On these two sentences, I have nothing of moment to observe. The sense is brought out clearly, and in simple, unaffected language.

This, at least, is the opinion generally received; but your Lordship hath fully convinced me, that the French tongue made yet a greater progress here under Harry the Second, who had large territories on that continent both from his father and his wife; made frequent journeys and expeditions thither; and was always attended with a number of his countrymen, retainers at court.

In the beginning of this sentence, our Author states an opposition between an opinion generally received, and that of his Lordship; and in compliment to his patron, he tells us, that his Lordship had convinced him of somewhat that differed from the general opinion. Thus one must naturally understand his words: This, at least is the opinion generally received; but your Lordship hath fully convinced me.— Now here there must be an inaccuracy of expression. For, on examining what went before, there appears no sort of opposition betwixt the generally received opinion, and that of the Author's patron. The general opinion was, that William the Conqueror had proceeded much farther than Edward the Confessor, in propagating the French language, and had endeavoured to make it universal. Lord Oxford's opinion was, that the French tongue had gone on to make a yet greater progress under Harry the Second, than it had done under his predecessor William: which two opinions are as entirely consistent with each other as any can be ; and therefore the opposition here affected to be stated between them, by the adversative particle but, was improper and groundless.

For some centuries after, there was a constant inter

course between France and England, by the dominions we possessed there, and the conquests we made; so that our language, between two and three hundred years ago, seems to have had a greater mixture with French than at present; many words having been afterwards rejected, and some since the days of Spenser; although we have still retained not a few, which have been long antiquated in France.

In

This is a sentence too long and intricate, and liable to the same objection that was made to a former one, of the want of unity. It consists of four members, each divided from the subsequent by a semicolon. going along, we naturally expect the sentence is to end at the second of these, or, at farthest, at the third; when, to our surprise, a new member of the period makes its appearance, and fatigues our attention in joining all the parts together. Such a structure of a sentence is always the mark of careless writing. In the first member of the sentence, a constant intercourse between France and England, by the dominions we possessed there, and the conquests we made, the construction is not sufficiently filled up. In place of intercourse by the dominions we possessed, it should have been- by reason of the dominions we possessed, -or- occasioned by the dominions we possessed and in place of the dominions we possessed there, and the conquests we made, the regular Style is the dominions which we possessed there, and the conquests which we made. The relative pronoun which is indeed in phrases of this kind sometimes omitted: But when it is omitted, the Style becomes elliptic; and though in conversation, or in the very light and easy kinds of writing, such elliptic Style may not be improper, yet in grave and regular writing, it is

—

better to fill up the construction, and insert the relative pronoun. After having said I could produce several instances of both kinds, if it were of any use or entertainment-our Author begins the next paragraph thus:

To examine into the several circumstances by which the language of a country may be altered, would force me to enter into a wide field.

There is nothing remarkable in this sentence, unless that here occurs the first instance of a metaphor since the beginning of this treatise; entering into a wide field, being put for beginning an extensive subject. Few writers deal less in figurative language than Swift. I before observed, that he appears to despise ornaments of this kind; and though this renders his Style somewhat dry on serious subjects, yet his plainness and simplicity, I must not forbear to remind my readers, is far preferable to an ostentatious and affected parade of ornament.

I shall only observe, that the Latin, the French, and the English, seem to have undergone the same fortune. The first, from the days of Romulus to those of Julius Caesar, suffered perpetual changes; and by what we meet in those Authors who occasionally speak on that subject, as well as from certain fragments of old laws, it is manifest, that the Latin, three hundred years before Tully, was as unintelligible in his time, as the French and English of the same period are now; and these two have changed as much since William the Conqueror, (which is but little less than seven hundred years,) as the Latin appears to have done in the like

term.

The Dean plainly appears to be writing negligently here. This sentence is one of that involved and

intricate kind, of which some instances have occurred before; but none worse than this. It requires a very distinct head to comprehend the whole meaning of the period at first reading. In one part of it we find extreme carelessness of expression. He says, it is manifest that the Latin, three hundred years before Tully, was as unintelligible in his time, as the English and French of the same period are now. By the English and French of the same period, must naturally be understood the English and French that were spoken three hundred years before Tully. This is the only grammatical meaning his words will bear; and yet assuredly what he means, and what it would have been easy for him to have expressed with more precision is, the English and French that were spoken three hundred years ago; or at a period equally distant from our age, as the old Latin, which he had mentioned, was from the age of Tully. But when an Author writes hastily, and does not review with proper care what he has written, many such inaccuracies will be apt to creep into his Style.

1

Whether our Language or the French will decline as fast as the Roman did, is a question that would perhaps admit more debate than it is worth. There were many reasons for the corruptions of the last; as the change of their government to a tyranny, which ruined the study of eloquence, there being no further use or encouragement for popular orators; their giving not only the freedom of the city, but capacity for employments, to several towns in Gaul, Spain, and Germany, and other distant parts, as far as Asia, which brought a great number of foreign pretenders to Rome; the slavish disposition of the senate and people, by which the wit and eloquence of the age were wholly

turned into panegyric, the most barren of all subjects; the great corruption of manners, and introduction of foreign luxury, with foreign terms to express it, with several others that might be assigned; not to mention the invasions from the Goths and Vandals, which are too obvious to insist on.

In the enumeration here made of the causes contributing towards the corruption of the Roman Language, there are many inaccuracies - The change of their government to a tyranny of whose government? He had indeed been speaking of the Roman Language, and therefore we guess at his meaning: but the Style is ungrammatical; for he had not mentioned the Romans themselves; and, therefore, when he says their government, there is no antecedent in the sentence to which the pronoun, their, can refer with any propriety. Giving the capacity for employments to several towns in Gaul, is a questionable expression. For though towns are sometimes put for the people who inhabit them, yet to give a town the capacity for employments, sounds harsh and uncouth. The wit and eloquence of the age wholly turned into panegyric, is a phrase which does not well express the meaning. Neither wit nor eloquence can be turned into panegyric; but they may be turned towards panegyric, or employed in panegyric, which was the sense the Author had in view.

The conclusion of the enumeration is visibly incorrect-The great corruption of manners and introduction of foreign luxury, with foreign terms to express it, with several others that might be assigned — He means, with several other reasons. The word reasons, had indeed been mentioned before; but as it stands at the distance of thirteen lines backward,