our 
 language will a^lmit ; for we may fay 
 with equal perfpicuity, of glory defirous^ or 
 of ivine full* But it is allowed only in 
 poetry, for no other reafon that I can i- 
 magine, but to make our profe compofi- 
 tion flill more Hinted than it is by the ge- 
 nius of our language. 
 
 What I next mentioned was the con r 
 ilruclion of fubflantive with fubftantive. 
 And, firft,, let us confider them in concord. 
 And here, I think, even our ufe has not 
 determined the natural order : For we fay 
 equally, Achilles the hero^ and the hero A- 
 fhiltes; Goliah the giant , and the giant Go- 
 liah ; Wifdom the gift of God, and th$ gift 
 of God ivifdom : ib that here there appears 
 to be no order more natural than another. 
 
 And
 
 jBook III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 34$ 
 
 And as to fubftantive governing fubftantive, Gh. 2. 
 the common arrangement in Englifh feems 
 to be contrary to the natural order. For 
 we fay, the bravery of Achilles , putting the 
 accident before the fubftance. But the 
 truth is, in fuch cafes, as I faid before, 
 there ought to be no order but what the 
 fpeaker is pleafed to make ; and therefore 
 he mould have the liberty of arranging the 
 words as he pleafes. 
 
 The laft combination I mentioned was 
 that of the verb with the fubftantive. 
 And, firft, let us confider them in con- 
 cord, which is the cafe of the nominative 
 with the verb. According to our Englifh 
 arrangement, the nominative, that is, the 
 word expremng the agent, is always firft. 
 But it is by no means neceflary that 
 the agent fhould be always principal in 
 the difcourfe : on the contrary, it very 
 often happens that the action is principal. 
 And indeed, according to the nature of 
 things, the action may be often of much 
 more confequence than the agent. It were 
 therefore to be wifhed, that the genius of 
 our language permitted us to put either of 
 them in the place of honour that we chofe. 
 But this it does not permit, becaufe we 
 
 have
 
 350 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 2. have not cafes whereby to diftinguifh the 
 w ' vr ^"' nominative, that is, the agent, from the 
 fubjedl of the action, which is commonly 
 in the accufative cafe in Greek and Latin ; 
 but for the accufative we have no fign any 
 more than for the nominative. 
 
 And this leads me to fpeak of the regi- 
 men of verbs. And the common arrange- 
 ment in Englifh is, that the fubftantive 
 governed by the verb follows it. But there 
 is no reafon for this in the nature of the 
 thing : for it may often happen, that 
 by nature, as well as the intention of 
 the fpeaker, the fubject of the action is 
 principal. But, as I faid juft now, the 
 \vant of marks in Englifh for the nomi- 
 native and accufative cafes, makes it ne- 
 ceffary that they mould be diftinguifhed 
 by their pofition ; the one going before 
 the verb, and the other following after it. 
 And here we may obferve the great va- 
 riety of the Latin and Greek competition, 
 in the combination only of three words ; 
 I mean the verb, its nominative, and the 
 word governed by the verb ; as, for ex* 
 ample, Petrns amat Johannem^ can be ar- 
 ranged in five other different ways. For 
 I can fay, Peirus Johannem amat, - Jo< 
 
 bannem
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 
 
 hannem amat Petrus, Johannem Petrus a- Ch. 2. 
 mat, Amat Petrus Johannem, 
 Johannem Petrus ; in all fix. ' Whereas, in 
 Englifh, we can only fay it in one way, 
 Peter loves John. 
 
 That this is owing to the reafon I men- 
 tioned, the want of a mark for the nomi- 
 native and accufative cafes, is evident from 
 this, that where the fubftantive governed by 
 the verb is in any oblique cafe, for which we 
 have a mark, fuch as the genitive, dative, 
 or ablative, there is no ' neceffity for the 
 word governed by the verb following af- 
 ter. Thus we fay, Fired 'with anger, or, 
 With anger jired ; He behaved *with cou- 
 rage, or, With courage he behaved ; though 
 the laft form of expreflion be more ufed in 
 poetry than in profe ; for what reafon I 
 do not know. Or, if the word governed 
 be a pronoun, which has a diftinclion be- 
 twixt the nominative and accufative, it 
 may likewife be put firft. Thus Milton 
 fays, Hi M the Almighty poiver hurled head- 
 long, though even that way of fpeaking is 
 not fo common in profe. 
 
 Hitherto I have gone upon the fuppoli- 
 tion, that the firft place in the arrange- 
 ment of words was the place of honour ; 
 
 but
 
 352 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 2. but the laft place may like wife be made 
 the place of honour, as in fpeaking, more 
 emphafis may be laid upon the laft word 
 than upon the firft. Thus Horace fays, 
 
 virum aut heroa, lyra, <vd acri 
 Tibia, fumes celebrare^ Clio ? 
 >uem Deum 1 
 
 On the other hand, Pindar fays, T/ra hoy, r 
 njxaot, Ttytx S' aVfya xfcxac/Wc/xtj' ; fo here we have' 
 great authorities on both fides. And it 
 may be faid in favour of Horace's order, 
 that it very often happens in the Latin 
 arrangement, and not unfrequently in the 
 Greek, that the verb,- which is often the 
 moft (ignincant word of the fentence^ and 
 always the hinge upon which it turns, is 
 the laft wo'rd in it. It mould, therefore, 
 as I faid, be left to the fpeak^r to place 
 the words, as well as to lay the emphafis, 
 where he thinks it will beft convey his 
 fenfe to the hearer. And the language 
 which lays him under a reftraint in that 
 particular is defective. If the defecl: arifes 
 from fome fault in the grammar and con j 
 ftitution of the language, there is no help 
 for it ; but it ought not to proceed from- 
 cuftom, and an ill tafte of compofition. 
 
 CHAP.
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 353 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 Objection to the anticnt compofttion 
 
 andfoe r wn to be an advantage to that com- 
 pofition. This illiiftrated by examples. 
 The prejent faJJjionable compofition altoge-> 
 (her different from the antlent. 
 
 IT may be objected, that in the fimple Ch. 3, 
 competitions mentioned in the prece- ^~*~^ 
 ding chapter, the arrangement may be ei- 
 ther way, without any injury to the fenfe 
 or the perfpicuity. But what fhall we fay to 
 thofe artificial arrangements, by which the 
 parts of fpeech that ought always to go 
 together, are fet often at a great diftance 
 from one another, as a verb from its no- 
 minative, or the word governed by it, or 
 the adjective from its fubftantive ; by 
 which means the mind is kept in fufpenfe, 
 fometimes for a great while, and the words 
 fo joflled out of their natural order, that it 
 requires often a great deal of pains and 
 ikill to reftore them to that order j and, 
 VOL. II. Y y in
 
 354 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 3. in fliort, the fentence is made little better 
 than a riddle, 
 
 The thing will be better underflood by 
 an example ; and I will take one from the 
 lafl flanza of an ode of Horace, which 
 Milton has tranilated literally, and thereby 
 "indeed fhewn very clearly, that the genius 
 of the Englifh language will not bear fuch 
 an arrangement. But the queftion is, Whe- 
 ther the genius of the Latin be equally 
 flinted ? and whether there be any beauty 
 or utility in ranging the words in fo per- 
 verfe an order, as thofe gentlemen would 
 call it ? The pafiage is as follows. 
 
 - - Me tabula facer 
 
 ii paries indicat uijida 
 Sufpendijfe potenti 
 Vejiimenta maris Deo. 
 
 OD. 5. 
 
 Now, according to thofe gentlemen, the 
 natural and proper arrangement is that 
 which a fchoolboy learning Latin is or- 
 dered by his matter to put the words in. 
 As thus : Sacer paries indicat tabula votiva 
 me fufpendiffe uvida vejlimenta potenti dcu 
 marls. If this be elegant and beautiful, 
 then indeed the Greeks and Romans were 
 
 in
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE* 
 
 in a great miftake when they ftudied Ch. 
 a competition the very reverfe of this. ^ 
 For we are not to imagine, that it was 
 the necemty of the verfe, and not choice, 
 that made them ufe fuch a competition. 
 For, as mall be fhcwn afterwards, it is as 
 common in their profe writings as in their 
 verfe. And indeed it was one of the chief 
 beauties of the Attic dialect, and which 
 diflinguimed more perhaps than any thing 
 elfe the Attic from the other Greek writers. 
 This beauty the Romans, particularly in 
 later times, imitated very much ; for not 
 only Horace is full of it, but even in Vir- 
 gil's eclogues, where one mould have ex- 
 pected more fimplicity of ftyle, there is a 
 great deal of it to be found. I fliall give 
 but one inftance out of many : 
 
 Hinc tibl^ qu<K femper -vicino ab limit e fefles 
 Hybl&is aplbus jlorcm depafta faliRi^ 
 S<epe lein fomnum fuadcbit mire fufurro. 
 
 Of this ardficial compoiition in Engliffj. 
 I will give an example from Milton : it is 
 from the fpeech of Satan in the beginning 
 of the fecond bo6k of Paradifs loft : 
 
 Me, tho' juft right and the fix'd laws of Heaven 
 Did firfl ordain your leader, next free choice, 
 
 Y y i With
 
 35 THE ORIGIN AN> Part II. 
 
 Ch. 3. With what befides in council or in fight 
 v - x " >rN -' Hath been atchiev'd of merit, yet this lofs, 
 Thus far at leail recover'd, hath much more 
 EftabliuVd in a fafe unenvied throne, &c. 
 
 Here many objections may be made by 
 the advocates for the natural order. In 
 the firfl place, Milton has taken advantage 
 of the pronoun /having an accufative, and 
 has placed it at the head of the fentence, 
 at a great diflance from its verb eflabllfhed; 
 fo that we do not know what he would be 
 at, till we come to the fixth line ; and in- 
 'ftead of faying plainly, and naturally, 
 " That the lofs they had fuftained had e- 
 " flablifhed him much more firmly than 
 " ever in his throne," he has contrived to 
 exprefs it in the mod perplexed way, 
 throwing in betwixt the verb and the 
 word it governs, which naturally ought 
 to have followed it immediately, whole 
 fentences concerning the laws of Heaven, 
 the free choice of his fubjects, the at- 
 chievements in battle and in council, and 
 the recovery of their lofs fo far ; and fome 
 of thefe are parenthefes, fuch as, r w ith -what 
 beftdcs, &c. and, thus far at leajl recovered, 
 which might be both left out in the read- 
 ing, having no neceflary connection with 
 
 what
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 357 
 
 what goes before and follows, and ferving Ch. 3 
 only to make the connexion more remote 
 betwixt the verb and the pronoun which 
 it governs, and by confequence the com- 
 pofition more intricate. 
 
 This, I think, is the opinion of thofe 
 gentlemen fairly dated, and applied to one 
 of the fineft pafTages of our greateil poet, 
 and which, according to my notions of 
 ftyle, is a perfect pattern of rhetorical com- 
 pofition, hardly to be equalled in Englifh. 
 The pronoun, that in the paflage I quoted 
 from Horace, and in this from Milton, is fo 
 far feparated from its verb, and which is 
 the great objection to the compofition, is, 
 I think, in both paflages, mofl properly 
 placed in the beginning, becaufe it is of 
 himfelf that the perfon is fpeaking ; and 
 therefore the pronoun is naturally made 
 the leading word. And what is thrown in 
 betwixt in both pafTages, particularly in 
 the Englim poet, is not idle words, but 
 fuch as fill up the fenfe mod properly, and 
 give a folidity and compadhiels to the fen- 
 tence, which it otherwife would not have. 
 And as to the parenthefes in the paffage 
 from Milton, it is well known to thofe 
 who underfland any thing of fpeaking, 
 
 that
 
 THE ORIGIN AND PartIL 
 
 Ch. 3. that if parenthefes be not too long, or too 
 frequent, and be fpoken with a proper va- 
 riation of voice, they produce a wonderful 
 effect, with refpecl both to the pleafure of 
 the ear and to the fenfe, which is often 
 thrown, or as it were darted in, with more 
 force than it could be in any other way. 
 
 To be convinced of the truth of what I 
 fay, let this period be taken down in the 
 manner that a fchoolboy conftrues the paf- 
 fage of Horace above quoted. Suppofe, 
 for example, it were to be put into this 
 form: " This lofs, which we have fo far 
 " recovered, hath eftablifhed me in my 
 " throne more firmly than the laws of 
 " Heaven, which ordained me your lead- 
 " er, or than even your own free choice, 
 " and all that I have atchieved in council 
 " or in battle." Now, I afk any reader 
 of tafle or judgement, whether the period 
 thus frittered down, does not lofe one half 
 of the ftrength and vigour of the expref- 
 fion, as well as of the beauty and pomp of 
 found? and whether there be not wanting 
 in it, not only that roundnefs, which fills 
 and pleafes the ear fo much of a popular 
 aflembly, but likewife that deniity of fenfe 
 which makes fuch an impreflion, and 
 
 which
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 359 
 
 which the critics praife fo much in De- Ch. 3. 
 moflhenes ? In fhort, it appears to me, vxv " >u 
 that by fuch a change, one of the moft 
 beautiful periods that ever was compofed, 
 by which Milton has deferved the praife 
 which Cicero beftows upon poets, of flu- 
 dying the beauty of oratorial compofition, 
 though under the fetters of ftricl: num- 
 bers *, is rendered flat and languid, lofing 
 not only its oratorial numbers^ but enerva- 
 ted in its fenfe f. 
 
 And 
 
 * Orator ad Brutum, cap. ae " Poeta eft eo lauda- 
 " bilior, quod virtutes oratoris perfequitur cum verfu fit 
 " adftricVior." 
 
 f One may fay of Milton thus travefti what he makes 
 Beelzebub fay of Satan : " If this be he But, O ! how 
 *' changed, how fallen !" from him who contends even 
 with Demofthenes in ftrength, and beauty of compofition ; 
 and, if the language could have fupported him, K< V u w 
 xctft*.a.<r<rtv, a^wpxrrov i8x, Horn. II. ^ v. 382 Demofthenes 
 excelled, among other things, in the vehemence of alter- 
 cation. Let any man of tafte read the altercation be- 
 twixt Satan and Death, in the fecond book of Paradife 
 loft, and fay, whether there be any thing of the kind 
 better in Demofthenes. Demofthenes excells aifo in 
 ftrength of reafoning, as well as in vehemence of conten- 
 tion. I will venture, in that refpecl too, to compare the 
 difpute betwixt the Angel and Satan, when he was de- 
 tefled at the ear of Eve, in book 4. of Paradife loft, or 
 betwixt Samfon and Dalilah, in Samfon Agoniftes, with 
 any thing of that kind in the Greek orator. But it was 
 
 only
 
 360 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 3. And the reafon why I think the fenfe 
 ^^^^ is better conveyed by fuch competition is 
 this : No fentence, proportion, or argu- 
 ment, can be thoroughly underftood, un- 
 lefs it be altogether comprehended, and 
 every part of it at once, in the view of 
 the mind. For the moil fimple propofition 
 cannot be underftood, if we do not fee 
 at once and connect the terms of it. Nor 
 can the conclufion of a fyllogifm be infer- 
 red, if the mind only recognifes the pre- 
 mifTes in parts, and does not fee the pro- 
 pofitions, and their connection, in one 
 view. For one thing after another will not 
 do in this matter ; but the mind mufl 
 perceive both the parts each by itfelf, and 
 the whole together. The queftion then is, 
 What kind of competition it is that con- 
 tributes mofl to give the mind this com- 
 plex view ? whether that which breaks 
 
 only by imitating Demofthenes that Milton could equal 
 him. And accordingly it is evident, that among the 
 Greek orators, he was his particular ftudy : and as he 
 had praftifed the rhetorical manner fo much in his reli- 
 gious and political difputes, it is no wonder that the 
 fpeeches in the Paradife loft are fb admirable, and fa 
 much furpaffing every thing of the kiad we have in 
 Englilh. 
 
 down
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 361 
 
 down the fenfe, and makes a kind of pap Ch. 3. 
 of it, fit only to feed the minds of chil- 
 dren, or that which gives it all at once, 
 fo interwoven and compounded, that the 
 mind mud needs perceive it altogether, or 
 not at all ? For the fufpenfe which thofe 
 gentlemen complain of, muft necefTarily 
 have that effect, as it obliges the mind to 
 carry along with it the whole fenfe, often 
 to the very laft word of the fentence : and 
 if this be a principal word, as it often is, 
 the fufpenfe makes it flrike the mind with 
 double force. In fhort, there appears no- 
 thing more proper, than that what mufl 
 be united in the mind, fhould be united 
 in the compofition : and whatever excites 
 the mind to exert that uniting faculty, 
 ought to be efleemed an advantage. 
 
 It muft be owned indeed, that to com- 
 pofe in this way is difficult ; and that even 
 to understand fuch compofitions is not ea- 
 fy for perfons not accuflomed to them : 
 but we ought to remember the Greek pro- 
 verb, That foie things are difficult and that 
 for the fame reafon which makes this 
 compofition difpleafe us, we ought to dif- 
 like the declenfions and conjugations in 
 Greek and Latin, and prefer our own lan- 
 
 VOL. II. 'L z g ua ge
 
 362 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 3. guage of indeclinable words, as being 
 more eafily learned. We ought alfo to 
 confider, that the mod difficult things be- 
 come eafy by ufe ; and that by accuftom- 
 ing ourfelves to this kind of compofi- 
 tion, we exercife that befl talent of the 
 mind, the power of uniting, and feeing 
 both the one and the many y both what is 
 rft and what is laft, at once : whereas, if 
 we require that every part of a fentence or 
 argument fhould be ftated to us by itfelf, 
 like the fleps of an algebraical analyfis, 
 the mind never will acquire any great de- 
 gree of ftrength or vigour, but will con- 
 tinue in a (late of infancy, requiring to 
 have every thing minced down as it were 
 for its tender ftomach. To this weaknefs 
 of readers, I obferve, great indulgence has 
 been fhewn by fbme modern French and 
 Englifh authors, who have not only re~ 
 nounced the little variety of compofition 
 which their language admits, but have fa- 
 ved their readers the trouble of carrying 
 their attention to a period of any length, 
 and of thereby comprehending feveral dif- 
 ferent things in one view. For they com- 
 pofe (if it can be called compofition) in 
 fmart fentences, vibrantes fententiolx, 
 
 very
 
 Book III. PROGRESS of LANGUAGE* 363 
 
 very pungent and forcible, as they think, Ch> 3 
 but containing commonly only one 
 thought, with perhaps another fet in con- 
 traft to it. This is the fafhionable Cut of 
 our age, by which we think we triumph 
 over the great writers of antiquity, fuch 
 as Plato, Demofthenes, and Cicero ; and 
 like wife our own old writers, fuch as Milton, 
 whom I have heard treated by one of thofe 
 fafhionable gentlemen as a pedant, 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Of the compofttion of Demofthenes ,> 
 
 THat the patrons of this fafhionable Ch, 4. 
 way of writing mould be offended ^^~^ 
 with the ftyle of Demofthenes, is no won- 
 der, as it is directly oppofite to what pafles 
 among them for beft ; but that they fhould 
 imagine, either that the people of Athens 
 did not understand him, or that his ha- 
 rangues were not written as they were 
 fpoken, is very extraordinary. For if he 
 had not been underflood, how could he 
 have been fo much admired by a people 
 Z z a that
 
 364 THE ORIGIN AND Part II* 
 
 Ch. 4. that were the far theft of any people in the 
 '~ y ~^ ) world from being fimple or ignorant ? 
 or how could his fpeeches have produced 
 fuch furprifmg efFecls ? And that the com- 
 petition of them was fuch as we now read 
 it, cannot be doubted by thofe who know 
 that the orations of thofe great orators were 
 all written, and committed to memory, be- 
 fore they were fpoken ; and that they ftudied 
 the arrangement of the words, as much 
 as the choice of them. And particularly, 
 with refpe<l to Demoflhenes, Plutarch tells 
 us, that having formed this artificial ftyle, 
 upon the model of Pericles, and other ora- 
 tors before his time, but not having learn- 
 ed enough of the art of pronunciation, 
 nor got breath enough to be able to fpeak 
 properly, thofe long periods of his, fo full 
 of various matter and argument, and 
 therefore requiring variety of tones, as well 
 as great power of voice, he was very ill recei- 
 ved at firft by the people, infomuch that he 
 once ran out of the affembly with his head 
 \ covered ; but afterwards, having learned 
 
 from a friend of his, that was a player, 
 in what his defect lay, and having ap- 
 plied himfelf to the fludy of pronunciation, 
 he became the moil admired, and in 
 
 reality
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 
 
 reality the greateft orator of antiquity : Ch. 4. 
 and among many other talents that he pof- 
 feffed, that in which he was moft eminent 
 was his compofition ; at leaft fuch was the 
 judgement of his antagonift jEfchines, 
 who mould beft have known to what he 
 himfelf owed his ruin *. And as to any 
 perplexity or obfcurity of the fenfe, which 
 fuch an artificial compolition as that of 
 Demofthenes might be thought to produce, 
 I think I am able to mew, that befides 
 pleafing the ear fo much, it conveyed the 
 fenfe more forcibly than it can be convey- 
 ed by what we would call the natural or- 
 der of the words. But as this would oc- 
 cafion a long digreflion, and fuch as could 
 only be entertaining or infhrudUve to the 
 Greek fcholar, I have thrown it into a di- 
 fertation at the end of this volume. 
 
 And fo much for the compofition of 
 words confidered as fignificant into fen- 
 tences, which, as I have faid, is the only 
 combination of fignificant founds that 
 grammar is concerned with. They are of 
 different kinds, fuch as affertory, interro- 
 gative, optative, and imperative, which 
 
 * Dionyfius Halicarn. ntpl r^ Saw/ins T* Aw^ocrSfvn?, p, 
 185. edit. Sylburgii. 
 
 may
 
 366 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 4. may be all reduced to two general heads, 
 ^-^^ viz. a fentence of aflertion, and a fentence 
 of volition *. But it is fufficient for my pur- 
 pofe juft to mention them, as it does not 
 belong to grammar, but to other arts, to 
 treat of the different kinds of fentences. 
 I therefore proceed to the compofition of 
 language, confidered as found merely, fol- 
 lowing the fame method that I did in 
 treating of the analyfis of it, and begin- 
 ning with articulation. 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 Of the compofition of the material part of Ian," 
 guage. And, frft^ of the compofition of ar~ 
 ticulate founds. The firft kind of that 
 compofition is of letters into fy liable s. What 
 letters will compound <with what. 77?^ in-* 
 jluence this compofition has upon the found 
 of language. 
 
 A 
 
 S I divided the analyfis of the material 
 part of language into three heads, 
 
 * HERMES, pag. 17. See alfo the very fine pafiage 
 upon the fubjetf, which he quores from Ammonius, np- 
 1 on Ariftotle's book of Interpretation. 
 
 viz.
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 367 
 
 viz. articulation, accent, and quantity ; Ch. 5 
 fo I divide the compofition of it in the fame v ^ vv 
 manner ; beginning with articulation. 
 And the firft compofition of this kind, is 
 of letters into fyllables, which, after 
 what I have faid of letters, it is hoped will 
 be eafily underftood. 
 
 And firft it is to be obferved, that all 
 letters will not compound in this way with 
 all. The vowels indeed will not only mix 
 with one another, as we have feen, form- 
 ing what is called diphthongs ; but they 
 will compound in fyllables with all the 
 confonants, which are fo called, becaufe 
 they found in company with the vowels *. 
 But this does not hold of the confonants, 
 with refpecl to one another ; for only fome 
 of them found together in fyllables, while 
 others of them cannot aflbciate in that 
 
 * This is an obfervation of Plato's, in the 
 p. 177. edit. Ficini ; where he fays, that fome of the 
 letters join with one another, and fome will not ; but the 
 vowels, he obferves, have this peculiar quality, that 
 they go through all the reft, and are to them a kind of 
 band or tie, without which they could not join together. 
 They are therefore to be conddered as the cement in the. 
 ftruclure of language, of which the confonants are, as it 
 were, the ilones. And it is for this reafon, as I have 
 elfewhere obferved, that confonants are confidered as the 
 principal parts of articulate founds. 
 
 way 5
 
 368 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 5. way ; the reafon of which is, that the con- 
 figuration of the mouth, and the action 
 of its organs, is fo different in the pronun- 
 ciation of fome of them, that they cannot 
 be joined together in the fame enunciation, 
 nor without fome reft or paufe betwixt, 
 fo that there may be time to give a diffe- 
 rent configuration and action to the or- 
 gans * ; whereas, when the pronunciation 
 is not fo different, the founds may be fo 
 run together as to incorporate in one fyl- 
 lable. And in this way five, or even fix 
 confonants may be joined in the fame fyl- 
 lable, as in our Englifh word Jlrength ; 
 but in that cafe there can be no more 
 than three before the vowel, and as many 
 after. 
 
 The queflion then is, What confonants 
 will incorporate with what ? The confo- 
 nants, as I have faid, are either liquids or 
 mutes ; and befides thefe, there is the mo- 
 nadic letter, as it is called, f, which is, 
 
 * This is the reafon given by the Halicarnaflian, in 
 his trcatife of Compofition, feft. 22. where, in account- 
 ing why the letter * cannot be founded after v in the 
 fame fyllable, after he had defcribed the different man- 
 ners of pronouncing thefe two letters, he adds, 'EV <T ra 
 
 cxf/.XTi<r/u.ov Irepov f| ^rptf, f^ri (rvyyivti, fttiTt 
 
 VtTai T/J XfOVOS- 
 
 properly
 
 Book ill. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 369 
 
 properly fpeaking, neither mute hof li- Ch. 
 quid, but being nearer a liquid, is rec- 
 koned by many grammarians one of them. 
 Of the four liquids, /$ m, w, r$ no two of 
 them will join together in the fame fyl- 
 lable in Greek. To this rule there is one 
 exception ; for in fome few fyllables /* and 
 v are founded together as in pwkvi; and 
 nva.ofji.aii. Neither is the letter^ when poft- 
 poned to any of the liquids, founded with 
 them in the fame enunciation, at lead in 
 Greek ; but when prefixed it can be founded 
 with /, 772, and n ; for fuch is the variety in 
 this matter, that fome letters, when pre- 
 fixed, will join with others in the fame 
 fyllable, but not when poftponed ; and 
 with refpect to others, it is juft the re- 
 verfe, as we mall prefently fee. 
 
 As to the nine mutes, there are not 
 any two of them aiTociated together in the 
 fame fyllable, ib far as I remember, either 
 in Englifh or in Latin ; for though, in 
 the word Jlrength, the g appears to mix 
 with the afpirated /, it is hardly founded 
 in the pronunciation. But as the Greek 
 is more various in its found, than any 
 other language, at lead that I know, there 
 are feveral of the mutes that mix together 
 
 VOL. II. 3 A in
 
 THE ORIGIN AND Part II* 
 
 Ch. 5. in that language. Thus * and r being 
 ""' both tenucs, aflbciate together in the word 
 iTTtfov, and the like ; and for the fame rea- 
 fame reafon . and r incorporate, as in the 
 word Krao//a/ ; but both only in a certain 
 order ; for the n and the * muft both be 
 prefixed. B and S alfo join together, but only 
 in one word, fo far as I remember, viz. 
 CSeM/fo? ; and the reafon is, that they are re- 
 lated, being both of the fame clafs of 
 mutes, that is, of the middle clafs be- 
 twixt the tcnucs and the afpirates ; for as 
 is the middle letter betwixt * and its af- 
 pirate, fo is S the middle betwixt * and #. 
 As to the afpirate mutes, they do not at 
 all mix together, either in Englifh or La- 
 tin, fo far as I can recollect; but in Greek 
 the & mixes both with the x, as in the word 
 X^ uv > anc ^ with the <p> as in the word ?0/<7/? : 
 . but the <f and the x do not at a ll incorpo- 
 . rate together ; for all which there are rea- 
 .fens, but it would be reckoned too minute 
 and tedious if I mould mention them, 
 l.ut with refpccl to the other mutes, the 
 a pirates do not at all incorporate with 
 them in the fame fyllable. 
 
 The proper mixture therefore of confo- 
 nants in fylkbies, is of mutes with li- 
 quids,
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 371 
 
 quids, and the monadic letter, with this Ch. 5. 
 difference betwixt the liquids and that let- 
 ter, that the liquids, in fuch compofition, 
 are always fubjoined *, at lead this holds 
 univerfally in Greek ; but in Latin, Eng- 
 glifh, and other dialects of the Teutonic, 
 the liquid after the vowel, is often pre- 
 fixed, as in amant, Icgunt, bold, bend, &c. 
 But the * is indifferently either prefixed or 
 fubjoined to the mute in Greek, Latin, 
 Englifh, and other modern languages. 
 
 In this manner I have fhewn what con- 
 fonants in fyllables may be joined, or may 
 not be joined with what. But of thofe that 
 may be joined, all do not by their junction 
 make the fame pleafant found. And a great 
 part of the variety of the found of a lan- 
 guage, the pleafantnefs or harmnefs of it, the 
 manlinefs or effeminacy, will depend upon 
 the proper junction of letters in fyllables, 
 as well as upon the proper choice of the 
 letters themfelves. If therefore we fup- 
 
 * This is an obfervation of the Halicarnaffian, in his 
 treatife of Compofition, Ib often quoted, fei % 22. where 
 
 he IHyS, J:vo; sripuxf TCpOTCtTTicrSa.1 TUV aipuvav TO. ri/^nfuva '. 
 
 however is not true, if we reckon, as he does, the c- a- 
 mong the liquids ; for it is prefixed to the mute in many 
 fyllables in Greek. 
 
 " A ^ 
 n. *,
 
 37 2 THE ORIGIN AND Part II, 
 
 Ch. 5, pofe in a language, a very frequent ufe of 
 a poor and flender-founding vowel, fuch 
 as the z, which is the cafe of the modern 
 Greek ; and if, at the fame time, it be 
 joined in the fame fyllable with confonants 
 that do not run eafily together ; it is evi- 
 dent that the found of fuch language muft 
 be very difagreeable. In our Englifh, and 
 other dialects of the Teutonic, there is 
 not that perpetual ioticifm which is in the 
 modern Greek, and which makes the found 
 of that language refemble neighing. But 
 
 the words are crouded with confonants, 
 
 . 
 
 and they frequently end with mutes, and 
 often with liquids prefixed to thofe mutes, 
 which muft have appeared a very harm 
 and uncouth found to the antient Greeks, 
 who never prefixed a liquid to a mute in 
 the fame fyllable, nor ever terminated a 
 word with a mute, nor even with either 
 of the two liquids * and <", and but feldom 
 with $. 
 
 CHAP.
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 373 
 
 CHAP. VI. 
 
 i 
 
 Of the compofition of fyllables into words, 
 and of 'words into fentences. The fmooth- 
 nefs or roughnefs of a language depends up- 
 on fuch compofition. Deficiency of modern 
 languages ^ and great excellency of the Greek y 
 in that particular, 
 
 TH E next compofition of articulate Ch. 6. 
 founds is of fyllables into words ; as 
 to which it is to be obferved, that in or- 
 der to make the found of a language plea- 
 fant and flowing, the letter that concludes 
 the preceding fyllable mould run eafily in- 
 to that which begins the next. If the pre- 
 ceding or fubfequent letter be a vowel, 
 there can be nothing harm in pronouncing 
 together the two fyllables ; or if they be 
 both vowels that will only produce a ga- 
 ping, or opening of the vowels upon one 
 another, which in many cafes is agreeable, 
 becaufe it exprelfes the nature of the thing 
 fignified, as in that famous iiae of Homer, 
 
 &c. 
 
 But
 
 374 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 6. But the difficulty is when the firft fyl- 
 v ~ >rN-/ lable ends, and the next begins with 
 a confonant ; for if the two confonants 
 be of fuch a nature as not to run 
 eafily into one another, that makes the 
 pronunciation of the two fyllables un- 
 pleafant. The Greeks, when they came 
 ? to form and polifh their language, were 
 very attentive to this ; and I will give an 
 example or two of it. The word xa<m, by 
 a fyncope, they mortened into *araM ; but 
 as the t and do not run well together, 
 and acccordingly are never joined in the 
 lame fyllable, inftead of xaraA they faid 
 *actxfc; and in like manner, and for the 
 lame reafon, they faid xetTTOre inftead of xar- 
 ,5re!7. N and x being unfociable letters, and 
 never meeting in the fame fyllable, at lead 
 when the r precedes, if the r end the firft 
 fyllable, and the x begin the next, the v 
 is changed into a y, which is the corre- 
 fpondent middle letter of the afpirate x> 
 .as in tyxvf&w, and many others. And fome- 
 times it is changed to ^ in the end of a 
 fyllable, when the next fyllable begins 
 with a confonant with which /A makes a 
 pleafant found, as in the word axi, and 
 many others. And fometimes a letter is. 
 
 inferted
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 375 
 
 inferted betwixt it and the fucceeding let- Ch. 6". 
 ter, to prevent the cacophony, as in the ^~* 
 word wlpm in place of junpte or aV^f, the * 
 being elided. 
 
 In this article our modern languages, 
 particularly thofe of Gothic extraction, 
 are not near fo accurate ; and for that 
 reafon, if there were no other, the found 
 of them is much more unpleafant than that 
 of the Greek. 
 
 Further, to give a fmooth pronuncia- 
 tion and a pleafant flow to a language, 
 it is necefTary that the greater part of the 
 words mould have a certain length ; for 
 the radical words mufl needs be fhort, o- 
 therwife there could not be derivatives 
 and compounds, except they were of an 
 enormous length. In this refpecl the mo- 
 dern dialects of the Teutonic are remark- 
 ably defective j for the words are com- 
 . monly monofyllables, particularly in. Eng- 
 lifh. This neceiTarily makes a great many 
 Hops in the pronunciation of any fentence, 
 which deftroys the continuity and flow of 
 fpeech, and makes it run like a {hallow 
 ilream chafing among pebbles. 
 
 The next and laft compoiition of this 
 kind is of words with words into fcnten-
 
 376 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 6. ces. In order to make this compofition 
 V ^ vx ^ pleafant, the words fhould run into one an- 
 other, fo that there may.be as little flop 
 as poflible betwixt them, and the whole 
 joined, as if it were of one continued tex- 
 ture, and but one word *. This is done 
 by making either the following word be- 
 gin with a vowel, or, if that cannot be 
 done, with a confonant that will afibciate 
 with the confonant which terminates the 
 preceding word, if it do not end in a 
 vowel. When this is neglected, the com- 
 pofition becomes broken, harfli, and au- 
 ftere, as the HalicarnafTian has fhewn very 
 evidently, in his fine criticifm upon the 
 compofition of Pindar and Thucydides f. 
 How defective, in this particular, our Eng- 
 liih, and other dialects of the Teutonic, 
 are, muft be evident to every attentive ob- 
 ferver, moft of our words beginning and 
 ending with mutes or liquids that will 
 not aflbciate together, or with vowels, of 
 which we cannot help the gaping upon 
 one another. 
 
 * The HalicarnafTian, fpeaking of this kind of compo 
 
 lltlOl, iay.S, '2vvn\*jiVcti tcXMiXetf a^iot xaj <ruvuav6#/ -xa-ira. TO. (4* 
 fiK r: xepioSv, fj.icii Xrjfi-c tyiv atiroTtf.vtTa ; vyxp.t,. fcft. a*. 
 
 f rifpt trvvZic-tv;, fell. ii. 
 
 Thus
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 377 
 
 Thus from obfervations, which I am Ch. 6. 
 perfuaded would at firfl fight appear, al- v x " v " sj 
 moft to every reader, minute and trifling, 
 we are able to explain how one lan- 
 guage comes to be more pleafant to the 
 ear than another. It was in this way that 
 the antient matters of art explained every 
 thing, and made a fcience of criticifm, e- 
 ven of that part of it which relates to the 
 found of language, and which, by many, 
 is thought to be judged of only by fenfe 
 and irrational feeling. We may then clear- 
 ly fee the reafon why the Greek is a 
 fmoother and more agreeable language to 
 the ear than the Englifh, or any other of 
 Gothic extraction ; and why the Greeks, 
 when they came to polim their language, 
 threw off the old Hebrew termination in 
 mutes, of which the Latins have retained 
 fo much, as I had occafion before to ob- 
 ferve, and ended all their words in vowels 
 or liquids ; nor even all the liquids, as 
 the Latins do, but only fuch of them as 
 they thought of moil pleafant found. In 
 this way we can account why, in place of 
 the Latin legit, the Greeks fay xty, and in 
 place of legunt, Ktyovn or hiyw, with a v 
 added to it, when a vowel follows in the 
 
 VOL. II. ^ B beginning
 
 378 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 6. beginning of the next word, to prevent a 
 r ^ J difagreeable hiatus in the pronunciation. 
 In fhort, the great difference, as appears 
 to me, betwixt the Greek and its filler 
 dialects, fuch as the Hebrew, Teutonic, 
 and Celtic, is that the Greeks, a rnoft in- 
 genious people, and of a truly mufical ear, 
 cultivated and refined the mother-tongue, 
 in found as well as expreflion, while the 
 other nations flill kept it in the rude flate 
 in which they found it. 
 
 The extraordinary care and attention, 
 which the Greeks beftowed upon the found 
 of their language, is a matter of curiofity 
 to thofe who have ftudied this language ; 
 but as it does not belong to the hiflory of 
 language in general, I have thrown fome 
 obfervations upon that fubject into a difTer- 
 tation by itfelf, annexed to this volume. I 
 will therefore here conclude what I had 
 to fay of the compofition of articulate 
 founds, and proceed to the compofition of 
 the fecond part of the matter of language, 
 viz. accent.
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 379 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 
 Of the compofition of accents in the antient 
 languages. The 'variety of that compofition 
 in Greek.-*-Not fo great in Latin, The ef- 
 fec~l of it upon thejlyle. 
 
 I Have given, in the preceding book, 
 the analyfis of this part of Language, 
 and explained the nature of it. I am now 
 to ihew the compofition of it, and the ef- 
 fects which it mufl produce upon lan- 
 guage. And though we have not the 
 practice of the antient accents, any man 
 who has the leafl knowledge of mufic muft 
 know the efFedl which the mixture of 
 grave and acute tones mufl produce. We 
 all know, that a monotony in fpeaking is 
 difagreeable ; but we have no other way 
 of avoiding it, but by tones expreilive of 
 fome fentiment or feeling. Thefe the an- 
 dents had as well as we, but they had be- 
 fides fyllabic tones, which we have not, 
 and which muft have made their language 
 found in our ears fomething like recita- 
 362 tivc ;
 
 3?o THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 7. tive ; and if we were to hear it, perhaps 
 '^ fome among us would call it cant. But 
 the little variety of thefe fyllabic tones, 
 there being no more of them than a fifth 
 and a fundamental, and the voice not reft- 
 ing upon them, but running them on 
 without interruption, diftinguifhed them 
 fufEciently from mufic or cant *. 
 
 If indeed every word had been accented 
 in the fame way, and the voice had always 
 rifen to a fifth at equal intervals, there 
 would have been an uniformity in their 
 accents, which would have made them 
 not very agreeable. And it was fome- 
 thing of that uniformity which QuincTi- 
 lian complains of in his own language, 
 where all the words were fo far accented in 
 the fame way, that none of them was a- 
 cuted upon the laft fy liable. But the 
 Greek language had all the variety in this 
 refpect that two accents could give ; for 
 the acute accent was laid indifferently up- 
 on any fyllable of the word, if not be- 
 yond the antepenult, though always ac- 
 cording to certain rules ; for nothing in 
 
 * The Halicarnaflian, fpeaking on this fubjeft, fays, 
 that profe compofition fhould be IvfiiMt, not tVi"***?, as it 
 iliould be ivpvBito; not s'ypvB.uof. iitfl <rv8fj-. feft. n. in fine. 
 
 that
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 
 
 that language was without rule, that Ch. 7. 
 could, by its nature, be fubjecled to rule. 
 The effect of thefe accents, properly di- 
 verfified, upon their compofition, muft have 
 been very great. I know well, that the mere 
 modern reader will have no idea of this ; 
 and many, even of the learned, are un- 
 willing to believe it. But the authority of 
 the Halicarnaflian upon the point is ex- 
 prefs and decifive. He fays, " That rhe- 
 " torical compofition is a kind of mufic, 
 " differing from fong or inftrumental mii- 
 fic, in the degree, not in the kind. For, 
 in this compofition, the words have me- 
 lody, rhythm, variety, or change, and what 
 is proper or becoming *. So that the ear 
 in it, as well as in mufic, is delighted 
 with the melody, moved by the rhythm, 
 is fond of variety, and defires, with all 
 " thefe, what is proper and fuitable. The 
 " difference therefore is only of greater or 
 " lefs." And a little after this, fpeaking 
 of the way of varying compofition agree- 
 
 <nx>) yap rif jv x.ct. M TUV a'aXmxav \oya 
 Tiff Iv ojaij- r.su opyavot; v%t ra Tfota. Keel y^f f rawrw v.ou 
 
 vtriv KI Aff x pt/SjCtov *( ^Ta/3oX)iv x.cu irpfirov' are xai trj 
 Taarrnc a-*-"* ripriTKt fj.ev roif (KXio-;, u.yiTa.i Si TOI? pvStioic, aa-*x- 
 {fri (h raf / uTa/3oA.af, a-a8 <Tt Ixl Ttiintt^t TO ;xov. is $tx\Kn.yii Kara 
 
 ably,
 
 " 
 
 " 
 
 382 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 7. ably, he fays, " That long and fhort 
 " words, rough and fmooth, mould be 
 " mixed, fo that there mould not be 
 " together many words of few fylla- 
 " bles, nor many polyfyllables ; neither 
 " mould words of the fame tone be be- 
 " fide one another, nor words of the 
 " fame quantity *." And in another paf- 
 fage f he fays, " That in order to make 
 " compofition beautiful and pleafant, there 
 muft be a noble melody, and a rhythm 
 of dignity." The laft paflage I {hall 
 mention is where he fays J, That the beft 
 flyle is that which has the greateft varie- 
 ty ; and among other varieties, he men- 
 tions, " different rhythms in different pla- 
 " ces, figures of all kinds, and different 
 " tones of the voice, (which made what 
 they called $rofody\ fuch as by their va- 
 riety do not tire." And in what he has 
 written upon the flyle of Demofthenes, the 
 firft diftinguifhing charaderiflic he men- 
 
 * MP/J S-n IpaitTOja. -xcif ofMioreioif, fitiSt o/xoit^povce. tap o/x.oto^jiovoif. 
 Illd. i. ittitio. 
 
 f MiXof suyivff puS^of 5*ajC40Txof. Ibid. 13. 
 
