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 - ; 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 ^ 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 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, 2uv irw,(t9tvf 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>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- junlivo-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 Solofot 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/jwxffct; 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 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$tK\i. The meaning of which is, that any word fucii as r f , implying divifion into parts, though it exprefs that all thofe parts are comprehended, and therefore r.ui in xa5ax, yet it does not denote the general fim- ply, or the idea of the thing, c-npa.nn T!> xa9<7rcf im MMC, where arflft'Toc is the fubjecl:, but no wife limited or defined. idly, As the fubjecl: has not always the article, fo neither is the predicate always without it ; for Arjitotle mentions a pro- pofition, where both the fubjecb and the predicate have the article, viz. >$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 \- 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 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 /s-fiT/4 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:>/>#, 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 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$>6>f ic-o- pm, or, as the Latins very happily exprefs it by one word, fcripfero^ denotes the fu- ture action perfect, though there be fome- yvrite, whereas it fliould be tranfl.ited, / ivas writing. For we have not in Engl'lii, as they have in French, a fkcti^n of the verb to exprefs it, but inuft ufe the auxi- Jiary \vith the participle. thing Book I. PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE. thing more in the expreilion of it, as I {hall C. 1 1 obferve afterwards * ; and I think that ypzpM e:ro//a; may be made a tenfe of, to de- note an imperfeft future, fuch as is ex- prefTed by the Englifh phrafe, I foall be writing, though there be not in any lan- guage, fo far as I know, any fledlion of the verb expreffing fuch a tenfe. Thus far therefore we have gone in the explanation of the tenfes ; but I think not * The paulo pcft futuruw, as it is commonly called, is in my opinion a tenfe which expreffes the future -perfect; and no more. For proof of this, I appeal to the follow- ing pafTage in PlatO, 'Eav yap apa. tftot fcfy rtta, THTMV; ruy aii- Qp'jruv, DV trv o/>a. 469. edit. Serram. Here it is evident, that Ti9vn%iT.&>; Icrat, and ^ittr^ia-fitvov iVrai, which are clearly perfect futures. There is another example that I recollect from the Alceflis of Euripides, where Admetus, fpeaking to his wife, lays, 'EtrTai -raJ 1 ' tcrTcti, (JLI\ rpicrh(* \-jru ? yvtii Movn XEHA>!");, KVTlf avTi O-H TOTS' TcvJe KvSfct vvftfn Ec-o-aAif X(>ocr$&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 "' 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/>aut. 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- ' 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 ^ 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 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, *-rt 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 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& 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-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 fVivuibus '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. -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 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 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, 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 -, ( 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, 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 !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^uia7ftcrf:C.a x.a.1 \>TI<> ^fo'vii' tTTtt xai v TU xaTo'/rrp^i B 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 : 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*( ^ 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? arO 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 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 Tav, In ft opyavoif, xai /uaAira TOtTOnno/f. $ yap it. TV( TUV cT/XXaCwn eruvQia'tuc ypctftftciTix.* Trccf avroif rev vro- Ttb/jLivov \oyov aroif 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 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 xpIV *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 arn( cnrtixmrf; fnatftccoyitj, KOLT dva.ra. 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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. 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 anc ^ with the

as in the word ?0/<7/? : . but the 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 .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 ) 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 ? 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 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 fersJ 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 , 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- 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 ^ 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 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 -rvxrvj 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, 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 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 ; // (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, 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 , 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/, ^, &, 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 , 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, du, 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 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 , 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.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 <*<*>, subliflicd 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 , 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 -/ - ; 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 , 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/ '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 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/, 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 trajx, from 0ar- ru, not 9af Qw ; and they fay Tf t, 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 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 " sao?. By this rule tplu is the fame word with ft& ; for if you tranfpofe the f> and the t, and leave out the , 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/>

?. 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 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* 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.n, xai yi Aoj'Or Tttc ft fj.tTafym^ 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 'O3vctv 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 Xuicquid 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 ^ .. ,/,/-;.-. ,\ :' . 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 TO TW cufpHetv xa< - / 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 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//wivcru/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 t7Tlw;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>nwao3-a/ TV. Tpy.uua.Toc. tv ;i$;;7//.K, J oirspif A0;;Ka/c/, of the AN TIE NTS. 581 KctTTHrrwoi.ju.it TWXOCWTOK, H\/KO? vleic vu fictlf>01 ~' 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,.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 ompoiirv ^ 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