correct productions; but am apt to think it has been more hastily composed than some other of them. It bears the title and form of a letter; but it is, however, in truth, a treatise designed for the public; and therefore, in examining it, we cannot proceed upon the indulgence due to an espistolary correspondence. When a mau, addresses himself to a friend only, it is sufficient if he makes himself fully understood by him; but when an author writes for the public, whether he assume the form of an epistle or not, we are always entitled to expect, that he shall express himself with accuracy and care. Our author begins thus:

What I had the honour of mentioning to your Lordship, some time ago, in conversation, was not a new thought, just then started by accident or occasion, but the result of long reflection: and I have been confirmed in my sentiments by the opinion of some very judicious persons with whom I consulted.'

The disposition of circumstances in a sentence, such as serve to limit or to qualify some assertion, or to denote time and place, I formerly shewed to be a matter of nicety; and I observed, that it ought to be always held a rule, not to crowd such circumstances together, but rather to intermix them with more capital words, in such different parts of the sentence as can admit them naturally. Here are two circumstances of this kind placed together, which had better have been separated; Some time ago in conversation-better thus: What I had the honour, some time ago,of mentioning to your iordship in conversation-was not a new thought, proceeds our author, started by accident or occasion: the different meaning of these two first words maynot at first occur. They have, however, a distinct meaning, and are properly used for it is one very laudable property of our author's style, that it is seldom incumbered with superfluous, synonymous words. Started by accident, is, fortuitously, or at random ; started by occasion, is by some incident, which at that time gave birth to it. His meaning is, that it was not a new thought which either casually sprung up in his mind, or was suggested to him, for the first time, by the train of the discourse: but, as he adds, was the result of long reflection. He proceeds:

They all agree, that nothing would be of greater use towards the improvement of knowledge and politeness, than some effectual method for correcting, enlarging, and ascertaining our language; and they think it a work very possible to be compassed under the protection of a prince, the countenance and encouragement of a ministry, and the care of proper persons chosen for such an undertaking.'

This is an excellent sentence; clear, and elegant. The words are all simple, well chosen, and expressive; and are arranged in the most proper order. It is a harmonious period too, which is a beauty not frequent in our author. The last part of it consists of three members, which gradually rise and swell one above another, without any affected or unsuitable pomp; under the protection of a prince, the countenance and encouragement of a ministry, and the care of proper persons chosen for such an undertaking. We may remark, in the beginning of the sentence, the proper use of the preposition towards-greater use towards the improvement of knowledge and politeness-importing the pointing or tendency of any thing to a certain end; which could not have been so well expressed by the preposition for, commonly employed in place of towards, by authors who are less attentive, than Dean Swift was, to the force of words.

One fault might, perhaps, be found, both with this and the former s

Ff

tence, considered as introductory ones. We expect, that an introduction is to unfold, clearly and directly the subject that is to be treated of. In the first sentence, our author had told us, of a thought he mentioned to his lordship in conversation, which had been the result of long reflection and concerning which he had consulted judicious persons. But what that thought was, we are never told directly. We gather it indeed from the second sentence, wherein he informs us, in what these judicious persons agreed; namely, that some method for improving the language was both useful and practicable. But this indirect method of opening the subject, would have been very faulty in a regular treatise; though the ease of the epistolary form, which our author here assumes in address. ing his patron, may excuse it in the present case.

'I was glad to find your Lordship's answer in so different a style from what hath commonly been made use of, on the like occasion, for some years past; that all such thoughts must be deferred to a time of peace; a topic which some have carried so far, that they would not have us, by any means, think of preserving our civil and religious constitution, be cause we are engaged in a war abroad.'

This sentence also is clear and elegant; only there is one inaccuracy, when he speaks of his Lordship's answer being in so different a style from what had formerly been used. His answer to what? or to whom? For from any thing going before, it does not appear that any application or address had been made to his Lordship by those persons, whose opinion was mentioned in the preceding sentence; and to whom the answer, here spoken of, naturally refers. There is a little indistinctness, as I before observed, in our Author's manner of introducing his subject here. We may observe too that the phrase, glad to find your answer in so different a style, though abundantly suited to the language of conversation, or of a familiar letter, yet, in regular composition, requires an additional word-glad to find your answer run in so different a style.

'It will be among the distinguished marks of your ministry, my Lord, that you have a genius above all such regards, and that no reasonable proposals, for the honour, the advantage, or ornament of your country, however foreign to your immediate office was ever neglected by you.