 " 
 *' 
 
 | Ka rxfftif <furr( a.' x 
 xiX/t TOV xofCT. Ibid, i p. 
 
 dons
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 383 
 
 tions of his compofition is the 1^^*, or Ch. 7. 
 melody of it * 
 
 I have given tliefe pafTages at foriie 
 length, becaufe they prove evidently, that 
 the mixture of tones was a beauty in com- 
 pofition which the Greeks ftudied, though 
 we have hardly an idea of it; and that 
 thofe who deny the exiftence of fuch tones, 
 take away a confiderable part, both of the 
 Greek grammar, and of the ornament of 
 their compofition ; and may be really faid 
 to disfigure the language, doing all in 
 their power to make it as harm and bar- 
 barous, and as little favoured by the mufes 
 and graces, as the northern languages of 
 Europe. 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 
 Of the compofition of accents in Englifh^ and 
 of Englifh verfe. 
 
 I Have faid, and I think proved, that Ch. 8, 
 though in Englifh we have fome fyl- ^^^ 
 lables longer than others, yet our verfe is 
 
 Utfl rwf ttHomrf! TV AnffotrStvaf, p. ip. ip3, Edit. Syllurg. 
 
 made,
 
 384 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 8. made, not by quantity, but by what we 
 vxv " v ^ call accent ; and I am now to mew in what 
 manner it is fo made. It may be thought, 
 that according to the rules of method, I 
 ought to have delayed this till I came to treat 
 of poetry : but, according to my notion of 
 that art, verfe is not at all effential to it ; 
 but there may be excellent poetry, and I 
 think I know fome fuch, in profe ; as, on 
 the other hand, there may be verfe with- 
 out poetry. I therefore confider verfe only 
 as a fpecies of ftyle or compofition ; and, 
 as I think, that it is made in Englifh by a 
 certain compofition of accents, it belongs 
 to the fubjecl of which we are now treat- 
 
 ing. 
 
 Our Englifh verfe, though it be not 
 formed by quantity, and therefore is e- 
 fentially different from, the antient verfe, 
 yet it may be confidered as a fpecies of 
 rhythm. For rhythm, as we have feen, is a 
 very general idea, comprehending every kind 
 of motion in which the mind perceives any 
 relation or analogy of parts, and is divi- 
 ded, as we have feen, into feveral fpeciefes. 
 But we need here take notice only of two 
 of them ; that which is produced by the 
 mixture of loud and foft founds, and that 
 
 which
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 385 
 
 which arifes from the diftance or intervals Ch. 8. 
 betwixt fuch founds. Of thefe two fpe- ^^"^ 
 ciefes of rhythm, if I am not miftaken, 
 * the mufic of a drum and the rhythm of 
 our Englifh verfe is compounded. For 
 there mufl be in it both louder and fofter 
 founds ; that is, accented, and not accent- 
 ed fyllables ; and thefe mufl return at e- 
 qual intervals, or fuch as have fome other 
 ratio to one another, otherwife there is no 
 verfe. 
 
 To be convinced that this is the nature 
 of our verfe, a very little attention will be 
 neceffary : for we have no more to do but 
 to repeat any verfe in Englifh, and we 
 lliall find, that without the alternate per- 
 cuflion of the accented and unaccented 
 fyllable, it would not be verfe. 
 
 There is however fomething more re- 
 quired to complete the verfe ; and that is, 
 a certain number of fyllables : for if thefe 
 alternate pulfations were to go on without 
 any determined meafure, they would nqt 
 make verfe. But thefe, with a certain 
 number of fyllables, are, I fay, all that is 
 required to make verfe in Englifh. We 
 have indeed added rhyme, which is made 
 by the lafl fyllables of the number that 
 
 VOL. II. 3 G makes
 
 386 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Gh. 8. makes the verfe, being of the like found. 
 
 '*-^^ J But it is no more than a barbarous orna- 
 ment * of our verfe, which came origi- 
 nally from the Arabs, who introduced it 
 with their other arts into Europe. It was 
 firfl ufed by the monks in their Latin 
 verfe, the only verfe at that time known ; 
 and it was afterwards adopted into our 
 vernacular verfe, when we began to com- 
 pofe in our mother-tongues. And indeed 
 it appears to me to be neceffary for verfe 
 in moft of the other modern languages of 
 Europe, and particularly the French. 
 
 But our accents, befides that they make 
 our language capable of blank verfe, I 
 will undertake to ihew, as I promifed, 
 give a beauty and variety to our verfe, 
 
 * It was not unknown to the antients, and was rec- 
 koned among their figures of fpeech, under the name of 
 fuojoTiAivTD. It is ufed fometimes by Homer, when he has 
 a mind to make his ftyle very fweet and pleafant, as in, 
 the firft fimile of the Iliad, and the famous fimile of the 
 nightingale in the Odyfley : but it is rarely ; and it can be 
 fhewn, that he has avoided it upon fundry occafions. It 
 is therefore the conftant ufe of it that is barbarous, efpe- 
 cially in long and grave works. For if it were to be ufed 
 only in fong or in fliort light pieces of the Anacreontic kind, 
 (which is the way that Milton has ufed it), it might pafs 
 for an ornament in our modern poetry, for want of bet- 
 ter. 
 
 fuch
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 387 
 
 fuch as is not to be found in that of any Ch. 8. 
 other language of Europe. And this, I ^^^ 
 hope, will bring me in favour again with 
 my Englifh reader ; who would no doubt 
 be much difpleafed with what I have faid 
 in general of.our Engliih verification, and 
 particularly with the comparifon I made 
 of it to a drum. 
 
 The Englifh verfe, then, befides that it 
 requires not the jingle of like endings, 
 and befides the variety that it admits of 
 long and fhort verfe, which it has in com- 
 mon with the verification of other lan- 
 guages in Europe, has this further variety 
 from its accents, that it may have the loud 
 ftroke or percuflion, either firft or laft. 
 And according to this difference, we have 
 two different kinds of verfe in Englifh ; 
 the one of which we may call Iambic, if 
 we muft needs liken our metre to the an- 
 tient, and the other Trochaic,. The firfl is 
 formed when the flrong ictus is laft, and 
 the weak firfl ; or, in other words, when 
 the unaccented fyllable is firft, and the 
 accented laft. Of this kind is our long 
 verfe, which we dignify with the name of 
 Hexameter, or Heroic, fuch as that of Mil- 
 302 ton
 
 38S Tii ORIGIN AND Parti!. 
 
 Ch. 8. ton in the Paradife loft *. And I think it 
 ^^^ mufb be acknowledged, that the march of 
 
 this 
 
 * It may be obferved, that Milton ufes a little free- 
 dom fometimes in the beginning of this verfe, by making 
 the firft foot of it a Trochee inftead of *m Iambus ; that 
 is, beginning with an accented fyllable ; as in this verfe : 
 
 " Daughter of God and man, accomplifh'd Eve." 
 
 And he has been followed in this by Jater poets; Mr 
 Pope particularly, as in this verfe : 
 
 " Pleafures the fex, as children birds purfue." 
 
 It is an irregularity, if it may be called one, which gives 
 a beautiful variety to the verfe, by interrupting the mo- 
 notony of the Iambics ; and I wonder that it is not more 
 ufed. But Milton, who has varied his verification, I 
 think, more than any other of our poets, fometimes 
 breaks the meafure of the verfe altogether ; as in this 
 line : 
 
 " Burnt after him to the bottomlefs pit." 
 
 Nor are we to imagine, that Milton did this through ne- 
 gligence, or as not knowing the nature of the verfe he 
 ufed ; but it was to give a variety to his verfe, and fome 
 relief to the ear, which might otherwife be tired with 
 the conftant repetition of the fame meafure. It is for 
 this reafon that we have, both in Homer and Virgil, irre- 
 gularities of a like kind ; luch as Anapiefts in place of 
 Daclyls, and Iambics or Trochaics in place of Spondees, 
 which have been noted by the critics ; and the effect 
 they had upon the verfe obferved, either in making it 
 empty, and as Jt were hollow, or tumid and big- bellied. 
 And our Shakefpeare, I obferve, though not learned like 
 Milton, and following only the dictates of nature and an 
 excellent genius, has, in fome of the paffionate parts of 
 
 his
 
 Book HI. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 389 
 
 this verfe is grave and majeftic, and well Ch. 8. 
 fuited to heroic argument ; efpecially if it 
 
 be 
 
 his plays, broken the meafure of his verfe, and, as the 
 antient tragic poets were in ufe to do, made a kind of 
 monody of it, in a different fort of verfe. Of this kind 
 is what he makes King Lear fay, when he difcovers his 
 daughter Cordelia : 
 
 " Pray do not mock me : 
 
 " I am a very foolifh fond old man, 
 
 " Fourfcore and upwards : 
 
 " Not an hour more or lefs ; 
 
 " And, to deal plainly, 
 
 " I fear I am not in my perfect mind." 
 
 It .is to be obferved, that in words of two or more 
 fyllables, the poet is not at liberty to alter the ufual way 
 of accenting the word. In monofyllables he has a great- 
 er liberty, but which he ought not to abufe by laying 
 the accent upon infignificant monofyllables that will bear 
 no emphafis, fuch as a, or the, or to, or by, &c. On 
 the contrary, it is a great beauty of verfe, when the mo- 
 nofyllable on which the accent is thrown, is a word that 
 not only will bear an emphafis, but requires it. So that 
 the accent, which is the elevation of the voice upon one 
 fyllable of the word, and the emphafis, which is the 
 fame elevation upon a 'word of a fentence, in order to dif- 
 tinguifti it from the reft, concur together And this is one 
 of the beauties of that celebrated diftich of Mr Denham, 
 in his Cooper's Hill, which Mr Dryden propofes as a pro- 
 blem to exercife the wits of the critics, to difcover the 
 reafons why it is fo harmonious. 
 
 " Tho' deep, yet clear ; tho' gentle, yet not dull ; 
 " Strong, without rage; without o'erflowing, full." 
 
 where
 
 3QO THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 8, be not tagged with rhyme. It confifts of 
 ^^^^ ten fyllables ; and, if we pleafe, we may 
 divide it into feet of two fyllables each, 
 and call them Iambic ; and in this way we 
 {hall have five feet in the line. 
 
 Out of this verfe is made a fhorter, by 
 cutting off two fyllables, fo that it confifts 
 only of four Iambics. This is the verfe 
 which Dean Swift commonly ufes, as in 
 
 where the emphafis, as well as the accent, falls upon 
 the monofyllables deep, clear, Jlrong, rage, and full. But 
 this is not the only beauty of thofe lines. For, in the 
 frjl place, There are the antithefes of deep and clear, 
 gentle and dull, Jlrong and without rage, and full, with- 
 out overflowing, zdly, If thefe antithefes had been all ex- 
 prefled in the fame manner, I fhould have thought there 
 were too many of them, and that the composition was 
 too uniform. But there is only a fimilarity in the two 
 firft of them ; which being carried no farther, I think, is 
 a beauty. And the expreffion of the two in the fecond 
 line is different, not only from thofe in the firft, but 'from 
 one another. Thefe are beanties of composition inde- 
 pendent of the verfification. But, lajlly, There is a fur- 
 ther beauty in the verfification befides that already ob- 
 ferved ; namely, that the fecond line begins with a Tro- 
 chee, that is, with an accented fyllable, in place of an 
 xinaccented, with which the firft line begins. This gives 
 a flow to the fecond line very different from that of the 
 firft, and gives a beautiful variety to the whole, which 
 otherwife the four antithefes, notwithftanding the change 
 of expreffion, would render a little too uniform in the 
 ftrufture. 
 
 the
 
 Book HI. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 391 
 
 the ode to Stella on her birthday, begin- Ch. 8. 
 ning thus : 
 
 Thou, Stella, waft no longer young, 
 When firft for thee my lyre I ftrung. 
 
 It is of lefs gravity than the other, becaufc 
 it has not the fame length or flow. But it 
 is, I think, a pretty kind of verfe, capable 
 of being adapted both to grave and to 
 light fubjects ; which laft it fuits very well, 
 with the addition of thofe double and un- 
 common rhymes, which Butler and Swift 
 have ufed with fo much fuccefs ; fuch as, 
 
 Pulpit drum ecclefiaftic, 
 
 Beat with fift inftead of a flick. 
 
 And, 
 
 His brawny back, and fides Herculean, 
 Support the ftar, and firing cerulean. 
 
 This verfe may be further fhortened, by 
 cutting off another foot, fo that it mall 
 confifl only of three Iambics ; as, 
 
 Tho' thou the waters warp, 
 Thy fling is not fo fharp. 
 
 Or it may be flill further curtailed, and 
 reduced to two ; as, 
 
 What
 
 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 What place is here ? 
 What fcenes appear ! 
 
 When thus fhortened, it lofes all its gra- 
 vity, and becomes only fit for fong or 
 dance. 
 
 The other kind of verfe is made by put- 
 ing the accented fyllable firft, as in the 
 fong, 
 
 Before Porto Bello lying, &c. } 
 
 And that this is the nature of the verfe, 
 is evident from this very line, where we 
 are obliged, in order to make the verfe run, 
 to vary from the ordinary ufe of accenting 
 the word before, by laying the accent on 
 the firft fyllable inftead of the laft. 
 
 This kind of verfe, as well as the other, 
 may be agreeably varied by joining toge- 
 ther long and fhort verfes. Thus, in the 
 fong juft now mentioned, to a verfe of 
 four trochaic feet, is joined a verfe of three, 
 with a refiduary fyllable or half-foot, as 
 we may call it, in this manner : 
 
 Before Porto Bello lying 
 On the gently fwelling flood. 
 
 Mr Weft, in his excellent tranflation of 
 the Jphigeneia of Euripides, has Ihewn us, 
 
 that
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 393 
 
 that this kind will do in Englifh without Ch. 8. 
 rhyme. In the fifth act of this play, Eu- 
 ripides has thought proper to change the 
 meafure of the verfe, from. Iambics to Tro- 
 chaics, when he comes to defcribe the pre- 
 parations for the facrifice of Orefles. And 
 he has introduced a converfation in this 
 kind of verfe, betwixt Iphigeneia and 
 Thoas, which Mr Weft has rendered in 
 Englim Trochaics, in the following manner. 
 
 IPH. Know'fl thou what fhould now be ordered ? 
 
 THO. 'Tis thy office to prefcribe. 
 IPH. Let them bind in chains the ftrangers. 
 
 THO. Canft thou fear they fhould efcape ? 
 IPH. Truft no Greek ; Greece is perfidious. 
 
 THO. Slaves, depart, and bind the Greeks. 
 IPH. Having bound, conduct them hither, &c. 
 
 It is the befl imitation of antient verfe I 
 have ever feen, and mews what can be 
 done in our language without rhyme, not 
 only in bur long Iambic, but in other 
 kinds of verfe. I wonder that we have not 
 feen more of the fame kind, now that Mr 
 Weft has fet the example. 
 
 The nature of this verfe is not fo grave 
 as that of our Iambic ; and, like the antient 
 Trochaics, it is fit for merriment and dan- 
 
 VOL. II. 3 D cing
 
 394 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 8. cing *, efpecially when it is fhortened by 
 ^^^^ cutting off a foot or two ; as, 
 
 Or where Hebrus wanders, 
 Rolling in meanders. 
 
 And, 
 
 Bending mountains, 
 Curling fountains. 
 
 But neither is this all the variety of 
 which Englifh verfe is capable ; for this 
 mixture of accented and unaccented fyl- 
 lables may be ftill farther diverfified, by 
 making the interval betwixt the accented 
 fyllables double, and having twice the 
 number of unaccented as of accented. 
 
 * The antients had a kind of verfe, the meafure of 
 which was fuited to dancing ; and accordingly they dan- 
 ced to it. This kind of poetry they called ump^tifM. Of 
 this kind were many of Pindar's odes, as Plutarch in- 
 forms us, in his treatife of Mufic ; Plutarch. Opufcul. e- 
 dit. Froben. fag. 550. Where he likewife tells us, that 
 the meafure of this verfe was fo much of thefa/tanf kind, 
 that it was immediately known and diftinguifhed ; for, 
 fays he, of a certain poet and mufician, whom he calls 
 Xenodamus, there is preferved to us a fong, V^, Im 
 fv f 3f v*opxt,(ut. And it appears, from a paflage of Ari- 
 ftotle, Pcetic. c. I. in fine, that the Dithyrambic poetry, 
 and another kind, which he calls T w/t** * was all 
 of that kind. 
 
 This
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 395 
 
 This kind of verfe may be called Anapae- Ch. 8. 
 Jlic^ if we will ftill carry on the compari- 
 fon betwixt our verfe and the antient. An 
 example of it we have in the two following 
 lines : 
 
 From the knaves, and the fools, and the fops of 
 
 the time ; 
 From the drudges in profe, and the triflers in 
 
 rhyme. 
 
 Where we fee the number of unaccented 
 fyllables is double the number of accent- 
 ed, the iflus of the verfe falling always 
 upon the third fyllable, inftead of the firft 
 or fecond, as in the Trochaic and Iambic 
 verfe. 
 
 This kind of verfe admits of variety, as 
 well as the other two ; for, inftead of twelve 
 fyllables, or four feet, as in the example 
 I have given, it may confift only of eleven, 
 as in the old fong, 
 
 My time, O ye Mufes ! was happily fpent, 
 When Phebe went with me where-ever I went. 
 
 Where the firft foot is an Iambic, and all 
 the reft Anapsefts. Or it may be varied in 
 another way, by preferving the fame num- 
 ber of fyllables, making the firft foot like- 
 3 D 2 wife
 
 396 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 8. wife an Iambic, and the fame number of 
 v ^ vv-/ Anapasfls, but a refiduary fyllable over the 
 lail Anapasft ; as in thefe lines, 
 
 If e'er in thy fight I found favour, Apollo, 
 Defend me from all the difafters that follow. 
 
 This verfe is a graver meafure than the 
 Trochaic, as it begins with a fofter found, 
 and has two of thefe in place of oner loud. At 
 the fame time the iff us of it is more percept- 
 ible, by the interval being greater; and there- 
 fore it is a meafure of fpirit and movement. 
 I do not know that it has ever been tried 
 without rhyme : but I fee no reafon why 
 a blank verfe of this kind mould not an- 
 fwer as well as the Trochaic blank verfe. 
 
 Befides all thefe varieties, there are paufes 
 in our Englifh verfe, particularly our blank 
 verfe, fuch as the fenfe requires, and 
 which it is in our power to diverfify as 
 much as the fame paufes in profe ; fo that 
 we may give to our verfe all the variety 
 of profe compofition in periods. This the 
 antients efteemed a beauty, even in their 
 verfe * ; and it is much more fo in ours, 
 
 as 
 
 * The Halicarnaffian, in the 26th fefl. of his treatife 
 upon- Competition, praifes a poem for refembling, in its 
 
 compofition,
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 397 
 
 as it fupplies the want of other beauties Ch. 8, 
 which they have. And it is one of the 
 things which, in my opinion, gives a very 
 great fuperiority to our verfe over that of 
 the French, who can have but one paufe, 
 at leaft in their long verfe, and that is al- 
 ways made by the c<efura in the middle of 
 it. 
 
 The longefl verfe we commonly ufe, is 
 of the kind I firft mentioned, viz. the ten- 
 fyllable Iambic, or Hexameter, as we call 
 it. But our language will bear a longer 
 verfe ; for we may run out the Hexameter 
 to twelve fyllables, which is what we call 
 an Alexandrian line, and whic"h, in compo- 
 fition with other verfes, has, I think, a 
 very good effect. It is fometimes ufed in 
 Hexameters ; but it always concludes that 
 kind of verfe which is known by the 
 name of the Jlanza. This is the greateft 
 combination of verfe that we have in Eng- 
 lifli, confifling of no lefs than nine lines, 
 
 competition, profe that is well compofed : for, he fays, 
 it ought to have all the properties of good profe, and 
 particularly it ought to have periods of different lengths, 
 and different ftruftures, and divided into members like- 
 wife of different lengths, and fuch as do not coincide 
 with the verfe, but cut it, and thereby conceal the mea- 
 fure, and make it found like profe. 
 
 Ot
 
 398 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 8. of which eight are Hexameters, and the 
 laft, as I faid, an Alexandrian. It has 
 four lines that muft rhyme together, viz. 
 the 2d, 4th, 5th, and yth ; and the ift 
 rhymes with the 3d, and the 6th with the 
 8th and Qth. This fo great variety of rhyme 
 thus intermixed, makes the compoiition of 
 the flanza very difficult : but, if well com- 
 pofed, it is, in my opinion, the fined of all 
 Englilh verfe ; for it has a great compafs, 
 and takes in a much greater variety of 
 matter, than any other rhyming verfe we 
 have, without breaking it down into fhort 
 fentences of ten fyllables, as is now com- 
 monly done in our rhyming poetry. And 
 the rhyme being fo much varied and in- 
 termixed, has, I think, a better effect than 
 in any other verfe. Then it allows all the 
 freedom of compofition which was ufed 
 of old both in our verfe and profe. The 
 poet therefore in the flanza may tranfpofe 
 and arrange words in a manner that would 
 not be tolerated in any other kind of poe- 
 try. He is like wife indulged in the ufe of 
 old words and phrafes, which gives to the 
 compofition. that rufl of antiquity, which 
 the Halicarnaflian praifes in the ftyle of 
 Plato ; and which, if not carried fo far 
 
 as
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 399 
 
 as to make the diction uncouth and ob- Ch. 8. 
 fcure, is, I think a great beauty. Fur- 
 ther, he is exempted from the bondage 
 impofed by modern cuftom of ending 
 his line with a word of importance in the 
 fentence, being at liberty to conclude even 
 the ftanza with any word that is proper, 
 juft as he would conclude a period in profe. 
 Laftly, and which perhaps is the greatefl 
 privilege of all, he may make his ftyle as 
 limple as he pleafes, or is proper for the 
 iubjedt. This too is an indulgence in fa- 
 vour of antiquity ; for the flyle of our 
 poetry of old was much more fimple than 
 it is now. Verfe of this kind, if not firft 
 practifed, was moft praclifed by Spenfer ; 
 who has been very fuccefsfully imitated, 
 firft by Mr Thomfon, in his Caftle of Indo- 
 lence, the bed, in my judgement, of all 
 his works ; and next by Dr Beattie, in his 
 Minftrel, an author who is very well known, 
 and juflly celebrated, for his philofophical 
 writings, as well as poetical compofitions. 
 The ftanza, though it have a greater 
 variety of rhymes than any other Englim 
 verfe, has very little variety of long and 
 fhort verfes ; for all its verfes are long and 
 of equal length, except the laft, which is 
 
 longer
 
 400 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Ch. 8. longer by two fyllables than the reft. But 
 the Englifti verfification admits of the 
 mixture of long and fliort verfes, and of 
 Iambic and Trochaic, in almoft infinite va- 
 riety ; fo that in variety, as well as in o- 
 ther beauties, the Englifh verfe far exceeds 
 that of any other modern nation in Eu- 
 rope. Of this excellency of the Englifh 
 verfification, Mr Dryden has given us a 
 noble fpecimen, in his ode on St Cecilia, 
 where he has difplayed the whole variety 
 of Englifli numbers ; for we have there 
 both Iambics and Trochaics, and verfes of 
 different lengths, from four fyllables to 
 ten ; and the different meafures are mod 
 admirably adapted to exprefs different fen- 
 timents and paffions. 
 
 And thus I hope I have fliewn, that the 
 Englifh verfification, though fo much in- 
 ferior to the antient, is far from being con- 
 temptible, and much fuperior to that of 
 the French, or I believe of any other na- 
 tion in Europe. And let not the reader be 
 fo much offended with the comparifon of 
 the drum : for that inftrument, by the 
 mixture of loud and fbft, and the longer 
 or fhorter intervals betwixt, makes a mu- 
 fic which produces a great effect; and it 
 
 would
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 401 
 
 would not be a bad eulogium of verfe, to Ch. 8. 
 fay, that it flirred the fpirit like a drum *. ^~*^ 
 
 CHAP. IX. 
 
 Continuation of the fame fubjefl. The La- 
 tin verfe. as ive read it, not much differ- 
 
 y * t dj 
 
 ent from the Engliflj. The greater 
 fweetnefs of the Latin verfe, ivhen fo 
 read, owing to the language, and not to 
 the verjification. 
 
 I Will fay further, in praife of our Eng- 
 lifh verfe, that the mufic of it is not 
 very different from that of the Latin verfe, 
 as we read it. And what difference there 
 
 * Since writing this, there has an author fallen into my 
 hands, one John Mafon, who writes an eflay on the 
 power and harmony of profaic numbers. This author 
 has fet to the mufic of the drum, fome Englifh verfes, 
 pag. 15. ; and yet this fame author, in another eflliy, on. 
 poetical numbers, would make us believe, that our Eng- 
 li(h verfe is made by fhort and long fylJables, though 
 there be no fuch thing as lliort and long in the beating 01 
 a drum; and though he himfelf confefies, that what 
 principally fixes the quantity in Engliih numbers, is the 
 accent ; pag. 89. of the laft-mentioned treatife. 
 
 VOL. II. 3 E is,
 
 402 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 Oh. g. is, arifes more from the greater fweetnefs 
 ^^^ gf the found oi tne Latin language, than, 
 from the meafure of the verfe, according 
 to our pronunciation : for, as I have fliewn, 
 we pronounce the Latin verfe, as we dq 
 pur own, not by quantity, but by accent ; 
 fo that all the mufic qf Latin verfe to our 
 ears, is produced by a compontion of ac- 
 cented and unaccented fyllables, only mix- 
 ed in a manner fomewhat different from 
 that ufed in Englifh. For the intervals, 
 we may obferve, are greater and more va- 
 rious in the Latin heroic verfe, which 
 therefore confifts of more fyllables than our 
 Engiiih verfe of the fame kind : for our 
 Hexameter verfe is only of ten fyllables ; 
 whereas the Latin is commonly of fourteen 
 pr fifteen. But in fhorter verfe, fach as 
 the Sapphic, the meafure may be brought 
 to be almoil exactly the fame, with not 
 only the farne number pf ielufcs, or per- 
 cuflions of the accented fyllables, but like- 
 \vife the fame number of fyljables altoge- 
 ther. This a late author * has fliewn, by 
 a tranilation which he has given of the 
 
 in- 
 
 * John Herries. \vho has written a book that lie ir 
 titles, 77>? Elements r/f Speech, in which there are feveral 
 oufervations.
 
 Booklll. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 403 
 
 two following flanzas of an ode of Horace. Ch. o;. 
 
 Pone me pigris ubi nulld campis 
 Arbor aft'ivd recrcatur aura-, 
 ^uod lotus mundi nebul^e^ mahifque 
 
 Jupiter urget-, 
 
 Pone fub cutru mmium propinqui 
 SoliS) in terra domibus negata : 
 Dulce ridentcm Lalagen amabo^ 
 
 Duke loquentemi 
 
 JPlace me in regions of eternal winter, 
 Where not a bioirom to the breeze can 
 But dark'ning terhpefts clofmg all around me, 
 Chill the creation ; 
 
 lace me where mnihirie evermore me fcorches^. 
 Climes where no mortal builds his habitation : 
 Yet with my charmer fondly will I wander, 
 Fondly coriverfing. 
 
 * 
 Here we may obferve, that not only the 
 
 number of fyllables and of percuffions, is 
 the fame} but the intervals betwixt the 
 Correfponding percuffions are equal, that 
 is, there 'is the fame number of unaccented 
 fyllables betwixt them. And this author 
 has {hewn, that even in the Latin Ions: 
 
 ' O 
 
 Hexameter verfe, though the number of 
 fyllables be greater than in the Englifh long 
 3 E 2 verfe,
 
 404 THE ORIGIN AND Part If. 
 
 Ch. 9. verfe, yet the number of accents or per- 
 cuflions is the fame ; for there are always 
 only five percuflions in our heroic verfe, 
 and in Virgil's paftoral, beginning Sicelides 
 mitfe^ there are no more in each of the 
 firft five lines. 
 
 What therefore makes the great differ- 
 ence betwixt our verfe and the Latin, is, 
 as I have faid, the greater fweetnefs of the 
 Latin language : for our language is harm 
 and difagreeble to the ear, by reafon, firft, 
 of the number of confonants, and parti- 
 cularly mutes, with which the fyllables 
 are crouded ; and, fecondly, the great 
 number of monofyllables, which makes 
 the pronunciation of our language bound- 
 ing and hopping as it were, and deftroys 
 entirely the flumen orationis, or that fweet 
 flow which is fo agreeable to the ear. 
 
 O 
 
 This would happen in fome degree, even 
 if the monofyllables were fuch that they 
 could eafily join together in the enuncia- 
 tion, becaufe there muft be always fome 
 little Hop betwixt the pronunciation of two 
 words, otherwife they would not be two, 
 but one. But it is Hill worfe, when the 
 one monofyllable ends with a confonant, 
 and the following begins with another 
 
 confonant,
 
 Booklll. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 405 
 
 
 
 confonant, which will not coalefce in the Ch. 9. 
 pronunciation with the firft, but requires 
 a pofition and action of the organs entire- 
 ly different. This happens very frequent- 
 ly in Englifli ; and muft of neceffity en- 
 tirely break and interrupt the continuity 
 or flow of the fpeech. In fome verfes, 
 where the fenfe requires frequent ftops, 
 this is no fault, but may be rather ac- 
 counted a beauty ; as in this verfe of Mil- 
 ton, 
 
 Him firft, him laft, him midft, and without end, 
 
 or where it is intended to exprefs 
 thing broken or difcontinued, as in this o- 
 ther verfe of Milton, 
 
 O'er bog, o'er fteep, through rough, denfe, 
 fmoothj or rare. 
 
 But of fuch words it is abfolutely impof- 
 fible, by the nature of things, to make 
 fweet-flowing verfe ; and accordingly Mil- 
 ton, when he would give a fweetnefs or a 
 flow to his verfe, either compounds the 
 words, or more commonly ufes the fo- 
 reign words which we have adopted into 
 our language from the Greek or Latin. Of 
 this kind are the lines, 
 
 Of
 
 406 * THE ORIGIN AND Part IL 
 
 Ch. g. O^ tnc eternal coetcrnal beam ; 
 
 or where he defcribes the gates of heaven 
 
 opening, 
 
 Heaven opened wide 
 
 Her ever-during gates, harmonious found, 
 On golden hinges moving. 
 
 Which may be contrafted with what He 
 fays of the opening of the infernal gates : 
 
 . That on their hinges grate 
 
 Harfh thunder. 
 
 i $ j- - i 
 
 where the words that exprefs this harfh 
 
 found, are all Saxon, and indeed fuffi- 
 ciently harfh. And not only does he ufe 
 Greek and Latin words, when he has a 
 mind to fmooth his numbers, but alfo I- 
 talian, as in that fine fimile, 
 
 Thick as autumnal leaves that ftrow the brooks 
 Of Vallumbrofa, where the Etrurian fhades 
 High over-arch'd embower.'
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 407 
 
 CHAP. X. 
 
 Of the compofition of quantity, and of the 
 numbers both of the antient verfe and profe. 
 
 ICome now to the laft part of the com- C. 10. 
 pofition of the found of language of * 
 which I propofe to treat, namely, the com- 
 pofition of its founds confidered as having 
 quantity, or being long or fliort ; and of 
 this I will fay but little, as I have fhewn 
 it not to be a common property of lan- 
 guage, and particularly not belonging to 
 the modern European languages, at lead 
 not to fiich a degree as to form their verfe. 
 Befides, the matter has been fully and accu- 
 rately treated of by many learned authors. 
 The analyfis of this part of language is, 
 as we have faid, into long and fhort fyl- 
 lables ; of which the firfh compofition is 
 into feet, confiding of at leaft two fyl- 
 lables *, and not more than three. This 
 
 makes 
 
 * If there be but one fyllable, there is neither foot 
 nor rhythm ; byt every word that is not a monofyllable, 
 has forne rhythm, and confequently f'ome feet, riav <>V*,
 
 4oS THE ORIGIN AND Part II, 
 
 C. 10. makes a divifion of feet into thofe of- two 
 v * orx - y fyllables, and thofe of three. Of the firfl 
 kind there are four feet, which are all the 
 poffible combinations of two long or fhort 
 fyllables together. Of the other kind 
 there are eight, which are all the poflible 
 combinations of three fhort or long fyl- 
 lables ; fo that the whole number of fimple 
 feet are twelve *. Of thefe fimple feet, as 
 many more feet may be compofed of four 
 or more fyllables, as you pleafe ; but they 
 are all.refolveable into the fimple feet a- 
 bove mentioned, and therefore I think they 
 are of little ufe. 
 
 Of feet the antients compofed their verfe, 
 
 which, as it was exactly meafured, and 
 
 had regular returns of the fame feet, was 
 
 called by the name of ptrpor, or metre. And 
 
 . the particular kinds of verfe were denomi- 
 
 r.al fnfj.cc, KO.I a>.\ p.opiov i-t^tuf, OTI fj.ii ftoioo~u\\aov Irri, t /u8,oc 
 
 rm xiytraj. Dionyf. ritpi cruv9. fett. I'j . For there necefiari- 
 Iy muft be a compofhion of two or more founds to pro- 
 duce rhythm, which is defined by Ariftides, a writer up- 
 
 on muflC, tO be av<n*fJ-a. If. Xftvav Kara TIVO. ra%iv cvyx.vfa.tvui/* 
 
 Now the leaft fyfterri or compofition that can be, is of 
 tv. r o, and therefore a dify liable foot is the leaft part into 
 which rhythm can be divided. 
 
 * All this is accurately and fully explained, in the ex- 
 cellent treatife of Compcfuion fo often quoted, feft. 17. 
 
 nated,
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 409 
 
 nated by the number of feet they contain- C. 10. 
 cd, as Hexameters, Pentameters, Tetrame- ^^^ 
 ters, Trimeters, and Dimeters. 
 
 In this way they compofed their verfe ; 
 but even their profe was not without 
 rhythm. But as the rhythm of it was not 
 fo exactly meafured, though very much 
 ftudied and laboured, it had not the name 
 of metre. I do not wonder that many a- 
 mong us have not fo much as the idea of 
 thofe numbers of profe, when the Halicar- 
 naflian tells us, that in his time hardly 
 any body praclifed them. And it would 
 appear, from the pains he takes to prove 
 that they had been praclifed in former 
 times, that fome people, even in his time, 
 doubted of their exiftence. But he avers 
 the fac"l to be, that all the great authors 
 before him ftudied this part of their com- 
 pofition very much : which he proves, firft, 
 by the authority of Ariftotle, who, in his 
 books of Rhetoric, makes it an eilential 
 part of the rhetorical ftyle, and mentions 
 the particular feet mod fuitable to an o- 
 ration ; and, fecondly, by paiTages which 
 he quotes from Demofthenes, and which 
 }ie is at great pains to fhew were not the 
 
 VOL, II. 3F effeft
 
 410 Tup ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 10. effect of chance * ; and he obferves, what 
 / ^ v " an advantage the orator has over the poet, 
 by being at liberty to mix his rhythms as 
 he thinks proper, without being reflricled 
 to any certain rule or meafure f. And if 
 more authorities were wanting, Longinus, 
 in his treatife of the Sublime, feft. 39. 
 lays, that it looks like madnefs to difpute the 
 effecl of rhythm in rhetorical compofition ; 
 and he quotes a paffage from an oration of 
 Demoflhenes, where he fays, the beauty 
 and grandeur of the compofition is pro- 
 duced by its running on Dactyl feet. And 
 Cicero, fpeaking of the effecl of numbers 
 in an oration, fays, that " who does not 
 " feel it, does not deferve to be reckoned 
 " a man J." 
 
 This lafl-mentioned author has written, 
 as he fays himfelf |j , more fully upon the 
 fubjecl of oratorial numbers than any before 
 him ; and as he had practifed the art fq 
 much, and with fo great fuccefs, we muft 
 allow him to be a good judge of the effect 
 
 riffi c-uvflte-saf, /tfff- 15- t 
 
 Uipl (rvuflicriwfi /'' 15- t *"* 
 
 t Ovo*/ <7J otf fentmnt, qrtas aureis habeant, ant quid in 
 fas' hwiitiis finite fit, nefcio. Orator ad M. Brututn, cap. 50. 
 
 t! Orator, cap. 68. 
 
 J? - . _f 
 
 of
 
 Book III. PROGRESS oi 1 LANGUAGE. 411 
 
 of them, which he fays is fo great, ut all- C. i d* 
 ter in oratlone ntc impetus ullus nee vis effe 
 f of/it *. Arid he gives us one inftance, 
 where the whole affembly of the people of 
 Rome were excited to acclamations of ap- 
 plaufe by one fentence fo arranged as to 
 pleafe the ear by its numbers f ; and in 
 that and fundry other inftances J, he has 
 fhewn, that by changing the arrangement, 
 and confequently the numbers, you de- 
 ftroy the whole beauty of the compofitiom 
 And riot only has he given very particular 
 directions about the numbers that are pro- 
 per to be ufed in an oration, but he has 
 given us a hiftory of this brarich of the 
 art of compofitiori. Thrtifymachus, he 
 fays ||, firft invented the art. Gorgias 
 alfb praclifed numbers very much in his 
 compofitions ; but it was thofe chiefly 
 which arofe from the form and flruclure 
 of the fentence, in which like things were 
 referred to like, contrary to contrary, and 
 words of the fame forrii made to anfwer 
 to one another **; But he fays, thofe au- 
 thors 
 
 * Orator, cap. 68. f Ibid. cap. 63. 
 
 Ibid. cap. 70. |j Ibid. 52. 
 
 ** Of this kind of numbers, C:cero> in this book, 
 $ F 2 oivea
 
 412 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 10. thors ufed numbers too much, an error 
 which Gorgias corrected in himfelf, when 
 he became old, as appears from a book that 
 he addrefled to Philip of Macedon, in 
 which he fays, that he was not fo ftudious 
 of numbers in his compofition as former- 
 ly. After thofe, fays our author, came I- 
 fbcrates, who firft appears to have taught 
 the ufe of numbers in profe compofition ; 
 but he ufed them more moderately than 
 either Thrafymachus or Gorgias. From 
 his fchool, as from the Trojan horfe, iffued 
 a fwarm of orators, and from that time 
 the ufe of numbers in orations became 
 common. But before, according to our 
 author, they were not ufed in profe com- 
 pofition ; nor do any of the antient wri- 
 ters upon rhetoric mention them, and he 
 particularly inflances Herodotus and Thu- 
 cydides, and all the writers of their times, 
 who, he fays, have no numbers, unlefs it 
 be by accident *. But here the Halicar- 
 
 gives a famous example from his own oration, pro Milone. 
 Efl enint h*c, Judices, no ft fcrtpta fed not a Itx ; guam nbn. 
 didicimus, acceplmus, legitmn, verutn ex natura if/a arripui- 
 rtMi, haufimui, exprtflimus, ad quam non dttfi fed fatfi, non 
 inftituti fed imbuti fumut. 
 
