I agree, indeed, with Dr. Lowth, (Preface to his grammar) in thinking, that the simplicity and facility of our language occa sion its being frequently written and spoken with less accura cy. It was necessary to study languages which were of a more complex and artificial form, with greater care. The marks of gender and case, the varieties of conjugation and declension, the multiplied rules of syntax, were all to be attended to in speech. Hence language became more an object of art. It was reduced into form; a standard was established; and any departures from the standard became conspicuous. Whereas, among us, language is hardly considered as an object of grammatical rule. We take it for granted, that a competent skill in it may be acquired without any study; and that in a syntax so narrow and confined as ours, there is nothing which demands attention. Hence arises the habit of writing in a loose and inaccurate manner.

I admit, that no grammatical rules have sufficient authority to control the firm and established usage of language. Established custom in speaking and writing, is the standard to which we must at last resort for determining every controverted point in language and style. But it will not follow from this, that grammatical rules are superseded as useless. In every language, which has been in any degree cultivated, there prevails a certain structure and analogy of parts, which is understood to give foundation to the most reputable usage of speech; and which, in all cases, when usage is loose or dubious, possesses considerable authority. In every language, there are rules of syntax which must be inviolably observed by all who would either write or speak with any propriety. For syntax is no other than that arrangement of words, in a sentence, which renders the meaning of each word, and the relation of all the words to one another, most clear and intelligible.

All the rules of Latin syntax, it is true, cannot be applied to our language. Many of these rules arose from the particular form of their language, which occasioned verbs or prepositions to govern, some the genitive, some the dative, some the accusative or ablative

But, abstracting from these peculiarities, it is to be always remembered, that the chief and fundamental rules of syntax are common to the English as well as the Latin tongue; and, indeed, belong equally to all languages. For in all languages, the parts which compose speech are essentially the same; substantives, adjectives, verbs, and connecting particles: and wherever these parts of speech are foun 1, there are certain necessary relations among them, which. regulate their syntax, or the place which they ought to possess in a sentence. Thus, in English, just as much as in Latin, the adjective must by position, be made to agree with its substantive; and the verb must agree with its nominative in person and number; because, from the nature of things, a word, which expresses either a quality or an action, must correspond as closely as possible with the name of that thing whose quality, or whose action, it expresses. Two or more substantives, joined by a copulative, must always require the verbs or pronouns, to which they refer, to be placed in the plural

number; otherwise, their common relation to these verbs or pronouns is not pointed out. An active verb must, in every language, govern the accusative; that is, clearly point out some substantive noun, as the object to which its action is directed. A relative pronoun must, in every form of speech, agree with its antecedent in gender, number, and person; and conjunctions, or connecting particles, ought always to couple like cases and moods; that is, ought to join together words which are of the same form and state with each other. I mention these, as a few exemplifications of that fundamental regard to syntax, which, even in such a language as ours, is absolutely requisite for writing or speaking with any propriety.

Whatever the advantages or defects of the English language be, as it is our own language, it deserves a high degree of our study and attention, both with regard to the choice of words which we employ, and with regard to the syntax, or the arrangement of these words in a sentence. We know how much the Greeks and Romans, in their most polished and flourishing times, cultivated their own tongues. We know how much study both the French, and the Italians, have bestowed upon theirs. Whatever knowledge may be acquired by the study of other languages, it can never be communicated with advantage, unless by such as can write and speak their own language well. Let the matter of an author be ever so good and useful, his compositions will always suffer in the public esteem, if his expression oe deficient in purity and propriety. At the same time, the attainment of a correct and elegant style, is an object which demands application and labour. If any imagine they can catch it merely by the ear, or acquire it by a slight perusal of some of our good authors, they will find themselves much disappointed. The many errors, even in point of grammar, the many offences against purity of language, which are committed by writers who are far from being contemptible, demonstrate, that a careful study of the language is previously requisite, in all who aim at writing it properly.*

QUESTIONS.