The phrase, a genius above all such regards, both seems somewhat harsh, and does not clearly express what the author means, namely, the confined views of those who neglected every thing that belonged to the arts of peace in the time of war. Except this expression, there is nothing that can be subject to the least reprehension in this sentence, nor in all that follows, to the end of the paragraph.

'I confess the merit of this candour and condescension is very much lessened, because your Lordship hardly leaves us room to offer our good wishes; removing all our difficulties, and supplying our wants, faster than the most visionary projector can adjust his schemes. And therefore, my Lord, the design of this paper is not so much to offer you ways and means, as to complain of a grievance, the redressing of which is to be your own work, as much as that of paying the nation's debts, or opening a trade into the south sea; and, though not of such immediate benefit as either of these, or any other of your glorious actions, yet, perhaps, in future ages not less to your honour.'

The compliments which the Dean here pays to his patron, are very high and strained; and shew, that, with all his surliness, he was as capable, on some occasions, of making his court to a great man by flat

tery, as other writers. However, with respect to the style, which is the sole object of our present consideration, every thing here, as far as appears to me, is faultless. In these sentences, and, indeed, throughout this paragraph, in general, which we have now ended, our author's style appears to great advantage. We see that ease and simplicity, that correctness and distinctness, which particularly characterise it. It is very remarkable, how few Latinised words Dean Swift employs. No writer, in our language, is so purely English as he is, or borrows so little assistance from words of foreign derivation. From none can we take a better model of the choice and proper significancy of words. It is remarkable, in the sentences we have now before us, how plain all the expressions are, and yet at the same time, how significant; and, in the midst of that high strain of compliment into which he rises, how little there is of pomp, or glare of expression. How very few writers can preserve this manly temperance of style; or would think a compliment of this nature supported with sufficient dignity, unless they had embellished it with some of those high-sounding words, whose chief effect is no other than to give their language a stiff and forced appearance ?

My Lord, I do here, in the name of all the learned and polite persons of the nation, complain to your Lordship, as first minister, that our language is imperfect; that its daily improvements are by no means in proportion to its daily corruptions; that the pretenders to polish and refine it, have chiefly multiplied abuses and absudities; and that, in many instances, it offends against every part of grammar.'

The turn of this sentence is extremely elegant. He had spoken before of a grievance for which he sought redress, and he carries on the allusion, by entering here, directly on his subject, in the style of a public representation presented to the minister of state. One imperfection, however, there is in this sentence, which luckily for our purpose, serves to illustrate a rule before given, concerning the position of adverbs, so as to avoid ambiguity. It is in the middle of the sentence; that the pretenders to polish and refine it have chiefly multiplied abuses and absurdities. Now, concerning the import of this adverb, chiefly, I ask, whether it signifies that these pretenders to polish the language, have been the chief persons who have multiplied its abuses in distinction from others, or, that the chief thing which these pretenders have done, is to multiply the abuses of our language in opposition to their doing any thing to refine it? These two meanings are really different; and yet, by the position which the word chiefly has in the sentence, we are left at a loss in which to understand it. The construction would lead us rather to the latter sense; that the chief thing which these pretenders have done, is to multiply the abuses of our language. But it is more than probable, that the former sense was what the Dean intended, as it carries more of his usual satirical edge; that the pretended refiners of our language, were, in fact, its chief corruptors; on which supposition, his words ought to have run thus: that the pretenders to polish and refine it, have been the chief persons to multiply its abuses and absurdities; which would have rendered the sense perfectly clear.

Perhaps, too, there might be ground for observing farther upon this sentence, that as language is the object with which it sets out; that our language is extremely imperfect; and as there follows an enumeration concerning language, in three particulars, it had been better if language

had been kept the ruling word, or the nominative to every verb, without changing the scene; by making pretenders the ruling word, as is done in the second member of the enumeration, and then, in the third, returning again to the former word, language. That the pretenders to polish and that, in many instances, it offends-I am persuaded, that the structure of the sentence would have been more neat and happy, and its unity more complete, if the members of it had been arranged thus: That our language is extremely imperfect; that its daily improvements are by no means in proportion to its daily corruptions; that, in many instances, it offends against every part of grammar; and that the pretenders to polish and refine it, have been the chief persons to multiply its abuses and absurdities.' This degree of attention seemed proper to be bestowed on such a sentence as this, in order to shew how it might have been conducted after the most perfect manner. Our author after having said,

Lest your Lordship should think my censure too severe I shall take leave to be more particular;' proceeds in the following paragraph:

I believe your Lordship will agree with me, in the reason why our language is less refined than those of Italy, Spain, or France.'