 * Orator, cap. 55, and 6$. 
 
 naflian
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 413 
 
 naflian differs from him; and I think with C. 10. 
 good reafon : for, although the numbers 
 of Herodotus be very different from thofe 
 of Demofthenes or Cicero, as certainly 
 the numbers of hiftorical compofition 
 ought to be very different from thofe of 
 oratory ; yet i think it is impoflible to 
 read Herodotus, without being convinced 
 that fo fweet a compofition as his, could 
 not be without fome ftudy bellowed upon 
 the pleafure of the ear, though it certain- 
 ly was not his chief ftudy ; nor does there 
 appear, in his work, any affectation of 
 that fort, which is highly blameable even 
 in an orator ; for, as Cicero has well ob- 
 ferved, the excefs in this matter offends 
 much more than too little *. And he 
 very much blames thofe Afiatic orators, 
 who threw in idle words, in order to fill 
 up their numbers, and which therefore he 
 calls complement a numerorum ~\. I therefore 
 think that the Halicarnaflian is in the 
 right when he quotes Herodotus as an ex- 
 
 * N'tmium quod eft offendit vehementius quaw id quod 
 tldetur paruru. Orator, cap, 53, 
 
 f Ibid. 69. 
 
 ample
 
 414 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 10. ample of numerous competition in the hi- 
 ftorical kind. And as to Thucydides, his 
 numbers indeed are very different from 
 thofe of Herodotus, or of the orators. 
 But that he has numbers, and thofe too flu- 
 died, and not accidental, the Halicarnaflian 
 thinks indifputable ; and accordingly he 
 has fhewn the particular numbers he made 
 life of. And in general he appears to me 
 to be in the right, when he avers it 
 to be a fact, that all the great profe-writers 
 of antiquity ftudied numbers in their 
 compofition. And not only did orators do 
 fo, and even hiflorians, but likewife phi- 
 lofophers, particularly Plato, whofe care 
 in the arrangement of his words was fuch 
 as would appear to us much too nice, and 
 even frivolous ; for the Halicarnaman tells 
 us, that at his death there were found in 
 his pocket-book two or three different ar- 
 rangements of the firft words in the be- 
 ginning of his books of Polity. And this, 
 ho doubt, was one of the reafons, among 
 others, why his fcholar Ariflotle faid, that 
 his ftyle was fomething betwixt verie and 
 profe *. 
 
 * Diog. Lacrtius in vita P latent*. 
 
 And
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 415 
 
 And there is a reafon, I think, though C. 10. 
 the Halicarnaffian has not given it, why 
 rhythm mould have been more ftudied by 
 the more antient writers of profe, than by 
 thofe of later times ; and it is this, That 
 the firft writings in Greece, and I believe 
 almofl in every other nation, were in verfe. 
 It was very natural therefore, that when 
 they firft began to write in profe, they 
 ihould not entirely forfake the numbers of 
 the poets any more than their words. And 
 accordingly, the Halicarnaman tells us, if 
 I am not miftaken, that it was the imita- 
 tion of Hortier which made Herodotus 
 write in a ftyle fo numerous, as well as 
 fo poetical, in other refpecls. 
 
 It appears from what Cicero tells us *, 
 that among the Romans likewife, as well 
 as among the Halicarnaflian's countrymen, 
 there were who denied the exiftence of 
 this oratorial rhythm. If fo, it is no 
 wonder that many among the moderns 
 fhould not have the lead idea of it. And 
 indeed, if we have no true perception of 
 the rhythm of the antient verfe, as I think 
 I have clearly proved, it is evident that 
 
 ? Orator, cap. 54. 
 
 we
 
 4*6 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. K5. we can have as little of their profe num- 
 bers. 
 
 But we may judge of the effects that 
 they muft have had upon their learned 
 ears, by the effect that the rhythm of mu- 
 fic ' has upon ours ; for in that refpect, I 
 apprehend there is no difference betwixt us 
 and the antients ; now among them, even 
 in mufic, rhythm was every thing *. It 
 is true indeed, that there is not near fo 
 great a variety in the rhythm of language- 
 as in that of mufic ; for there are but 
 two times in language, the one double the 
 other. But thefe two times, as we have 
 feen, do by their combinations make 
 twelve fimple feet, befides other combina- 
 tions that may be made of thefe : now e- 
 ven that is a rhythm, which, properly- 
 employed, muft produce a very great ef- 
 fect upon the hearers ; fo that from the 
 reafon of the thing, as well as from the 
 authority of thofe great authors, we may 
 be fure that the rhythm was a very mate- 
 rial part of their compofitions. 
 
 In Englim, as we have not quantity, 
 it is impcmble we can have that kind of 
 
 * It is a common faying among the writers upon mu- 
 
 rhythm
 
 feook III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 417 
 
 rhythm in our profe, any more than in Our C. 10. 
 verfe ; what therefore we have of numbers ^^ r ^ if 
 in our profe, mutt arife from our compofi- 
 tion in periods of various lengths, confiding 
 bf various members, differing in number, 
 and likewife in length. In this, our language 
 admits bf a confiderable variety : and by 
 concluding thefe periods, and their feve- 
 ral members, aptly ; and by the proper ufe 
 of thoffe figures of compofition, fuch as 
 the antithefis, and words of like form an- 
 fwering to one another, which, as Cicero 
 obferves, do of themfelves give numbers' 
 to the flyle ; it is, I think, impoflible td 
 deny but that we may give a beautiful va- 
 riety to the cadence of our profe compofi- 
 tions ; but of this 1 will fay more wheit 
 I come to treat of flyle. 
 
 To conclude this fubjecl, it appears from' 
 what has been faid, that we cannot now 
 judge of the power of antient oratory, be- 
 caufe we can only judge by reading their 
 orations. Now what ^Efchines faid to one 
 who read Demofthenes's oration againft 
 him, and commended it very highly, will 
 apply much more flrongly here. " What 
 " would you have thought," faid he, " if 
 *' you had heard him fpeak it ?" For the 
 
 VOL. II. 3 G antients
 
 4i 8 , THE ORIGIN AND Part IT. 
 
 C. lo. antients certainly could read their own 
 ^ v " writings properly, which we cannot ; nor 
 from any thing of the kind that we hear a- 
 mong ourfelves, can we form a proper judge- 
 ment of the effect of an oration of Demof- 
 thenes firft compofed, with the greateft art, 
 and with all that variety in the compofition, 
 which every man of tafte at this day mull 
 admire, and then pronounced with all the 
 beauty of melody and rhythm, and all the 
 expreilion that the action of the bed play- 
 er could give it : for this part of the art 
 he had fludied extremely, having found 
 the want of it in his firft public appear- 
 ances, as I before obferved. When we add 
 to all this the dignity and fpirit of the 
 man, the true principles of that luv&Tm, 
 which is efteemed the diftinguilhing cha- 
 racleriftic of his ftyle, we need not wonder, 
 that when it was known he was to fpeak, 
 there was a concourfe from all parts of 
 Greece ; and that his orations had the ef- 
 fect to excite to action and hazardous en- 
 ter prife, a people fo much funk in pleafure 
 and indolence, as the Athenians were at 
 that time *. 
 
 But 
 
 * There is a French author that I have read, but 
 
 \vhois
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 419 
 
 But there was another kind of compofi- C. 10. 
 tion among the Greeks, and which muft 
 have had flill a greater effect upon the 
 paflions of men, becaufe it united the 
 powers of poetry, mufic, and dancing, 
 i. e. motion performed to mufic, and ex- 
 premve of pamons and fentiments. The 
 composition, I mean, is the poetry I men- 
 tioned before, of the orcheftic or faltant 
 kind, fuch as fome of the odes of Pindar, 
 and fuch as all the Dithyrambic poetry 
 was, and another fpecies mentioned by 
 Ariflotle in the beginning of his Poetics, 
 which he calls roua, and fuch were fome 
 of the fongs of the chorus in tragedy *, 
 which, joined with its other beauties, 
 
 whofe name I have forgot, who has exprefTed, in a lively 
 manner, the difference betwixt the eloquence of Demof- 
 thenes and that of Cicero. " When the Romans," fays 
 he, " heard Ci,cero, they cried out, le be I Grate ur ! 
 " but when the Athenians heard Demofthenes, they call- 
 " out, Allons, buttons Philippe." And the facT: truly is, 
 that when Cicero fpoke, he was often clapped by his au- 
 dience, that is, appl.uided in the manner we applaud 
 players : whereas we hear of no fuch noify applaufe 
 given by the Athenians to Demotthenes ; but in place 
 of that, they were convinced, againft their inclinations; 
 and, lhaking off their indolence, and love of pleasure, act- 
 ed as he would have them. 
 
 ArijliJeS) lib, i. p. 63. 
 
 302 made
 
 420 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. i o. made it, as it was reprefented in Athens, the 
 moft elegant and mo ft refined entertain- 
 ment that "I believe ever was exhibited; and 
 I. can almoft forgive the Athenians for ex- 
 pending their military treafure, and a con- 
 fiderable part of the revenue of their flate ? 
 upon it. 
 
 CHAP. XI. 
 
 The conclufion of the. fubjefi. - The great ex- 
 cellency of the Greek language, compared 
 'with the modern languages of Europe. 
 
 C. ii. r | 1 Hus I have gone through both the 
 JL analyfis and compofition of language 
 in all its parts ; jn doing which I have run 
 the comparifon all along betwixt the an- 
 tient and modern languages, thinking that 
 I could not better mew tl\e art of the one, 
 than by contrafting it with the rudenefs 
 and imperfection of the other ; nor re- 
 commend more to my readers (which is 
 the principal defign of this part of my 
 work) the fludy of the antient langua- 
 ges, and particularly the Greek, as from 
 that fttfdy 9 n ^7 they can learn the perfec- 
 tion
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 421 
 
 tion of an art fo noble and ufeful, and C. 1 1 . 
 of which the invention does fo much ho- 
 nour to human nature. I have endea- 
 voured to fliew, that the exprefTion of the 
 Greek language is full and accurate, but 
 without any redundancy of words; that 
 its flections fave the multiplication of 
 words unneceflarily, expremng all that 
 can be conveniently exprefled in that way, 
 and nothing more ; that its radical words 
 are as few in number as poflible, and fo 
 framed as to anfwer admirably well the 
 purpofes both of flection and derivation; 
 : that in the whole ftructure of the lan- 
 guage, they have had a proper regard to 
 the ear, as well as to the underflanding, 
 and have employed the whole power of e- 
 lemental founds, to make their language 
 both foft and manly in the pronunciation ; 
 and to fo perfect an articulation they have 
 added melody and rhythm, by which 
 they have given their language ail the mufic 
 that a language ought to have-; in fhort, 
 that the fyftem of the Greek language is 
 complete in every part, in found as well 
 as fenfe ; and that the art of it is fb per- 
 fect, that every thing in it is fubjected 
 to rules that can by its nature be fo fub- 
 jected.
 
 422 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. ii. jecfced. On the other hand, it appears, that 
 '+^ r ^ J the languages of northern extraction, and 
 particularly the Englifh, are compofed ai- 
 med altogether of hard inflexible words, 
 monofyllables for the greater part, and 
 crouded with confonants that do not eafily 
 coalefce in found, and that thefe words 
 are unfkillfuly tacked together by ill-fa- 
 voured particles conftantly recurring, and 
 fatiguing the ear, without either melody 
 or rhythm to foften the harmnefs of fo 
 rude an articulation. 
 
 I am very fenfible, that by what I have 
 faid here and elfcwhere, of modern lan- 
 guages and modern arts, I fhall give great 
 offence to many readers. I know how 
 predominant vanity is in this age, and 
 that the vanity of the individual goes even 
 to the age in which he lives. For if it 
 be vilified or difparaged, he thinks it re- 
 flecls diihonour upon him, as it tends to 
 make his fancied fuperiority over his con- 
 temporaries not fo great a praife as he had 
 imagined. But I faid in the beginning of 
 this work, that I did not write for the many; 
 and I hope there are even in this age a fe<w 
 learned and candid judges, (fome I think \ 
 have the happineis of knowing), whofe ap-r 
 probation alone I cldire, and who, I am per- 
 
 fuaded,
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 423 
 
 fuaded, will not be offended with what I' C. 1 i* 
 have faid in praife of antient and cenfnre 
 of modern arts. They know, that other bad 
 qualities excite hatred, or perhaps companion, 
 in men of great humanity ; but that there 
 is none which makes a man fo contempt- 
 ible in the eyes of men of fenfe as vanity. 
 And they know, at the fame time, that it 
 is founded in ignorance ; and that the only 
 cure for it is good folid learning, (for a 
 little fuperiicial learning increafes it), in 
 philofophy , bijiory, and arts. By philofophy we 
 learn what, the powers of human nature are, 
 and to what a height it may be exalted ; 
 but it will teach us, at the fame time, that 
 man can never rife to his highefh elevation 
 without philofophy. Hiftory will inform 
 him to what perfection men have actually 
 arrived in other ages and nations of the 
 world, and that the manners and inftitu- 
 trons alone of a well-regulated ftate, have 
 formed great men. But it will inform 
 him likewife, that in a corrupt and dege- 
 nerate nation, no man can rife above the 
 manners of the age, except by the affiflance 
 of philofophy y to which alone we owe thofc 
 mining lights which have illumined the 
 darkeft ages of the world, and caft a glory 
 upon the moft profligate and worthlefs 
 
 times
 
 THE ORIGIN AND PartH; 
 
 times *. And laftly, by the ftudy of antient 
 arts, he will learn to know how much, in 
 thofe arts, the antients excelled the moderns, 
 and that it is only by the ftudy of antient 
 arts that we can improve the modern, or 
 judge truly of their merit. By fuch 
 a courfe of ftudy he will come to know 
 the nature of man, ; what he is, -what 
 he has been, - and what he may be. 
 And it is in this way, and this way on- 
 ly, that we can ever fulfil the precept of 
 the Delphic god, to know ourfelves. For it 
 is only by knowledge of the fpecies that 
 we can know the individual ; and a perfon is 
 vain, not becaufe he does not know himfelf, 
 (for every man knows himfelf by the moll 
 certain of all knowledge, viz. confcioufnefs), 
 but becaufe he does not know what is moft 
 excellent of the kind. A man, therefore* 
 who has attained this prime knowledge^ 
 though he mould be confcious of excelling 
 every man of this age in every valuable 
 accomplimment, he would not on that 
 
 * 
 
 It was tC philofophy that the Romans owed, in their 
 degenerate days, an Helvidius Prifcus, a Thrafeopetus, 
 and the great and good Emperor Marcus Aurelius ; and 
 it was not the manners of the ftate, but philofophy, that 
 formed Epaminondas, the greateft man perhaps that e- 
 Ter Greece produced. 
 
 account
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 425 
 
 account have a high opinion of himfelf ; C. 1 1 . 
 and the chief praife he would beftow on ^^^ 
 himfelf would be, that though he was far 
 fhort of what he mould be, he was free 
 of that contemptible quality, vanity ; for 
 fuch a man, though he might pafs for 
 proud, would be (as Swift has well diftin- 
 
 guifhed) too proud to be vain. But to 
 
 return to our fubject : 
 
 I have now finifhed the grammatical 
 part of this work, which I hope will at 
 leaft ferve to mew, what I chiefly intended 
 by it, that a language of art is indeed a 
 work of great art. If I have otherwife fail- 
 ed in the execution of this work, through 
 the want of knowledge of fo many particular 
 languages as may be neceflary for flich an 
 undertaking, or through any other want, I 
 think I may venture to fay, that I have treated 
 the fubjecl according to a method which 
 will take in, under one or other of its heads, 
 every thing belonging to every language 
 that ever exifled. 1 will conclude this vo- 
 lume with fome obfervations upon the Chi- 
 nefe language, and that invented by Bi- 
 ihop Wilkins ; after which I will endeavour 
 to mew, that a language of art could not 
 have grown out of popular ufe, but muft 
 
 VOL. II. 3 H have
 
 426 THE ORIGIN AND Part IL 
 
 C. 1 1 . have been the invention of men of genius 
 s ^ v ^ - ' and fcience. 
 
 CHAP. XII. 
 
 Of the Chincfe language. The mojl extraor* 
 dinary language in the world. Very im- 
 perfecl, and the reafon ivhy it has conti- 
 nued Jo long in that Jlate. Probably came 
 from Egypt through India. 
 
 TH E language of this people is very 
 fingular, nor do I believe that there 
 is fuch another language at prefent to be 
 found on the face of the earth. It cannot 
 be called a language of art ; nor is it entire- 
 ly barbarous ; but it participates of both, 
 and may be faid to be an intermediate 
 ilage betwixt the two. For it has fo much 
 of the language of art, that it does not ufe 
 one word to exprefs whole fentences, but 
 has different words for different things : 
 and with refpecT to the found, it has not 
 that peculiarity of all the barbarous lan- 
 guages, namely, very long words ; but, on 
 the contrary, all its words are monofyl- 
 lables ; a fmgularity which diftinguifhes 
 
 it
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 427 
 
 it from all other languages, fo far as I C. 12, 
 know, that are any where fpoken. On the ViX>rsJ 
 other hand, it fo far refembles the barba- 
 rous languages, that it has neither compo- 
 fition, derivation, nor flection ; and it is 
 fo much more barbarous than they, that 
 it does not mew any thing like an attempt 
 towards any of thofe great arts of lan- 
 guage; whereas the barbarous languages, 
 as we have feen, have fome beginnings of all 
 the three ; fo that, though they have not yet 
 attained to art, they feem to be in the progrefs 
 towards it. And that the Chinefe have not 
 the art of compoiition, is the more, fur-? 
 prifing, for this reafon, that in the cha- 
 rafters which make their written language 
 they have fuch compoiition. For example, 
 the character by which they exprefs mif- 
 fortunC) is compofed of a character which 
 iignifies houfe, and another which denotes 
 fire, becaufe the greatefl misfortune that 
 can befall a man is to have his houfe on 
 fire *. But with refpecl: to the language that 
 they fpeak, though they very often em- 
 ploy many words to exprefs one thing, yet 
 they do not run them together into one 
 
 * Du Haldc t tsw. 2. p. 227. 
 
 3 H 2 word,
 
 THE ORIGIN AND Part IT, 
 
 word, making certain alterations upon 
 them, that they may incorporate the bet- 
 ter, as is practifed in other languages, 
 but preferve them entire and unchanged. 
 
 I have fpoken elfewhere of the Chinefe 
 characters, and have {hewn them to be no 
 other than natural reprefentations of things, 
 but very much abridged, for more expedi- 
 tious ufe, and compounded together, as 
 we have feen, in order to exprefs com- 
 pounded ideas, with many marks of arbi- 
 trary inflitution, to exprefs things which 
 cannot be reprefented by corporeal forms. 
 And I will now proceed to give a fhort acr 
 count of the nature of their language, 
 taken from that great collection upon the 
 fubjeclt of China, made by Du Halde. 
 
 And, in the firfl place, it muft appear 
 furpriiing, that, having nothing but mo- 
 nofyllables in their language, they mould 
 be able to exprefs fb many things as a life 
 of great policy and refinement, fuch as 
 theirs, requires to be exprefled. For with- 
 out the variety which the compplition of 
 Syllables gives to our words, it would be 
 impofiible for us to exprefs one half of the 
 things which we have occafion to exprefs. 
 But, in the firit place, they ufe feveral 
 
 words,
 
 ook III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 429 
 
 words, as I have juft now faid, to denote C. 12. 
 one thing ; and though they have not the 
 art of compofition, I am perfuaded they 
 pronounce them fo as to diftinguifh them 
 from other words, fignifying different and 
 detached things. And, fecondly, they di- 
 verfify their monofyllables fo, by different 
 tones which they give them, that the fame 
 word, differently accented, fignifies fome- 
 times ten or eleven different things *, 
 which makes their language appear to 
 flrangers to be no better than fmg-fong f. 
 It is in this way that they fupply the po- 
 verty of their articulation, which indeed 
 is very great ; for befides their having no 
 compofition of fyllables, they want the 
 ufe of many letters that we have, particu- 
 larly the letters , </, r, x, z J. 
 
 As they diverfify the words fo much by 
 
 * Du Halde gives an example of this in the monofyl- 
 lable ro, which, by different accents, and inflexions of 
 the voice, as he exprefles it, is made to fignify eleven dif- 
 ferent things, vol. 2. fag. 22$. 
 
 f Du Halde denies this, and affirms, that the authors 
 who fay fo are mi (taken. Ibid. But I rather believe 
 that he is miftaken, becaufe I have heard feveral perfons 
 who had been in the country, fay the fame. 
 
 j: Du Halde, ibid. pag. 2305 
 
 tones,
 
 43 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 12. tones, one mould imagine that this mufic 
 of their language rofe high, at leafh above 
 the acute accent in Greek, which is no 
 higher than a fifth. But if we can believe 
 what Du Halde fays of the finenefs and de- 
 licacy of their tones, fo as to be hardly 
 perceptible to a ftranger *, we muft fup- 
 pofe that they do not rife high, but only 
 by fmall intervals, fo that the mufic of 
 their language muft refemble fomewhat 
 the mufic of the birds, which is within a 
 fmall compafs, but neverthelefs of great 
 variety of notes. If this be fo, the learn- 
 ing the Chinefe language muft be exceed- 
 ingly difficult to a ftranger, if he has not a 
 good voice and ear for mufic, and much prac- 
 tice of it. The great difference therefore be- 
 twixt the Chinefe and Greek accents, con- 
 fifts in this, that the Greeks had but two 
 accents, the grave and acute, diftinguifh- 
 ed by a great interval, and that not very 
 exactly marked. For the acute, though it 
 never rofe above a fifth higher than the 
 grave, it did not always rife fo high, but 
 was fometimes pitched lower, according 
 tp the voice of the fpeaker ; whereas the 
 Chinefe muft have many more accents, 
 
 * Ibid. peg. 225. 
 
 confifting
 
 Book III. PROGRESS of LANGUAGE. 431 
 
 confiding of much fmaller intervals, and C. 12* 
 therefore more exactly diftinguifhed. So ^^~^ 
 that it is evident the Chinefe language 
 muft be much more mufical than the 
 Greek, and more muucal than any lan- 
 guage ought to be. But, as I have faid, 
 it is neceffary to fupply the defect of their 
 articulation. 
 
 For this purpofe likewife they ufe quan- 
 tity, and by lengthening or fhortening the 
 vowels of their words, make thern fignify 
 different things. They do the fame by 
 giving their words different afpirations^ 
 and by founding them with different de- 
 grees of foftnefs or roughnefs * ; and by* 
 thefe methods of diverfifying their mono- 
 fyllables, they make three hundred and 
 thirty of them, fays our author, ferve all 
 the purpofes of language f, and thefe not 
 much varied in their termination ; for 
 they all end either with a vowel, or with 
 the confonant w, fometimes with the addi- 
 tion of the confonant g J. 
 
 With refpect to the grammar of this 
 language, as they have no flection, fo that 
 
 * Ibid. pag. 225. f Ibid. fag. 224. 
 
 $ Ibid, pag, 225. 
 
 all
 
 432 THE ORIGIN AND Part it. 
 
 C. 12, all their words are indeclineable, their 
 cafes and tenfes are all formed by particles. 
 Genders they have none ; and even the 
 diflindlion of numbers, which is marked 
 by fome change of the word in languages 
 that are otherwife exceedingly imperfect, 
 is marked in the Chinefe only by a par- 
 ticle *. They have no more than the three 
 limple tenfes, viz. the prefent, paft, and 
 future ; and for want of different termi- 
 nations, the fame word flands either for 
 the verb, or the verbal fubftantive, the 
 adjective or the fubftantive derived from it, 
 according to its pofition in the fentence. 
 
 Thus it appears, that the Chinefe lan- 
 guage, whether we confider it as found 
 merely, or as found fignificant, is exceed- 
 ingly defective; yet, fuch as it is, it has 
 been ufed by this people for three or four 
 thoufand years, and their written lan- 
 guage, during that time, has been fo bulky 
 and cumberfome, that it cofls the labour 
 of a life, to attain to any competent know- 
 ledge of it. 
 
 I mould be much furprifed at this, if 
 I believed, as fome do, that the Chinefe 
 
 * Ibid. p. 234. et feqc[. 
 
 were
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 433 
 
 were an ingenious and inventive people. But C. 1 
 I am of the opinion of Dr Warburton, " that 
 " the Chinefe are the leaft inventive people 
 " upon earth *." And I require no other 
 proof of it than their ufing, for fuch a length 
 of time, a language and orthography fo ex- 
 tremely defective. It convinces me that they 
 cannot have made any confiderable progrefs 
 in philofophy. For it is philofophy that 
 difcovers the principles of all arts and 
 fciences ; and if the Chinefe had been phi- 
 lofophers, fuch as the Egyptians were, 
 they certainly would have applied their 
 philofophy to find out, as the Egyptians 
 did, the principles of thofe two moft ufe- 
 ful arts in life, fpeaking and writing. 
 
 But I have other proofs of their igno- 
 rance in philofophy. The oldeft traveller 
 into China that is commonly known, is 
 Marco Paolo, the Venetian, who was in 
 that country in the thirteenth century. 
 But as he was no philofopher, nor a man 
 of fcience, fo far as appears, of any kind, 
 we cannot expect from him any account of 
 the philofophy and fciences of the Chinefe, 
 though he tells us a great deal of their 
 
 * Divine Legat. book 4. fe<5l. 4, 
 
 VOL. II. 3 1 cuftoms
 
 434 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 t 1 2 t cuftoms and political inftitutions, and re- 
 lates a good number of curious fadls. But 
 four hundred years before, that is, in the 
 ninth century, two Mahometan Arabians 
 travelled into China ; and we have their 
 travels translated from Arabic into French 
 by one Mr Renaudaut, with notes and ob- 
 fervadons very well worth reading *, In 
 thefe travels there are a great many curious 
 facts of natural hiftory, which {hew that 
 the authors were men of obfervation and cu- 
 riofity. But what is to our prefent purpofe 
 is, that one of them, fpeaking of the Chi- 
 nefe learning, fays exprefsly, that they 
 had no fcience at all, and that even their 
 religion and laws they had got from ln?- 
 dia j~. He adds, that the Chinefe knew a 
 little of aftronomy, but the Indians more ; 
 and that among the Indians, both medi- 
 cine and philofophy were cultivated. 
 . The opinion of this Arabian traveller, 
 who lived at a time when the Arabians 
 were far advanced in fcience and philofo- 
 phy, appears to me more to be depended 
 upon, than what we have heard of late 
 
 * The Book is printed at Paris 
 t p *- 45r 
 
 from
 
 Sookltt. PkodRfcss oi 1 LANGUAGE. 4%$ 
 
 from the Jefuits, concerning the wonder- G. i 1* 
 ful learning of the Chinefe. For, as the 
 French tranflator has obferved, the aci- 
 cbunt which the Jefuits themfelves give of 4 
 their knowledge of fome of the fciences, 
 fliews that they have made very little pro- 
 grefs in them. And our author quotes, 
 upon this occafion, p. 342. what Father 
 Martini fays of their progrefs in the high- 
 eftvphilofophy, and which may be faid to 
 contain the principles of all other philofo- 
 phy, I mean metapbyfas. '' It is amazing,'* 
 fays that father, " that in all their wri- 
 " tings, they fay nothing of the author of 
 ** all things, and have not fo much as a 
 " name for him in their copious language." 
 And as to their 4 fkill in aftronomy, of* 
 which we have heaM fo much, We may 
 judge by the honours that were done to 
 fome Jefuits there, who were made prefi- 
 dents of their tribunal of mathernaticS, 
 though in Europe they were not known for 
 aflronomefs. And the fact is, according to 
 Mr Renaiidaut, that they were not able, 
 without the amftance of the Jefuits, to cal- 
 culate an eclipfe with any tolerable exadl- 
 nefs. And accordingly, in their aftrono- 
 mical tables, of the exadlnefs of which 
 3 I 2 fome
 
 436 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 CL 12. fome of the Jefuits boaft fo much, Caflini, 
 one of the greatefl aftronomers of later times, 
 has obferved, that there are the groiTeft er- 
 rors in their calculation of eclipfes, and o- 
 ther conjunctions, p. 359. But what puts 
 this matter out of all doubt, is what Du 
 Halde,. who was himfelf a Jefuit, tells us, 
 that they know very little either of the 
 theorems or problems of geometry ; and 
 when they refolve any problem, it is ra- 
 ther, he fays, by induction than by prin- 
 ciples * ; that is, in other words, they can- 
 not demonftrate : and accordingly, the 
 French author above quoted, Mr Renau- 
 daut, tells us, that when the Jefuits put 
 Euclid into their hands, and explained to 
 them the demonflrations, they admired 
 them exceedingly, as things altogether 
 new to them. .If this be true, it is im- 
 pomble that they can have made a fcience 
 of aftronomy. 
 
 The truth therefore feems to be, that 
 though the Chinefe excel in fome me- 
 chanic arts ; and though the populou- 
 nefs and extent of their country have 
 obliged them to eftablifh an exact po- 
 lice, and to ftudy the rules of morality 
 
 * JW..3. p. 268. 
 
 and
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 437 
 
 and good government, they are far from C. 12. 
 being men of fcience and philofophy. 
 
 But how came they by their language, 
 which, however imperfect, muft be acknow- 
 ledged to be very extraordinary, and like 
 no other that is any where to be found ? 
 And the firft queftion is, Whether they in- 
 vented their language ? And my opinion 
 is, that though at fome time or other they 
 may have produced a barbarous jargon, 
 fuch as is fpoken by favages in the firft 
 ftate of barbarity, confiding of words, or 
 rather cries, of great length, with very 
 little articulation ; yet I can hardly believe, 
 that a people fo dull and uninventive, 
 would have advanced even the firil flep 
 towards a language of art, by fhortening 
 their words. For this was the firft thing 
 that men did when they began to fpeak 
 by art, without which they could have 
 have had neither compofition, derivation, 
 nor flection, three things of abfolute ne- 
 ceffity in a language of art. 
 
 From whence then did the Chinefe get 
 thofe roots of language, (for fo I call their 
 monofyllables), if they were not of their 
 own growth ? And I think it is probable 
 that they came from the fame parent-coun- 
 try
 
 438 THE ORIGIN AND Part Ik 
 
 C. 12. try of learning from which Europe has 
 v " xv ~ >0 derived all its arts, I mean Egypt. For, 
 as I have obferved in my firft volume *, 
 the Egyptians faid, that their Ofiris over- 
 ran all the eaft, with a great army, and 
 penetrated as far as India, where he built 
 cities, and introduced arts and civility. 
 And with this Egyptian ftory, agreed not on- 
 ly the popular tradition among the Indians, 
 but the opinion of their philofophers and 
 wife men, who related, as Diodorus Siculus 
 informs us f* tnat Bacchus, who was the 
 fame with Ofiris, entered India with a 
 great army, and tamed and civilized the 
 people ; and, among other arts, I think 
 it is likely he alfo introduced his language 1 . 
 Tims, by the concurrent teffcimony of both 
 countries, we can trace arts from Egypt into 
 India ; and from India, according to our 
 Arabian travellers, the Chinefe got their reli- 
 gion and laws, and we may prefume like wife 
 their language. And it will be a further con- 
 firmation of this, if it be true what is main- 
 tained by a learned academician J, whom 
 I knew in Paris, that the Chinefe got theif 
 
 * Lib. 3. cap, 12. pag. 466. 
 
 ) Lib. 3. I M. de Gulgnes, 
 
 written
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 439 
 
 written characters from Egypt, being the C. 12, 
 natural reprefentations of things curtailed 
 and abridged, which the Egyptians ufed 
 before they invented letters. At this time 
 we may fuppofe that the Egyptians had 
 proceeded no farther in the art of lan- 
 guage, than to fhorten, and perhaps arti- 
 culate a little more their barbarous cries, 
 but had not yet invented competition and 
 derivation, and all that we call the analo- 
 gy of language. In this rude (late was 
 language, as I conjecture, imported from 
 Egypt to China, through the medium of 
 India. And the Chinefe being a dull un- 
 inventive people, have preferved it juft as 
 they got it, without improving or en- 
 larging it by the grammatical art. And 
 in like manner, they have kept the written 
 characters fuch as they originally were, 
 without inventing an alphabet, as the E- 
 gyptians dicj.
 
 440 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 CHAP. XIII. 
 
 Of the philofophical language invented by Bi- 
 foop Wilkins. 
 
 C. 13. "\7"OU people of Europe that are fo in- 
 ^^^ JL. genious, faid the North-American 
 Indian to his miffionary, has any one of 
 yon invented a language * ? This Indian 
 it feems had fagacity enough to perceive, 
 what we have laboured fo much to prove, 
 the difficulty of the invention. The mif- 
 fionary, though a man of letters, did not, 
 it is likely, know any thing of Bifhop 
 Wilkins' s philofophical language; otherwife 
 he would have been very glad to have an- 
 iwered the queflion in the affirmative, be- 
 ing defirous, no doubt, to give the Indian a 
 very high opinion of us Europeans; a 
 matter not eafy among fuch of them as 
 are bed acquainted with us. The author 
 of this wonderful invention was Dr John 
 Wilkins^ one of the firft members of the 
 Royal Society. He flourifhed about the 
 
 * Vol. i. p. 392. 
 
 middle
 
 Book III. PROGRESS o LANGUAGE! 441 
 
 middle of laft century*, a very learned G. 13* 
 age, when every branch of learning was 
 cultivated, and among other things the 
 nature of language was mucli ftudied. I 
 have already had occafiori to obferve, that 
 another member of this Society * Dr Wallis, 
 invented that mod ingenious art of teach- 
 ing the dumb to fpeak, an invention that 
 could not have been thought of except by 
 a man who underftood perfectly the me- 
 chanifm at leaft of language. And that 
 his knowledge went much deeper, is evi- 
 dent from the En glim grammar that he has 
 publifhed f. 
 
 The gentleman I am now fpeaking of 
 was a man of a iingular genius, aipiring 
 to things great and extraordinary. Not 
 
 * The Society gave a warrant for the printing of the 
 book by an aft bearing date ijth April 1668. 
 
 f Thus it appears, that the fubjecl: of which I am 
 treating, as well as other branches of fcience, has been 
 much indebted to the labours of this learned body. The 
 hiftory of the fociety, written by a member of it, Dr 
 Sprat, is jullly efteemed a ftandard for the Englifli lan- 
 guage. And if the public Ihull find any accuracy or cor- 
 reiftnefs in the ftyle of this work, it is in great part owing 
 to the friendly admonitions and corrections of Sir John 
 Pringle, who fo worthily fills at prefent the chair of pre* 
 fident in that Society. 
 
 VOL. II. 3 K contented
 
 44 2 THE ORIGIN AND Part II, 
 
 C. 13. contented with the poflemon of his native 
 element the earth, nor with the power of 
 making himfelf, if he pleafed, an inhabi- 
 tant of the water, as much as an otter, or 
 any other amphibious animal, he wanted 
 to vindicate to man the dominion of ano- 
 ther element, I mean the air, by teaching 
 him to fly. Of kin, I think, to this at- 
 tempt, though not fo romantic, was his 
 fcheme of an univerfal philofophical lan- 
 guage, both written and vocal. However 
 impracticable the attempt may feem, or at 
 lead exceeding the abilities of a fingle man, 
 which indeed the author feems to confefs, 
 it mufl be allowed that he was very well 
 qualified for fuch an undertaking. For he 
 was deeply learned in the antient philofo- 
 phy, from which he had learned that 
 greateft of all arts, as Cicero calls it *, 
 and abfolutely ncceffary for the execution 
 of his project, by which we are taught to 
 afcend to what is higheft and mod com- 
 prehenfive of every kind, and from thence 
 to defcend through the feveral fubordi- 
 nate genera and fpeciefes, dividing, fub- 
 
 * Brut. Jive de clar. Orat. cap. 41. And a little be- 
 fore he fays, it is ars qua docet rein univerfam tribuere in 
 farln, latentem explicate dsfiniendo, &c. 
 
 dividing,
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 443 
 
 dividing, and defining, with the greateft C. 13, 
 exactnefs *. This may be faid to be the 
 art of arts , fince it is the art by which arts 
 and fciences are made ; and in the wri- 
 tings that have been publilhed fince the 
 antient philofophy was out of fafhion, 
 there is nothing I defiderate fo much as or-* 
 der and method, and a deduction of things 
 from their firft principles. How neceflary 
 this art was for the invention of a philofo- 
 phical language, will appear from the ac- 
 count I am now to give of the language 
 invented by Bifhop Wilkins ; for the un- 
 derftanding of which it will be neceflary 
 to recollect what has been faid in the firft 
 part of this work, concerning ideas, and 
 the philofophy of mind, with which the 
 knowledge of all languages, but particu- 
 
 * Thefe are two different talents. For Socrates, fays 
 Ariftotle, inveftigated generals very well ; but he was not 
 fo accurate in dividing the genus, when found, into its 
 feveral fpeciefes. He himfelf excelled in both ; and it 
 appears to have been from the ftudy of him, chiefly, that 
 Bifliop Wilkins acquired thofe two great nerves of fcience, 
 definition and divifion. And in the tables which he has 
 compofed for the purpofe of framing his philofophical 
 language, there is more fcience to be found than any- 
 where that I know in fo fmall a compafs. 
 
 3 K 2 larly
 
 444 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 13. larly of a philofophical language, mufl be 
 intimately connected. 
 
 In theory? place, we mufl remember, that 
 all things in nature are reducible to certain 
 elaffes, which are termed by logicians ge- 
 nus or fyecies, according as they are high- 
 er or lower, containing or contained. To 
 make this diviiion and arrangement is the 
 great bufinefs of intellect ; and it is by this 
 operation that we form our notions or ideas 
 of every thing. 
 
 2*/0, It has alfo been obferved, that it 
 is ,in this way only that we have any know- 
 ledge or comprehenfion of any thing : for 
 we know nothing abfohitefy^ but only re- 
 latively, by knowing to what genus or 
 fpecies it belongs, that is to fay, what it- 
 has in common with other things, and 
 what different. Thus we know nothing 
 of man, except that he is of the genus a-^ 
 nimal, and of a certain fpecies of that ge- 
 nus, differing in certain things from o- 
 ther fpeciefes of the fame genus. 
 
 3//0, It is thefe notions, or ideas, as I 
 call them, thus formed, by comparing 
 things with one another, which, expreffed 
 by certain figns, audible or vifible, make 
 'Vyhat we call language, fpoken or written, 
 
 And
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 445 
 
 And if thofe figns are fuch as to bear a C. 13, 
 reference to the clafs in which the thing is ^ XNrsJ 
 to be found, fo that if we underftand the 
 iign, we have in effect the definition of 
 the thing, then is the language truly a 
 philofophical language, and fuch as muft 
 be univerfal among philofophers, who 
 have arranged and diftributed things into 
 proper claffes. It may alfo be faid to be a 
 natural language, as the Bifhop calls it, 
 
 lince it follows the order of the human 
 / 
 
 mind in forming the ideas of which lan- 
 guage is the expremon. 
 
 4^0, The difference betwixt fuch a lan- 
 guage, and the common languages, is ob- 
 vious. For the primitive words of thofe 
 languages have no connection at all with 
 the nature of things, or the claffes to 
 which they belong. And as to the deri- 
 vatives, though they have a connection 
 with the primitive word, it is not fuch a 
 connection as philofophy requires, but of- 
 ten the reverfe ; as in the cafe of what they 
 call abftraft nouns, fuch as bonitas in Latin, 
 or goodnefs in Englifh, which are derived 
 from the adjectives bonus, or good ; whereas, 
 according to philofophical derivation, and 
 he nature of things, die adjective denoting 
 
 the
 
 446 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 13. the quality concrete, mould have been de- 
 '^ rived from the noun denoting the quality 
 abftracl. Hence it comes, that the know- 
 ledge of things does not at all lead to the 
 knowledge of words in fuch languages, 
 any more than the knowledge of words leads 
 to the knowledge of things. And as to the 
 written characters of fuch languages, they 
 only exprefs the words, not the things. 
 It is evident therefore that fuch languages 
 "are far from being philofbphical : nor can 
 any of them be ever univerfal, but each 
 will be underftood only by fuch as have? 
 made a particular ftudy of it. 
 
 From thefe obfervations it appears, that 
 in order to form this philofophical and u- 
 niverfal language, we muft find out a cer- 
 tain number of genera, to which all things 
 in nature are reducible ; and we muft have 
 a mark or (ign for every thing, denoting 
 under which of thefe genera it is ranked. 
 And fecondly, As thofe genera muft have 
 under them a great number of fubordi- 
 nate fpeciefes, that particular fpecies to 
 which the thing belongs, muft alfo be 
 marked. And here muft appear the ex- 
 traordinary difficulty, both of the inven- 
 tion and ufe of fuch a language : for fup-^ 
 
 pofe
 
 Book III. PROGRESS of LANGUAGE. 447 
 
 pofe the genera, comprehending all C. 13 
 things, reduced to a fmall number, fuch 
 as would not be burdenfome to the me- 
 mory ; and fuppofe them to be diftin- 
 guifhed by marks that might become fa- 
 miliar by ufe ; how is it poffible to put 
 into any order, or bring into any reafon- 
 able compafs, the prodigious number of 
 fpeciefes that muft be included under each 
 genus, if the genera are of a high order ; 
 and if they are not, it is evident that they 
 themfelyes muft be of a number too bul- 
 ky and unwieldy for the ufe of language. 
 What I mean will be bell explained by an 
 example. Let us take the genus animal^ 
 which is none of the highefl genera, that 
 is, of thofe that are called categories or 
 predicaments ; yet it appears to comprehend 
 under it an almoft infinite number of fpe- 
 ciefes, many more, I am perfuaded, than 
 have yet been obferved or difcovered. 
 The fame may be faid of 'vegetables and of 
 Minerals ; and in general the number of 
 fpeciefes appear to be with refpec! to our 
 capacities, as incomprehenfible as the 
 number of individuals. Kow then are 
 fuch numbers to be arranged and exprefTed 
 by marks to be eafily learned and uiider- 
 
 ftood,
 
 THE ORIGIN AND PartlL 
 
 C. 13. flood, without confuiion or ambiguity, 
 ^*^ which is the cafe, as the Bimop fays, of the 
 marks invented by him ? 
 