Of the verb, what is observed? In verb from other parts of speech? Hence, it, what appears; and therefore, what what follows; and why? What has follows? Why wil our author avoid arisen from this sort of eminence? dwelling longer on this subject, than is Why must verb have been coeval absolutely necessary? What property with men's first attempts towards the has the verb, in common with the ad- formation of language? What, is it jective? In all verbs, what three things probable, was its radical form; and are implied at once? How is this re- why? What did such verbs afterwards mark illustrated? Of the particle shi- become, and into what did they branch ning, what is remarked? What may out? For what are the tenses contri the infinitive mood, to shine, be called; ved? Why must notice be taken of and why? Hence, what resemblance does the infinitive mood often carry? What examples are given? What is that which chiefly distinguishes the

these? Of what divisions of time do we naturally think? Under what circumstances might we imagine that no more were needful? But how does language

On this subject, the reader ought to peruse Dr. Lowth's Short Introduction to English Grammar, with Critical Notes; Dr. Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric; and Dr. Priesty's Ruc'ments of English Grammar.

proceed; and into what does it split what relations, do they serve? For ume? How does it consider it; and connecting what, are conjunctions emhence, what follows? How may the ployed; and what examples are given? present be considered? What examples In what manner do prepositions connect are given? How many past tenses are words; and what examples are given? found in the poorest languages? How When was the force of these spoken of? many has ours? Define each, and give From what is it evident that all these the illustrative examples. Here, what connective particles must be of the do we, with pleasure, observe? What greatest use in speech; and, therefore, tense have they not? In both cases, what follows? As a nation improves in what must they say? How is the ad- science, and as its language becomes vantage of our language illustrated? more perfect, what may we expect? Define the two varieties of the future, and Accordingly, what language contains give examples of each. Besides tenses, the greatest quantity of them; and what other distinction do verbs admit? why? On what does much of the beau For what are moods designed? Define ty and strength of every language dethe indicative, the imperative, and the pend? What depends on the right or subjunctive moods; and give examples wrong management of them? Before of each. What does this manner of ex- he disinisses the subject of language, pressing an affirmation, &c. form? what observation does our author reWhat now clearly appears? How is quest to be allowed to make; and this fully illustrated? What is a curi- why? How is this subject illustrated in ous and remarkable fact? In what a quotation from Quintilian? What languages is conjugation esteemed most subject do we next approach? Of the perfect? What is said of the tenses of language which is at present spoken oriental tongues? How is this deficien- throughout Great Britain, what is obcy supplied? What example is given? served? What was the language of Of the tenses and moods of the Greek the first inhabitants of the island? Oi language, what is remarked? Of the this Celtic tongue, what is remarked, Latin, what is observed? What is the and where did it obtain? Of what state of conjugation, in modern Euro- countries was it the language; and till pean tongues? In what do they admit what period? Where, only, does it now few varieties; and to what have they subsist? What evidence have we o constant recourse? To what is the this? How long did this continue to be change which language has undergone the language of the island? in conjugation, similar? What illus- How did the Saxons treat the Britration of this remark is given? How tons? Of what was the Saxon tongue may the alteration be easily under-a dialect; and of what did it lay the stood? Of the auxiliary verbs, what is foundation? How long did it continue remarked? What do they imply? to be spoken throughout the southern With what, in the early state of speech, part of the island? What language would their import be incorporated? did he introduce? Of what, then, is the In what manner was it afterwards English which is now spoken a mixfound that these auxiliaries might supture? What language is spoken in the ply the place of most of the moods and low countries of Scotland? For what, tenses? Hence, what followed? What can we not easily account? What are, examples of illustration are given? still, uncertain and contested points? What few varieties were retained? What appears, from what has been What was the consequence of this said. to be the basis of our present practice? What effect had it on lan- speech; and how has it been imported guage? What are the remaining parts among us? From what ancient lanof speech called? Of these, what are guage are many of our words, also, the first that occur? To what are they derived; and how did we receive them? reducible; and why? For the most What evidence have we of this? With part, what are they; expressing what? what language has the French always Hence, of them, what may be con- continued to have a very considerable ceived; and accordingly, whence are affinity; and hence, what follows? the great body of them derived? From the influx of so many streams, What class of words do prepositions what naturally follows? What an and conjugations form; and to express we not expect from it? Why is is

Illustrate this, fully. What opinion of Dr. Lowth is here introduced? Why were ancient languages an object of art? What do we take for granted; and hence, what follows? For what are grammatical rules insufficient; and what in this case must be the standard? What will not follow from this; and why? Why cannot all the rules of Latin syntax be applied to our language? But what is always to be remembered; and for what reason? How is this fully illustrated? What do these exemplifications show? What remark on the English language follows? How is this illustrated? Who will find themselves much disappointed? What affords a sufficient proof that a careful study of the language is requisite ?