I am sorry to say, that now we shall have less to commend in our author. For the whole of this paragraph, on which we are entering, is, in truth, perplexed and inaccurate. Even in this short sentence, we may discern an inaccuracy-why our language is less refined than those of Italy, Spain, or France; putting the pronoun those in the plural, when the antecedent substantive to which it refers is in the singular, our language. Instances of this kind may sometimes be found in English authors; but they sound harsh to the ear, and are certainly contrary to the purity of grammar. By a very little attention, this inaccuracy might have been remedied; and the sentence have been made to run much better in this way; why our language is less refined than the Italian, Spanish, or French.'

·

"It is plain, that the Latin tongue, in its purity, was never in this island; towards the conquest of which, few or no attempts were made till the time of Claudius; neither was that language ever so vulgar in Britain, as it is known to have been in Gaul and Spain.'

To say, that the Latin tongue, in its purity, was never in this island, is very careless style; it ought to have been, was never spoken in this island. In the progress of the sentence, he means to give a reason why the Latin was never spoken in its purity amongst us, because our island was never conquered by the Romans till after the purity of their tongue began to decline. But this reason ought to have been brought out more clearly. This might easily have been done, and the relation of the several parts of the sentence to each other much better pointed out by means of a sinall variation; thus: It is plain that the Latin tongue in its purity was never spoken in this island, as few or no attempts towards the conquest of it were made till the time of Claudius.' He adds, neither was that language ever so vulgar in Britain. Vulgar was one of the worst words he could have chosen for expressing what he means here: namely, that the Latin tongue was at no time so general, or so much in common use, in Britain, as it is known to have been in Gaul and Spain. Vulgar,when applied to language, commonly signifies impure, or debased language, such as is spoken by the low people, which is quite opposite to the author's sense here; for instead of meaning to say, that the Latin

spoken in Britain was not so debased, as what was spoken in Gaul and Spain; he means just the contrary, and had been telling us, that we never were acquainted with the Latin at all, till its purity began to be corrupted. 'Further, we find that the Roman legions here, were at length all recalled to help their country against the Goths and other barbarous invaders.'

The chief scope of this sentence is, to give a reason why the Latin tongue did not strike any deep root in this island, on account of the short continuance of the Romans in it. He goes on:

'Meantime the Britons, left to shift for themselves, and daily harrassed by cruel inroads from the Picts, were forced to call in the Saxons for their defence; who, consequently, reduced the greatest part of the island to their own power, drove the Britons into the most remote and mountainous parts, and the rest of the country, in customs, religion, and language, became wholly Saxon,'

This is a very exceptionable sentence. First, the phrase left to shift for themselves, is rather a low phrase, and too much in the familiar style to be proper in a grave treatise. Next, as the sentence advancesforced to call in the Saxons for their defence, who consequently reduced the greatest part of the island to their own power. What is the meaning of consequently here? If it means afterwards,' or in progress of time,' this, certainly, is not a sense in which consequently is often taken; and therefore the expression is chargeable with obscurity. The adverb, consequently in its most common acceptation, denotes one thing following from another, as an effect from a cause. If he uses it in this sense, and means that the Britons being subdued by the Saxons, was a necessary consequence of their having called in these Saxons, to their assistance, this consequence is drawn too abruptly, and needed more explanation. For though it has often happened, that nations have been subdued by their own auxiliaries, yet this is not a consequence of such a nature that it can be assumed, as it seems here to be done, for a first and self-evident principle. But further, what shall we say to this phrase, reduced the greatest part of the island to their own power? we say, reduce to rule, reduce to practice; we can say, that one nation reduces another to subjection. But when dominion or power is used, we always, as far as I know, say, reduce under their power. Reduce to their power, is so harsh and uncommon an expression, that, though Dean Swift's authority in language be very great, yet in the use of this phrase, I am of opinion that it would not be safe to follow his example.

Besides these particular inaccuracies, this sentence is chargeable with want of unity in the composition of the whole. The persons and the scene are too often changed upon us. First, the Britons are mentioned, who are harrassed by inroads from the Picts; next, the Saxons appear, who subdue the greatest part of the island, and drive the Britons into the mountains; and, lastly, the rest of the country is introduced, and a description given of the change made upon it. All this forms a group of various objects, presented in such quick succession, that the mind finds it difficult to comprehend them under one view. Accordingly, it is quoted in the Elements of Criticism, as an instance of a sentence rendered faulty by the breach of unity.

'This I take to be the reason why there are more Latin words remaining in the British than the old Saxon; which, excepting some few variations in the orthography, is the same in most original words with