 Here the Peripatetic philofophy has 
 helped out the Bifhop a little : for accord- 
 ing to that philofophy, every genus eon- 
 tains in it virtually certain differences, by 
 which it is divided into its fubordinate 
 fpeciefes. Thus in the example given of 
 animal, animals are divided, according to 
 their internal principle, into rational and 
 irrational-, according to the conftitution 
 of their bodies, into fanguineous and ex- 
 fanguious ; according to the ftrudlure of 
 the different parts of their bodyj into 
 whole-footed and cloven-footed, and the like j 
 according to their method of genera- 
 tion, into viviparous and oviparous ; and 
 according to their food or diet, into car- 
 nivorous and granivorous. Thefe diffe- 
 rences, with refpect to the genus, are call- 
 ed diaretic, or dividing, becaufe by them 
 the genus is divided into its feveral fpe- 
 ciefes. And with refpect to the fpeciefeSj 
 they are called fpec'ific, becaufe joined to 
 the genus, they conftitute the different 
 fpeciefes. Thus, in the example I have 
 given of animal, that genus is divided by 
 
 rational,
 
 Book III. P&OGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 449 
 
 rational, irrational, and the other dif- C. 13* 
 ferences above mentioned. And each Vx " 
 of thofe differences, joined to the genus, 
 conflitutes fo many different fpeciefes, 
 which are ranked under that difference. 
 Thus, for example, under rational are to 
 be ranked man and angel ; under irra- 
 tional, all the feveral fpeciefes of brutes ; 
 under 'whole-footed, are comprehended the 
 horfe, afs, mule, camel, &c. ; -under clo- 
 ven-foot ed, the ox, foeep, goat, &c. *. Now 
 thefe differences of each genus may be re- 
 duced to number ; and there is a way well 
 known among the antients, under the name 
 of the Diuretic method, or method of divi- 
 fion, by which a genus was divided into its 
 feveral differences, and the feveral fpe- 
 ciefes contained under thofe differences. 
 Of this method we have fine examples in 
 the Sophifta and Politicus of Plato, and in 
 Mr Harris's dialogue upon Art. 
 
 Here then is a confiderable flep made 
 
 * The nature of genui and fpeciss, and the method of 
 dividing a genus into its feveral fpeciefes by differences, are 
 mod accurately explained by Porphyry, in his introduc- 
 tion to Ariftotle's Logic, and by Animonius in his Commen- 
 tarv upon it ; which together, if diligently ftudied, are 
 the bed preparations for philofophy that is any where to 
 be found. 
 
 VOL. II, i L. towards
 
 45 THE ORIGIN A^D Part II. 
 
 C. 13, towards the formation of this univerfal 
 language. For if the genera are reduced 
 to a certain number not too great, and if 
 the differences under each of thefe genera 
 are likewife brought within a reafonable 
 compafs, there remains nothing to be 
 done, but to find out, and rank under 
 each of the differences, the feveral fpeciefes 
 belonging to it ; fo that if thefe likewife 
 can be reduced to a moderate number, the 
 bufinefs appears to be done. 
 
 For matters being thus prepared, one 
 fhould think, that nothing was wanting but 
 to find out marks or figns, whether written 
 or vocal, for the feveral things ; expreffing 
 firfl the genus to which the thing be- 
 longs, according to the order in which it 
 flands, whether firft, fecond, third, &c. ; 
 then the difference by which the genus is 
 divided, according to the fame order of 
 firft, fecond, and third ; and then the fpe- 
 cies under that difference, likewife in the 
 fame numerical order. But there flill re- 
 mains what is more difficult perhaps than 
 any thing I have hitherto mentioned, viz. 
 
 * o 
 
 to exprefs, firft, the feveral circumftances 
 and modes of exiftence, fuch as time, 
 place, greater or iefs in degree, fex, num- 
 ber.
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 451 
 
 ber, &c. ; and, fecondly, the grammati- C. 13 
 cal conftruction, or the connexion of the ^~*^ 
 ideas with one another ; for, as I have 
 taken occafion to obferve more than once, 
 any number of the clearefl and mod pre- 
 cife ideas would not form difcourfe, un- 
 lefs their connection, relation, and depen- 
 dence upon one another, were marked. 
 Suppofing therefore a mark found out, ex- 
 prefling the genus, the difference, and 
 under that difference the particular fpecies 
 to which the thing belongs ; yet, if it be a 
 verb, there mufl likewife be a mark found 
 out to exprefs the time of that verb, and 
 likewife the mode or difpofition of the 
 human -mind with refpect to the action. 
 If it be a noun, there muft be a mark for 
 its gender and ifs number, and alfo its 
 cafes, by which its connection with other 
 nouns, or with verbs, is expreffed ; and 
 there muft be alfo marks for fuch con- 
 nectives, as articles, pronouns, prepofi- 
 tions, and conjunctions ; befides many o- 
 ther particulars, which are required to 
 conftitute that mod difficult part of the 
 grammatical art, called fyntax. 
 
 Nor is it in one kind of language only 
 that thefe fo great difficulties are to "be got 
 3 L 2 over :
 
 453 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C, 13. over: for in order to make the art com- 
 plete, there muft be two kinds of lan- 
 guages, one vocal or effablc, as our author 
 exprefTes it, the other 'written ; and the 
 'words of the one, as well as the characters 
 of the other, muft exprefs all the different: 
 
 - things above mentioned. 
 
 Having faid thus much in general, of 
 the nature and requiiites of this philofo- 
 phical language, I come now to give fome 
 account of the one invented by the Bimop. 
 The firft thing he does is, to divide all 
 things which may be the fubjecls of 
 language, into certain claffes, or genera, 
 which he again fubdivides by their feve^ 
 ral differences. After this manner things 
 were divided by the antient philofophers 
 into ten claffes, called by them categories, 
 or -predicament s, of which I have had occa- 
 iion frequently to make mention in the. 
 courfe of this work ; but our author has 
 only made ufe of five of them, viz. fub- 
 
 Jlance, quantity, quality, aclion, and rela- 
 tion, which he has fubdivided into feveral 
 genera, as {hall be afterwards fhewn. But 
 there are notions which are ftill more 
 general than the categories, as I have had 
 QCCafipn. elfewhere to explain ; and he, 
 
 finds
 
 Book III. PROGRESS or LANGUAGE. 453 
 
 finds a difference betwixt thefe general no- C. i 
 tions, viz. that fome of them relate to 
 things, others to 'words. Thofe which re- 
 late to things he calls tranfcendental ; and 
 among thefe he finds a difference, namely, 
 that foine of them are abfolute, others re- 
 lative. The firft he calls tranfcendentals ge- 
 neral. The relative he divides into two 
 kinds : the one he calls tranfcendentals mixf, 
 belonging to quantity, quality, whole, 
 and part ; the other kind of relative 
 tranfcendentals wzfimple, and proper to 
 action, and which therefore he calls tran- 
 fcendentals of relation of action. Thus of things 
 tranfcendental, he makes his three firft 
 genera, viz. tranfcendentals general, tran- 
 fcendentals of mixt relation, and tranfcen- 
 dentals of relation of aflion. General notions 
 relating to words, he comprehends under 
 the name of difcourfe, and makes it his 
 fourth genus *. 
 
 Befides thefe general notions, there are 
 two fpecial things, which he considers to 
 be above the categories, viz. the creator, 
 and the 'world created by him ; and of 
 thefe he makes two other genera ; fb 
 that he makes in all fix genera of tran- 
 
 * Eflay towards a real character and philosophical lan- 
 guage, part 2. chap. i. et fiqq. 
 
 fcendentals,
 
 454 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 13. fcendentals, befides the genera into which 
 "^ he fubdivides the five categories above 
 mentioned, amounting in all to thirty- 
 four. The number therefore of his genera 
 all together is forty. 
 
 I will next endeavour to give the reader an 
 idea of the fpeciefes into which he divides 
 his genera ; beginning, as he does, with the 
 tranfcendentals ; which, as I have faid, 
 he divides into two kinds, one relating 
 to things, the other to words. Thofe of 
 things he has fubdivided into gene- 
 ral tranfcendentals, tranfcendentals of 
 relation mixt, and tranfcendentals of re- 
 lation of action ; and thefe, as I have faid, 
 make his three firft genera. In the firft of 
 thefe, viz. tranfcendentals general, he finds 
 fix differences^ viz. genus itfelf, or kind, as he 
 exprefTes it, caufe, diverfity, difference 
 relating to the end of aclion, difference 
 relating to the means, and, laflly, mode. 
 Under each of thefe differences he num- 
 bers feveral fpeciefes : e. g. Under the firft 
 of them, viz. genus, he reckons firft being 
 and nothing ; for in this way he couples 
 his fpeciefes, either on account of their op- 
 pqfition, as in this cafe, or on account of 
 their affinity. The fecond fpecies under 
 
 this
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 455 
 
 this difference is thing and appearance. The C. 1 3. 
 third is notion a.u.&flion, &c. In like man- v>or> -' 
 ner he numbers the fpeciefes under the fe- 
 cond difference , viz. caufe, reckoning effi- 
 cient and injlrument the firft, impulfive and 
 'cohibitive the fecond, and fo on through 
 the other four differences of his firft genus 
 of tranfcendentals general. And in like 
 manner he goes through the fecond genus, 
 dividing it likewife by differences, and e- 
 numerating the feveral fpeciefes under each 
 difference ; and in the fame manner he 
 goes through the third genus. Then he 
 comes to general notions or tranfcenden- 
 tals, as they may be called, relating to 
 words , which he comprehends all under 
 the name of difcourfe. This genus he di- 
 vides by fix differences, viz. elements, 
 'words, complex grammatical notions of 
 fpeech, complex logical not ions of difcourfe, 
 mixt notions of difcourfe belonging both 
 to grammar and logic, and laftly, modes 
 of difcourfe. And under each of thefe he 
 enumerates feveral fpeciefes *. And fo 
 much for general tranfcendentals, relating 
 both to things and 'words. 
 
 o 
 
 He next proceeds to the two fpecial tran- 
 
 * Ibid, part 2. clj, i. 
 
 fcendentals,
 
 456 THE ORIGIN AND PartIL 
 
 C. 13. fcendentals, beginning with the Creator, or 
 God, whofe effence being fimple and indi- 
 vifible, does not admit of a divifion into 
 fpeciefes. The fecond is the 'world, or uni- 
 verfe-, which he divides into fpiritual, or 
 immaterial, and corporeal', under each of 
 which he enumerates feveral fpeciefes. And 
 in this manner he goes through the firft 
 fix genera of notions more general than 
 the categories. 
 
 After this he proceeds to his five cate- 
 gories ; which he fubdivides, as I have 
 faid, into feveral fubaltern genera, in all 
 amounting to thirty -four. He begins 
 with fubftance : the firft difference of which 
 he makes to be inanimate ; which he di- 
 tinguifhes by the name of element, and 
 makes it his feventh genus ; of which he 
 finds fix differences, fuch as fre, air, 'water, 
 earth, &c. And under each of thefe dif- 
 ferences he enumerates feveral fpeciefes. 
 
 He next proceeds to fubftance animate ; 
 which he divides into vegetative and fen- 
 fitive. The vegetative again he fubdivides 
 into imperfect, fuch as minerals, (for he 
 holds that minerals have a kind of growth 
 or vegetation), and perfeff, fuch as plants. 
 The imperfecl vegetative he fubdivides into 
 
 Jlone,
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 457 
 
 Jlone, which is his 8th genus, and metal, C. 13. 
 which is his 9th. Stone he divides by fix 
 differences, which, as he tells us, is the u- 
 fual number of differences that he finds 
 under every genus ; and under each of 
 thefe differences he enumerates feveral 
 fpeciefes, which feldom exceed the num- 
 ber of nine under any one. Metal, which, 
 as I have faid, is his gth genus, he divides 
 only by four differences ; and in like man- 
 ner, under each difference, numbers the 
 feveral fpeciefes. 
 
 Having thus gone through the imperfeft 
 vegetative, he comes to the perfect, or plant, 
 which he fays is a tribe fo numerous and 
 various, that he confefles he found a great 
 deal of trouble in dividing and arranging 
 it. He has however fucceeded pretty 
 well, at lead fo it appears to me, who am 
 no botanift ; for natural things run fo 
 much into one another, and the principles 
 which conftitute their effences, and difcri- 
 minate them one from another, are fb 
 fubtile and latent, that I hold it to be im- 
 poffible to define and divide them fo accu- 
 rately as we can define and divide our 
 own abflracl notions. Plants he has di- 
 vided into herbs, Jhrubs, and trees. The 
 
 VOL. II. 3 M herb
 
 458 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 13. herb he defines to be a minute and tender 
 plant ; and he has arranged it according to 
 its leaves, in which way confidered, it 
 makes his i oth genus ; according to its 
 flower, which makes his nth ; and ac- 
 cording to its feed-veflels, which makes 
 his 1 2th genus. Each of thefe genera he 
 divides by a certain number of differences ; 
 and under each difference he ranges the fe- 
 veral fpecufes. All other plants being 
 woody, are larger and firmer than the herb ; 
 and he divides them into greater and lefTer. 
 The leiFer he calls a Jhrub, which he fays 
 commonly grows up from the ro6t in- fe- 
 veral ftems, and this makes his 1 3th genus. 
 The larger, growing up in one fingle ftern, 
 he calls tree^ and makes it his I4th genus ; 
 and thefe two genera of plants he alfo di^ 
 vides by feveral differences *, and under 
 each of the differences he ranges the feveral 
 fpeciefes. 
 
 Having thus exhaufted the vegetable 
 kingdom, he proceeds to the animal, or 
 fenfiti've^ as he calls it, being the fecond 
 member of his divifion of animate fub- 
 flance. This kingdom he divides into 
 (inimals, fanguinews and exjanguious, that 
 
 * Ibid, chap. 4. pag. 69,
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 
 
 is, animals without blood, and which C. 
 therefore he confiders as imperfect animals ; v - x " 
 and of thefe he makes his i$th genus, dif- 
 tinguifhing it, like the others, by feveral 
 differences, and ranging under each diffe- 
 rence the feveral fpeciefes belonging to it. 
 The fanguineous animals he divides into 
 three kinds, viz. fjh, which makes his 
 1 6th genus ; bird, which makes his I yth ; 
 and beaft, which makes his i8th: and 
 each of thefe genera he treats in the fame 
 manner as he has done the others. 
 
 Having thus confidered the general na- 
 ture of vegetables and animals, he proceeds 
 to confider the parts of both ; fome of 
 which are peculiar to particular plants and 
 animals, and conflitute his i Qth genus ; 
 others are general, and make the 2oth : 
 and thefe two genera are likewife diftin- 
 guifhed and divided like all the ref]:. 
 
 In this manner he goes through the re- 
 maining four categories of quantity, quali- 
 ty, aftion, and relation, and by dividing 
 and diftinguiming them, forms the gene- 
 ra remaining to complete the number forty, 
 all which he exhibits moft diflinclly in 
 one general view upon a {ingle page *. 
 
 * Parts, ch. I. p. 23. 
 
 3 M 2 It
 
 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 13. It would be too much to fay, and much 
 more than the author pretends to, that 
 there is no error or inaccuracy in a plan 
 which comprehends the whole of things ; 
 and that the many divifions, fubdivifions, 
 and diftinc~lions, could not have been more 
 properly made, or the definitions which 
 accompany them, rendered more accurate 
 and fcientific. The author acknowledges 
 the defects of his work, and fays, what is 
 very true, that " the defining of all kinds 
 " of things, not ions i and 'words , is too 
 " great an undertaking for a (ingle man, 
 " and ought to be the work of a fociety." 
 This he fays was the cafe of an Italian vo- 
 cabulary, which was the joint production 
 of the famous accademy de la Crufca, and 
 not finimed in lefs than forty years ; and the 
 Dictionary of the French accademy, which 
 began in i639,*was not, he fays, thencom- 
 pleated *. And befides this difficulty of the 
 work, there happened an accident in the ex- 
 ecution of it, which one mould have thought 
 would have put a flop to it altogether ; for, 
 as the author tells us, in the fame epiftle 
 dedicatory, all that was printed of it, ex- 
 cepting only two copies, and a great part 
 
 * Epiftle dedicatory.
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 461 
 
 of the imprinted original, was deftroyed C. 13. 
 in the fire of London. All this notwith- 
 flanding, the work, fvtch as it is, I think a 
 mod valuable work, {hewing a moft ex- 
 tenfive knowledge in the author, both of 
 nature and art, and a philofophical genius 
 fitted to excel, not only in one branch of 
 philofophy, but to comprehend the whole 
 of things. I have faid already, that there 
 is more fcience in his tables than is to be 
 found any where in fo fmall a compafs ; 
 and I have given fome inftances of his de- 
 finitions and divifions. I will give one or 
 two more, which, with what I have faid 
 of the general nature of the work, will, I 
 hope, be fufEcient to give the reader a 
 pretty complete idea of it. 
 
 I have already obferved, that he reckons 
 minerals a part of animated nature, be- 
 caufe he fays they appear to have growth 
 and nutrition, and to be reproduced from 
 certain feminal or fpermatic parts of thofe 
 of the fame kind, which he fays is proved* 
 by mines in appearance totally exhaufted, 
 again renewing themfelves *. And, if I 
 am not miflaken, our lateft difcoveries a- 
 gree with his philofophy. He therefore 
 
 * Parts, ch. 2. p. 54. 
 
 affigns
 
 " 
 " 
 
 462 THE ORIGIN AND Part H* 
 
 C. 13, affigns minerals to the vegetable kingdom, 
 and divides them into Jlones and metals. 
 Stones, he fays, are a kind of mineral, 
 hard and friable, " to which earthy con- 
 <c cretions may be annexed by way of affi- 
 " nity, being more foft and brittle, and 
 *' of a middle nature betwixt flones and 
 " metals." Then he proceeds, according 
 to his method, to give the difference of 
 Jlones and of earthy concretions. " Stones," 
 he fays, " are either vulgar, and of no price, 
 middle priced, precious , and thefe 
 either lefs tr an/parent, or more tranfpa- 
 rent *" Of Jlones therefore he makes 
 thofe four differences : and of earthy concre- 
 tions he makes two ; dijjolveable, and not 
 diflblveable :. and under each of thefe diffe- 
 rences he ranks the feveral fpeciefes in 
 their order. Then he proceeds to metals ; 
 defining metal to be a mineral, for the mofl 
 part of a hard confidence, clofe, dudlile, 
 and fufile. He divides it into perfect and 
 imperfecl. Of the perfecl; he makes two 
 differences, viz. natural, which are produced 
 in the earth, without the art of man, fuch 
 as gold, filver, 8cc. ; and factitious, which 
 are made by the art of man, fuch as brafs, 
 
 * Parts, ch. 3. p 61. 
 
 pewter,
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 463 
 
 pewter, and fteel. The imperfect he di- C. 13, 
 vides into thofe which are metalline fubftan- ^^^ 
 ces by themfelijes, and thofe which are only 
 the recrementitious parts, as he calls them, 
 of other metals, which are caft off in pre- 
 paring them *. 
 
 The other example I mail give, is of an 
 idea more abftracT: ; for it is taken from 
 one of the categories, viz. quantity, which 
 he divides into magnitude, fpace, meafurc. 
 " Magnitude," he fays, " is a word in- 
 " tended to fignify all the notions of con- 
 " tinned quantity ; to which may be joined, 
 " by way of affinity, the word EXTEN- 
 " SIGN ; by which is meant that kind of 
 " quantity whereby a thing is faid to 
 " have par tern extra part em, one part out of 
 ** another, being the fame thing with the 
 " former, under another coniideration f ." 
 Then, after having laid down, and gone 
 through, according to his ufual method, 
 the feveral differences of magnitude, and 
 the fpeciefes under each of thefe differ- 
 ences, he proceeds to the fecond member 
 of the divifion, viz. fpace. " This word," 
 
 Part 2. ch. 3. p. 65. 
 Ibid. ch. 7. p. 181. 
 
 fays
 
 464 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 13. fays he, " according to the common ufc 
 of it, is a name importing the more ge- 
 " neral notion of that wherein any thing 
 " is' contained or done, comprehending 
 " time, place, fituation *." Then having 
 gone through thefe three differences in 
 like manner, he proceeds to the third 
 member of the divifion, viz. meafure, of 
 which he fpeaks in this manner. " Thofe 
 feveral relations of -quantity, whereby men 
 ufe to judge of the multitude or great- 
 nefs of things, are ftyled by the name 
 of MEASURE, dimenfion, mete, furvey, 
 
 ti 
 it 
 u 
 
 M 
 
 " rule ; to which the relative term of PRO- 
 " PORTION, portion, rate, tax, fize, fcant- 
 
 ct 
 
 (C 
 
 a 
 
 ling, pittance, flare, dofe, mefs, fymmetry, 
 analogy, commenfurate, difpenfe, allot, ad- 
 apt, is of fome affinity, fignifying an 
 equality or limilitude of the refpedls 
 *' that feveral things or quantities have to 
 " one another. They are diftinguifhable 
 " into fuch as refpecl: either multitude i . 
 " magnitude 2. gravity 3. duration 4. 
 ** which is either more generally coiifidered 5. 
 *' or as rejlrained to living creatures 6." 
 
 Here we may obferve his method of fet- 
 ting down, under each head, all the Englifh 
 
 * Part 2. ch. 7. p. 186. 
 
 words
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 465 
 
 words relative to it. And in this refpect C. 13, 
 his work is a very good Englifti vocabu- 
 lary ; and in order that we may find any 
 word in it readily, he has fubjoined to 
 his work an alphabetical dictionary, in 
 which all the words are referred to the fe- 
 veral places in his tables where they are to 
 be found. 
 
 Our author having thus arranged and 
 digefled, into their proper places, the ideas 
 exprefTed by words, it was neceffary, as I 
 have obferved, to find out fome method of 
 connecting thofe ideas together, fo as to 
 form difcourfe. For the preceding part of 
 the work is to be confidered as nothing 
 elfe but a philofophical dictionary of NO- 
 TIONS, (that was the word then in ufe 
 in place of ideas, a word afterwards 
 brought into fafhion by Mr Locke), which, 
 fays, our author, muft be formed into 
 complex propofitions and difcourfes * ; 
 and this is to be done by the grammatical 
 art. It was therefore neceflary that he 
 ihould compofe a philofophical grammar, 
 as well as a philofophical dictionary ; 
 and accordingly he has done fo in the third 
 part of his work. Such a grammar is 
 
 * Part 3. ch. i. p. 297. 
 
 * 
 
 VOL. II. 3 N one
 
 466 THE ORIGIN AND Part IT, 
 
 C. 13. one of the defiderata in learning mentioned 
 by my Lord Bacon ; and though our au- 
 thor, who is very modeft and candid, 
 mentions three other authors * who had 
 written upon the fubjec^, but whom I ne- 
 ver faw nor heard of before, I am perfua-* 
 ded he is the firft who has treated it proper- 
 ly. He alfo mentions fome before him, 
 who had made attempts towards a univer- 
 fal language f ; but neverthelefs I am con- 
 vinced, that his work, among other merits, 
 has that of being original, and, fo far as 
 we kn-ow, the only one of the kind now 
 exifting ; for Chofe former works upon the 
 fubjeclare, I believe, nowhere to be found, 
 and no other attempts have been made 
 fince his time. 
 
 He divides grammar very properly into 
 three parts; one of which treats of the 
 different kinds of words, and the various 
 alterations they undergo by inflection, 
 composition, and derivation. This part 
 
 * Their names are Scotus, in his Grammat. Specitlati- 
 va ; Caramuel, in his Grammat. Audax ; and Campanella, 
 in bis Grammat tea Pbilofophica, part 3. ch. i. pag. 297. 
 
 f He names three, Btckerui, Athanafius Kircher y and 
 Phillip Labbe, p. 452. 
 
 he
 
 Book III. PROGRESS of LANGUAGE. 467 
 
 he calls etymology, The fecond treats of the C. 
 proper union or right conftruclion of words 
 into fentences ; and this part is commonly 
 known by the ifame of fyntax. The third 
 concerns the moil convenient marks or 
 founds for the expreflion of fuch names or 
 words, whether by writing, called ortho* 
 graghy, or by fpeech, orthoepy. 
 
 Upon this plan he gives us a grammar' 
 entirely new ; for he appears to me to have 
 been an original genius, who thought for* 
 himfelf upon every fubjecT:, but not like 
 thofe pretended geniufes of our time, who 
 fet up for great writers and philofopherS 
 Upon their own flock only, without any 
 afliftance from learning ; for it is evident 
 that he was very learned in philofophy, no 
 lefs than in languages* But his grammar, 
 however ingenious and philofophical it 
 may be, appears to me to be only fitted 
 for the ufe of his philofophical language ; 
 nor do I think that it could be applied to 
 the improvement of any language fpoken 
 at prefent. What I think moft curious in 
 it, is that part of it which concerns ortho- 
 graphy, and the power of the letters ; a 
 fubjedl which he had fludied very much, 
 and had befides, as he tells us, the aflift- 
 X2 ance
 
 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 13. ance of feveral learned men of his time, 
 ^ whom he names. I do not believe that 
 the organs of fpeech, and their feveral o- 
 perations, have been fo Accurately exa- 
 mined by any body, and whoever is cu- 
 rious upon this fubject, cannot refort to a 
 better book for information. There we 
 find all the articulate founds that tfre hu- 
 man mouth is capable of uttering, fo far 
 &s we know, arranged in a new order ; new 
 characters invented for fuch of them as 
 characters had not been provided for, and 
 the old characters confined to the expref- 
 fion of only one found. For the Engliih 
 'alphabet, as he has {hewn, is defective, 
 both in not having characters fuilicient to 
 exprefs all its founds, and in employ- 
 ing the fame character to exprefs more 
 than one found ; and he has given us a 
 fpecimen of the Lord's prayer, and of the 
 creed, in our alphabet, thus corrected *. 
 And, not contented with this amendment 
 of the old alphabet, he has given us two 
 alphabets altogether new : in one of which 
 he has ftudied to give the letters a fhape 
 bearing fome refemblance to the configu- 
 ration of the organs in the pronunciation 
 
 * Part 3. ch. 13. p. 373. 
 * Of
 
 Book III. PROGRESS of LANGUAGE. 469 
 
 of them ; fo that they may deferve, as he C. 1 3. 
 fays, the name of a natural character of 
 the founds they exprefs *. 
 
 All the Bifhop's work, fo far as I have 
 hitherto given an account of it, is no 
 more than a preparation for the magnum 
 opus, the framing of this wonderful lan- 
 guage ; to which he proceeds in the fourth 
 part of his work, beginning with the 
 written language, or real character , as he 
 calls it, becaufe it exprefles things, and not 
 founds, as the common characters do. And 
 the reafon he affigns for beginning with 
 the character, is, that though, in order of 
 time, fpeech be prior to writing ; yet, in 
 the order of nature, there is no prio- 
 rity between them, but voice and found 
 may be as well afligned to figure, as figure 
 to found. " And 1 do the rather," fays he, 
 " begin with treating concerning a com- 
 " mon character or letter, becaufe this 
 will conduce more to that great end of 
 facility, whereby, as I firft propofed, 
 men are to be invited to the learning of 
 it. To proceed from the language to 
 the character, would require the learn- 
 ing of both ; which being of greater 
 
 * Ibid. ch. 14. p. 375. 
 
 " difficulty 
 
 C( 
 
 cc 
 cc 
 cc 
 
 iC 
 
 ic
 
 47 THE ORIGIN AND PartIL 
 
 C. 13. " difficulty than to learn one alone, is not 
 Vx " vv- ' " therefore fo fuitable to that intention of 
 44 engaging men by the facility of it. And 
 44 becaufe men that do retain their feveral 
 <c tongues, may yet communicate, by a 
 44 real character, which mall be legible in 
 44 all languages ; therefore I conceive it 
 44 moft proper to treat of this in the firft 
 44 place, and mail afterwards ihew how 
 "this character may be made efFable in 
 " a diftinct language.'* And there can 
 be no doubt but that fuch a character 
 would be of great ufe, ferving the fame 
 purpofe that the Chinefe character does a- 
 mong many of the nations of the Eaft, 
 who communicate together by the means 
 of that character, though they do not un- 
 derftand one another's language. 
 
 " All characters," fays our author, 
 " fignify either naturally, or by injtitution* 
 " Natural characters are either the piftures 
 " of things, or fome other Jymbolical re- 
 <c prefentations of them *." Then he goes 
 on to tell us, that it were to be wifhed 
 that characters could be found, bearing 
 fome refemblance to the things expreiTed 
 by them ; but though this he thinks might 
 
 * Part 4. ch. i. p. 385. 
 
 be
 
 Book III. PROGRESS or LANGUAGE. 471 
 
 be done with refpect to the general kinds C. 13. 
 of things, yet he judges it to be very dif- 
 ficult, if not impoflible, to do it with 
 refpecl: to particular fpeciefes. It were de- 
 fireable alfo, he fays, that the founds of 
 a language fhould have fome refemblance 
 to the things exprefled by them, and by 
 confequence to the written characters, if 
 they were reprefentations of the things. 
 This he holds to be as difficult, or rather 
 as impoflible, as the other. His language 
 therefore, both written and effable, is, 
 like all other languages, of inftitution mere- 
 ly ; nor has the one any natural connection 
 with the other, any more than the founds 
 in other languages have with their alpha- 
 bet. 
 
 The characters of this univerfal lan- 
 guage fhould, he fays, have four proper- 
 ties. " i. They fhould be mod fimple and 
 " eafy for the figure, to be defcribed by 
 " one duel us of the pen, or at the mofl by 
 " two. 2. They muft be fufficiently di- 
 " tinguimable from one another to prevent 
 " miftake. 3. They ought to be comely 
 " and graceful, for the fhape of them, to 
 " the eye. 4. They mould be methodical, 
 * 4 thofe of the fame common nature ha- 
 
 " ving
 
 It 
 cc 
 
 (C 
 
 472 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 13. " ving fome kind of fuitablenefs and cor- 
 refpondence with one another ; all which 
 qualifications would be very advanta- 
 geous, both for underftanding, memory^ 
 and ufeT 
 
 He begins with contriving marks for his 
 forty genera : and thefe he has fb contri- 
 ved as to have all the properties he men- 
 tions ; for they are as fimple as poflible, 
 wonderfully varied, fo as to be fufficient- 
 ly diftinguifhed, and yet refembling one 
 another as much as they ought to do. For 
 proof of this I refer to the figures them- 
 felves *. 
 
 The next thing to be done is to mark 
 the differences under each genus. This is 
 done by affixing little lines at the left end 
 of the character, forming, with the cha- 
 racter, angles of different kinds, that is, 
 right , obtufe^ or acute , above or below ; 
 each of thefe affixes, according to its po- 
 lition, denoting the firft, fecond, third, 
 &c. difference under the genus ; for, as I 
 . have faid, all the differences under each 
 genus are numbered. 
 
 The third and laft thing to be done, is 
 to exprefs the fpecies under each difference. 
 
 * Ibid. pag. 387. 
 
 This
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 473 
 
 This is done by affixing the like marks to C. 13. 
 the other end of the character, denoting 
 the fpeciefes under each difference, as they 
 are numbered in the tables. 
 
 In this manner are exprefTed all the fe- 
 veral notions of things, which are the 
 fubjecl ot language. But the mofl diffi- 
 cult part Mill remains, which is, to connect 
 thofe notions together, fo as to make of 
 them what we call dlfcourfe. This the 
 grammatical art, in ordinary languages, 
 performs in many different ways ; which 
 may be all reduced to two general heads : 
 nrft, variation of the word itfelf ; fecond- 
 ly, by particles, or Separate words, devifed 
 for the purpofe of connection. The firfh 
 of thefe our author has {'applied by hooks 
 or loops, adjected to either end of the 
 character above or below, from which we 
 learn whether the thing is to be confider- 
 ed as a noun, or an adjective, or an ad- 
 verb, or whether it be taken in an active 
 or pafiive fenfe, or in the plural or fingu- 
 lar number. The other he fupplies by 
 marks denoting particles ; and thefe marks 
 are circular figures, dots, and little crook- 
 
 O * 
 
 cd lines or 'virgiilz, Ctifpofed in a certain 
 
 manner. In this V/.IY he exprefles the co- 
 
 VoL.II. 3O pula
 
 474 THE ORIGIN AND Part IT. 
 
 C. 13. pula of propofitions, by which he means 
 the verb, and its various tenfes and modes, 
 pronouns, prepofitions, interjections, con- 
 junctions, and articles. This, one mould 
 think, would make a wonderful perplexi- 
 ty and embarraflinent in his characters ; 
 and, 110 doubt, thofe fmall marks are more 
 difficult to be learned and attended to than 
 the greater marks for things ; but he has 
 contrived them fo as to be as eafy, both 
 for memory and ufe, as is poflible. 
 
 This is the general plan of this written 
 language, or real character ; but as we can- 
 not judge rightly of any machine, or of 
 thofe living machines (according to the 
 notions of certain philofophers) which we 
 call animals , unlefs we fee them move, fo 
 we mould never have w r ell underftood this 
 language of the Bifhop, if he had not 
 fliewn us the practice of it in two examples, 
 the Lord's prayer and the Creed. And in- 
 deed, upon the diligent perufal of thefe, 
 we not only underftand the invention 
 much better, but I think it is impoilible 
 not to admire it exceedingly ; and the 
 more attentively you confider it, the more 
 you will be convinced that it is not fo chi- 
 merical and impracticable as at firf: fight 
 
 it
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 475 
 
 it appeared. I refer the reader therefore C. 13, 
 to the fpecknens themfelves, wherein he 
 will obferve that the capital characters, ex r 
 prefiing the principal ideas or notions of 
 things, are large ; whereas the characters 
 exprefling the acceffories, or the connec- 
 tives of the difcourfe, which he calls par- 
 ticles, are fmall : and he ought likewife to 
 read the author's explications of the fpeci- 
 mens, which are given with great accuracy, 
 and propriety of expremoii ; for befides the 
 value of his matter, his (lyle is one of the 
 mod correct in Englifli, and is as elegant 
 and copious as his fubjedl requires. 
 
 If he had been a man of lefs genius, 
 and not fo great enterprife in fcience, he 
 would have contented himfelf with the in- 
 vention of this univerfal written language : 
 but he wanted to make it a language e- 
 vcry way complete ; and therefore he re- 
 folved to have it intelligible to the ears, 
 as well as to the eyes. He has according- 
 ly invented a philofophical language of 
 founds, which have no natural connection,- 
 as I obferved, with the characters, or the 
 nature of the things expreiied by them, 
 but the fyftem of it is built upon the fame 
 foundation, namely, the arrangement of 
 302 things
 
 476 THE ORIGIN AND Part IT. 
 
 C. 13. things into clafles, and his new-invented 
 grammatical art, for the purpofe of con- 
 netting them together in difcourfe. His 
 eflfable language therefore is no other than 
 the expreiHon of what is contained in his 
 tables by letters and fyllables, and for this 
 purpofe he has ufed the old alphabet, as 
 corrected and amended by himfelf. 
 
 The requiiites of this language he has 
 given us in the following words. " i. The 
 " words mould be brief, not exceeding 
 two or three fyllables, the particles con- 
 fifting but of one fyllable. 2 . They mould 
 be plain, and facile to be taught and 
 learned. 3. They mould be fufficiently 
 diftinguimable from one another, to pre- 
 vent miftake and equivocalnefs ; and 
 *' withal fignificant and copious, anfwer- 
 " able to the conceipts of our mind. 4. 
 *' They fhould be ejuphbnical, of a plea- 
 <c fant graceful found. 5. They ihould be 
 " methodical, thofe of an agreeable or op- 
 " pofite fenfe having fomewhat correfpon- 
 " dent in the founds of them *." 
 
 Proceeding upon this plan, he has ex- 
 preffed his feveral genera by fuch founds 
 as ba, be y bi y and da^ de^ di^ ga, ge, gi y 
 
 * Part 4. ch. 3. p. 414. 
 
 and 
 
 it
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 477 
 
 and the like, all compofitions of vowels, C. 13. 
 with one or other of the beft-founding 
 confonants. The differences under each 
 of thefe genera he expreffes, by adding to 
 the fyllable denoting the genus, one of 
 the following confonants, , d, g, p, /, 6-, 
 z, f, n, according to the order in which 
 the differences are ranked in the tables un- 
 der each genus, b exprefling the firft dif- 
 ference, d the fecond, and fo on. The 
 fpecies he expreffes, by putting after the 
 confonant which (lands for the difference, 
 one of the feven vowels, according to his 
 alphabet ; and if the number of fpeciefes 
 exceed the vowels, he ufes diphthongs for 
 the reft. 
 
 I cannot illuftrate this better than in his 
 own words " For inftance," fays he, " if 
 " de fignify element -, then deb muft: fignify 
 " the firft difference ; which, according 
 "to the tables, is fre : and deba will de- 
 " note the firil fpecies, which is flame, 
 " Det will be the fifth difference under 
 " that genus, which is appearing meteor 
 " det* the firft fpecies, viz. rainbow , dcta 
 " the fecond, viz. hqlo. 
 
 *' Thus, if tl fignify the genus of Jen- 
 * l fible quality y then tid muft denote the fe- 
 
 <c cond
 
 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 tc cond difference, which comprehends co- 
 lours ; and tida muft fignify the fecond 
 " fpecies under that difference, viz. red- 
 " nejs ; tide the third fpecies, which is 
 " greennefs *," <kc. 
 
 Next he proceeds to mew how the gram- 
 matical variations of words are to be ex- 
 preffed. If the word is an adjective, fays 
 he, which, according to his method, is 
 always derived from a fubftantive, the de- 
 rivation is made by the change of the ra- 
 dical confonant into another confonant, 
 or by adding a vowel to it. Thus if da 
 fignifies God, dua muft fignify divine ; if 
 de fignifies element^ then due muft fignify 
 elementary ; if do fignifies Jtone, then duo 
 muft fignify Jlony ; and in like manner 
 voices and numbers, and fuch like acci- 
 dents of words, are formed f . As to the 
 acceffory words, or particles^ as he calls 
 them, he expreffes them by fimple vowels 
 or diphthongs, or by fome of thofe mono- 
 fyllables not ufed for any of the genera or 
 differences. 
 
 After having laid down the rules for 
 this philofophical language, he proceeds 
 to give us examples of it in the Lord's 
 
 * Ibid, p. 415. f Ibid. p. 417. 
 
 prayer
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 479 
 
 prayer and Creed, with large explanations C. 13, 
 >f them, referring to the rules he has laid Vx " v " Nj 
 down. He confefTes, that ".his contri- 
 " vance for this language, is not ordered, 
 41 as to the facility and pleafantnefs of the 
 ' found, to fo good an advantage as it 
 " might have been upon further confide- 
 1 ration and practice ; but, as it is, I 
 1 think it may even in thefe refpects come 
 4 into comparifon with any of the lan- 
 ' guages .now known *." And for trial 
 of this, -he gives us the Lord's prayer in 
 fifty different languages. 
 
 He concludes his work with an appendix, 
 wherein he compares his language with 
 the Latin, which he fays in thefe parts of 
 the world fupplies the place of a common 
 language *. And in this comparifon he is 
 very fcvere, and I think not without rea- 
 fon, upon the Latin, obferving many de- 
 fects, redundancies, and anomalies, in the 
 grammar of it. But he very wifely, in 
 my opinion, abllains from the compari- 
 fon of his languge with the Greek; think- 
 ing, I fuppofe, that it would not gain fo 
 
 * Part 4. ch. 4. in frit. 
 } Ibid. ch. 6. in ir.it it. 
 
 much
 
 480 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 13. much by that comparifon ; for he elfe- 
 v "'" vv "' where confefles that the Greek language is 
 much more philofophical than the Latin *. 
 Thus I have endeavoured to explain thia 
 wonderful invention of the good bifhop, 
 by which he intended, as he fays, to re- 
 medy the curfe of the confulion of Babel. 
 I know many of my readers will think 
 that I have given a fuller account of it 
 than was neceiTary or proper ; but the 
 book is little known, though I think it 
 deferves to be very much known and ad- 
 mired. For, in my opinion, it does great 
 honour to the fociety of which he was a 
 member, and to the nation in general. 
 There are however, no doubt, many de- 
 fects and inaccuracies in it, as the author 
 himfelf acknowledges ; but I am fure the 
 old proverb will apply very well here, 
 " It is eafier to find fault, than to imitate, 
 " or do better j." That one part at lead 
 of the project is practicable, I mean sthe 
 forming of a new language of words ac- 
 cording to rules of art, I have not 
 the lead doubt. In the languages already 
 invented, there is a wonderful variety ; 
 
 * P. 3JJ. } Miijttwfrai ti; fcXA.v (if/.tieiTUt, 
 
 nor
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 481 
 
 nor is there any reafon to think, that in C. 1 3. 
 them all the variety which the nature of 
 the thing will admit, is exhaufled. And 
 in fa<5l we know, that there is a language 
 actually exifting, which is formed, like 
 our author's, upon principles of philofo- 
 phy ; I mean the language of the philofo- 
 phers of India> called the Sanfcrit : fo that 
 the only doubt is, whether a fingle man, in 
 the courfe of a fhort life, is capable of fra- 
 ming fuch a language. As to the real cha- 
 rafter, there is, I think, more difficulty 
 in the formation of it. And yet that there 
 may be a language of characters, which 
 are not the marks of founds, but of things, 
 the Chinefe language is an irrefragable 
 proof. And as that language appears to 
 have been formed with very little ailift- 
 ance from philofophy or art, it cannot be 
 doubted but that, with the amftance of 
 philofophy, and the grammatical art, an- 
 other and a better language of the fame 
 kind might be formed. 
 
