propriety, and purity of English ftyle, he hath hardly been furpassed, or even equalled, by any of his fucceffors.

It is now about fifty years, fince Doctor Swift made a public remonftrance, addressed to the Earl of Oxford, then Lord Treasurer, concerning the imperfect State of our Language; alleging in particular, "that in many

inftances it offended against every part of "Grammar." Swift must be allowed to have been a good judge of this matter; to which he was bimfelf very attentive, both in his own writings, and in his remarks upon thofe of his friends: he is one of the best and most correct of our profe writers. Indeed, the juftness of this complaint, as far as I can find, bath never been questioned; and yet no effectual method bath hitherto been taken to redress the grievance, which was the object of it.

But let us confider, how, and in what extent, we are to understand this charge brought against the English Language: for the Author Seems not to have explained himself with fufficient clearness and precifion on this head.

Does it mean, that the English Language, as it is fpoken by the politeft part of the nation,. and as it ftands in the writings of our most approved authors, often offends against every part of Grammar? Thus far, I am afraid, the charge is true. Or does it further imply, that our Language is in its nature irregular and capricious; not hitherto fubject, nor cafity reducible, to a Syftem of rules? In this reSpect, I am perfuaded, the charge is wholly without foundation.

The English Language is perhaps of all the prefent European Languages by much the most fimple in its form and conftruction. Of all the antient Languages extant That is the most fimple, which is undoubtedly the most antient; but even that Language itself does not equal the English in fimplicity.

The words of the English Language are perhaps subject to fewer variations from their original form, than thofe of any other. Its Subftantives have but one variation of Cafe; nor have they any diftinction of Gender, befide that which nature hath made. Its Adjectives

A 3

jectives admit of no change at all, except that which expreffes the degrees of comparison. All the poffible variations of the original form of the Verb are not above fix or seven ; whereas in many Languages they amount to fome bundreds: and almost the whole bufines of Modes, Times, and Voices, is managed with great eafe by the affiftance of eight or nine commodicus little Verbs, called from their use Auxiliaries. The Conftruction of this Language is fo eafy and obvious, that cur Grammarians have thought it hardly worth while to give us any thing like a regular and fyftematical Syntax. The English Grammar, which hath been laft prefented to the public, and by the Perfon beft qualified to have given us a perfect one, comprifes the whole Syntax in ten lines: for this reafon; "because our Language has fo little inflexion, that its cenftruction neither re

ઠંડ

"quires nor admits many rules." In truth, the easier any fubject is in its own nature, the harder it is to make it more easy by explanation; and nothing is more unnecessary, and at the fame time commonly more difficult,

than

than to give a formal demonftration of a prepofition almost felf-evident.

It doth not then proceed from any peculiar irregularity or difficulty of our Language, that the general practice both of Speaking and writing it is chargeable with inaccuracy. It is not the Language, but the Practice that is in fault. The truth is, Grammar is very much neglected among us: and it is not the difficulty of the Language, but on the contrary the fimplicity and facility of it, that occafions this neglect. Were the Language less eafy and fimple, we should find ourselves under a neceffity of studying it with more care and attention. But as it is, we take it for granted, that we have a competent knowledge and skill, and are able to acquit ourselves properly, in our own native tongue: a faculty, folely acquired by ufe, conducted by habit, and tried by the ear, carries us on without reflexion; we meet with no rubs or difficulties in our way, or we do not perceive them; we find ourselves able to go on without rules, and we do not fo much

A 4

much as fufpect, that we ftand in need of them.

A Grammatical Study of our own Language makes no part of the ordinary method of inftruction, which we pass through in our childhood, and it is very feldom that we apply ourselves to it afterward. Yet the want of it will not be effectually fupplied by any other advantages whatsoever. Much practice in the polite world, and a general acquaintance with the best authors, are good helps; but alone will hardly be fufficient: we have writers, who have enjoyed these advantages in their full extent, and yet cannot be recommended as models of an accurate ftyle. Much lefs then will what is commonly called Learning ferve the purpose; that is, a critical knowledge of antient Languages, and much reading of antient authors: the greateft Critic and moft able Grammarian of the laft age, when he came to apply his Learning and his Criticism to an English Author, was frequently at a lofs in matters

of