syntax narrow? What remark fol- what is remarked? What has Mr. She lows? How are these disadvantages, ridan, in his lectures, shown? Of our if they be such, balanced? In what consonants, what does he observe; and bject is our language particularly why? After all, what must be admitcopious? How has this been produced? ted? To what do we, in general, inIn what also are we rich; and in what cline; and agreeably to this, what is a does it differ from prose? What does remarkable peculiarity of our pronunthis show; and to what language are ciation? How does the English differ we, in this respect, infinitely superior? from the Greek and Latin in this reOf their poetical language, what is re-spect? What is the general effect of marked? Where does our language this practice? What peculiar property chiefly display its power of expression? does the English language possess? How many words are we said to have to denote the varieties of the passion of anger? Repeat them. Where is our tongue less fertile? In what does the French tongue surpass ours? How may any one be convinced of this? For what is the French, of all languages, the most copious; and for what is it the happiest language in the world? But where does ours excel it? Whence does language receive its predominant feature? What must we, however, not expect; and why? What evidence, however, have we that national character will always have some influence on the turn of language? From the genius of our language, what may it be expected to have? To what is its prolixity owing; and what is its effect? How is this illustrated? Why may our language still be esteemed to possess considerable force of expression? Of what is the style of Milton a sufficient proof? What is a quality of great importance in speaking or writing; and on what the things does it depend? What tongue most eminently possesses this quality? What advantages did it possess? What is the character of the D. Moods. Latin tongue in this respect? Of the E. Conjugation. Italian language, what is remarked? 2. Auxiliary verbs. By considering whose style, may one 3. Adverbs. be convinced that our language is not 4. Prepositions. destitute of flexibility? With what has 5. Conjunctions. our language been most taxed? What alone is sufficient to prove that our language is not unmusical? Of our verse,!

STYLE.

1. Verbs.

ANALYSIS.

A. Their nature and importance.
B. Tenses.

c. Voices.

6. The origin of the English language.
A. Its character.
B. Its syntax.

LECTURE X.

PERSPICUITY AND PRECISION

HAVING finished the subject of language, I now enter on the consideration of style, and the rules that relate to it.

It is not easy to give a precise idea of what is meant by style. The best definition I can give of it, is, the peculiar manner in which

a man expresses his conceptions, by means of language. It is dif ferent from mere language, or words. The words which an author `employs, may be proper and faultless; and his style may, nevertheless, have great faults: it may be dry, or stiff, or feeble, or affected. Style has always some reference to an author's manner of thinking. It is a picture of the ideas which arise in his mind, and of the manner in which they rise there; and hence, when we are examining an author's composition, it is, in many cases, extremely difficult to separate the style from the sentiment. No wonder these two should be so intimately connected, as style is nothing else than that sort of expression which our thoughts most readily assume. Hence, different countries have been noted for peculiarities of style, suited to their different temper and genius. The eastern nations animated their style with the most strong and hyperbolical figures. The Athenians, a polished and acute people, formed a style accurate, clear, and neat. The Asiatics, gay and loose in their manners, affected a style florid and diffuse. The like sort of characteristical differences are commonly remarked in the style of the French, the English, and the Spaniards. In giving the general characters of style, it is usual to talk of a nervous, a feeble, or a spirited style; which are plainly the characters of a writer's manner of thinking, as well as of expressing himself so difficult it is to separate these two things from one another. Of the general characters of style, I am afterwards to discourse; but it will be necessary to begin with examining the more simple qualities of it; from the assemblage of which, its more com plex denominations, in a great measure, result.

All the qualities of good style may be ranged under two heads, perspicuity and ornament. For all that can possibly be required of language is, to convey our ideas clearly to the minds of others, and, at the same time, in such a dress, as by pleasing and interesting them, shall most effectually strengthen the impressions which we seek to make. When both these ends are answered, we certainly accomplish every purpose for which we use writing and discourse.

Perspicuity, it will be readily admitted, is the fundamental quality of style; a quality so essential in every kind of writing, that for the want of it, nothing can atone. Without this, the richest ornaments of style only glimmer through the dark; and puzzle, instead of pleasing the reader. This, therefore, must be our first object, to make our meaning clearly and fully understood, and understood without the least difficulty. Oratio,' says Quintilian, 'debet negligenter quoque audientibus esse aperta; ut in animum audientis, sicut sol in oculos, etiamsi in eum non intendatur, occurat. Quare non solum ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino possit non intelligere curandum.'t If we are obliged to follow a writer with much care, to

"Nobis prima sit virtus, perspicuitas, propria verba, rectus ordo, non in longum dilata conclusio; nihil neque desit, neque superfluat."

QUINTIL. lib. viii.

"Discourse ought always to be obvious, even to the most careless and negligert hearer: so that the sense shall strike his mind, as the light of the sun does our eyes, though they are not directed upwards to it. We must study not only that every hearer may understand us, but that it shall be impossible for him not to understand us."