 With refpecl: to the facility of learning 
 the Bifhop's language, he fays, that there 
 are but three thoufand words in it, and I 
 fuppofe as many characters ; whereas, he 
 reckons, in the Latin language, thirty 
 
 VOL. II. 3 P thouiand
 
 482 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 13. thoufand radicals, Computing the feveral 
 homonymies to be fo many different words, 
 and by a computation which he gives us 
 from Varro, he makes the number of 
 words all together, with all their different 
 variations by flection, to amount to about 
 five millions. He therefore concludes, that 
 his language is much eafier to be learned 
 than the Latin, in the proportion, as he 
 fays, of one to forty ; and he does not 
 doubt, but that a man of good capacity 
 and memory, might, in one month's fpace, 
 attain to a readinefs of expremng his 
 mind, either in the character, or the lan- 
 guage *. 
 
 * Couclufion of the book. 
 
 CHAP,
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 483 
 
 CHAP. XIV. 
 
 That a language of art miijl have been the 
 t work of men of art, and formed upon a 
 regular plan. ^ The fame art necejfary t& 
 preferve language that is required to form 
 it. The ivant of fuch art the caufe of 
 the corruption of all languages. The dan^ 
 ger of the Englijh being fo corrupted. - 
 Irregularities and imperfections of the La- 
 tin. 
 
 Have all along, through the courfe of C. 14* 
 this work, fuppofed, that a language VtaX " v ~ v ^ 
 of art could not have been formed with- 
 out art, and that it mull have been the 
 \vork of 4 men of art, and fuperior abilities ; 
 and accordingly I have talked, in the 
 ftyle of Plato and other antient writers, 
 of the artificers of language, and the law- 
 givers of r words. It may however be? 
 thought, that I make a great deal too much 
 of this matter ; and that though there be, 
 no doubt, a great deal of art in language, 
 yet it may have arifen by degrees from ex- 
 3 P 2 perience a
 
 4$4 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 14. periencc, obfervation, and vulgar ufe ; 
 and that in this way even a language of 
 art may have been formed without any 
 regular plan or fyftem. If this be true, I 
 think it muft be true likewife, that all 
 the other arts, libr.ral as well as mechani- 
 cal, muft have been invented in the fame 
 way ; and that painting, mufic, architec- 
 ture, muft have been the work of the mere 
 vulgar. 1 The queftion therefore is gene- 
 ral, and deferves to be confidered with 
 fome attention. 
 
 And, in the firjl place, it is no doubt 
 true, that the art of language, like every 
 other art, muft have arifeii from experi- 
 ence: for, as Ariftotle has faid*, many ex- 
 periences make art ; and no art ever would 
 have been formed, if men had not firft be- 
 gun with the practice ; very rude and im- 
 perfect no doubt at firft, but which was 
 improved by degrees, and at laft formed 
 into an art. For we never fhould have 
 had the art of architecture, if men had not 
 begun with building huts and cabanes, 
 fuch as we find among the barbarous na- 
 tions ; nor of painting, if there had not 
 been a beginning by rude draughts, ei- 
 
 * Mclapkyf. lib. I. cap, I. 
 
 ther
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 
 
 ther in colours or carving, which we C. 14. 
 likewife find is praclifed among fuch na- 
 tions ; and if men had not firfl fung, or 
 performed upon inftruments, there cer- 
 tainly never would have been an art of 
 mufic. And in like manner, if men had 
 not firfl fpoken, there never would have 
 been an art of language ; for it is certain, 
 that in matters of art, men did not begin 
 with the theory, but the practice ; and 
 the only queftion is, Whether, from the 
 practice, a theory did not at laft arife, 
 without which the art could not have been 
 formed ? and whether fuch theory could 
 have been the produclioh of mere people ? 
 idly, I think it is likewife evident, that 
 the art of language could not have been 
 formed at once, but there mufl have been 
 a growth and progrefs in it as in other arts. 
 For even after the general plan or fyftern of 
 any art was formed, there mufl have been 
 many after inventions and additions made, 
 before the art was completed ; and accord- 
 ingly, I have obferved a progrefs of this 
 kind in the Greek language. 
 
 3<//j', It mufl not be thought that a 
 
 grammar, or any fyflem of the language, 
 
 was written before the art was invented. 
 
 & s Whoever
 
 486 THE ORIGIN AND Part IL 
 
 C. 14. Whoever knows any thing of the hiftory 
 of arts, knows that they were invented 
 and completed before they were reduced 
 to writing. Thus the fined buildings of 
 antiquity were reared before Vitruvius, 
 or any other, fo far as I know, had writ- 
 ten upon architecture. Painting was an 
 art of the higheft eftimation, and praclifed 
 with the greateil fuccefs by Zeuxis, Ap- 
 pelles, and Protogenes, though there does 
 not appear to have been then a word writ- 
 ten upon the fubject. Who can doubt 
 that the art of poetry was well known and 
 practifed before Ariflotle wrote his book 
 upon poetry ? and that the art of rhetoric, 
 in like manner, was perfectly underftood 
 before he or any other wrote upon the fub- 
 jecl ? And with refpect to this matter of 
 language, it is faid, that Plato and Ari- 
 flotle were the firfl who wrote upon the 
 fubject of grammar *, though it be cer- 
 tainly true, that the grammar of the Greek 
 language was completed long before their 
 time, and even as early as the days of Ho- 
 mer. And the fact truly is, that all the 
 books that have been written upon the fub- 
 
 * See Bifliop Wilkins's philofophical language, book 
 ch. ?. p. 20. and the authorities he there quotes. 
 
 jecl
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 487 
 
 jecl of any art, have been formed from the .14. 
 practice of that art already invented, not 
 the art from the books. This is plainly the 
 cafe of one of thofe books I mentioned, viz. 
 Ariftotle's Art of Poetry, which is clearly no 
 more than a collection of obfervations up- 
 on the art, arifing from the practice of 
 Homer and the tragic poets. And I am 
 perfuaded there is nothing in that book, 
 which was not known to every poet of that 
 age, except the philofophical principles 
 upon which Ariflotle has founded the 
 art. 
 
 Thefe things being premifed, the que- 
 ftion comes to this precife iflue, Whether 
 fuch a language as the Greek could have 
 been formed by ordinary men employed 
 in the common occupations of life, and 
 without making language their particular 
 fludy ? or whether, for the framing fuch 
 a language, men of more than ordinary 
 genius were not required, and who had 
 made a particular ftudy of the nature 
 both of words and of things ? 
 
 And, in the frjl place, it is to be conli- 
 dered, that there is one thing abfolutely 
 required in every art, that it mould have 
 fame plan or fyflem ; by which I mean, 
 
 that
 
 488 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 14. that it mould propofe fome end to be at- 
 tained, and proceed in a certain method, 
 and according to certain rules, for the at^- 
 tainment of that end *. The end of lan- 
 guage, for example, is to exprefs the con- 
 ceptions of the human mind. For this 
 purpofe, the four things that I mentioned 
 in the beginning of this volume are re- 
 quired, viz. That all the conceptions of 
 the mind fhould be diftincHy exprefled. 
 zdo, That this mould be done by as few 
 words as poflible. ^fio, That the connec- 
 tion of thofe words with one another 
 Chould be fome way marked. And, 
 
 * Art is defined by the Stoics to be, StWwjK* Ix xarati^a* 
 
 fyyfyup.vaa-filvav *pf TI TtXof tv^porov ruv iv ru <. And Qllin* 
 
 tilian defines it to be, Poteftas via. (i. e. ordine ) efficient, 
 See Mr Harris's excellent treatife of Art, and the 1 notes 
 upon it, p. 260. It is therefore of the eflence of art, 
 that it Ihould be a fyjlem^ and proceed according to rule 
 and method. So that though experience be the mother 
 of art, yet a man would be no better than an empiric, 
 who had collected the greateft number of facts and ob- 
 fervations on any art, if he had not digefted them into a 
 fyftem, laying down principles, and drawing from thence 
 confequences to the practice, and fo forming that ifa tani 
 *yw xfof a-T<x. And if the art is to be carried the 
 length of fcience, it muft be founded on principles that 
 are out of the art, and to be found only in philofophy. 
 And it is in this way that I have endeavoured to conned: 
 grammar with philofopby. 
 
 That
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. ' 489 
 
 That the found of the language fhould be C. 14. 
 agreeable to the ear, and of eafy utterance. 
 For attaining thefe purpofes, we have feen 
 in the courfe of this work, how many 
 things were required. Firil, That a fy- 
 flem of etymology was to be formed, by 
 which the whole language was to be de- 
 rived from certain primitive founds, or ra- 
 dical words. Then cafes, genders, and 
 numbers, were to be invented ; which an- 
 fwered a double purpofe, both of expref- 
 fing different relations and other circum- 
 ftances of things, and of connecting words 
 together in fyntax. Then tenfes and moods 
 of verbs were to be contrived, by which 
 the circumflance of time, and the affec- 
 tions or difpofitions of the human mind 
 with refpect to the action of the verb, 
 were to be expreffed. And, laflly, The ele- 
 mental founds of language muft be fo com- 
 bined in fyllables and words, and thefe 
 fyllables muft be fo varied in length and 
 modulation, as to make the found of the 
 language fweet and mufical, at the fame 
 time that it is flrong and mafculine. All 
 this was to be done by certain rules : for 
 fuch is the nature of art, that every thing 
 belonging to it, which by its nature can 
 VOL. II. be
 
 49 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 14. be fubjected to rule, muft be fo fubjefted ; 
 for where there is no rule, there is no art. 
 Now it is impomble that all this can be 
 done, without that great work of fcience 
 being firft performed, I mean analyfis ; for 
 language muft have been anulyfed, both 
 the formal and material part of it, before 
 it could be formed into fuch a iyftem as 
 that of the Greek language. Now is it 
 poffible to believe, that all this could be 
 done by men who never thought of lan- 
 guage, but fo far as it ferved the ordinary 
 purpofes of life ? If we can believe this, 
 we may alfo believe, not only that all the 
 arts above mentioned were fo invented, 
 but likewife all the fciences ; that geo- 
 metry, for example, and aftronomy, and 
 even philofophy itfelf, would grow up a- 
 mong favages, as it were fpontaneoufly, 
 without care or culture. But the hiftory 
 of mankind, as well as the reafon of the 
 thing, contradicts this hypothecs : for 
 we know, that the fciences took their rife 
 in a country where there was an order of 
 men fet apart for the cultivation of them, 
 having the necelTaries of life fupplied to 
 them by the labour of others, and being 
 relieved of all other cares but that of learn- 
 ing
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 491 
 
 ing and religion. This was the cafe in C. 14. 
 Egypt ; and though in Greece there were 
 no colleges of priefts, as in Egypt ; yet in 
 the progrefs of fociety, it mud neceflarily 
 happen, that fome men will be relieved of 
 the neceflity of bodily labour, and enabled 
 to live by the labour of others. Now it 
 was by fuch men, in Greece, and in other 
 countries, employing their leifure in the 
 cultivation of arts and fciences, that lan- 
 guage and every other art and fcience was 
 formed. 
 
 At the fame time I would not be under- 
 flood to deny, that iavages, living in fuch 
 a ftate as that of the Hurons, in which e- 
 very man is obliged to provide for the ne- 
 ceflities of life, and confequently has little 
 time for fpeculations of any kind, would, 
 from mere neceffity, make fome progrefs 
 in the art of language, as well as in other 
 iiecelFary arts ; for the fame neceflity 
 that made men invent this method of 
 communication by articulate founds, 
 would alfo make them contrive expedi- 
 ents for rendering the ufe of it as eafy 
 and convenient as poilible. And ac- 
 cordingly we have feen, that among the 
 and other barbarous nations, 
 3 Qj2 there
 
 492 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 14. there are fome beginnings of the art of 
 
 '* v> ^ language. But I deny that among any 
 
 people, while they continue in that flate, 
 
 a regular fyftem of a language could be 
 
 formed. * 
 
 There are perhaps readers who may 
 think, that what I have faid of the art of 
 the Greek language is much exaggerated, 
 and for the greater part an imagination of 
 my own, particularly with refpecl to its 
 fyftem of etymology. But what will they 
 fay of the Sanfcrit language above defcri- 
 bed * ? of which all the words are derived 
 from certain radical founds, which have 
 no determined Signification of their own, 
 according to certain rules of derivation, 
 fo fixed and eflablifhed that any man who 
 knows thofe rules, can never be at a lofs 
 for words in that language, but may form 
 them readily as he needs them, and they 
 will be perfectly underflood by thofe who 
 underftand the language, though they had 
 never heard them before. Muft not fuch 
 a language at lead have been the invention 
 of philosophers as well as grammarians ? 
 Or if any of my readers fhould doubt of 
 
 * Part 2. book i. ch. 16. p. 210. See alfo Difierta- 
 tlon on the Formation of the Greek language* 
 
 the
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF -LANGUAGE. 493 
 
 the truth of this fact, for no other reafon, C. 14. 
 that I can conceive, but becaufe the perfon Vx>rN - ; 
 who relates it is a Jefuit, what will they 
 fay to the example of the Hebrew lan- 
 guage ? the words , of which are all de- 
 rived from roots formed of combinations 
 of the feveral confonants in triads. Is it 
 poiTible to fuppofe, that a language of fo 
 artificial a ftructure mould have been the 
 invention of men of no art or fcience ? 
 and yet the Greek is allowed, I believe, 
 by every body who underftands both, to 
 be a language of much greater art. If we 
 can believe all this, we may believe alfo, 
 that Bifhop Wilkins's philofophical lan- 
 guage may have been invented by the 
 people. 
 
 But further, I fay, that a language of 
 art not only could not have been invented 
 by the people, but that it cannot be pre- 
 ferved among them, without the particu- 
 lar care and attention of thofe men of art 
 we call grammarians ; whom we may de- 
 fpife as much as we pleafe ; but if there 
 be not fuch a fet of men in every country, 
 to guard againfl the abufes and corruptions 
 which popular ufe will necefTarily intro- 
 duce
 
 494 THE ORIGIN AND PartIL 
 
 C. 14. duce into every language ; and if the 
 ~ youth of rank and fortune in the country, 
 are not carefully inflructed by fuch men 
 in the principles of grammar ; the lan- 
 guage of that country, however perfect it 
 may have been originally, will very foon 
 become unlearned and barbarous. It is 
 chiefly by fuch neglect that all the prefent 
 languages of Europe are become corrupt 
 dialects of languages that were originally 
 good ; the French, Italian, Spaniih, and 
 modern Greek, of the Latin and Greek ; 
 the Engiifh, German, and other Teuto- 
 nic dialects, of the Gothic. Nor is what 
 remains of the Celtic, as I am informed, 
 free of corruption. 
 
 Sic omnia fatis 
 
 In pejus ruere, et retro fublapfa referrl. 
 
 Such is the fate of all human arts : for 
 not being natural to man, but a kind of 
 forced production of the foil, they muft 
 be preferved with the fame care that is re- 
 quired to rear them ; and if that is but a 
 little remitted, down the ilream we go to 
 our natural ftate of ignorance and barba- 
 rity: 
 
 Non
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 
 
 Non allter quam qui adverfo <vix flumine lem- C. 14. 
 bum v^wJ 
 
 Remigiis fubigit, ft brachia forte remifit, 
 Atqus ilium in pr<eceps prono rapit al*veus am- 
 
 Thug 
 
 * Though we of Britain boaft of being a learned na- 
 tion, I doubt thfc Engiiih language is not mended in 
 our hands. Dr Lowth, in his excellent grammar, has 
 collected a furprifing number of baibarifms and folecifms 
 that are to be found in our moft admired authors, parti- 
 cularly of this century. The bell authors may be guilty of 
 inaccuracies of ftyie through hurry and inattention ; but 
 luch frequent and repealed blunders could not have pro- 
 ceeded but from abfolute ignorance of the grammatical 
 art. To be convinced of this, let us compare thofe au- 
 thors with fome of the great writers of antiquity, the 
 rules of whofe language we underftand as well, perhaps 
 better, than thofe of our own ; and beiides, thephilofophy 
 of language is now fo well underftood by the learned a- 
 mong us, that we know not only what a language is, 
 but what it ought to be. Now let us try whether we 
 can find in Plato, Ariftotle, Demofthenes, or Cicero, 
 fuch fins committed, not only agaihft the particular rules 
 of their languages, but againft the rules of general and 
 philofophical grammar. Or if we are not learned enough 
 to be able to make this comparifon, let us compare them 
 with fome of the beft writers of the lafl age, fuch as Bi- 
 Jhop Wilkins's book upon philofophical language, with 
 which, though it appear that Dr Lowth was acquainted, 
 yet I obferve none of his examples of folecifms are from 
 him ; nor do I remember any that he has quoted from 
 an author of the fame age, but who flouriihed a little 
 later, I mean my Lord bhaftefbury, whom I have always 
 
 admired,
 
 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 14. Thus I think I have proved, that a lan- 
 ^^^ gu a g e f art muft have been the work of 
 men of art. But a difficulty will here oc- 
 cur : How can we fuppofe that the people 
 of any country would receive a language 
 from thofe few artifts, and agree univer- 
 fally to give up that jargon, which, how- 
 ever rude and barbarous, they and their 
 forefathers had been fo long accuftomed to 
 fpeak ? To this I anfwer, firft, That the 
 fame thing muft have happened with re- 
 fpec~l to the other arts, in which, as in 
 language, the many muft have fubmitted 
 to be taught by the few ; otherwife every 
 art of life muft have continued to be prac- 
 tifed at this day as rudely and im- 
 perfectly as it was at firft. And the rea- 
 fon why men fhould thus fubmit to be 
 
 admired, not only for the elegance and copioufnefs of 
 his ftyle, in both which he perhaps exceeds any Englifh 
 author, but for the purity of it ; and as if fine writing 
 belonged to his family, there is a relation of his in this 
 age, Mr Harris, who is as correct in his ftyle as he is e- 
 legant. 
 
 If then it be true, that language is declining, it is time 
 that the patrons of learning among us fhould take the 
 alarm ; for they may be afTured, that with the art of 
 language, every other art and fcience will decline. It 
 has always been fo in every age and nation, and will al- 
 ways be fo. 
 
 inftructed,
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 497 
 
 inftrudled, is fufHciently evident ; for man C. 14, 
 being naturally a docile and an imitative 
 animal, would be difpofed to copy whate- 
 ever he faw was better of the kind than 
 what he had been in ufe to praftife. And 
 this would hold efpecially, if the new me- 
 thod was recommended by men of autho- 
 rity, fuch as we muft fuppofe thofe invent- 
 ors of the art of language to have been among 
 a favage people. And accordingly I fay, in 
 the fecoiid place, That, in point of fac"i, 
 there are examples of whole nations ha- 
 ving given up their language in favour 
 of a better one, recommended to them 
 by their governors, or men of authority a- 
 mong them. This I believe was the cafe 
 of the whole inhabitants of Greece, when 
 the Pelafgi firft came among them ; as it 
 undoubtedly was of the Athenians, who, 
 as Herodotus tells us, changed their lan- 
 guage for that of the Pelalgi, when they 
 were in pofleffion of Attica. And we are 
 informed by Garcilaffo de la Vega, that 
 many of the barbarous nations in Peru, 
 who fubmitted to the arms of the Incas, 
 likewife received a language from diem. 
 
 When the new language is thus im- 
 ported into a country by conquerors, the 
 
 VoL.ir. 3R progrefs
 
 49& THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 14. progrefs of it would be quick ; but it 
 would be much flower when it was in- 
 vented in the country itfelf, as it muft 
 have been at firfl in Egypt, or fome o- 
 ther country ; for the progrefs of the inven- 
 tion itfelf muft have been flow, and the 
 teaching it to the people ftill flower. For 
 it is not likely that the people would 
 receive it fo readily from men of their own 
 country, as from foreign conquerors, 
 bringing in their other arts, and changing 
 the whole ftate of the country. 
 
 In framing this language of art, I am 
 perfuaded the artifls would make ufe of 
 the materials of the old jargon : for they 
 certainly would ufe the elemental founds 
 that had already been invented ; and to 
 thefe they would add others, which, 
 upon trial, they found the human mouth 
 could pronounce. What veftiges of art 
 they found in the old language, fuch as 
 we have fhewn are to be found in the 
 moft barbarous languages, they would 
 follow, and improve upon. They would 
 foon fee the iieceffity of expreffing things 
 that have a likenefs by words that alfo 
 have a likenefs, which can only be done 
 by derivation and compofition ; and for 
 this purpoie they would find it abfolutely 
 
 necefTary
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 499 
 
 neceflary to abridge the immoderate length C. 14. 
 of the old words. They would difcover, 
 that time was a neceflary adjunct of all 
 actions. This would naturally lead them 
 to exprefs it by fome variation of the word 
 denoting action ; that is, they would in- 
 vent tenfes. They would alfo difcover, 
 that an agent was necefTary in every action, 
 and they would find the diviiion into three 
 perfons made to their hand. They would 
 therefore naturally think of marking 
 like wife this d inunction of perfons, by 
 a variation of the verb ; and there 
 too they would find fomething already 
 done, as I have obferved before with re- 
 fpect to the Huron language *. And lad 
 of all they would find out the neceility of 
 fyntax, and of cafes of nouns. 
 
 This would, as I conjecture, be the pro- 
 grefs of a language of art among the artifts 
 themfelves ; but the progrefs, as I have 
 faid, would be much flower among the 
 people. For I believe fuch a language a- 
 mong them could hardly be eilablifhed 
 without government, civility, religion, 
 mufic, and other arts, which therefore I 
 
 * Vol. i. pag. 374. 
 
 3 R 2 imagine
 
 500 THE ORIGIN AND Partll. 
 
 C. 14. imagine have all come along with this lan- 
 
 v -"" v " x - / guage. In fhort, I fuppofe that the people 
 
 mufl have been tamed and civilized before 
 
 they could be taught to fpeak according to 
 
 rules of art. 
 
 Before I conclude, I will take notice of 
 an objection that will naturally occur to 
 my fyflein of language being the work of 
 art. It will be faid, that popular ufe is the 
 governing principle in languages, 
 
 penes arbitrmm et jus et nornm 
 
 as Horace fays ; and according to Quin- 
 tilian, Confuetudo eft certij/ima loquendi ma- 
 gijlra ; utendumque plane fennone^ ut nummo^ 
 cut publlca forma ejl *. 
 
 But to thefe authorities, I anfwer, frft, 
 That neither Horace nor Quintilian meant 
 to deny that there was a great deal of art 
 in language. But it is evident, from the 
 context of both pafiages, that their mean- 
 ing was, that when the rules of art and 
 the reafon of the thing were upon one fide, 
 and uniform cuflom upon the other, the 
 laft ought to prevail ; which is faying no 
 more, than that a man mufl not pretend 
 to make a language for himfelf, any more 
 
 * Lib. t. cap. 6. it'll to. 
 
 than
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 501 
 
 than to coin money for himfclf, to life .14. 
 Quintilian's comparifon, but muft fpeak 
 like other men, as well as ufe the current 
 coin. But, 2^/y, I fay this obfervation 
 applies much more ftrongly to the Latin, 
 which we mufl fuppofe thofe authors had 
 chiefly in view, than to the Greek, or any 
 other pure unmixed language. What mix- 
 ture the antient Pelafgic fufferecl when it 
 was firfl imported into Latium, it is im- 
 poflible I believe exactly to determine. 
 Some authors, 1 know, think, that there is 
 a great mixture in it of Ofcan, and other 
 barbarous dialects. But be that as it will, 
 it is certain, that in later times it was 
 brought much nearer to the Greek fland- 
 ard, by introducing not only a great 
 many Greek words, but a great deal of 
 the Greek analogy and declenfion of words. 
 This makes the Latin analogy not fo con- 
 fident with itfelf, and produces a great 
 many more anomalies in that language, 
 than are to be found in Greek. I will 
 give one or two examples, which occur to 
 me, among many others that might be 
 found. Apcr, the Latin word for a boar y 
 inflead of the genitive apsris or apris y ac- 
 cording to the analogy of pater and deer, 
 
 and
 
 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 14. and many other words, has apri. Now 
 the way I account for this anomaly, is 
 from the Greek. I have little doubt but 
 the Greeks antiently had the fame word 
 arrtf, the termination of which they foften- 
 ed, by adding -<>c to it ; and then by the 
 fyncope, they made it aV/Joc , and by the 
 adjeclion of the * in the beginning, they 
 made the prefent word xaTfc?, the genitive 
 of which is xa^, from whence comes the 
 Latin genitive apr'i^ (leaving out the *), as 
 from drt/xv comes animi ; and, by fome 
 ftrange accident, the word, with the ad- 
 dition of the x, has come in Latin to figni- 
 fy a goat, and likewife follows the analo- 
 gy of the Greek declenfion. This in- 
 ftance is given by Quintilian *. I will' 
 give another inftance of the fame kind, 
 not mentioned by him. The Latin word 
 ager, forms its genitive in the fame way 
 as apcr does ; and it is agri, and not ageris, 
 as another word very like it in found, viz. 
 agger has its* genitive. Now the reafon 
 for this irregular genitive, I believe to be 
 the fame as in the former cafe, namely, 
 that it is taken from the Greek genitive 
 *-//>*. 
 
 * Lib. i. cap. 6. 
 
 I
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 503 
 
 I will only mention another inffcance, .14. 
 where the Latin analogy is irregular and '*^~*~^* 
 imperfect, becaufe they have adopted the 
 Greek analogy only in part. The Greeks 
 form the preter-perfecl of verbs beginning 
 with a confonant, by reduplication of that 
 confonant with the vowel . This analo- 
 gy the Latins have followed in fome words : 
 for from cado they form the preterite ceci- 
 di ; from pango^ or the old word pago, pe- 
 pigi ; and from fpondeo, fpopondi. But 
 why not carry this analogy throughout, 
 as the Greeks have done ? Why not fay, 
 hgo y kkgi ; pingo, pepinxi ? And the fact 
 I apprehend to have been, that thele redu- 
 plications were not antiently ufed in the , 
 language, and accordingly are not to be 
 found, fo far as I know, in any of the old 
 monuments of Latin preferved to us ; but 
 were adopted about the time, when, as 
 Plutarch obferves, the Latins began to 
 form their language upon die model of the 
 Greek. 
 
 But though, in this manner, we may 
 account for many irregularities in the La- 
 tin tongue, we cannot, I believe, render 
 a reafon for them all, particularly for 
 thofe ftrange things they call gerunds and
 
 504 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 14. fupines^ about which grammarians difpute 
 fo much, whether they be verbal nouns or 
 parts of the verb *. And all I can fee 
 with certainty in the matter is, that they 
 have nothing to do with any regular fy- 
 ftem of a language ; and are altogether 
 unneceffary, as we may fee from the ex- 
 ample of the Greek, which has none of 
 them. There are many other irregularities 
 and inconfiflencies in the Latin language, 
 which have been noted by Bifhop Wilkins, 
 in his moft ingenious work upon a philofo- 
 phical language f, which I have fo often 
 quoted. But betides irregularities, there 
 are capital defects in it, fuch as the want 
 of an article, which even fome languages 
 that are called barbarous, fuch as the Go- 
 thic, have. They want alfo an active par- 
 ticiple pad, which makes that disjointed 
 kind of composition, by an ablative abjo- 
 lute, as they call it, fo very frequent in 
 Latin ; which has, befides this great im- 
 perfection, that it does not exprefs who 
 is the agent of the action of the verb with 
 
 * See, upon this fubjeft, Sanftii Minerva, with Peri- 
 zonius's notes. 
 
 f Part 4. ch. 6. 
 which
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 505 
 
 which the ablative is joined. Thus when C. 14. 
 we fay in Latin, Brutus, interfefto Cxfare, in 
 GrtKciam profeflus eft, it does not appear 
 whether it was Brutus, or any other, that 
 killed Csefar. And there is another capital 
 defect of the like kind, namely, the want 
 of a prefent paflive participle ; and which, 
 as I have already obferved, is alfb wanting 
 both in Englifh and French. The defect 
 is fupplied in thofe languages, by a clum- 
 fy circumlocution, in which the form of the 
 expreflion is changed, e. g. in place of WTT- 
 rt/ttrcc, we fay, while they > are beating him^ 
 and the French fay, pendant qu on le bat. 
 In Latin they rnuft fupply it likewife by 
 a circumlocution, as, dum Berber atur ; or by 
 ufing tae perfect participle of the fame 
 voice in place of it, as when Virgil fays, 
 Ventofa per aquora VECTI, i. e. voftvpiw. 
 We muft therefore, I doubt, acknowledge, 
 that the Latin language came off from the 
 Greek flock before it was fufficiently cul- 
 tivated and improved, and likewife that it 
 has a mixture in it of the jargon of fbme of " 
 the barbarous nations in Italy, from whence 
 it has derived thofe flrange anomalies, 
 which I think can be no otherwife account- 
 ed for. 
 
 VOL. II. 3 S Ac
 
 506 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 14. At the fame time we are not to believe 
 that there are no irregularities in Greek. 
 For it is impomble but that fome abufes 
 mufl have crept into an art which is 
 conftantly practifed by men who do not 
 underftand it ; and that fuch abufes fliould 
 grow into inveterate cuftom, fo that even 
 the men of learning would be obliged to 
 fubmit to them. But I am perfuaded there 
 are many fewer of them than are common- 
 ly imagined. We have, for example, in 
 our common grammars, a .long cata- 
 logue of irregular verbs ; but thefe are 
 nothing elfe but tenfes regularly formed 
 from themes that are obfolete ; and they 
 might as well call the fecond future and 
 fecond aorift of every verb, irregular tenfes. 
 There are certain abbreviations too, of cer- 
 tain forms of the verb, which are now in 
 life, and which pafs with fuperficial gram- 
 marians for the original forms. Thus 1 
 rjTTTn, the fecond perfon of -n^ro^a/, is 
 thought to be the irregular and original 
 form of that perfon ; and -rvx<u and TVTT- 
 Ti*i, are faid to be a poetic or licentious ufe 
 of the words in place of it ; whereas rvTrrt- 
 <r.i is clearly the original word, which was 
 firfl made rvTrnxi, by throwing out the cr, 
 and then contracted into TUTT ; and in the 
 
 fame
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 507 
 
 fame manner, from rvTm^iya.!, which is C. 14, 
 thought to be the infinitive only by poetic v ^ >rvj 
 licence, but which is truly the original 
 infinitive, according to the analogy of the 
 language, was formed by fyncope, TVI-WOU ; 
 by apocope, -rvimuu >, and at lad, by lea- 
 ving out the n, .ruTTTtiY i and by contraction, 
 TVTTTM, the infinitive prefently in ufe. 
 
 As to the modern languages of Europe, 
 and particularly the Englifh, they are full 
 of corruptions, arifing from popular and 
 unlearned ufe, both in the words and 
 phrafes ; but to comment on thefe, would 
 be foreign to our prefent purpofe, 
 
 CHAP. XV. 
 
 Conchifion of the fecond part. 
 
 Will conclude this part of my work, C. i c, 
 as I began it, with fome general re- ^^^ 
 .flections upon human knowledge, and the 
 rank which the grammarian ought to hold 
 among men of letters. 
 
 The fubjects of human knowledge are 
 
 all, either God and his works, or man 
 
 382 and
 
 508 THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 15. and his works. The firfl are the proper 
 fubjec"l of philofophy ; which naturally di- 
 vides itfelf into three great branches. The 
 fubject of the firfl, is God himfelf, and his 
 nature and effence, fo far as we can ap- 
 prehend it ; and this part of philofophy is 
 called theology. The fecond part treats of 
 the firfl principles and caufes of things, I 
 mean thofe which, in fubordination to the 
 great firfl caufe, produce all this vifible 
 creation ; and this part of philofophy 
 is commonly known by the name of me- 
 taphyfics. The third fubje6l of philofo- 
 phy is the vifible world itfelf, and all that 
 we call natural productions^ the immediate 
 caufes of thofe productions, and the laws 
 by which, in fuch productions, matter o- 
 perates upon matter. That part of philo- 
 fophy, which treats of thofe things, is 
 known by the name of natural philofophy. 
 
 Thefe, I fay, are the proper fubjects of 
 philofophy. For, with refpecl to man, 
 confidered in his natural flate, he, as well 
 as other animals, are the fubjec"l of that 
 part of philofophy lafl mentioned. And 
 as to his works, they are what we call the 
 productions of art ; and are commonly 
 
 underilood
 
 Booklll. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 509 
 
 underftood not to be the fubjecl: of philo- C. 15. 
 fophy. But not only other things are the ^^ r ^ f 
 fubjecl: of human art, but, as I have elfe- 
 where obferved, man himfelf has become 
 the principal fubject of his own art. Of 
 the arts which have man for their fub- 
 jecl, the principal are thofe by which he has 
 been formed a rational and focial creature : 
 and thefe have been thought of fuch import- 
 ance, that they have been made the fub- 
 jecfl even of philofophy ; and have been 
 divided into two branches. The one ex- 
 plains the rational faculties of man, their 
 nature and operations ; and this part of the 
 philofophy of man is commonly known by 
 the name of logic. The other considers man 
 in his focial and political (late, explains the 
 nature of that ftate, and of all the duties and 
 offices arifing from it. This was known a- 
 mong the antients by the name of politics , 
 or political philofophy ; among us it is 
 more commonly known by the name of 
 moral philofophy. 
 
 Thefe are additions which man has 
 made to philofophy,^ on account of the 
 importance of the fubjecls to him. The 
 other arts, as I have faid, do not belong 
 to philofophy. But there is a great differ- 
 ence
 
 5io THE ORIGIN AND Part II. 
 
 C. 15. ence among them as to their dignity 
 and ufe ; and the mod excellent among 
 them, in my apprehenfion, and which 
 therefore, next to philofophy, ought to 
 poflefs the firft rank, is the art of lan- 
 guage ; becaufe language is the great in- 
 ftrument of rational and focial life, with- 
 out which man could never, in any great 
 degree, have deferved either of thefe ap- 
 pellations. And I think it is near of kin 
 to that branch of philofophy above men- 
 tioned we call logic ; for the rational fa- 
 culties of men could not have been carried 
 any length, without thofe fymbols of i- 
 deas which we call 'words. And accordingly 
 it has always been acknowledged, that there 
 is a great connection betwixt logic and 
 grammar, the fame that there is betwixt 
 the fign and the thing fignified by it. 
 
 The grammarian therefore, if he be 
 'truly a mailer of the art, is the greateft 
 of all artifls, and the next in rank and 
 dignity to the philofopher ; and, if I am 
 not much miftaken, I have mown in the 
 preceding part of this work, not only that 
 the principles of this art are to be found 
 in philofophy, which is the cafe of all arts ; 
 but that it is fo intimately connected with 
 
 philofophy,
 
 Book III. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. 511 
 
 philofophy, that it is impoffible to be a .15, 
 complete grammarian, without being a ^^^^ 
 philofopher, at leaft without underftand- 
 ing the philofophy of the human mind. 
 
 Befides this connexion with philofophy, 
 it was, in antient times, connected with 
 the critical art ; for the grammarian pro- 
 felfed, to teach men not only to fpeak and 
 write properly, but to underftand the poets, 
 and other ftandard- books in the language *. 
 And indeed the two profeflions appear to 
 be neceffarily connected : for as fuch books 
 muft be the ftandard of the language, how 
 can we learn to fpeak or write well with- 
 out underftanding them ? and this again 
 cannot be without the knowledge of hi- 
 ftory and antiquities. It was not therefore 
 without reafon, that the profeflion of 
 grammarian was of fuch high eftimation 
 in antient times ; and I muft confefs, I 
 think it no good fign, among others, of 
 the prefent age, that it is now fo little e- 
 fteemed. To reftore the grammarian to 
 his antient dignity, and at the fame time 
 to recommend the ftudy of the antient 
 languages, was my chief defign in this 
 part of my work ; as I know certainly that 
 
 * >uintil. Injlitut. Orator. 
 
 the
 
 THE ORIGIN, &c. Part II. 
 
 C. 15. the contempt of grammar, and the an- 
 tient languages, will be attended with 
 the downfall of all the arts and fciences 
 connected with language, and particular- 
 ly of poetry and eloquence. 
 
 DIS-
 
 5*1 
 
 DISSERTATION I. 
 
 Of the formation of the Greek language. 
 
 . 
 SECTION I. 
 
 THat the Greek is a language of very great Sect i , 
 art, and the work not only of grammarians, ^^^ 
 but philofophers, cannot, I think, be denied by 
 any perfon who has thoroughly fludied it, and is 
 himfelf a grammarian and philofopher ; .or, if it 
 -were a point difputable, I think I have given .many 
 proofs of it in the preceding part of this volume. 
 In this differtation, Ipropofe to give a further proof 
 ftill of the art of this language, by mewing that 
 it is all formed of a few radical founds, which arc 
 to be considered as the mattria primal this lan- 
 guage. I have already (hewn, that there is a great 
 deal of derivation in it, much more than is com- 
 monly imagined ; and that the number of primi- 
 tives is much lefs than is generally fuppofed *. I 
 have further fliewn, that the radical words in this 
 language, as in Hebrew, are. verbs f. But Ipro- 
 pofe here to try, whether the etymology of this 
 language cannot be carried ftill further ; and whe- 
 ther even thofe verbs cannot be analyfed into a 
 a few primitive founds. 
 
 Partjt. book i. cap. ij. 
 J Ibid. p. ipi. 
 
 VOL. II. 3 T That
 
 514 Of the FORMATION 
 
 Did". I. That the Greek was originally an Oriental lan- 
 guage, brought by the Pelafgi into Greece, I 
 think I have proved in the firft volume of this 
 work ; but it is as certain that the Greeks made 
 very great alterations upon it, in fo much that in 
 the days of Herodotus, the Pelafgic pafled among 
 them for a barbarous language. Now this altera- 
 tion appears to have been principally in the ter- 
 mination of the words, and the analogy of the 
 language, by which I mean the fleclion of the 
 declinable words. The Oriental languages, and 
 particularly the Hebrew, to which I am perfuaded 
 the Pelafgic was very near akin, terminates by 
 far the greateft part of its words, and all its roots, 
 in confonants ; whereas the greateft part of the 
 words in Greek, and all the roots, being verbs, 
 terminate in a vowel. And this difference of ter- 
 mination did neceflarily produce a great differ- 
 ence of flection ; and, in confequence of that, 
 a great difference likewife of roots and derivation. 
 And accordingly, the fact undoubtedly is, that 
 the Orientals form the cafes of their nouns, and 
 the tenfes of their verbs, in a manner very diffe- 
 rent from that pradifed by the Greeks ; and the 
 roots alfo of their languages are very different 
 from the Greek roots. 
 
 There are at prefent in Greek two kinds of 
 verbs ; the one terminating in -&>, and the other in 
 -/// : but it is evident, that thefe lafl verbs are de- 
 rived from circumflex verbs in -a ; and that they 
 were, a variety in the fprm of their verbs Intro- 
 ; * duced
 
 of the GREEK LANGUAGE. 515 
 
 duced in later times, and no part of the original Seh i 
 conftitutbn of their language* Accordingly, in v *" y " > ' 
 the moft antient dialed: of Greek, I mean the 
 Latin, they are not to be found. 
 
