tion 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 corrupters;' 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.

6

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 construction; 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 show 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 not 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 small 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 harassed 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 advances-forced 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 com non 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 nee led 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 harassed 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 our present English, as well as with the German and other northern dialects.'

This sentence is faulty, somewhat in the same manner with the last. It is loose in the connexion of its parts; and besides this, it is also too loosely connected with the preceding sentence. What he had there said, concerning the Saxons expelling the Britons, and changing the customs, the religion, and the language of the country, is a clear and good reason for our present language being Saxon rather than British. This is the inference which we would naturally expect him to draw from the premises just before laid down: but when he tells us, that this is the reason why there are more Latin words remaining in the British tongue than in the old Saxon, we are presently at a stand. No reason for this inference appears. If it can be gathered at all from the foregoing deduction, it is gathered only imperfectly. For, as he had told us, that the Britons had some connexion with the Romans, he should have also told us,

in order to make out his inference, that the Saxons never had any. The truth is, the whole of this paragraph concerning the influence of the Latin tongue upon ours, is careless, perplexed, and obscure. His argument required to have been more fully unfolded, in order to make it be distinctly apprehended, and to give it its due force. In the next paragraph, he proceeds to discourse concerning the influence of the French tongue upon our language. The style becomes more clear, though not remarkable for great beauty or elegance.

Edward the Confessor having lived long in France, appears to be the first who introduced any mixture of the French tongue with the Saxon; the court affecting what the Prince was fond of, and others taking it up for a fashion, as it is now with us. William the Conqueror proceeded much further, bringing over with him vast numbers of that nation, scattering them in every nonastery, giving them great quantities of land, directing all pleadings to be in that language, and endeavouring to make it universal in the kingdom.'

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 pa

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 intercourse 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.'

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. In 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 700 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 careless