 The verbs therefore, and by confequence 
 
 the roots, of the Greek language, did all termi* 
 
 nate in -to. Andfurtherj it appears to me, that 
 
 in the original conftitution of the language, there 
 
 was always another vowel which preceded the fi* 
 
 nal -a in the termination of the verbs* This 
 
 vowel was one of the following five a, , t, o, v ; 
 
 ib that all the primitives in Greek, that is* the roots 
 
 of the language, did originally terminate in one or 
 
 other of the five duads a., tea, iu, oa, vu. And this 
 
 ^vocal termination ferved the purpofe of fledtion very 
 
 much better than the termination of the old Pelafgic 
 
 or Hebrew in confonants ; for the vowels are of a 
 
 nature much more ductile and flexible, and more 
 
 eaiily change into one another, or into diphthongs, 
 
 than the confonants dp. Thus the final o 9 in the 
 
 flection of the verb, is changed into a, &, v, t, t f 
 
 * ; and the preceding vowels, or chara&eriftical 
 
 letters as they are called, above mentioned, do 
 
 ibme of them run together, and coalefce into 
 
 one found with the final a* This is the cafe of 
 
 three of them, a., t, j and in the formation of the 
 
 oblique tenfes, (fo I call all the other tenfes, in con- 
 
 tradiftincYion to the prefent, as all the other cafes 
 
 of nouns are called oblique cafes with refpect to 
 
 the nominative), thefe three char acleriftical letters, 
 
 by the changes they undergo, have a very great 
 
 3 T 2 flrare.
 
 ' Of the FORMATION 
 
 DilT. I. mare. For the e a^id e arc naturally changed Into 
 their correfpondent long vowels >r and a ; and the 
 alfo, by the genius of the language, admits a 
 change into *. Accordingly we fee thofe two 
 vowels ufed interchangeably in the d'ff;rent dialeds 
 ctf Greek ; and in general we may obferve, that 
 it is chiefly by the change of vowels that the dif- 
 ference of dialects in Greek is produced. For 
 the confonants which principally diilinguifh words 
 from one another, and may be called the bones 
 and fmews of a language, are not near fo much 
 altered in thofe dialects. The other two charac- 
 teriftical vowels, though they do not admit of a 
 change into other vowels, as a does, yet they 
 have that diftinclion which is common to all 
 Towels of long and fhort ; a diftinclion which con- 
 fonants have not, and which therefore is another 
 teafon why they are much lefs proper for the ter- 
 mination of declinable words than vowels. 
 
 It is therefore chiefly by the change of the two 
 Anal vowels that all the variety of tenfcs in the 
 Greek verb is formed : for though, in later times, 
 the interpofition of confonants betwixt thofe two 
 letters, particularly of the a- and *, was praclifed ; 
 it appears to me, that in more antient times the 
 tenfes were formed without either of thefe two 
 confonants *. 
 
 And 
 
 * The future, I believe, was original^, in Greek, the fame 
 with the prefent ; and I am perfuaded that the verb ipiMu, for ex- 
 ample, had at firft no future, but what is now called ths fecond fu- 
 ture, viz. ?t>~a circuaiflc&ed, or 9<A.t'*>, as the lonlans ufe it, in its 
 
 original
 
 of the GREEK LANGUAGE* 517 
 
 And not only do thefe duads ferve the purpofe Se&. r. 
 f fledion better than any other elemental founds, 
 
 but 
 
 original form. This old future, after the new future was invented, 
 by the interpolation of a-, and the change of the t into the long 
 vowel B, was continued in the language under the name of the fe- 
 cond future. In the fame manner rvrta or ** was the old future 
 of the original verb rwra, and which became a fecond future, after 
 the other future was invented. Likewife the future of the liquid 
 verbs, fuch as vtfio and /x.no, are evidently the old prefents of thefe 
 verbs contracted and circumfle&ed ; for their old prefents were un- 
 doubtedly vtftta and ,uwa, as appears from their perfects fttH pre- 
 ferved. And there are at this day feveral verbs which make no d\f- 
 tiniftion betwirt their future and prefent, fuch as Ifo, Ifo/nai, fayof^a t 
 xtofucr, words probably of very antient ufe in the language. 
 
 As to the part tenfes, I mean the aorift and pretei perfect, they 
 appear of old to have been formed by the change only of the final 
 into oc, without cither <r or x ; and the only difference betwixt the 
 two was, that the perfect had the reduplication in the beginning. 
 As to the aorift, we have in Homer l^tx or l^tva, the aorift of the 
 verb %to or %iva ; and we have IVIKXU.VI and Iptftw, or without the 
 augment ft**v, being the aorifts middle of the terb< pa and 05 ; and 
 by a like analogy, axiua^v is derived from the the verb xvw And 
 to thefe examples I think I may add the word ta, which is coriUnonfy 
 faid to be lonicl, poetict, or I don't know what elfe, for the imper- 
 fect of the verb AIM. But I hold it to be the firft aorift of the verb lu t 
 which is confefledly the original word, and the archetype of H/M la 
 this way it is naturally deduced, according to the analogy of the 
 language ; whereas it cannot be derived by any rule, that I know 
 from , the prefent imperfect of the verb '/*' A S to the preter- 
 perfedfc, we have in Homer ytyaa. t the perfect, from the verb yaa ; 
 Ttrxaa, from r\aa ; and f}iuu;, and pi/toiaf, and tirreuif, the parti- 
 ciples, from pt'ax, (itpaa., and tVraa. All thefe, in our common 
 grammars and dictionaries, are faid to be contractions by poetic 
 licence, or by the particular ufe of certain tribes of the Greeks, in 
 place of TtrMxa, j'synxa, &c. But this I take to be no more than a 
 fi&ion of thofe grammarians, who very abiurdly, as I think, fup- 
 pofe that the language was at once formed, liich as we have it, e. g. 
 that from the theme rxau, was immediately formed the perfedl TI- 
 rxnxa ; and that there was not a piogreft in language, as in other 
 human arts. 
 
 Thi
 
 Of the FORMATION 
 
 Diff. I. but alfo of derivation ; for we may obfcrve, that 
 all the words derived from verbs, whether nouns, 
 
 adjectives, 
 
 This progrefs is fingulatly exemplified in the tenfe of which I ara 
 now fpcaking ; for the firft change they made in it was of the cha- 
 racteriftical vowel either into a long vowel, or into a diphthong. 
 Thus they changed into , and in this way was formed the perfect 
 .TfTu^na, to be found in Homer, from the verb rv^to, and the per- 
 fect 8v, and the participle 8vi;f, to be found in the Odyfley, 
 lib. is- v. 13. from the theme fl, from whence the prefent word 
 fcvuc-x.a ; or they changed it into the diphthong , as in the word 
 Ti9vTtf , which is undoubtedly from ihe fame theme 6na. See up- 
 on this fubject, Euflath. Comm. Gdyjf. pag. 1700. /'. 30. And the 
 next ftep was the infcrtion of the y. betwixt the two final vowels, to 
 'complete the perfect into the form in which we fee it at prefent. 
 Thus firem Tfru^wt, was formed rtrv^ma ; from TI T;., or TtrAw, 
 j-erXwx*, &c. 
 
 Jo a manner analogous to this was formed the prefent future, 
 which, as I have faid, was at firft the fame with the prefent ; but 
 in the progrefe of the language, they thought proper to diftinguifu 
 it by the infertion of the <r betwixt the two final vowels of the cir 
 cumflex verbs, fometimes changing the penult vowel into a long 
 vowel, and fometimes not, as <ft\ta has <f,t\ncra in the future, but 
 ifn.(u has Kfnta-o. But it may be obferved, that originally there ap- 
 pears to have been no change of the vowel 3 for, in the oldeft verbs, 
 and fuch as we are allured are originals, there is no change of the 
 vowel ; fuch as la, from whence Ic-cpai ; la from which ICTC-.-T \ txo, 
 and the like. And indeed it is mod natural to think that this change 
 of the vowel would come in procefs of time in the formation of the 
 future, as we have feen it did in the formation of the perfect, from 
 the inftances above given of /3tCa, ^iwaa, &c. 
 
 It may be further obferved, that it would appear that antiently 
 in the formation of the two paft tenfes, the aorift and the perfect, 
 the x was indilcriminately ufcd. Of this 1 think there is a veftige in 
 the verbs in 'fu, -r^rfju, Sttu/^i, and tp.i, which are from the roott 
 6ia, <Tcu, iu, aud their aorift i'3xa, iSax.cc., and )'y.a. And it further ap- 
 pears, from the example of two of thefe, viz. T*6-,^< and in/ai, that the 
 fhort vowel of the theme, inftead of being ch.mged into the corrc- 
 (ponding long vowel, was changed into a diphthong; as TiSo^i has us 
 perfect T<6<xa, and 1,,/ju, HUM, in the fame nunner as we have iUn 
 above, that tiom fata was derived rennet. 
 
 Thefe
 
 of the GREEK LANGUAGE. 519 
 
 adje&ives, or adverbs, are formed by addition to, Sect. i. 
 or alteration of thofe duads. 
 
 Thus it appears, that the five duads above 
 mentioned, are effential parts of every root in the 
 Greek language, being of necefiary ufe in flec- 
 tion and derivation ; and therefore I make them 
 the radical and primitive founds of the language, 
 from which combined, with other vowels and 
 with confonants, the whole language, in long 
 order, and a wonderful progrefs of generation, it 
 to be deduced. 
 
 It muft, I think, be admitted, that this hypa- 
 thefis is at leafl plaufible ; and that if 4 the lan- 
 guage was not in fact formed upon this fyftem, it 
 might have been fo formed ; and that no happier 
 terminations could have been found for the verbal 
 
 Thefe things I have mentioned, to fliew, that thofe characleriftical 
 letters of the future and part tenfes, viz. a- and *, were not conftant- 
 ly and uniformly ufcd in the Greek language, in the formation of 
 thofe tenfes ; but that by the original confHtution of the language 
 they appear to have been formed only by the change of the two fi- 
 nal vowels of the theme, at lead of the a ; for the other was not, 
 nor is not yet always changed. And as to the imperfedt, it always 
 was and flill is formed by the change only of the final a into ov ; for, 
 as to the augment in the beginning, it is evident from Homer, that it 
 was not antiently in ule. The common lexicons and grammars in- 
 deed tell us, that it is omitted Ionic); or poetic*. But they who 
 know a little more of the language than what is contained in thofe 
 books, underftand no more by that expreflion, than that fuch was 
 the antient ule of the language, which the poets preferved longer than 
 other writers : For the Mufcs, though they furnifhed the matter to 
 the poets, never infpired them with a new language ; and however 
 they ruijht adorn their ftyle, and raife it, by figures, they never vio- 
 lated the rules of grammar that either were in ufe, or. were remem* 
 fcercd to hitve been in ufe at the time they -wrote, 
 
 roots
 
 On the FORMATION 
 
 Diff. I. roots of tjae language, than thofe five duads, 
 ferving fo well for the purpofes both of flecYioa 
 and derivation, and particularly of flection, which 
 is a peculiar property of the Greek language, 
 and what conftitutes the chief difference betwixt 
 it and its kindred languages of the Eaft. It is not 
 however enough that my fyftem is fuch as might 
 have been the fyftem of the language, but k 
 muft be proved, that in facl: it is fo. This can 
 only be done by induction ; that is, by a multitude 
 of examples of words that we are fure arc 
 fo formed, from which we may reafonably infer* 
 that all the reft were fo formed, though we can- 
 not now trace them up to their original. 
 
 But before I come to this, k is proper to ob- 
 ferve, that although my argument does not re- 
 quire I mould prove, that any of thofe five radical 
 founds either are, or ever were, roots of the lan- 
 guage commonly fo called ; that is, words figni- 
 ficant, from which other words of fimilar fignifi- 
 cation are derived ; yet I am able to mew that 
 four at leaft of the five are fo. For aw, Jpiro, and 
 'voy or ww y with a thick fpirit, as the Greeks pro- 
 nounced it, are words of common ufe ; and there 
 is a third, viz. to, which, though it is not in ufe 
 in the preient indicative, is preferred in ieveral Bo- 
 ther tenfes ; and even in that terrfc it is preferred 
 in Latin, with a change common in that language, 
 of the / into f . for that the verb truly is /<?, and 
 not t,(/, is clear, not only from the other tenfes, fuch 
 as ibuM) ivi) ibu? but from die other perfons *>f 
 
 this
 
 of* the GREEK LANGUAGE* 521 
 
 this veryprefent tenfe, fuch as* is, it, imus\ and Sed. I. 
 the word /&<, fignifying an arrozv, much ufed by 
 Homer, is allowed, by all etymologifts, to come 
 from this root. The duad tu is likewife a word 
 unufed, but it is acknowledged by all gramma- 
 rians and etymologifts to be a primitive word, and 
 the parent of a very numerous family : for from 
 thence is derived #/, fum ; //</, mitto, accord- 
 ing to the ufual derivation of the verbs in -^/, from 
 the pure verb e&> (yid Urfini Grammat.) and 
 ityai, cupio, which is likewife regularly formed 
 from eo, as T/Oewa/ is from 0ta>. And befides thefe^ 
 the words i, ma, or em////, mduo, are, by all 
 grammarians, deduced from this antient theme. 
 The only remaining duad, is dw, or a, with the 
 firft vowel lengthened, which indeed is not a word 
 in ufe, nor accounted by any grammarian, fo faf 
 as I know, an antient root of the language. But 
 we have the word o0w, (Homer ufes o9o/, in the 
 middle voice), and we have alfo the verb &>fty, of* 
 which both the future w', and the aorift &>Va, are 
 to be found in Homer ; now o0a or w'0&> may be; 
 fuppofed to be formed from ou or uu, by the in* 
 terjediort of the 6 betwixt the two o's in the fame 
 manner as KK^U is formed from TTKIU, and many 
 other Greek verbs in the fame way. And woe, in 
 Latin ovum, will come from it in the common 
 way that nouns come from verbs ; and if it be 
 true, that all the primitives in Greek are verbs, 
 and all the nouns derivatives, as I think I have 
 VOL. II. 3 U ihewn
 
 522 Of the FORMATION 
 
 Biff. I. fhewn it to be, it is impoffible that uov could be o- 
 therwife derived. 
 
 Thus it appears, that thofe duads, or at lead 
 four of them, are roots of the language in every 
 fenfe of the word ; and the only remaining que- 
 ftion is, Whether or not all the other roots of the 
 language be not thofe very roots combined with 
 other letters both vowels and confonants ? 
 
 In the firft place let us examine the compofi- 
 tion with vowels. From ao> the firft of thefe roots 
 is formed, by prefixing another , another verb, 
 ccao>, l<edo, ufed by Homer ; by prefixing the e, is 
 formed law, fino ; and by prefixing the /, is form- 
 ed the verb /aa, or /ao^a/, as it is commonly ufed. 
 And with the v interpofed betwixt the two vowels, 
 comes the verb aW, fignifying to make a found 
 or noife, from which ai/Saa' and aaSaaxw, loquor. 
 See Etym. Magnum, in vocc uS?. From the next 
 duad ea, is formed itu, ivpi, hpai, by prefixing 
 the Iota ; and by the interjection of the v, is 
 formed the verb I, torrco. From the root / is 
 formed, by the addition of the , an old word 
 a/a, audio ; from whence, in all probability, 
 comes the word awQourofi.au 9 fignifying the percep- 
 tion of that, and every other fenfe, and by an 
 eafy tranfition, the cogitation of the mind alfo. 
 In the fame manner is formed, by prefixing the 0, 
 the word otu, puto, as it is ufed by Homer, or oio^i, 
 as it is now ufed. 
 
 But this kind of compofition, with vowels only, 
 could not go far, without making the language 
 
 much
 
 of the GREEK LANGUAGE. 523 
 
 much too foft and vocal, befides that there is not Sed. i, 
 variety enough in them to produce all the words v -"" v ^-' 
 of a language. The confonants therefore muft 
 have been called to aid, which, as I have had oc- 
 cafion to obferve, make the mod material parts 
 of language, in fo much that in the orthography 
 of fome of the Eaftern nations, particularly the 
 Arabians, the vowels are negleded to be written. 
 From the combination of thefe duads of vowels 
 with confonants, we mail fee the whole Greek 
 language flowing with an eafy defcent, and a mofl 
 copious ftream. 
 
 To be convinced of this, we need only go over 
 all the confonants one by one, and by plain induc- 
 tion we mail fee that the whole language is in this 
 manner compofed. I lhall give but a few ex- 
 amples, beginning with the firft confonant , 
 which, compounded with the firfl duad ao>, pro- 
 duces /Saw, eo, an old verb, ufed in fome tenfes 
 by Homer, from which, in later times, was form- 
 ed fixivu ; prefixed to iw, it makes eo> or Pvu ; from 
 which >&>, a word preferved to us by Hefychius, fig- 
 nifying the fame as <pwnt ; prefixed to la, it makes /S/w, 
 (from whence the Latin vivo, and the Greek /W), 
 or jS/oo>, or jS/w/*/, vivo ; prefixed to o'o>, it produces 
 ow, pafco, from which is formed /3r, and the Latin 
 bos , and another verb now in ufe, viz. o<7xw, by the 
 interjection of the o- and x, as from yyou 9 yvuaKu is 
 formed, and many others after the fame manner ; 
 and laftly, compounded with Jo, it produces /2va>, 
 sbturo, implco ; from which /^(W, or ySy<7K><-, gur- 
 
 U 2 ss
 
 524 Of the FORMATION 
 
 P'nT. I. ges^ vorago. The next confonant is y, from 
 which, compounded with <, is produced yw, 
 gignO) (a verb yet preferved in Homer ; in the 
 middle perfect yeya*, from which ya/a, ten'(i)' 9 
 then yew, or ya>, from which yn9u>, gau.iio, as 
 from TTKIU, TTKV%U ; y:w, from whence y/^wa/, or 
 yiyvopxi, jio ; yow, lugco ; yt/w, from which yw, 
 membrum. According to the fame analogy, is 
 formed, by the adjeclion of the next confonant S, 
 Saw, or S/y, lucco ; Sew, vinceo ; S/, from which 
 S/^xw, fsquor ; Sow, or E/Scy/x/, ^<? ; and Ivu, fubeo* 
 I do not think it is neceflary to go through all 
 the other confonants in their order ; but if any 
 Greek fcholar, who is acquainted with the old ob- 
 folete roots of the language, will take that trouble, 
 I, will venture to fay, that he will fee the whole 
 language fpringing from thofe duad roots, in a 
 manner that will furprife him, if he has not made 
 the obfervation before. But he mud not wonder, 
 if he do not find in every inftance the immediate 
 derivative : for, confidering the many changes that 
 muft have been in this language during the very 
 Jong time that it has lafted, many of the original 
 words muft neceflariiy be loft ; and indeed the 
 wonder is, that fo many of them are preferved. 
 But where the analogy is eftabliflied by fo many 
 examples, we are at liberty to fuppofe roots, as I 
 have done, in the cafe of *< and yvo* 9 and as may 
 be done in many other inftances with like pro- 
 ^ability. Thus though we cannot find at prefent 
 he verb uy ? as we dp a&>, &, fyu 5 yet we have
 
 of the GREEK LANGUAGE. 525 
 
 //<, fermentum^ which, according to the com- Sect. r. 
 mon rule of derivation, muft be from &a. In 
 like manner, though we have not //, or /a, as 
 we have /tw, fa, and fro ; yet we have x? t( *-> and 
 Xf*u 9 formed in the fame way from thofe roots, 
 as XTVTTU is from TWO, the archetype of TVTTTO. 
 
 Hitherto I have only fpoken of the compofition 
 of thefe primitives with a fmgle confonant. But 
 the propagation increafes prodigioufly, when we 
 take into the play more confonants, and more 
 vowels, either added to the beginning, or thrown 
 into the middle, or both. Thus MU, folvo, form- 
 ed from the duad vu 9 by the addition of another 
 confonant in the beginning, is made xxvw, and 
 xxv/u, audio. Taj, an old Homeric word, figni- 
 fying capio, from whence rw, in the imperative, 
 by the addition of a x in the beginning, made 
 KToujy from whence xrao^a;, pojjideo. From paw, 
 an old root, fignifying occido, (vid. Etymol. 
 Magn.), is derived <rpa^, occido, by an addition of 
 the confonant r to the beginning, and the interjection 
 of the ; and from the fame root, but fignifying a 
 different thing, viz. to Jlrinc, by throwing in an- 
 other vowel, and the confonant r, is formed an- 
 other verb fa/-cj ; and by the addition of another 
 vowel ftill, the Homeric word par<y is produced. 
 In the fame manner, from xao>, is formed firft 
 A.aw, and then wuGwu ; and after the fame 
 faihion is dr/zw, formed from the old root a'/w. 
 According to the fame analogy, from dvo is form- 
 ed dvatw, JiccO) arefacio ; from d%u, whence
 
 526 Of the FORMATION 
 
 Diflf. I. o^oc, dolor, is formed firft a'^cw, then avc^, and 
 then. ^y/ti, d<?/0. And in the fame manner, 
 from of>u, is opvuj o^o), and opvupt, impetum fa- 
 cio.y in all which inftances, and many more that 
 might be given, it may be obferved, that the 
 confonants which are thrown in, are moftly li- 
 quids, fuch as p, r, f>, by which the found is 
 made fweeter, at the fame time that it is made 
 fuller and more pompous. And in order to 
 make it likewife ftrong and mafculine, we fee the 
 afpirated confonants <?, x> an d ^ are ufed ; for 
 it is the peculiar praife of the Greek language, 
 that the founds of it are equally mixed of the 
 fw-eet and flowing, and of the ftrong and rough, 
 fo that it is fuited to any kind of compofition. 
 
 It may be alfo obferved, that the Greeks not on- 
 ly fwelled their words in the manner above defcri- 
 bed, but likewife by reduplications of fyllables in the 
 beginning, of which they appear to have been very 
 fond. In this manner, from WTW, they formed 
 
 lafiotTTTa ; from /utcttfu, ftcifpaifu ; from <pa;c&>, TTXU- 
 
 yziru ; derivatives, not only of more beautiful 
 found than their primitives, but, if I underftand 
 them rightly, of greater emphafis and fignificancy. 
 For the fame reafon they formed new verbs from the 
 preter-perfect of other verbs. Thus from rxaw, nr- 
 x>rx.a, they formed mKv/ut, tolero; from whence 
 the Homeric imperative rtTKvQt ; from /k>jxa, the 
 perfeft of A*", they formed p>w.u ; of which the 
 third perfon fingular is frequently ufed by Homer ; 
 and ought not to be miftaken, as it is by DP 
 
 Clarke,
 
 of the GREEK LANGUAGE. 527 
 
 Clarke, for the plu-perfecl of the original verb : Seek. i 
 for it is no more the plu-perfecl: than TreTA^yo, It 
 Inei, and TtTfuxei are, which are all prefcnt tenfes 
 of derivative verbs of the fame kind. 
 
 I will here, in paffing, give a caution to etymo- 
 logifts, that when they fee words formed in the 
 
 manner of Aa^Cayw, xavQaya, la.pla.7TTu, potpjuaipa, 
 
 &c. they mould not imagine that they are com- 
 pound words, made up of two fignificant words ; 
 for they are truly no more than derivative words, 
 according to the eftablifhed analogy of the lan- 
 guage. 
 
 In this genealogy of words, I have gone no 
 farther than the verbs derived from the five duads 
 compounded with other vowels and confonants ; 
 but I have not obferved how thefe verbs beget 
 not only other verbs, but alfo nouns, adjectives, 
 and adverbs ; and thefe again other verbs and o- 
 ther nouns, &c. in almoft infinite progreffion. 
 And in this way, from one of my roots, a pro- 
 digious tree of a family might be made, divided 
 and fubdivided into branches almoft without num- 
 ber. Thus from the firft of them, .u 9 is formed, 
 without any confonant, wpi, w<r () and their deriva- 
 tives ; ioiu 9 and its family ; taw, and at/a, and their 
 families : then, with the confonants, it produces 
 fia.u, y<x.u, Saw, &u, v.'j.u, >.y.u, JU.CLU, &c. and all 
 their feveral families, of prodigious number. 
 
 According to my fyftem therefore of the lan- 
 guage, the radical founds of it are the five duads, 
 ib often mentioned, and which are likewife roots 
 
 properly
 
 528 Of the FORMATION 
 
 DifT. I. properly fo called, that is, words fignificant, from 
 which other words of fimilar fignification are deri- 
 ved. Of thefe, by prefixing another vowel, or any 
 one confonant, are formed the other roots, which 
 are all verbs ; and from thefe, by the addition of 
 other vowels, and other confonants, in the begin- 
 ing, middle, or end, are formed other verbs, 
 nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and in fhort all the 
 words of the language. And in this way, from 
 thofe fimple elements, or, as they may be called, 
 feeds of the language, there is a wonderful 
 growth of words, by which the language is not 
 only raifed to a greater pomp of found, but 
 enriched with more copioufnefs of _expreffion, 
 than any other language, at leaft that I know* 
 
 SECT. IL -.;., 
 
 Seel. 2. rr* H E fyftem of the Greek language that f 
 v - x ~*" > ~ / JL have given in the preceding fection, is fo 
 new, and fo different from the common notions 
 concerning this language, that I cannot expect it 
 fhould be readily affented to by the learned, or 
 that many objections will not be made to it. Such 
 of thefe as occur to me, I am to ftate in this 
 fection, and anfwer as well as I can. 
 
 And, in the firft place, it will be faid, That thofe 
 duads, which I call the roots of the language, are 
 not roots at all ; becaufe they have either no figni- 
 
 fication*
 
 of the GREEK LANGUAGE. VIQ 
 
 j y 
 
 fication, or none that is analagous to thofe words Srr,2. 
 which I make the derivatives from them. 
 , To this I anfwer, fir ft, That I have already 
 obviated this objection, by giving thofe duads, not 
 as roots properly fo called, nor indeed as words, 
 but only as primitive or radical founds of the 
 language ; and that they are fuch, I think it is 
 impoffible to deny. For certainly the verbs ixu, low, 
 
 $y.u, Sao>, xaw, fiiv, liu, KIU, Ivo, Kva, and the like, 
 
 are primitives, and roots of the language properly 
 fo called ; and from thefe, it is evident, that the 
 whole words of the language may be derived 
 according to the common rules of Greek deri- 
 vation. Now, of all fuch roots, one or other of 
 the five duads is certainly a moft material part j 
 being, in the firft place, the greateft part ; and, fe- 
 tondly, that upon which the inflection, and the 
 formation of the tenfes, depend. Now, when we 
 fee in all the radical words of a language, five 
 "combinations of vowels, predominating, and pro^ 
 ducing fuch effects with refpect to flection and de- 
 rivation, ought not the founds of thofe letters to 
 be diftinguiihed from the other letters in the lan- 
 guage, and called, by way of eminence, the pri- 
 mitive and elemental founds, if not the radical 
 words of the language ? 
 
 But, zdo, There are four of thofe duads at lead 
 that are words themfelves, and undeniably radical 
 words ; and the fifth there is good reafon to fup- 
 pofe was once a radical word, though it is not 
 now to be found. Now it is poflible that the art- 
 
 VOL. II, 3 X ids
 
 Of the FORMATION 
 
 I, ills who framed the fyftem of the language, may 
 have imagined fome connection of one kind or 
 another, betwixt thofe original verbs <*<*>, s<y, and 
 the reft of them, and the other verbs formed from 
 them, by the addition of a vowel or confonant ; 
 fuch as f^i), /Saw, Saw, /Jew, Sew, and the reft of 
 them. Upon fuch remote analogies and diftant 
 relations of things is formed, as we are told, the 
 fyftem of the Sanfcrit language. This language, 
 fays our author *, is analyfed into a fmall number 
 of what he calls primitive elements. Thefe eler 
 ments, he fays, may be conficlered as the cap-it 
 tnortuum of the language ; for they are of no ufe 
 by themfelves, as they fignify nothing, properly 
 fpeaking, but only have a relation to fome idea : 
 and he gives an inftance of one of thefe elemental 
 founds, viz. kru 9 which he fays has a relation to 
 the idea of atfion ; but it is not a word, nor has 
 any fignification by itfelf, till it is forneway afteded 
 or changed by what he calls the fecondary eler 
 jnents, which make it a word, and give it a der 
 terminate fignification. Thus of kru^ is made 
 &/r, kir, kri, &c. which are all words of the lan- 
 guage, having a determinate fignification ; and 
 of thsfe, by a wpnderful fynthefis, the whole lanr 
 guage is compounded. Now this may be fup- 
 pofed to be the fyftem of the Greek language; 
 with this difference only, that the primitive eler 
 ments of the Greek, form words themfelves, 
 
 See Pere iu Pan's account of the learning and language of the 
 framins, i>ubliflicd iq vol. 16. of the Leltres Sdifiaatts et curieufes. 
 
 having
 
 of the GREEK LANGUAGE* 531 
 
 having a certain meaning, to which we may fup- Seel. 
 pofe all the various words formed from thofe pri- v * x " v " Vi 
 mitive elements have iome diftant relation. 
 
 And What favours this hypothefis is, that even 
 fuch words as are allowed to be roots, have hard- 
 ly any determinate figniiication. Thus <pa, for 
 example, as it appears from its derivatives <pw, 
 ipae^, or tpaiYU, yvut, and <r<paoj, mud ^denote 
 fome very general idea, which is fomething ana- 
 logous to light i to Jjbeakingj and to killing 
 Now if this be the cafe of thofe roots, or fecon- 
 dary elements, as they may be called, it is likely 
 that it is much more fo with refpect to the pri* 
 mitive elements ; and accordingly one of them, viz* 
 fo>, is Certainly of very indeterminate fignification, 
 as appears from its derivatives, &pi, Jum j lv\p> 
 mitto ; /e/ta/, cupio ; WKU//./, ve/Hbt 
 
 But whatever pfobability there may be of a re- 
 femblance in this refpecl: betwixt the Bramin and 
 Greek languages, which I think the more likely 
 that I am perfiiaded both Indians and Greeks got 
 their language, and all their other arts, from the 
 fame parent-country, viz. Egypt ; yet I am not 
 difpofed to found a fyfteni of language upon fuch 
 remote analogies t and therefore I rather incline 
 to adhere to my hypothefis, that though thefe 
 duads are themfelves proper roots which have 
 their derivatives \ yet, with refpecl to the other 
 words of the language, they are no more than ra- 
 dical elements, which, by the addition of one o- 
 '3X2- thor
 
 Of the FORMATION 
 
 Diff. I. ther element, become radical words, from which 
 the whole language is derived. 
 
 Another objection that will naturally occur to 
 my fyftem is, That according to it all the radical 
 words in Greek are verbs. 
 
 But to this I think I have already made a fuf- 
 ficient anfwer in the preceding volume, where I 
 have (hewn, firft^ in point of fact, That a great 
 many nouns that are fuppofed to be primitives, are 
 truely derivatives from verbs. 2do, That there is 
 the greateft reafon to believe, that all the other 
 words of the language are ultimately derived in 
 the fame manner, though we cannot in every in- 
 ftance trace them up to the original verb ; becaufe 
 they may be all fo derived, according to the 
 common rules of derivation, which take place 
 in the language. 3^/y, That there is a very 
 good reafon, from the nature of things, why 
 verbs mould be the original words of every lan- 
 guage. 4thly, That fuch is the fcheme of deriva- 
 tion of the Hebrew language, betwixt which and 
 the Greek there is fuch a connection, that we can- 
 not prefume them to be different in this funda- 
 mental point, however different they may be in 
 termination, flection, and other accidents ; to 
 all which may be added, that if we can fuppofe 
 the artificers of the Greek language to have 
 formed a fyftem of derivation, and to have been 
 at pains to find out the moft proper words for 
 ' roots, they could not have found any fo proper 
 as verbs, becaufe they are the moft ductile and 
 
 flexible
 
 of the GREEK LANGUAGE. 533 
 
 flexible part of fpeech, and, having fo many dif- Sect. 2. 
 ferent forms, admit of the greateft variety of de- ^-^^ 
 rivation : for from every part of the verb, we 
 may derive another word, having fome fignifica- 
 tion analogous to that of the verb ; and accor- 
 dingly, as we have feen, the Greeks have deriva- 
 tives almoft from every tenfe, and fometimes from 
 different perfons of the fame tenfe. 
 
 Another objection that will occur is, That thefe 
 radical verbs of the Greek tongue I make to be 
 all verbs ending in u, and all pure verbs, that is, 
 with a vowel before the final . 
 
 And I believe the fact to be, that all the verbs 
 in Greek were originally pure verbs. At pre- 
 fent indeed there are three kinds of verbs in 
 Greek, viz. the pure verbs, the barytons, and the 
 verbs in -/</. That thefe three all exifted together, 
 and were in the original conftitution of the lan- 
 guage, we cannot fuppofe, unlefs we likewife fup- 
 pofe, at the fame time, that fo great a piece of art 
 as the Greek language, was perfected at once, fo as 
 to admit of no after improvements or enlarge- 
 ments. Now it is impoffible, I think, to deny, 
 that the pure verbs are original in the language. 
 And it is as impoffible to difpute that the verbs 
 in -/*t are derived from them, and were invented 
 in later times, in order to make a greater variety 
 of the forms of their verbs, and of their termina- 
 tions and flections ; and accordingly we fee, that 
 the moft antient dialect of Greek, viz. the Latin, 
 has no fuch verbs. The only queflion therefore 
 
 is,
 
 534 Of tne FORMATION 
 
 Difl*. I. is, concerning the barytons. Now if we fuppofd 
 ^"^^ them to be originals in the language, as well as 
 the pure verbs, then have we two fets of original 
 verbs formed at once ; which is by no means 
 likely, if we confider the progrefs that there is, 
 and mud have been, in this art of lunguage, as 
 well as in every other human art. And it will 
 ftill appear more unlikely, if we confider the way 
 in which the verbs in -pi t which undoubtedly arc 
 not of the original flrudure of the language, but 
 an after addition, are formed* For they are de- 
 rived from the pure verb, by changing the ter- 
 mination a into /, and inferting betwixt it and 
 
 the preceding vowel, the confonant ju. Now is 
 it not reafonable to think, and agreeable to the 
 analogy of the language, that 'the barytons are 
 formed in the fame way, by inferting a confo^ 
 nant, one or more, betwixt the two vowels of 
 the pure verb ? That a whole race of them is 
 ib formed, it is impoffible to deny, I mean all 
 fuch of them as end in -<n<w, as yiyyca^nu and /3o- 
 VKU, which are formed in that way from yvou and 
 j3co) ; now it certainly makes the fyftem of the lan- 
 guage more uniform and confident to fuppofe that 
 they were all fo formed. And the reafon for their 
 formation, is the fame as for the formation of the 
 verbs in -^/, namely, to give a greater variety of 
 fledlion to their verbs ; for they difcovered that 
 certain confonants, fuch as TT and /3, would 
 coalcfce very well in found with the figma, the 
 characteriltical letter of the future, and by chan- 
 ging
 
 of the GREEK LANGUAGE. 535 
 
 ging them into their correfpondent afpirates, they Sect. 2. 
 made an agreeable variety in their perfects. Fur- v -"" v ~ > - ; 
 ther, we fee that the barytons themfelves, gene- 
 rate other verbs in the fame way. Thus it can- 
 not be doubted, that the archetype of TUTTTU, is 
 This is evident, not only from the fecond 
 rv^oc, which undoubtedly was the imperfect 
 of the old verb, but alfo from the formation of 
 the future and perfect, which makes it evident that 
 the characteriflical letter is TT. Now from this old 
 verb TV, is formed the new verb TVTTTU, by in- 
 ferting betwixt the two final letters the letter T ; 
 and if fo, is it not agreeable to the analogy of 
 the language to fuppofe, that TV- itfelf was form- 
 ed by inferting a * betwixt the v and w of TM ? 
 which may be prefumed to have been the original 
 verb. 
 
 And my hypothecs is fupported not only by 
 this reafoning from analogy, but alfo from facts : 
 for it. is evident, that many of thofe verbs that 
 are now barytons, were originally pure verbs ; 
 ' e. p. a*xy, which is now a baryton, was for- 
 merly the pure verb /5xe, as is evident from the 
 future ftill in ufe, /JMo-t^a/, and the preter-perfect 
 /k/^xa. And the fame is true of //exxw, and 6e- 
 x, and many others that might be mentioned : 
 and ix u an d ?/**>, though they have not thofe 
 marks of being once pure verbs, they have an- 
 other equally certain, which, is that ix.vpi and <pe- 
 ftipi are to be found in the antient poets, which 
 muft have been from l^t& and ft?. The liquid 
 
 verbs
 
 536 Of the FORMATION 
 
 DiiT. I. verbs too in m and ,&>, appear to have been de- 
 r ived from pur ( e verbs, as, e. t>. nua and pivu, are 
 evidently from vtpiu and //ma, as appears both 
 from their futures and perfects. Even the verb 
 7-vTro) above mentioned, appears to have been an- 
 tiently TI/B-SW, from the fecond future of TVTTTU, 
 which is TVTU circumfiexed ; now this fecond fu- 
 ture is no other than the prefent of the old verb 
 Ttwrtw *. For that the circumfle&ed u in this fu- 
 ture is no other than the tn> contracted, is evident 
 from the Ionic ufe of the word, according to 
 which it is Tv-ma uncontracted, after the manner 
 of the lonians ; and if there were any doubt in 
 the matter, the antient verb rvino itfelf is preferved 
 to us by Hefychius. 
 
 It may alfo be objected to my fyftem, That I 
 make the Greek language of a very gaping, pro- 
 nunciation, when I fuppofe the primitive founds 
 and the chief component parts of the language to 
 foe vowels (landing open upon one another. 
 
 But the fact is, that fuch was the genius of the 
 antient Greek, and that contractions are but of 
 later ufe, when glib-fpeaking, that went trippingly 
 off the tongue, came into famion, inflead of the 
 full-mouth'd high-founding language that was 
 formerly ufed. This antient ufe was preferved in 
 the Ionic dialect, and in the old poets, particu- 
 larly in Homer, who, in the very firft line of his 
 Iliad, opens two vowels upon one another, viz. 
 and a, which make a greater gap than any o- 
 
 Sec Vrfini <3ram. Grac. pag. i$3 
 
 ther
 
 of the GREEK LANGUAGE. 537 
 
 thcr. And that he did this purpofely, is evident ; Sed. 2. 
 for inftead of n*\*Tatl* 9 which he might have ufed, 
 he fays n>M/<x^e&> 'A^/MCC, not without prejudice to 
 his verfe. 
 
 It may be further objected, That I make the 
 fyftem of the Greek language too regular and ar- 
 tificial, more fo than any thing of popular ufe can 
 be fuppofed to be. 
 
 This objection proceeds upon the fuppofition, 
 that language is an art invented, as well as ufed, by 
 the people. But is it poflible to believe, that the 
 Sanfcrit language was invented by the people ? or 
 can we believe that the Hebrew, a much lefs per- 
 fect language than the Greek, was the invention 
 of the vulgar that ufed it ? or indeed can we be- 
 lieve, that any art whatever, of the lead dignity 
 or excellence, was ever brought to the leaft de- 
 gree of perfection, merely by popular ufe, though 
 in that way no doubt the firft rude practices of e- 
 very art began ? But of this I have already faid e- 
 nough in the preceding volume. 
 
 Another objection may be made by thofe who 
 have not fufficiently ftudied the nature of Ian* 
 guage, That I do not, by my fyftem, give an ac- 
 count of all the words of the language ; for the 
 conjunctions, fuch as a/ and re, and fjav and <fi 9 
 and the prepofitions, fuch as sx, and the pronouns, 
 fuch as iyu and <ru, are neither roots nor deriva- 
 tives, according to my fyftem. The fame objec- 
 tors will alfo, no doubt, defire, that I mould ac- 
 
 VOL. II. Y count
 
 538 Of the FORMATION 
 
 PifT. I. count for the interjections, and the names of nutn- 
 bers. 
 
 But the anfwer is, That although by fur the 
 greater part of things in a language of art are ao 
 cording to rule, fame things mufl be arbitrary, 
 and not governed by any rule. The nature of 
 language, as \ve have (hewn, abfolutely requires, 
 that fome things mould be denominated from o- 
 thers, fo that every word of a language may not 
 be independent and unconnected with every other ; 
 and it belongs to the art to determine what things 
 ihall be denominated from what. Subftances, as 
 has been (hewn, are fitly denominated from their 
 actions and operations. Qualities may be, and 
 commonly are, denominated in the fame way. In*- 
 ferior actions may be denominated from the prin- 
 cipal actions upon which they depend ; and even 
 the words expreffing thofe primary actions, as I 
 may call them, and which are held to be primi- 
 tives, may be fo contrived, as that the founds of 
 the letters fhall have fome fimilitudc to the actions 
 denoted by them, as I have endeavoured to mew. 
 In this manner all the words of the language, both 
 primitive and derivative, which denote things 
 really emitting in nature, may be formed accordr 
 ing to rules of art. And it is of fuch words 
 that a language is conftituted : for conjunctions 
 and prepofitions are to be confidered only as pegs 
 end nails in the ftructure of language, and are, 
 properly fpeaking, no part of the itructure ; for 
 they dp. not exprefs any thing exifling in nature, 
 
 but
 
 of the GREEK LANGUAGE. 539 
 
 but only the operations of our mind, in conned- Sect. 2, 
 ing together the feveral parts of difcourfe, and 
 exprefling the relations that we conceive betwixt 
 things. Pronouns likewife are no more than an 
 invention of ours to fupply the place of nouns* 
 Plato therefore, in his dialogue upon etymology, 
 has not fo much as mentioned conjunctions, pre- 
 pofitions, or pronouns, as not being proper fubjects 
 of etymology* They are therefore, I believe, in all 
 languages, exprefled by founds merely arbitrary* 
 And as to the names of numbers* Plato indeed 
 mentions them, but fays that they are words that 
 cannot be derived from any other. For this he 
 does not give any reafori ; but I take the reafon 
 to be, that men have ufed words to calculate, as 
 they formerly ufed pebbles, and now ufe counters* 
 And as to interjections, they are to be confidered 
 as no more than natural cries, expreffive of 
 paffion, which cannot, by their nature, be deri* 
 vatives from other words. And in this manner, 
 I think we may account for fome words of a lan- 
 guage not being derivatives, nor formed accord- 
 ing to rule, 
 
 But befides thefe, there are other words which 
 cannot be reduced to any rule, and which Plato, in 
 the Cratylus, has likewife given up ; I mean foreign 
 words, or rather words of the original language of 
 the Greeks, which they preferved in the fame ftate 
 as when they got them from the Eaft, without ad- 
 jufting them to the new fyftem they had formed 
 of their language ; fuch is the Phrygian word p 9
 
 540 Of the FORMATION 
 
 DifT. I. fignifying fire, and 'A, the Athenian name for 
 their city, which I had occafion to mention before, 
 and the four other words of the fame unufual ter- 
 mination ; and I am perfuaded that many others 
 may be found that were ufed by the Greeks, but 
 never naturalized in their language. 
 
 The only other objection that occurs to me is, 
 That according to this fyftem, I make the Greek 
 language perfect and complete in itfelf, borrowing 
 nothing from any other ; whereas, in the former 
 part of this work, I made it to be derived from the 
 Eaft, and the fame originally with the Oriental lan- 
 guages. 
 
 The anfwer to this is, That however paradoxi- 
 cal it may feem, in certain refpects both are true : 
 for the artifts that formed the Greek language 
 out of the materials brought from the Eaft, did fo 
 reform it, that it has the appearance of a language 
 quite different from any of the Oriental dialects. 
 This was brought about by a change of the termina- 
 tion and the flection ; and in confequence of that, of 
 the roots, and the whole fyftem of derivation, all ex- 
 cept that fundamental point, of the roots being verbs. 
 According to this plan, the roots became duads 
 of vowels, either by themfelves, or with a fingkr 
 confonant prefixed, inftead of triads of confonants, 
 as they are in Hebrew, with two vowels, but a 
 confonant always laft ; fo that the only fimilitude 
 that remained betwixt thefe new roots and the old 
 was, that both confifted of two fyllables. But in 
 compounding the words with thoie primitive duads 
 
 and
 
 of the GREEK LANGUAGE. 541 
 
 and confonants, they made ufe of fuch confonants Sed. 2. 
 as were ufed in the old language, (with fuch va- v ^ >rN> 
 nations however as fuited the nice Greek ear) ; 
 and it is by this means that the Greek and the O- 
 riental languages ftill preferve a refemblance to 
 one another, by which they may be known to be 
 of the fame family ; fo that ftill the Greek may be 
 faid, without impropriety, to be a dialect of the 
 Eaft, and a ftream from that great fource of lan- 
 guages, but which is much further from the fource 
 than any other. ^' 
 
 And thus I have endeavoured both to eftabltfh 
 my fyftem, and to anfwer the objections to it. 
 After I had formed it, I was told that it was not 
 entirely new, but that Hempfterhufius, the 
 Dutch profeflbr, had much the fame thought, but 
 he never publifhed it, only communicated it to 
 fome of his fcholars. I never could get any dif- 
 tincl: account of his fyftem, but only in general 
 I have heard, that as he was a great Oriental, 
 as well as Greek fcholar, he made the Greek roots, 
 like the Hebrew, to confift of triads. If thofe 
 triads were fuch as I fuppofe them to be, confift- 
 ing each of them of one or other of the five duads, 
 and a confonant prefixed, then there is very little 
 difference betwixt Hempfterhufius and me ; for, 
 according to my fyftem, by far the greateft part 
 of the roots are fuch as Hempfterhufius made 
 them. But I think his fyftem defective in thefe 
 two things : firji. That he does not carry the ana- 
 lyfis of the language far enough back, nor refolve 
 
 it
 
 < .Of the FORMATION, &c. 
 
 Difl*. I. it into its primitive elements, which are certainly 
 ^s^~*J the five duads. 2d/y, That he excludes from the 
 number of the roots, the duads themfelves, four 
 of which are mod certainly radical words of the 
 language ; and alfo the compdfition of them with 
 other vowels, making fuch words as eaa, /aw, &c. 
 which are likewife undoubtedly roots in the pro- 
 per fenfe of the word. I therefore think it better 
 to make the duads the primitive founds of the lan- 
 guage, and themfelves roots likewife ; and all the 
 other roots to be formed, by prefixing either an- 
 other vowel or a confonant to the original duads. 
 
 DIS-
 
 543 
 
 DISSERT. II. 
 
 Of the Sound of the Greek language. 
 
 IN the preceding difiertation, I have endea- Dif. II. 
 voured to {hew, that the artificers of the v - x ^ r 
 Greek language chofe for the radical founds of 
 it, five duads of vowels, for the fake of the a- 
 nalogy, that is, the formation of cafes and tenfes ; 
 of derivation ; and likewife for more agree- 
 able found. In this difiertation I propofe to mew 
 what further the Greeks have done to improve the 
 found of their language ; as in this refped, as well 
 as with refpedt to the formation of the language, 
 the Greek differs very much from the Oriental 
 languages, and thofe of Gothic and Celtic extrac- 
 tion. 
 
 The termination of the words of a language is, 
 with refpecl: to its found, a very material part of 
 it. Herodotus * very properly obferves it as a 
 peculiarity of the Perfian lanuguage, that all the 
 words of it terminate in s. And there is hardly any 
 thing that diftinguiihes languages more than the 
 difference of termination. The languages of the 
 Eaft, and the Gothic and Celtic, and their pro- 
 geny, terminate almofl all their words with con- 
 fonants, and thefe, for the greater part mutes, 
 and often afpirated j fuch terminations, efpecially 
 
 Lib. i. c. 139. This, fays our author, is a peculiarity, which 
 cfcapcs the Faluns themfdv?s, but not us Gieeks. 
 
 if
 
 544 Of the SOUND 
 
 DIf. II. if the following word begins, as it frequently hap- 
 *"*' >rsj pens, with a confonant that does not coalefce with 
 them in the fame found, make thofe languages 
 feem very harm to ears accuftomed to Greek or 
 Latin, or even to the corruptions of the Latin, 
 fuch as the French and Italian. On the other 
 hand, the Greeks terminate all their words either 
 in vowels, or with the liquid c, fometimes in p, 
 but very rarely, according to the later ufe of the 
 .Greek language, and often in the monadic letter 
 c ; but never with a mute confonant, and far 
 lefs with an afpirate. The great difference there- 
 fore that we find betwixt the Greek, and thofe o- 
 ther languages, one of which I am perfuaded it 
 originally was, is in the termination and the flec- 
 tion. This indeed makes fo great a difference, 
 that to thofe who are not critics in language, they 
 appear to be altogether different : but when we 
 can trace the Greek word up to its origin, we 
 find that there is no difference but in the terming 
 tion, and that the body of the word is filled up 
 with the fame confonants and vowels, as in the 
 Hebrew, Gothic, or Celtic, with fuch alterations 
 as the pleafure of the ear might require. 
 
 For the artificers of the Greek language, not only 
 attended to the termination of their words, but 
 .they have taken care alfo, that in the middle they 
 -fhall not be crouded with confonants, as is often 
 the cafe of the languages of northern extraction, 
 and particularly of the Englifh, in which we find 
 fometimes four confonants together, without dik 
 tiu&ion of the kind, whether they be fuch as run 
 
 eafily
 
 of the GREEK LANGUAGE. 545 
 
 eafily into one another or not. But in Greek Dif. IT, 
 there are never above three together, without the Vk ^" v> -' 
 interpofition of a vowel ; and of thefe the firft, or 
 the laft, or both, are always liquids, or the mona- 
 dic letter o- j as in the words i&Koc, oii^oq, owfya, 
 
 Kdfi^eify &C. 
 
 I obferved before, that the liquids do not unite 
 with one another in the fame fyllable, with the ex- 
 ception only of the and c in certain words. But 
 thofe two juft now mentioned do not admit either 
 of the other two liquids *. and / next to them- 
 felves, even in the following fyllable ; at leaft this 
 was a junction that offended the delicate Greek 
 ear, though very common among us. In order 
 therefore to prevent fo difagreeable a found, they 
 threw in, betwixt the p. or v and thofe other 
 liquids, fome other confonant, fuch as &, or r, 
 which are commonly interpofed betwixt the v and 
 /, and the labials , *, y, which are ufually in- 
 terpofed betwixt the /* and the j> ; and when the 
 A follows the f, this laft is left out, and the A. 
 doubled, as in iMeoj//?, for kvKet^^ ; tKK<y.^7ru, for w- 
 
 The three lingual mutes admit no other confo- 
 nants after them, in Greek, except the four li- 
 quids, K, p, v, f ; becaufe any other confonants 
 following thofe mutes, they thought, produced a 
 difagreeable found. It is for this reafon, in the 
 declenfion of fuch nouns as /mf, they do not fay, 
 in the dative plural, /^ovy-lai, which they ought to 
 do according to the analogy, but //ccasn , and in 
 
 VOL. II. 3 Z the
 
 546 Of the SOUND 
 
 Dif. II. the dative plural of re^ac, they fay n^i, not fr- 
 *^~*~ u ffl . And in like manner, in the conjugation of 
 verbs, they fay -TTKWU, in the future, from TTK^U, 
 not TrxnQ. I know that the double letter , as it 
 is commonly pronounced, is an exception to this 
 rule, by making the <r follow the S. But I fay, 
 upon the authority of the Halicarnaffian, that this 
 is a wrong pronunciation. For he has faid ex- 
 prefsly, that the compofition of this letter is <r$, not 
 So- ; nor do I fee any reafon for fuppofing, as cer- 
 tain critics do, that there is an error here in the 
 manufcript with refpecl: to this letter, any more 
 than with refpeft to the other two double letters, 
 and {. 
 
 If any of the afpirated is immediately followed 
 or preceded by any of fattenues ormedit, they mud 
 be afpirated likewife ; as i*&y%w, ITV$W ; and in ge- 
 neral, the rule is, that the tenues, mzdiz^ and afpira- 
 ted, follow immediately thofe of the fame clafs only ; 
 as may be obferved in the conjugation of the 
 verbs ; as, when they fay xeAtx.T*/, for Mxsyra/. And 
 in compofition and derivation, the concourfe of a 
 tennis with a media is avoided ; as, in place of 
 
 xxWWa/, they fay xa^tra/ ; in place of xar' Svca^/r, 
 
 Ky.llvYa.fAiy ; and in deriving IfilettK, and cyW, from 
 tsrra, and oxrw, the tcnues in the original are chan- 
 ged refpecYively into middles of the fame organ. 
 But with refpecl to afpirates, a contrary rule is fol- 
 lowed, where they do not immediately follow one 
 another, but are at fome diflance. For in that 
 way two afpirates do not concur, but the one is 
 
 changed
 
 5 
 
 of the GREEK LANGUAGE, 547 
 
 A'^fflBV*-/ - : 
 
 changed into its correfpondent tenuis. Thus in Dif. II. 
 the declenfion of nouns, from 0j>/, they do not fay x - x ' v " N - ; 
 6p;^of, but Tpxoc ; though in the dative plural they 
 fay 0f/&, when there is no other afpirate following 
 the 0. In like manner, they fay tra<p0>jx, from 0ar- 
 ru, not 9af Qw ; and they fay Tf t<p<y, not 0ffc<p&, 
 which appears to have been the original verb, from 
 the future fyi^u. 
 
 By an improvement which the Greeks in later 
 times made upon the found of their language, the 
 f is not tolerated after the v in the fame fyllable. 
 This is certainly the cafe at prefent ; but that it was 
 not always fo, is evident from feveral of their 
 words, both nouns and participles, e. g. They for- 
 merly faid J A/xf, in place of 'A/ac ; as is evident from 
 the genitive 'A/ax?, and the vocative 'A/ax ; and in 
 like manner, y/yac was undoubtedly of old y/yax? ; 
 and, if there were any doubt of the matter, the ufe 
 of the Latin language, in which this termination 
 is common, particularly in the participles of their 
 verbs, makes the thing quite evident. Thus the 
 Latins OsfyftdfiSy in place of the Greek participle 
 rac, as it is now ufed ; for it appears certain, that 
 originally the Greek participle of this verb was 
 the fame with the Latin, and that the Greek par- 
 ticiples ending in -c, fuch as T/ta?, were formerly 
 in -txf, as appears from the genitives T^XTO? and 
 raxTof ; and from thence comes the Latin participle 
 in -ens. 
 
 This method of leaving out letters was pradifed 
 
 by the Greeks, not only to make the found of their 
 
 3 Z 2 language
 
 548 Of the SOUND 
 
 Dif. II. language fofter, but alfo to make it more mafcu- 
 line. For this reafon the vowel i, as being a weak 
 founding letter, is very often left out in their 
 words j as, c. g. the genitive of aVwj>, according to 
 analogy, is dytfoc, as appears from the nominative 
 plural ftill preferved to us in Homer ; but in order 
 to make the found ftronger, they ftrike out the e. 
 This makes it aVyc? ; but the delicate Greek ear not 
 being able to bear the found of the f after the *, as 
 I have already obferved, they infcrt the S betwixt 
 them, and make it aV^cc. The Greek word for 
 ager was, I doubt not, originally the fame as in 
 Latin ; but adding to the termination in ? the fyl- 
 lable of, as they commonly did in order to foften 
 it, they made it <*y*f c? , and then, eliding the i, they 
 made the prefent word ayfc. 
 
 There are other examples of the fyncope of the 
 <c in the middle of words, one or two of which I 
 {hall mention, becaufe they are not commonly ob- 
 ferved. The root of the verb TTITTTU is undoubtedly 
 , as is evident from the future wto-w, and aorift 
 ; from thence by reduplication is formed TTI- 
 in the fame manner as the verbs in -^ are 
 formed j and then, by leaving out the t, is made 
 TTITTTU, the verb prefently in ufe. In like manner, 
 the original of the verb TMTU is Tutu, as appears 
 from the fecond aorift inner, from thence r/rexw, 
 then by the fyncope TITXU ; but then, as in Greek 
 the K never follows the T, on account of the harfh- 
 jiefs of the found, thefe two letters are tranfpofed, 
 and fo TIKTU is produced, And according to the 
 
 fame
 
 of the GREEK LANGUAGE. 549 
 
 fame procefs, from ytw is formed yiyyc//.a.t, from Dif. II. 
 
 whence the Latin gigno ; and in the fame way, 
 from jutya is derived pwu. 
 
 And not only did the Greeks thus improve the 
 found of their language, by leaving out letters, 
 but more ftill by the addition of letters, and even 
 fyllables, in the beginning, middle, and end of 
 words. In the firfl way are formed the verbs in 
 -/*/ ; and according to the fame analogy, fome 
 verbs which are not commonly obferved, fuch as 
 from fjiCLifw, dctfictTTTu from \ct7TTu, and 
 from f ot-iyu, where there is not only the re- 
 duplication of the firft fyllable, but in the two 
 firft the letter % is inferted, and in the laft the let- 
 ter fji. How much the found of thefe words is 
 raifed and fwelled by the reduplication, and the 
 addition of the new letter, it is needlefs to obferve. 
 Of additions in the middle of the word there 
 are many examples, fuch as from a.lu, wlwu , from 
 
 Mfiu, Or Aaw, Aa ( M/3acw ; from TruKtu, TTUKWKU and, 
 
 in general, all thofe verbs in -VKU. In thefe in- 
 ftances not a fingle letter only is added, but in 
 fome of them four. In other cafes only a fmgle 
 letter is ufed, as in the cafe of ^TTAH^/, inflead 
 
 of TriTTMifjLt, from TTKIU ; and in O-K^TT^OK, from OWTTTU, 
 
 xa.ToTTfov from KO.T07TT openly where the j> is thrown 
 in j as in ccyvSfo?, and aV/^rsrof, the r is thrown in. 
 
 And in general it may be obferved, that the let- 
 ters which the Greeks commonly ufe for filling up 
 the found of their words, are the v, the p, the , 
 
 the
 
 550 OF the SOUND 
 
 Dif. II. the S, and the /, and very often the vowel , as 
 being of higheft found. 
 
 This way of enlarging words is, according to 
 my fcheme of the Greek language above mention- 
 ed, one of the two ways by which the whole lan- 
 guage was formed, from compofitions in duads of 
 the vowel a and the other vowels, the u being al- 
 ways laft. For all the words, according to my 
 notion, arc formed, either by additions to the be- 
 ginning of the original duad, or by the infertion 
 of other letters betwixt the final a and the pre 
 ceding vowel. 
 
 As to their practice of adding to the end of 
 their words, we have alfo many examples; as, of 
 'fjLtK (which, I doubt not, was the antient Greek 
 "word as well as it is the Latin) they made /*./, for 
 the fake of the better found ; and of legunt^ or 
 Kiyoir, they made Myom , and I am perfuaded, in 
 like manner, all the old words in Greek, which 
 Tike the Latin words ended in /3, or S, or T, or A,, 
 "had their termination foftened, either by the addi- 
 tion of vowels, as in the two inftances above men- 
 tioned, or of the fyllable -?, as we have feen in 
 the example of words ending in f, which was as 
 common a termination in the antient Greek as it 
 is now in the Latin ; and the common termination 
 of p. among the Latins, was foftened by the Greeks 
 into r. 
 
 It is by additions to the end, as well to the be- 
 ginning, that the whole race of the verbs in -jut is 
 formed ; in which there is no change of the fignifi- 
 
 cation
 
 of the GREEK LANGUAGE. 55*1 
 
 cation of the original word, but only an addition Dif. II. 
 of found, and of flection. In the fame way are v - x " v " s<i; 
 formed the mod of the derivatives of the Greek 
 language ; by which I mean fuch words as are de- 
 rived from others, with fome change of the figni- 
 fication of the root. Of thefe I have already fpo- 
 ken ; and I will only add here, that we ought not 
 in fuch derivatives to feek for compofition, any 
 more than in the Latin words infimus, and medi- 
 tullium. Thus, . g it would be ridiculous to 
 fuppofe, that the word if aretco? was compounded of 
 Ifau and retyu, and not a fimple derivative from 
 ifaw, in the fame manner as Tropes is from jroOtw, 
 and xwW//*or from xuW. This, however, is an er- 
 ror which fome etymologifts of great name have 
 fallen into, particularly Plato, in the Cratylus, who 
 has given us feveral etymologies of that kind. One 
 I remember that is exceedingly ridiculous. It is 
 that of xax/a, which is a noun derived in the com- 
 mon way from xaxec , but Plato makes it a com- 
 pound of xajtoc and the verb la. He might have 
 made a compound of the fame kind of the Latin 
 term ma lit i a. Of this fort is the etymology which 
 the Roman lawyers give of teftamentum^ as bein^ 
 compounded of tzjlor^ or teftatio^ and mem, qua- 
 Ji teftatio mentis ; whereas in truth it is a verbal 
 noun, derived from teftor, in the fame way as or- 
 namentum is from orno, honeft amentum from 
 honefto 9 condimentum from condio, and a hun- 
 dred others. 
 
 Befides all the ways above mentioned, by 
 
 which
 
 552 Of the 
 
 Dif. II. which the Greeks improved the found of their 
 language, there is yet another known among gram- 
 marians by the name of metathefis, or tranfpoli- 
 tion : for by tranfpofmg letters, they not only varied 
 and foftened the founds of their language, but en- 
 larged their flock of words. Thus they fay e xTayxo?, 
 as well as ?r*ayo?, tranfpofmg the y and the x, 
 tho* this laft be the word formed by analogy from 
 
 itcTrMwu. They fay alfo 0/>a<roc, and Oa^o-c? ; xa^rt^of, 
 
 and *f cm/>o?. By this rule tplu is the fame word 
 with ft& ; for if you tranfpofe the f> and the t, and 
 leave out the <r of the compound letter , of /5ea, 
 you make ifiu ; or, vice verfa, by the fame tranf- 
 pofition of the e and />, and by adding the o-, of 
 Ifict, you make /. The future of which laft 
 verb fuffers the tranfpofition of the fame letters j 
 for they fay />* as well as /. Another example 
 of the fame kind is in the verb /**<!>, from whence 
 the Latin word repo, and our word reptile. Of 
 this verb, by tranfpofmg the / and e, they make 
 another verb, viz. Wo>, from which the Latins 
 have alfo formed another verb of the fame iigni- 
 fication with repo, viz. ferpo, from whence fer- 
 pens, and our word ferpent. Another example^ 
 but not fo obvious, and which therefore I only 
 propofe as the conjefture of fome grammarians, is 
 furnifhed by the verb tfoxa, the fame as may be 
 fuppofed with t*Sw, the \ and the 9 being tranfpofed, 
 and the being changed into the correfpondent 
 middle letter of the fame organ. Many fuch tranf- 
 pofitions are not to be traced in the Greek as it 
 
 now
 
 of the GREEK LANGUAGE. 553 
 
 now (lands, but are to be found in its mod an- Dif. II. 
 tient dialed:, the Latin. Thus uervtts is the fame "^^^"^ 
 word with rey/w, rapax with a^a^, ttner with 
 reftfc, and forma with yuo/><p>?. 
 
 After this manner, by tranfpofmg, changing, 
 and taking away letters, the Greeks foftened the 
 found of their language, or made it more ftrong 
 and mafculine ; and by the addition of letters or 
 fyllables to the original words, they gave it a full- 
 nefs and roundnefs, and raifed it to a pomp of 
 found, that no language, fo far as I know, ever e- 
 qualled. 
 
 But the confequence, as Plato has well obferved 
 in the Cratylits, of this ftudy of ornament, and 
 the pleafure of the ear, is, that the words are fo 
 
 difguifed, naKKUTrto-^ w /xtyaAo^tTraaf m>ta, that the 
 
 originals of them are hardly to be known. Thus 
 in aVSaKw, or K<X./U<X.W, it is not eafy to find a, or 
 hoc.Cc,} ; and if we were not taught by our gram- 
 mars, it would be more difficult to find 0e&> in rfin- 
 pi. This confederation ihould difpofe us, not to re- 
 ject, haftily, etymologies that may feem at firfl to 
 be very far-fetched, even in the fame language : 
 and much lefs ought we to do fo, as I had occa- 
 fion to obferve before, when the language palfes 
 from one people to another ; for undoubtedly the 
 words of derivative languages rnuft be at a greater 
 diftance from the roots, than the words of the 
 fame language. 
 
 Many more obfervations might be made upon a 
 fubjeft fo copious ; but thefe may fuffice for the 
 
 VOL. II. 4 A prefent :
 
 554 Of the SOUND, &c. 
 
 Dif. II. prefent : and I believe moft of my readers will 
 think them more than fufficient, and that I 
 have fpent a great deal too much time upon what 
 may be faid to be no better than mere fpelling. 
 But men of curiofity and fcience will not be fatif- 
 fied with knowing, what every man mud know 
 who has ears to hear, that the articulation of the 
 Greek language (for we can hardly be faid to 
 know any thing more of the found of it) is more 
 copious, various, and high-founding, as well as 
 more pleafant, than that of any other language ; 
 but they will defire to know by what art it has been 
 raifed, from a few fhort roots, to fuch a pomp and 
 flow of found ; and this cannot be otherwife ex- 
 plained, than by fuch obfervations as I have made, 
 upon the power of letters, and the feveral me- 
 thods of making the combinations of them plea* 
 fant to the ear, by adding, taking away, changing, 
 or tranfpofmg. And however minute and trifling 
 fuch things may feem, if they had not been 
 known, and obferved by the artificers of this won- 
 derful language, it never would have been fo 
 much admired as it is by all men of learning and 
 tafte ; for it is in art, as it is in nature, ex ele- 
 mentis omnia conftant^ as Dr Clarke obferves in 
 the preface to his edition of Homer. 
 
 DIS.
 
 555 
 
 *; a -> -f 
 
 4 I i_ 
 
 ' 
 
 DISSERT. III. 
 
 Of the Compojttion of the Antients ; and -parti- 
 cularly of that of Demojlhcnes* 
 
 STyle confifts of two things \ the choice of words, Dif.III. 
 and the competition of thefe words. Of 
 thefe two the laft is efleemed by the antient ma- 
 fters of the writing-art to be of the greateft im- 
 portance, being that which contributes the moft 
 both to the beauty and the variety of ftyle : 
 for it is by compofition chiefly that different ftyles 
 are diftinguifhed j fuch as the poetical from the rhe- 
 torical ; both from the hiftorical ; and this again 
 from the epiflolary or familiar. For the antients 
 made all thofe different ftyles of the fame words, 
 only compofed and arranged in a different man- 
 ner. 
 
 The modern practitioners of the art, appear 
 to be of a different opinion ; and according- 
 ly they beftow their chief, or rather their only 
 Care, upon the choice of words ; neglecting almoft 
 altogether the cornpofition * ; or, if they beftow 
 
 any 
 
 The HallcarnafGan fays the fame thing of the moderns cf his 
 time, IIfp o-mtiiriaf, fcft. 4. where, after (hewing, that it is competi- 
 tion chiefly which diftinguillies post from poet, and orator from 0- 
 rator, he adds, To7f < i *px a ''s otoy* <? t *v ^c" TOXX>I Infant (f. i'r- 
 
 4 A i TJ)uc'JO-(i)
 
 556 Of the COMPOSITION 
 
 Dif.III. any pains upon that, it were better let alone, as it 
 j s di re t ec l by a wrong judgement and bad tafle. 
 When I fpeak of modern writers, I mean thofe oi 
 this age ; not thofe of the laft, fuch as Milton and 
 Lord Clarendon, who, it is evident, did not ne- 
 gleft this principal part of flyle ; but, on the con- 
 trary, by carefully attending to it, have attained 
 to that reputation which they fo juflly deferve. 
 
 The want of the knowledge of this part of 
 writing, has neceffarily produced this effect, that 
 our authors, when they want to raife their ftyle, 
 or vary it ever fo little from common idiom, 
 not knowing how to do it by compofition, are ob- 
 liged to have recourfe to metaphors or figures of 
 different kinds, and to poetical or foreign words ; 
 all of which, in fome kinds of writing, are im- 
 proper. And hence it comes, that we have not 
 different ftyles fuited to different fubje&s ; but 
 there is among us but one ftyle ; and every author, 
 upon every fubje6t, affe&s to write what is called 
 
 7Tj<Tfirj{-) in aura' trap* o x.ai r.ccla ICTIV VTU*T<X fj.tr py., r.ai T* ftt>.n, xai yi 
 Aoj'Or Tttc ft fj.tTafym<nifoif VX.ITI, 5rXv o\tyav %pova <ff t/rep&v Tra.nu.-x 0.3 'IK 
 w/tttXuSw if.au vSii; utro <Tv avayxziov aura va/, ui oo/^tfaxxta-S-a; TI rp 
 xaXXrt rat Xoyuv. Tofyaproi TOICCVTU; O-VVTO.%&{ xotTfXijrciV, itct( afnf JT- 
 yuy (M^pi Kopovtfof Jx8. Afttr this he gives a long catalogue of 
 later authors who entirely negledted compofition ; and among thefe he 
 name^ Polylvus, an author a valuable far his matter, as he fs defpl- 
 cable for his ftyle. f have often regretted, that fome of thofe great 
 mafters of the Greek tongue, fuch as H. Stephen, who not only un- 
 derftood the language perfetSlly, but pra&ifed the writing of it, did 
 not take the trouble to tranflate Polybius into Attic Greek, with a 
 proper compofition. Then he would have been one of the pleafant- 
 eft, as well AS mod inftructive of hiftorians. 
 
 fine
 
 of the ANTIENTS. 
 
 fine language, that is, a motley mixture of the Dif.IIT. 
 froth of rhetoric and the flowers of poetry. ^v>^ 
 
 Dionyfius the Halicarnaflian, an author whom 
 I have made fo much ufe of in this work, has 
 written a moft valuable treatife, which he has in- 
 titled, TTfe/j/ <7vr0e6f,-or, Of Contpvfition \ in which, 
 though he has treated of compofition only fo far 
 as it afte&s the ear, yet he has made it a chief 
 beauty of ftyle, and compared it to the rod of 
 Minerva in Homer *, which could transform 
 a prince and a hero, into the appearance of 
 an old decrepid beggar, or contrariwife. In like 
 manner, fays he, the noblefl thoughts, even tho* 
 the words be fuitable, may be degraded by mean 
 compofition ; and, on the contrary, low matter 
 without any pomp or dignity of expreffion, may 
 be raifed as much as is proper, and made beauti- 
 ful, by an agreeable arrangement of the words. 
 Of this he has given us a remarkable example 
 from that paflage of the Odyffey, where Homer 
 has introduced Ulyfies and the fwine-herd, fitting 
 and converfmg together ; and where there is no- 
 thing grand or fine, either in the matter or words, 
 but rather the contrary ; yet, by the art of the 
 
 * DionyGus ilid. The touch of this rod at one time made Ulyfies 
 appear 
 
 And at another time 
 
 compofition,
 
 558 Of the COMPOSITION 
 
 Dif.III. compofition, the verfes are beautiful, and not bc- 
 low the dignity of heroic argument *. 
 
 Tantum feries juntfuraque polkt ; 
 
 Tantum de media Jumptis accedit honoris. 
 
 This kind of plain work is entirely out of famion 
 in our poetry, for the reafon I have mentioned, 
 and but little ufed even in our profe, and every 
 thing in both is embroidery and ornament. But 
 
 The paflage is in the beginning of book itf. of the OdyJJej. It 
 begins thus, 
 
 To ' avr' EV xXn>if 'O3v<rsvf y.al Qetdf vfspGof 
 'EtrvvovT ap/fl-TOV ccff. rtdi, v.HOt[*.fvu -Xvp 
 'EK7r;f&l>ctv TI vofaixs i(L etypofitvoiirt ffwrri. 
 
 The whole paffagc is wonderfully pleafant and natural : and though 
 it defcribe nothing but what is common, and belonging to vulgar life, 
 rpa^uar/a X<T tuu /Lanxa, as our author exprefles it ; and though 
 the images be what a modern critic would call Itnv, no man of good 
 underftanding and tafte, not entirely corrupted by modern manner*, 
 will fay, that as Homer has exprefied them, they are below heroic 
 dignity. And whence, continues our author, does this come ? from 
 the choice of the words, or from the compofition ? From the choice 
 of the words, no body, as I think, will fay ; for all the words are of 
 the meaneft and lowcft kind, fuch as any plowman, mariner, or 
 mechanic would ufe. For proof of this, let us change the arrange- 
 ment, and take down the vcrfc, and then the diction will appear fuch 
 as it truly is, without metaphor, figure, or ornament of any kind. 
 It remains therefore that it mufl be the compofition which gives the 
 beauty to this paflage, and makes it as pleafant and agreeable to the 
 ear as any poetry. Of the fame kind, fays our author, 1 could give 
 numberlefs examples from the fame poet ; but, fays he, let this fuf- 
 fice. I will however add one, describing a thing as mean and low 
 as can be, not to be filthy, I mean the putting on flioes, which he 
 eipiefles in the following fweet-founding line, 
 
 HKTITI S' vxcu Knra.poici ISmretro xaAct 
 
 the
 
 of the ANTIENTS. 559 
 
 the tafte of Milton, and I may add of the age in Dif.IH. 
 which he wrote, was very different ; for in him ^^v^- 1 
 we have many pafiages, not only beautiful, but 
 even fublime, without metaphor or figure, or any 
 thing of what is now called fine language. I 
 will mention one or two of them. In the council 
 of fallen angels, after Moloch had done fpeaking, 
 he defcribes Belial rifing up to fpeak in the follow- 
 ing lines. 
 
 He \_Moloch'] ended frowning, and in look dc- 
 
 nounc'd 
 
 Defperate revenge, and battle dangerous 
 To lefs than Gods. On the other fide up rofe 
 Belial, in acl: more graceful and humane, 
 A fairer perfon loft not heaven. He feem'd 
 For dignity compos'd and high exploit : 
 But all was falfe and hollow, (tho' his tongue 
 Dropt manna, and could make the worfe appear 
 The better reafon, to perplex and dafh 
 Matured counfels) ; for his thoughts were low, 
 To vice induftrious ; but to nobler deeds 
 Timorous and flothful ; yet he pleas'd the ear, 
 And in perfuafive accents thus began. 
 
 No body of any tafte or underftanding will deny 
 that this is a moft beautiful paflage ; and yet in 
 the whole of it there is not one metaphorical or fi- 
 gurative word. In what then does the beauty of 
 it confift ? I fay, in the juftnefs of the thought, 
 and propriety of the expreffion ; and no lefs in 
 
 the
 
 560 Of the COMPOSITION 
 
 Dif.III. the art of the compofition. And, firft, the verfifi- 
 ^"v^ cation is mod beautifully varied by paufes and dif- 
 ferent feet ; and to give (till greater variety, there 
 are two verfes, viz. 
 
 For dignity composed, and high exploit 
 and the laft 
 
 And in perfuafive accents thus began. 
 
 where there is no paufe from the fenfe, nor any 
 flop at all, except a little cafura towards the 
 middle, which this Englilh verfe requires, as well 
 as the Latin hexameter. Then from the words, 
 " On the other fide uprofe," all is one period 
 variouily divided into members of different lengths, 
 and in fuch a manner that though it be of extra- 
 ordinary length, it is perfectly clear, to thofe at leaft 
 who are accuftomed to fuch artificial compofition *. 
 
 There 
 
 * The beauty of joining compofition in periods and oratorial num- 
 bers,' with the harmony of poetry, I have before obferved in 
 this volume. It is a beauty that has not efcaped the Halicarnaf- 
 fian. See np! trw3t<rtac , feft. 14. ; where he gives a fine example, 
 from Homer, of compolition Inch as I praife in Milton. It u in 
 the Odyficy, and begins thus, 
 
 'Avreip o In. \i/tevo{ xpayiG* T^^av arafrev, &C. 
 
 where the Halicarnaffian has taken pains to lead m, as ft were, by 
 the hand, and fhew us how the period is divided into members of 
 different lengths, and how thcfe members cut the verfe, fometimes 
 into equal, and fometimes unequal parts : for the critical works 
 oF the Halicamaffian have this advantage above any other of the 
 kind that I know, that the iuftru&ion they give is more particular, 
 
 and
 
 of the ANTIENTS. 561 
 
 There is in it a pretty long parenthefis, which I Dif.IIL 
 have marked, but is not marked, fo far as I know, v - x ^ rN -' 
 in any edition of Milton, and perhaps never was 
 obferved before. The parenthefis I mean is after 
 the words, " But all was falfe and hollow ;" and 
 in it he tranflates the Greek, TOY VTTOYO. -\oycv K^T- 
 rovct. *oiuY 9 the impudent profeffion of Gorgias the 
 fophift, which after his time was charged againft 
 all the fophifts, and even the philofophers. This 
 parenthefis comes down to the words, " for his 
 " thoughts were low," which can only connect 
 with the words, "But all was falfe and hollow;" 
 fo that all betwixt is interjected, or what is called a 
 parenthefis. This figure of compofition, which is 
 hardly ever ufed in common difcourfe, is much 
 employed by the befl writers of antiquity, in order 
 to give a caft and colour to their ftyle different 
 from common idiom ; and by Demofthenes parti- 
 cularly; and not only by the orators, but the poets. 
 There is a remarkable inftance of one in Virgil, 
 longer than this of Milton, and which may ferve 
 as an apology for Milton to fuch readers as think 
 he needs one. It is in the beginning of the Gcor- 
 gics, where, fpeaking of the place that Auguftus 
 Csefar was to have among the gods, he fays, 
 
 >uicquid eris, (nam te necfperent Tartar a regem, 
 Nee tibl regnandi veniat tain dlra ciipido., 
 
 and more fitted to the capacity of the yonng fcholar, an advantage 
 which I believe they would not have had, if the author had not 
 praclifcd teaching. 
 
 VOL. II. 4 B >iiamvis
 
 
 562 Of the COMPOSITION 
 
 Dif.IIJ. ^uamvis Elyfios miretur Crxcla cainpos, 
 
 ^ Nee repetita fequi curet Proferpina matretn) % 
 Da facilem curfum, et audacibus annue cxptis 
 Ignarofqiie via mecum miferatus agreftes 
 Ingredere, et votis jam mine affuefce vocari. 
 
 , r ^ .. ,/,/-;.-. ,\ <f; ,>:' . 
 
 I need not obferve how beautifully Milton, in 
 the fpeech of Belial, which follows the paflage a- 
 bove quoted, changes the colour of the flyle, and 
 gives it the rhetorical cafl ; preferving, however, 
 {till the fimplicity of the diction, and making the 
 rhetoric confifl only in the figure of the compofi- 
 tion. This will be obvious to every man who has 
 formed his tafte upon the ftudy of the beft authors. 
 And I proceed to another example of .the beauty 
 of compofition, without the lealt of what we call 
 fine language, and with lefs dill of art or variety 
 than is to be obferved in the preceding example. 
 And I quote it the rather, that there is in it an 
 allufion, which I think has not been obferved, to a 
 very fine paffage of Plato. It is the beginning of 
 book 8. 
 
 The angel ended, and in Adam's ear 
 So pleafmg left his voice, that he a while 
 Thought him ftill fpeaking, ftill flood fixt to hear ; 
 Then, as new-wak'd, thus gratefully replied. 
 
 The compofition here, as well as the diction, is 
 fweetly fimple ; the verification fufficiently varied 
 by the paufes, and concluding, like the lafl paf- 
 fage,
 
 of the ANTIENTS. 
 
 fage, with a flowing line, without any paufe, Dif.III. 
 which makes it go off with a roundnefs and fmooth- Vxv " N - / 
 nefs that is very agreeable. The allufion I mean 
 is to a paiTage in the Protagoras of Plato, where 
 Socrates defcribes the effect that Protagoras's dif- 
 courfe had upon him, in much the fame terms 
 that Milton has ufed to defcribe the effect of the 
 angel's fpeech upon Adam *. 
 
 The paffages I have quoted are beautiful and 
 fine, but cannot be faid to be great or fublime : 
 but I will merition one or two, where there is the 
 greatefl. fublimity, confifting altogether in the 
 thought expreffed in proper words, and with a fuit- 
 able compofition of thofe words. The firfl I {hall 
 mention is juft in the beginning, where he o- 
 pens the wonderful fcene of his poem in the fol- 
 lowing lines. 
 
 Nine times the fpace that meafures day and night 
 
 * HpuTctj'Opx; piv rojura x.a.1 TO'.XVTO. l7ri$tt%a./j.iv!><; a.Twrav<Ta.TO ra 
 \o~yv Y.OU tyu 1*1 f!Y TTO\\JI ^povov xixnXnuEvo;, ITI Trpof O.UTOV ifiKtTfoi, ug 
 ffvira. ri, lir&utu<}' tirtiSii St iro-3-oa.ov on ra OVTI Tmnxv/mvo; tin, /u.o'yi; 
 jruf J^avTov uTTrtpa ri/vayeipstf, &TTOV. p. lip. Edit. Ficinl. Milton, 
 as his learning was extraordinary no lefs than his genius, abounds f 
 with fuch allufions and imitations, which are often at fuch a diftance 
 as to eicape obftrvatiort. For he almofl never tranHates, and very 
 feldom imitates fo clofe]y as he does this paflage of Plato. Homer 
 was his model for the plan and condudb of his poem, and for the 
 defcriptious, fimiles, and other ornaments of ftyle ; and I will ven- 
 ture to fay, there is much moie of Homer iu hi* ftyle than even in 
 Virgil's, though Virgil has very often imitated clofely, and even tranA 
 lated Homer. Dtmofibenet, as I have obferved, book 3. ch. 3. was 
 his model for the fpecches ; and it is not cafy to fay which of their 
 manners he h.is bcft copied. 
 
 4 B ^ To
 
 564 Of the COMPOSITION 
 
 Dif.III. To mortal man, he with his horrid crew 
 '**^ y ^ J Lay vanquifh'd, rolling in the fiery gulph, 
 Confounded, though immortal, &c. 
 
 When Milton thus begins to found his trumpet,- 
 lmoft every other poet in Englifh, compared 
 with him, may be faid, 
 
 Stridtnti miferum ftipuld difperdere carmen. 
 
 Of the fame kind is what he fays, after his 
 catalogue and defcription of the hoft of fallen an- 
 gels : 
 
 Compare of mortal prowefs, yet obferv'd 
 Their dread commander : he above the reft 
 In fliape and geflure proudly eminent, 
 Stood like a tower ; his form had yet not lofl 
 All her original brightnefs, nor appear'd 
 Lefs than Archangel ruined, and th' excefs 
 Of glory obfcur r d : As when the fun new-rifen 
 Looks through the horizontal mifty air, 
 Shorn of his beams ; or from behind the moor* 
 In dim eclipfe, difaftrous twilight fheds 
 On half the nations, and with fear of change 
 Perplexes monarchs : darken'd fo. yet fhone 
 Above them all the Archangel. 
 
 Where, among other things, the reader may ob- 
 ferve the noble fimplicity of that expreffion, 
 
 "Nor
 
 of the ANTIENTS. 565* 
 
 " Nor appeared lefs than archangel ruin'd," Dif.III, 
 much like that in the paffage above quoted, 
 " Battle dangerous to lefs than gods:" Ex- 
 preflions which the reader may be afiured no man 
 would have ufed who had not formed his tafle 
 upon the chafteft and moft correcl: models. 
 
 I mould never have done, if I were to quote e? 
 very paffage of this kind in Milton ; I will there- 
 fore have done with him, and return to the an- 
 tient compofition ; from which, however, I hope 
 the reader will not think that I have digreffed far 
 by what I have faid of Milton's compofition. 
 
 I have obferved already *, what variety in La- 
 tin there is in the arrangement of only three 
 words, Petrus arnat Johannem. If the number 
 of words is increafed, the variety increafes in 
 proportion. Now fetting afide the pleafure which 
 this liberty of arrangement is able to give to the 
 ear, by joining together words, which feparated, 
 and joined to other Words, might produce a very 
 unpleafant found j (for it is with words, as with 
 {tones in a building, all are not fitted to join 
 with all) ; fetting afide alfo the pleafure which 
 the antient rhythms and accents muft neceffarily 
 have afforded to their learned ears, however little 
 they may afford to ours, and which muft have 
 depended entirely upon the arrangement of -the 
 words : fetting afide, I fay, all thefe confidera- 
 tions, there is a pteafure in variety itfelf, whieft is 
 
 Abcre, p. 359. 351. 
 
 prcdo
 
 $66 Of the COMPOSITION 
 
 Dif.III. predominant in all the works of art, and without 
 Vx * vv -' more or lefs of which no work of art can truly 
 pleafe. And indeed fuch is the beauty of antient 
 compofition in this refpect, and fuch the tirefome 
 famenefs and dull uniformity of the n^ern, let 
 us take what pains we will to vary it, that an ear 
 accuftomed to the variety of the antient can hard- 
 ly endure it. 
 
 But is the pleafure of the ear all that is gained 
 by antient compofition ? Was not the fenfe ftudied 
 by them in the multiform ftructure of their lan^- 
 guage, as well as the found ? I think it was ; and 
 it is chiefly with a view to mew this, and to illu- 
 ftrate it by examples from Demofthenes, that I 
 have written this difiertation, which I intend as 
 an appendix to chapter 4th of the 3d book of this 
 volume. It is, I think, a curious fubjecl:, and a 
 view m which compofition has not been confider- 
 ed by any author, fo far as I know, antient or 
 modern. 
 
 The two moil famous authors' of antiquity, for 
 the beauty of their compofition, are two of very 
 different kinds, Plato and Demofthenes. The 
 firft of thefe ftudied words, and the elegance of 
 ftyle, more, I believe, than any philofopher that 
 ever wrote ; and whatever any man may think of 
 the matter of his philofophy, (of which I own my- 
 felf a very great admirer), he muft confefs, if he 
 be a man of tafte, that the drefs he has put phr- 
 lofophy into, is the fined, and the moft agree- 
 able, it ever wore. For his Dialogues are truly 
 
 poetical
 
 of the ANTIENTS. 567 
 
 poetical pieces, and very fine ones too ; the ftyle Dif.III. 
 much ornamented, and as much varied, particu- V ^ V " N-/ 
 larly by diverfity of arrangement, as I think is 
 poflible. For there is nothing belonging to ftyle 
 which he ftudied more than compofition ; and 
 they tell a famous ftory of him, that when he 
 died, there was found in his tablets, or pocket- 
 book, the beginning of his books of Polity, com- 
 pofed and arranged in different manners *. But 
 neverthelefs I do not think Plato's compofition a 
 perfect model for what I have chiefly in view, I 
 mean the fenfe. For I mud be allowed to think, 
 that he has fometimes carried the liberty of com- 
 pofition, which his language allowed him, too far ; 
 and that ftudying to vary too much, probably for 
 the fake of the ear, he has often obfcured the 
 fenfe, and made a ftyle, which, as his fcholar A- 
 riftotle faid, was neither verfe nor profe f, but 
 hobbling betwixt the two. For though Greek 
 and Latin profe admits of a great variety of com- 
 pofition, yet it has its bounds ; and there is a 
 compofition in thofe languages, which every man 
 of tafte, and who has formed his ear by the ftudy 
 of the beft authors, will tell you at once is not 
 
 * This ftory is told of him by the Halicarnaflian, nipt truvQeo-fut. 
 fec~t ij. The words of Plato are, as they Itand at prefcnt, Kart 
 ^6f $ Tlapstw {lira, rAavxavo? ra 'Apia-ravof. One Ihould think that 
 it was of very little importance, how thefe few words were arran- 
 ged ; hut Plato, it feems, judged otherwife ; fince at the age of eighty 
 (for fo old he was when he died) he employed himfclf in tranfpofing 
 diem different ways. 
 
 f See Diogenes Laertius in vita Platar.ls. 
 
 claffical.
 
 568 Of the COMPOSITION 
 
 Dif.JII. claffical. Such is the competition of Ammian Mar-, 
 cellinus, for example, which we readily perceive to 
 be barbarous, compared with that of Cicero, who, 
 in this, as well as other refpects, is, I think, undoubt- 
 edly the bed writer among the Romans. There 
 is nothing in which I think our modern writers of 
 Latin fajl more than in the arrangement ; and I 
 have feen feveral modern Latin compofitions, where 
 the words and phrafes were all claffical, but the 
 order fo perverfe and unclaffical, as not only to be 
 very offenfive to the ear, but almoft unintelli- 
 gible *. 
 
 There is one part of his works, particularly, 
 in which I think Plato has ufed this licentioufnefs 
 of compofition more than in any other. It is in 
 the Sophijia. and the Politicus, where he has in- 
 troduced a ftranger of Elea fpeaking a language 
 that I cannot help thinking is ftrange ; and I 
 would defire the learned reader only to perufe the 
 laft fentence of the Politicus, to be convinced of 
 the truth of what I fay, where the fenfe is cer- 
 tainly obfcured by the arrangement : and if there 
 be any beauty in the numbers, it is fuch that my ear 
 cannot perceive ; but, on the contrary, the compo- 
 
 Of this kind are fome hooks of fcience that have been writ- 
 ten in this age, by men who, though very learned in their feveral 
 fciences, had not ftudied the propriety and elegance of the Latin 
 coinpofition. There is particularly a work of Boerhaave, upon fire, 
 which, though the words be all Latin, I cannot underfhnd, witho.ut 
 reading fomctimcs twice or thrice over. 
 
 fition
 
 of the ANTIENTS. 569 
 
 fition appears to me loofe, disjointed, and Without Dif.IIL 
 any roundnefs, or agreeable flow *. ^-/"v-v^ 
 
 However much therefore I may admire Plato 
 in other refpecls, there is, I think, a better model 
 for compofition ; I mean 'Demofthenes, who is in 
 this refpeft, as well as in many others, an acknow- 
 ledged matter, according to the judgement of the 
 Halicarnaffian, who has written a whole treatife 
 upon the compofition chiefly of Demofthenes *j". 
 And' there are two reafons befides, which make me 
 chufe him rather than any other. Firft, that he 
 appears to the: to kav6"underftood perfectly that 
 great fecret of writing, fo little known in modern 
 times, of making an uncommon ftyle;of common 
 words. For Demofthenes's words are all the ver~ 
 ba forenjia, or common language of bufmefs, a- 
 mong the Athenians, without any poetical, glofle- 
 matic, or hard words, as' we commonly call them, 
 
 The fentence runs 111115 : TOVTO <f rtKif vpyt-ftaTo; ufiuTXox<a v/u.~ 
 jrXaXEv ytyvtffS-a.i fo/u-iv yoXiTixSic r/ja^i-f> TO TW cufpHetv xa< <ra<ffovav 
 v9paTv %f oxoTct* o/jiovcua x.a* fi\ix xc/voy ^uvayccyuirix avra-c TOV /V/y 
 r, /Sao-iMxr Tt^vw, wavrav ^f^axli^pfTwraTov' vfa.a-u.arav XKI ap/rov a:ro- 
 tt\icra.<ra.) <^r Mat xoivov, rSf rt aXXMf iv ra.7( JTOAET* XUVTO.( ^o^Aouf xa 
 wcra, trv\i%n TOUJ-O ra irKiy pen i, xai xaSoirov fijfdiuovi 
 rat TO\, rura /u.itfcc/u.n /u$tv (\\et-r\urcc, dp%ri rt xa l?ri- 
 faT-' Here Plato a/arptiTov op,y Xa/5av, as Dionyfuis exprefles it, 
 (for it is not my judgement only of him, hut likewife that of this 
 great mafter, and of ieveral others whom he quotes; fee his epiflle 
 to Pompey), runs out to a great length, and ohfcures and perplexes 
 every thing, not fo much by the ufe of the trope of the web and 
 garment, though in that way too, as the HalicatnafTian obfeives, 
 he often darkens his ftyle, as from the ftrange difordercd compo 
 fition. 
 
 f It is unified, Htpl 7% /wvorornf TM Aiwoo-3-fvwf. 
 
 VOL. II. 4 C and
 
 57 Of the COMPOSITION 
 
 Dif.III. and with fewer epithets, metaphors, or tropes of 
 any kind, than any ftyle I know, which can be 
 faid to be raifed or ornamented in the lead degree. 
 And fecondly, Becaufe he neither did nor could 
 give himfelf the fame liberties in compofition that 
 Plato did, confidering that he fpoke to the people ; 
 and therefore, though he has varied the ftru&ure 
 of his language extremely, yet he was obliged to 
 keep within certain bounds, not too far removed 
 from popular ufe, for fear of not being well un- 
 derftood ; and as his bufmefs was to move and 
 perfuade the people, he would certainly chufe that 
 arrangement which was proper to convey his mean- 
 ing the moft forcibly. I have therefore thought 
 him the fitted author from whom to draw thofe 
 rules which I am now to prefent to the reader, of 
 <:laflical compofition, in refpecl: of the fenfe. For I 
 think it is impofiible to fuppofe, that in all that li- 
 berty of arrangement which the antient writers al- 
 lowed themfelves, they fhould have had no regard 
 to the fenfe, which is certainly principal in every 
 compofition, but confulted only the pleafure of 
 the ear. 
 
 And, in the firft place, it is to be obferved, that 
 thofe long periods of Demofthenes, fuch, for ex- 
 ample, as that famous one with which he begins 
 the third Philippic, confifting of feven members, 
 fome of them very long, and containing paren- 
 thefes interjected, could not have been fpoken fo 
 as to be intelligible, much lefs to convey the mean- 
 ing with force and emphafis, without the greateft 
 
 art
 
 of the ANTIENTS. 571 
 
 art of pronunciation. For want of this art, Plu- Dif.III. 
 tarch, in his life of Demofthenes, tells us, that he VtaXVNfc ' 
 fucceeded very ill at firft ; infomuch that he once 
 ran out of the afiembly with his head covered. 
 For it would feem he compofed periods that he 
 was not able to pronounce ; and it is very pro* 
 bable he would have renounced public fpeaking 
 altogether, if a friend of his, who was a player, had 
 not fhewn him in what he was deficient, by making 
 him repeat fome verfes of Euripides, and then re- 
 peating them after him, with fo much more pro- 
 priety and emphafis, that Demofthenes was ama- 
 zed at the difference, and immediately applied him- 
 felf to the ftudy of pronunciation; in which he 
 came at lafi to excel very much, and was fo tho- 
 roughly convinced of the advantage of it, that, as 
 the ftory goes, being alked, what was the firft qua- 
 lity of an orator ? he anfwered, Action ; under 
 which the antients included the action of the voice, 
 or what we call pronunciation, as well as the ac- 
 tion of the body, and of the face, or, as it is com- 
 monly exprefled, the look. Being alked again, 
 what the fecond was ? he anfwered, A&ion ; and 
 being alked, what the third was ? the anfwer was 
 the fame. Now, what is not well compofed, can 
 never be well pronounced ; fo that composition is by 
 its nature in order before pronunciation. Nor could 
 Demofthenes have excelled every body fo much 
 in pronunciation, if he had not firft excelled them 
 in compofition. But by joining both excellencies 
 together, he fo filled and pleafed the ears of the peo- 
 4 C 2 pie,
 
 Of the CoMposrtioN 
 
 Dif.III. pie, as to draw them after him by a charm that 
 was irrefiflible. For it is more by the ears than by 
 the underftanding, that the people are to be capti- 
 vated ; and if a man was to fpeak to them in that 
 hopping, bounding way, in which Tacitus and his 
 modern imitators write, without any roundnefs or 
 Fulnefs, he never would convince tnem, though he 
 were to. utter thofe oracles of wifdom which the 
 admirers of Tacitus find in him. 'But to come 
 to particulars : 
 
 It is evident, that the fenfe of every word will be 
 more diftinguifhed, by its being placed in one part 
 of the ferttence rather than in another ; and, as I 
 have faid, it is impoffible to fuppofe, but that the 
 antient compofers, in the great liberty of arrange- 
 ment which the genius of their language admit- 
 ted, would have a regard to this, and would place 
 the principal word or words, fuch as there muft 
 be in every fentence, in that part of it ivhere they 
 would ftrike the hearer or reader moft. That part 
 I have determined to be thd beginning or the end 
 of the fentence, or of any member of it *. Thole 
 two places may be confidered as the places of ho- 
 nour, which diftinguifh the words that are there 
 put, while thofe that are thrown into the middle 
 are lefs to be obferved. 
 
 But is there no rule for determining to which 
 of thefe two places what is principal mould be 
 allotted ? Or if there be more than one principal 
 
 Vol. i. book 3. c. a. 
 
 thing,
 
 of the ANT IE NTS. 
 
 tiling, which of them ought to be put in the firft Dif.III. 
 place, which in the laft ? And I think there is a rule, v -**v > - / 
 and it appears to me to be this, That 'whatever is 
 antecedent in the reafoning or narrative , or moft 
 connected ^uith "what goes before, jhould be put 
 fir ft ; what again is confequent in the reafoning 
 or narrative, or moft connected with what fol- 
 loivs, jhould be put laft. 
 
 This therefore is the firft rule, That the principal 
 things mould be put firft or laft in a fentence, or 
 member of a fentence, according as they are an- 
 tecedent or confequent, more or lefs connected 
 with what goes before or follows : for being fo 
 placed, not only in writing, but ftill more in fpeak- 
 ing, efpecially if they be pronounced with emphafis, 
 as they ought to be, they will attract the attention 
 more, and better mark the connection and de- 
 pendence of the other words upon them, than if 
 they were in any other pofition. 
 
 I will now give an example of this rule, from 
 the third Philippic, beginning with the fine period 
 above mentioned ; and which, in my judgement, 
 is the fined of all his Philippics. It is of the deli- 
 berative kind, fpoken upon occafion of the great 
 progrefs of Philip's arms againft certain Greek ci- 
 ties in Thrace and Theffaly, which he had fub- 
 dued. This Demofthenes confiders as making 
 war againft the Athenians, though without de- 
 claring it j and he advifes them to make war in the 
 fame manner againft Philip. Ye muft not, fays 
 he, wait till Philip fhall declare himfelf openly 
 
 your
 
 574 e COMPOSITION 
 
 Dif.III. your enemy ; for he never will do that while 
 ye fit tame and quiet, and are willing to be 
 deceived. Then he mentions fome fmall cities in 
 thofe countries, which Philip had deceived and de- 
 ftroyed, without declaring war againft them ; af- 
 ter which he adds, &T e/&e, w plr v^tr ar ctVTor ilvrn- 
 
 Jta* T&VTO. tut at txor- 
 
 Tfec i%x7ra.T<fi&i ; which may be thus literally render- 
 ed. " And do ye think, that, who could do 
 " him no harm, but might pombly have been 
 " upon their guard, and prevented any harm 
 " which he intended them, thofe he would ra- 
 " ther chufe to deceive, than openly attack ; yet 
 " againft you would declare open war, and this 
 " while ye were willing to be deceived ?" I 
 will add a tranflation of what follows, that the 
 fcope of the reafoning may be the better under- 
 ftood. " It cannot be ; for he would be the 
 " moft foolifh of men, if ye fubmitting to be in- 
 " jured, and not blaming him, but fome among 
 " yourfelves whom ye threaten with trials and 
 " profecutions, he mould, to put an end to the 
 " ftrife and contefts among yourfelves, bid you 
 " turn againft him, and fo take from his hirelings 
 " here, thofe pretences by which they retard your 
 " rcfolutions, endeavouring to convince you that 
 " he does not make war upon you. But is there, 
 " in the name of the gods, any man of feflfe, 
 who will judge by words, and not by things, 
 
 " whether
 
 of the AamiNT j. 575 
 
 " whether a perfon make war upon him, or be Dif.UL 
 " at peace with him ?" 
 
 The firft fentence, which I gave in the original, 
 is the example of my rule. There are here two 
 things principal, and which therefore were to be 
 diftinguifhed by their places in the fentence, viz. 
 the little cities of Thrace and TheiTaly, and the 
 Athenians. As he had been fpeaking juft before 
 of the firft, and was from them to draw the 
 confequence to the Athenians, he fets them at 
 the head of the firft member of the period, 01 ju.lv 
 
 *6it> ox auroK iSvxjj&wa)' Trcuwctt KO.KJIV. Then in the O- 
 
 ther member of the period, when he comes to 
 draw the inference with refpet to the Athenians, 
 he fets them likewife at the head of it, VJU.JT /' k% 
 TTftoppwiw TroMfAwetY , not at the end of it, be- 
 caufe they are oppofed to one another ; and then 
 the rule is, That they mould occupy the fame place, 
 whether at the beginning or in the end. 
 
 The effect of this compofition is not only to fet 
 what is principal in the fentence foremofl to the 
 view, but to give to the period the TO 
 as the Greek critics exprefs it, and the TO 
 by which the period is, as it were, knit and com- 
 pacted together, fo as to come with double force, 
 both on the ear and the underftanding. To be con- 
 vinced of this, let us take it down in the follow- 
 ing manner, preferving both the fame thought, 
 and the fame words : &T om&t fyaarantu. ^tv aufeuhu 
 YI KpoKiyoYTCt yS/a^u3-a< TKTKC, 01 ply vw ay dvror 
 
 ex.
 
 576 Of the COMPOSITION 
 
 Dif.III. "y>0//wi<uc Se J / a?i' TroKifMo-M. By this change the 
 v.'-v-x^ compofition, inftead of being nervous and fpirited, 
 becomes yVr/oc and //axexv/^KCf, that is, flat and 
 loofe or languid. 
 
 This is an inftance of placing the principal word 
 in the beginning of the period, or member of the 
 period, to which it relates. I will now give ah 
 example or two, of the laft place being made the 
 place of diftindion. And this fame third Philip- 
 pic furnimes me one, where, fpeaking to the A<- 
 thenians, he fays, Y * a/cr^un^h, ' pvl d sraflciV aV, 
 
 & IvroitT iKetroc, TTOL-JTO. Trc/wra/, xoupoy t^om/;, v .rcAyKjf- 
 
 air*. ; he is fpeaking of a fine opportunity the A- 
 thenians had to attack Philip ; and he afks them, 
 whether they were not afhamed, not to dare to do 
 to him what he would certainly do to them, if he 
 had the fame opportunity ? The fentiment is a 
 common one, and the words in which it is ex- 
 prefled are likewife common ; but the* order and 
 arrangement gives it a beauty which every man 
 of tarte muft acknowledge. The two principal 
 things in it are the fliame which the Athenians 
 ought to feel, and the reafon why they mould be 
 afhamed, viz. their want of courage, or not da- 
 ring. The firrt of thefe is put at the head of the 
 fentence, the other at the end of it, fo that it is 
 an in (lance of the rule in both refpedls. 
 
 It may be objected, That as to the verb here 
 being laft, it is the common place of it ; fo that 
 on that account we are not to imagine that any 
 particular emphafis lies upon it. But to this I 
 
 anfwer,
 
 of the ANTIENTS. 577 
 
 anfwer, firft, That though fuch pofition of the Dif.III. 
 verb be indeed very common in the Latin com- ^^^ 
 pofition, if is not fo frequent in the Greek ; nor 
 is it fo placed by the bell authors in^that lan- 
 guage, unlefs where it is really the principal 
 word ; for, as I mall obferve afterwards, the 
 Greek compofition is, in this and other re- 
 fpects, more various than the Latin. But, idly, 
 I will give one or two examples, among many 
 that might be given, where another kind of word 
 is put in the end of the fentence, on account of 
 its fignificancy. And the fame third Philippic 
 furniihes me one example, where Demofthenes, 
 fpeaking of the Athenians, fays, Ka/ y<*.f aY aVam? 
 
 S\evay &w TTV ffuy%uf>vcru<riy 01 ca.Xor vpty yi \nrif TVC i- 
 
 Mv0i/>/ac dywHTTior. " If all others fhould yield to 
 " be flaves, you it behoves to ftruggle for free- 
 " dom." Here the emphatical words are others, 
 and you (the Athenians), the firft of which con- 
 cludes the firft member of the fentence, and the 
 other begins the next. 
 
 Another example is in the following Philippic, 
 towards the beginning, where, fpeaking of the in- 
 juttice of Philip, he fays, 'o S' x. tn returns IKWOV 
 
 t7Tl<X&y iK KOyV KOLt ln^yOflCLf , vJ&S <X.yYC1 Cfl 7TX. '* That 
 
 " we cannot put a flop to his violence and inju- 
 " ftice by arguments and fpeech-making, every 
 " body mud know." Here the fentence con- 
 cludes, not with the verb, but with an adverb of 
 afTeveration. 
 
 A third example I mall give, becaufe it juft 
 VOL. II. 4 D follows
 
 578 Of the COMPOSITION 
 
 Dif.IIL follows in the fame Philippic. " If," fays he, 
 " any one has any doubt of this, he may thus 
 
 " be allured of it." 
 
 ;ta/ 7TiftiTu.iv rw 
 \ia. TOiVTO. txeivu pavxaf iysei TO. Tr^ay^ara, n r;i TTO- 
 
 ; " Where-ever the difpute was about what 
 " was ju!l or right, we were never found to be in 
 " the wrong, or convitled of doing any thing that 
 " was unjulr, but were always victorious in reafon 
 " and argument ; but for this did he thrive the 
 " worfe, o.r we the better ?" Here we fee that 
 the firfl member is concluded by the noun Auyw, 
 and the other by the adverb xaA/j?, both empha- 
 tical: words, upon which the whole argument 
 turns. 
 
 My fecond rule is, That if two wards which 
 are fcparated by the grammatical conjtruttion, 
 exprefs things, -which, for the greater perfpi- 
 cuity and cmphnjis, ought to be joined together 
 in the fcntencCy the words Jhoithl itkewife 
 ftand next to one another ; and vice verfa, if 
 ths words, though joined by the grammatical 
 conjiniflion, exprefs things which ought to be 
 feparaied in the fentence, as meriting a fepa- 
 rate confederation^ the words ought alfo to be 
 feparated. This, it is evident, can very feldom 
 be done in the modern languages, for want of 
 genders, numbers, and. cafes; but in Greek and 
 Latin, it may be done as often as we fee occa- 
 fion. I will give fome indances of both being 
 done with propriety. 
 
 And,
 
 of the ANTIENTS. 579 
 
 And* firft, as to words being joined together, Dif.IIL 
 which by the fyntax are feparated. There is an *^~*~^ 
 example in the oration, Tlipl 'Axfyntn*, where, 
 fpeaking of the abfurdity of taking from pirates 
 a place which they had violently poflefled them- 
 felves of, and then pretending that it belonged to 
 the taker, and not to the Athenians, the former 
 proprietors, he expreffes it thus, Tor TOTTOY TXTCY, 
 
 v wax 01 Awra;, TOY OYTO. vutTtpov, TUY TifAuprjVViijitvur rtff 
 
 >w;ra? yiyyta.i. " How abfurd a pretence," fays he, 
 " is it, that the place where the pirates had fettled 
 " themfelves being ours, mould become the 
 " property of thofe who punifhed the pirates ?" 
 Here we fee, that in the Greek, though it cannot 
 be exprefied in the Engliih, the words vjuinpor and 
 r(uY Ti/AUf>n<rot.//.tYuv T? A^o-ra?, are fitly fet befide one 
 another, though they cannot be conftrued toge- 
 ther ; and in two diftinguifhed places, the one 
 concluding the firft member of the period, and 
 the other beginning the laft, becaufe the whole 
 argument turns upon thefe two things. 
 
 Another example is to be found in the oration, 
 Tlpo/; T/,Y $;A/rsrK 'ET/fcAfjc, where, fpeaking of the 
 Macedonian power, as being weak in itfelf, and 
 made flill weaker by Philip, he has thefe words, 
 
 En Qtf O.UTY1Y (VIZ. WYZplYJ VTOf ff.'JTOf Tolf TTS^i^LOl? KCtl 
 
 Which may be thus tranflated : 
 This power he himfelf, by his wars and expedi- 
 tions, and all other things by which one mould 
 have thought it would have become great, has 
 4 D 2 " made
 
 580 Of the COMPOSITION 
 
 if.ni. " made more unftable, and lefs to be depend- 
 ^^^ < ed upon." Here the Macedonian power, and 
 Philip, who had made it lefs, are fitly joined to- 
 gether as to the fenfe. And with refpecl to the 
 found, we may obferve, that the dvrw and the Vrcc, 
 in the beginning of the period, make a fimilarity 
 of found ; which our modern critics cenfure under 
 the name of a jingle, but it is really an ornament 
 of fpeech, when fparingly ufed, and not induftri- 
 oufly fought ' 9 as it is often by Plato, but never by 
 Bemoflhenes. 
 
 I will next proceed to give examples of words 
 being divided in the compofition, which are ne- 
 ceflarily joined in the fyntax ; and this for the 
 fake of the greater emphafis. And an example 
 occurs in the third Olynthiac, where, calling the 
 attention of the Athenians to the ftate of Philip's 
 
 affairs, he fays, 'A/OK St swt^Wwau r.*i xo>wao3-a/ TV. 
 Tpy.uua.Toc. tv <? jta9e<TT; vvvt, TO. TV ^IKKITTTTM. Here 
 
 the affnirs of Philip are mentioned with particular 
 emphafis. For, firft, it faid, how do affairs ftand ? 
 Then, as if the queftion had been afked, What 
 affairs 'do you mean ? it is fubjoined, the affairs 
 of Philip. But this emphafis muft necelfarily be 
 loft in Englifh ; for all we can make of the paf- 
 fage is to tranflate it thus : " It is worth your 
 " while to confider the affairs of Philip, in what 
 " fituation they now are." 
 
 Another example is to be found in the fame 
 Olynthiac, where, fpeaking of the Athenians, he 
 
 favs, Ka; >;i$;;7//.K, J oirspif A0;;Ka/c/,
 
 of the AN TIE NTS. 581 
 
 KctTTHrrwoi.ju.it TWXOCWTOK, H\/KO? vleic vu fict<ri\wt yt- Dif.fll. 
 McmW/af. Here we fee, that w^wa.^ and 
 which are necelfarily joined in the conftruc- 
 tion, ,are divided in the compofitjoft ; the one of 
 them being fet at the head of the firft member of 
 the period, and the other at the' end of l the 
 fame member ; by which there is an emphafis laid' 
 upon we (tlie Athenians) that would not have 
 been fo ftrong if the two words had been joined 
 together in their natural order. But neither can 
 we preferve this in Englilh ; for we muft tranf- 
 late it thus : " It is we, O men of Athens, who 
 " have raifed Philip, and made him fuch as no 
 " king of Macedon ever was before." 
 
 Upon this paflage, it may be further obferved, 
 that <biKi7i7rov and Vc are properly joined toge- 
 ther, as the two things upon which the fentence 
 turns. And the period concludes aptly with the 
 word McmWaf, as the kingdom of Macedon, be- 
 fore the time of Philip, was of very little confide- 
 ration, and the people fo little efleemed, that, as 
 Demofthenes fays fomewhere elfe, people did not 
 care to purchafe flaves from thence ; and yet, 
 fays he, they are now become, by your fioth and 
 timoroufnefs, a powerful nation. 
 
 It often happens, that a principal word in the 
 fentence is divided from another principal word 
 with which it is connected, by fomething that is 
 interjected betwixt j and yet it is proper, for the- 
 fake both of emphafis and of greater perfpicuity, 
 
 that
 
 582 Of the COMPOSITION* 
 
 Dif.IH.- that the connection fhould be marked. And this 
 ; I make my third rule ; of which I will give one ex- 
 ampje among . many, (for it is a common idiom 
 among the Greek rhetoricians), from the oration 
 above mentioned, ITfoc TW QIKITTTTM e^/row, where, 
 fpeaking of the toils and dangers that Philip had 
 gone through to acquire what did not belong to 
 him, he fubjoins how mameful it is, 
 
 eif 7TZTPIOV WTt yUtfWO? VTTOiKVetYj OLTTCLVTUV & 
 : \ \ ' ' '"* 7 Q 
 
 ^roA^o/?, TTC d/o. (JLOLKOLKIOLV n ^fltouyM/aK fyaoc.Ta.Ki7reiy rac. 
 
 Tfe TUV TTfOyCVUV ifyct. XOCl TO. ffyjU.<f>lf>01<T<X. TVS 7rO.Tf&OS* 
 
 Here the word TVTXC is altogether fuperfluous q$- 
 to the conftru&ion, and a meje repetition ; but 
 fuch as gives great force and emphafis to the 
 meaning. It may be. thus rendered into Englifh, 
 preferving as much as poffibie the "turn of the 
 Greek : " The. Athenians, the eftablifhed cuflom 
 " of whofe country , it is, handed down to them 
 " from their,'. a.ncefiors x ,tp^. yield obedience to 
 " none, but to command all in war j is it not 
 " mameful that they mould, through effeminacy 
 " and indolence, defcrt the place of their an- 
 " ceftors, and give up the inter eft of their coun- 
 <c try ? " We commonly do this in Englifh, 
 by repeating the words with I fay, or to repeat 
 it again, or fome fuch form of words ; but it 
 is much more cleverly done in Greek by the 
 pronoun wroc. 
 
 Thefe are the rules which I have obferved to be 
 followed, in order to convey the fenfe with the 
 
 greatefl
 
 of the ANTIENTS. 583 
 
 greateft force and perfpicuity, by the Greek writers, Dif.III 
 and particularly by Demofthenes, the greateft arti- ^ x " vv " 
 ficer of profe, I believe, that ever exifted *. But it 
 is evident, that they not only ftudied the fenfe, but 
 likewife the pleafure of the ears, quarum judicium 
 efl fuperbiffimum^ as Cicero fays; and we muft fup- 
 pofe that the ears of the Athenians^, accuftomed to 
 hear fuch fine fpeeches almoil every day, were in- 
 deed very delicate and faflidious, It is in this way 
 we are to account for many tranfpofitions of words 
 in the Attic writers, and particularly their orators, 
 which appear to us very ftrange and unnatural f. 
 And it was chiefly by this kind of compofition, that 
 the Attic writers were diftinguifhed from others. 
 
 And 
 
 * The greateft praife that perhaps ever was beftowed upon De- 
 mofthenes, is given him by Lucian, in his Jupiter Tragtzdus, where 
 he makes Jupiter begin his fpeech, in the council of the gods, 
 with a very pompous preamble, taken from the exordium of the 
 firft Olynthiac of Demofthenes. After going on in this high ftrain for 
 two or three fentences, he flops all at once, and " Here," fays he, 
 " Demofthenes fails me : I muft therefore tell you plainly for what 
 " purpofe I called you together." Then he goes on by a compofi- 
 tion that is far from being vulgar or defpicable, confidered by it- 
 felf ; but compared with what goes before, is a higher eulogium 
 upon the compofition of Demofthenes, than any thing Lucian ha* 
 faid in a whole trcatife that he has written in praife of De- 
 mofthenes. 
 
 f As in the oration againft Midias, p. 370. edit. Morel, where, 
 fpeaking of many people that had been condemned for lefs of- 
 fences than thofe of which he accufed Midias, he fays, IIo\xSf dv 
 tTfpuf lxoift.1 \tyni, ov 01 /tisv TtOvacr/v, 01 Si nnu.oy.ivoi J/a TTOK\U TK- 
 TSV c-iv Ibarra) Trpcc-yftarac, where the natural order of the laft part 
 of the fentence is, 01 f tiTi,uap.evoi &a-t Sia. TrpxypaTct xoKiy Ixorra TV- 
 TV. Again, in the oration againft Ariftocrates, p. 418. fpeaking of 
 4 general who had fuffered fome lofs, which not only no body pre- 
 tending
 
 Of the COMPOSITION 
 
 Dif.lII. And when it was carried too far, a writer was faid 
 
 v - x " v> ~' to be too Attic. Thus Photius, in his Bibliotfie- 
 
 ca 9 commending the flyk of Diodorus Siculus, as 
 
 plain, perfpicuous, and proper for hiftory, adds, 
 
 that his compolition was not too Attic .*. 
 
 The Latin writers, as in other things, fo in this, 
 imitated the Attic author* : ; and it is from this imi- 
 tation that they derived every thing that is beauti- 
 ful, various, and high-founding, in their compofi- 
 tion, both in verfe and profe. It is from thefe 
 authors that Virgil learnt to make fuch verfes as 
 
 Hinc tibi, qu&femper vicino ab limit efepes 
 HybUis apibus florem depaftafalitti, 
 Sspe levi fomnum fuadebit inire fufurro. 
 
 Eclog. i. 
 and 
 
 Or a modis Anclnijiades pallentia miris. 
 and 
 
 Dives inaccejfos ubi Solis filia lucos 
 
 refonat cantu y teftifque fuperbis 
 
 Urit 
 
 tending to be a general would have fuffered, but not any com- 
 mon man, he ufes this Arudlure of the words : Tlfay/tcc V3-f TOI- 
 *TO ^' on ffttrnyof av *yw,<rt rif uwu fatniw, xx' vf o rv^oti o'- 
 3-px*o;, where the natural order of the words is, &^ on ns 
 timt ffcirnyof iiyvtntrH 0.1- 
 
 Kt^fvrat J fpo- traifii n xi a'xo^vj/a, xal tcropia. fj.a.\ltfra. 
 irntry x^J fMft Tf , of ait ei-rot rif, X;v uTt/JXTT/Kiff-jUtvaf df 
 
 c-\nra%af, ptnt Tft rit x.x$ap.it)i.te-favw nvo* xavriMi-;, a>.X TM 
 -ji T lo-yuv xapaxriipi ^ctiftn. caf. 70. where we may obfervc, 
 
 tbat
 
 of the ANTIENTS. 
 
 Urit odoratam notfufna in lumlna ccdnun, 
 Arguto tenues percurrens peftine telas. 
 
 7. 
 
 Such tranfpofitions do pften occafion, to us at leaft ? 
 an ambiguity in the fenfe j one or two of which I 
 have obferved in Horace, who of all the Roman 
 authors moft diligently imitated the Greek. Speak- 
 ing in praife of wine, he fays *, Tu lene tor- 
 mentum ingenio admoves Plerumque duro\ where 
 the word plerumque, becaufe it begins the line, is 
 confhrued by all the commentators that I have feen, 
 with duro, the- following word ; whereas the fenfe, 
 I think, evidently requires that it mould be joined 
 with admoves., the word which concludes the pre- 
 ceding line j fo that the order is, Tu plerumque 
 admoves lene tormentum ingenio diirv. For I do 
 not imagine that Horace meant to fay, that men$ 
 geniufes were for the greater part hard and in- 
 flexible ; but that it was a common effect of wine, 
 to foften the rigour of fuch difpofitions, and make 
 them more pliant. There is another miftaken con- 
 fir ucYion of this word plerumque in the 34th ode 
 of book i. where Horace fays, 
 
 that Photius contrafts the Hyperattic compofition with the ahjcift and 
 vulgar, and is of opinion that the proper ftyle for hiftory lies be- 
 twixt thofe two extremes. I agree with hini-jn the rule ; but I dif- 
 fer a little from him in the application of it to Diodorus Siculus : for 
 I think his ftyle comes too near one o the exticmes, viz. the vulgar. 
 And indeed all that Photius fays of it is, that it is not altogether vul- 
 gar and abjcdl; ^rs xpot T*IV xaSu/taMo-pivnv vtvxv 
 
 * Lib. 3. od. ii. 
 
 4 E
 
 586 Of the COMPOSITION 
 
 Namque Diefpiter 
 Igni corufco nublla dividens 
 Pier unique, per purum tonantes 
 Egit equos valuer emque currum. 
 
 Here the comma is generally put immediately af- 
 ter dividens ; whereas it ihould be put after pie- 
 r unique ; fo that plerumque is to be joined with 
 dividens, and not with egit ; and this the fenfe 
 evidently requires. This is an obfervation which 
 I find Dr Bentley has made before me, and fomc 
 body whom he mentions had made it before him. 
 Another example ftill more remarkable is in the 
 ode * beginning^ 
 
 Phxbus, volentem pralia me loqtti, 
 Vittas et urbes, increpuit, lyrd ; 
 
 where, as the ancient fcholiaft Porphyrion has wel| 
 obferved, lyrd muft not be joined with increpuit^ 
 the word next to it, but with a word at a diflance 
 from it, viz. loqui ; and this way the fenfe is plain, 
 and agreeable to other paffages in the fame poet, 
 fach as where he fpeaks of the imbellis lyra. 
 
 The bed compofer, and, I think, in every refpecl, 
 the greateil writer, in profe, among the Romans, 
 is Cicero, not only in the rhetorical way, but in 
 the epiftolary, philofophical, and critical ; yet even 
 he has not attained to all the beauty and variety 
 of the Greek compofitioix : whether it was the de- 
 
 Lik. 4. od. if. 
 
 fed
 
 of the ANTIENTS. 587 
 
 feet of the writer or of the language, I will not Dif.HI 
 pretend to determine. He is, I think, inferior to ^~*~^ 
 Demofthenes in many refpetts, but particularly in 
 the variety of his compofition. That concluiion 
 of the fentence with a verb, ib much more frequent 
 in Latin than in Greek, gives a famenefs to the 
 Latin compofition, which is not a little difgufting 
 to an ear accuftomed to the variety of the Greek. 
 In this way we may obferve Cicero running on for 
 many fentences together, more I think in his ora- 
 tions than in his other works ; and there >was one 
 favourite claufule of his, which was obferved in his 
 own times to recur too often ; I mean, the ejjc vi- 
 deatur *. It is true indeed, that the verb is very 
 often a material word in a fentence with refpecl to 
 the fenfe, and always with refpecl to the conftruc- 
 tion, being the hinge, as it were, upon which the 
 whole fyntax turns : it is therefore often intitled 
 to a principal place, but not always ; and where it 
 
 * I do not however mean to fay, that there is not a variety in 
 Cicero's compofition. But if we would be convinced how much more 
 variety there is in the Greek, let us compare with him the author 
 I have fo often mentioned, Dionyfius the HalicarnalTian, who has 
 praiftifed not only the hiftorical ftyie, hut alfo the rhetorical, in 
 the fpeeches which he has inferted into his hifrory ; the oitical or 
 dida&ic, and likewife the cpiftolary, a very fine fpecirncn of which 
 we have in his introduction to his treatife of rompofition, which 
 is addrefTed to two young men, the fons of one Rufu* Melitus, his pa- 
 tron. There the compofition is mod beautifully varied, by different: 
 arrangements of the words, and different claufules of the fentences ; 
 and though it be not loofe, or tinnitus, as the Latins expiefs if, 
 yet it has nothing of the T? cwirpy.ufttvov, or contortum, of the ora- 
 totial ftyle, and is upon the whole cne of the fwetteft pieces of 
 ompoii<iou I ever iea<A.
 
 583 Of the COMPOSITION, &c. 
 
 Dif.IIL is fo intitled, it is not neceiTary that it fhould be fo 
 x ^ >rv ^ often thrown to the end as it is in Latin. 
 
 s 
 
 Thus I have endeavoured to explain how ftyle 
 may not only be varied, but made more emphati- 
 cal and expreffive, by the arrangement only of the 
 words. It is this chiefly, in my opinion, that 
 makes the difference betwixt claflical and unclam- 
 cal arrangement ; a difference which every fcho- 
 lar, and who at the fame time is a man of tafte, 
 irrmiediately perceives j but no body hitherto, fo 
 far as I know, has attempted to explain wherein 
 it confifts. How ftyle may be otherwife varied, 
 and adorned by figures both of the fenfe and of 
 the words, I will explain in the laft part of my 
 work, when I come to treat of ftyle in general, 
 of the rhetorical in particular. 
 
 The End of PART II.
 
 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. 
 
 1 200t 
 
 wr 
 
 Form I 
 
 :EIPI
 
 
 58 00455 4241 
 
 A 001292736 4