In a Language there may be great redundancies, and, at the same time, great defects. It is infinitely less important to have a number of synonymous words, which are even some times cumbersome, than to have very few that can be called homonymous, and, consequently, to have all the differences which there are in things, as much as possible, marked by corresponding differences in their signs. That this should be perfectly attained, I own is impossible. The varieties in things are infinite, whereas the richest language hath its limits. Indeed, the more a people improve in taste and knowledge, they come the more, though by imperceptible degrees, to make distinctions in the application of words which were used promiscuously before. And it is by thus marking the delicate differences of things, which in a ruder state they overlooked, more than by any other means, that their language is refined and polished. Hence it acquires precision, perspicuity, vivacity, energy. It would be no difficult task to evince, as partly it may be collected from what hath been observed already, that our own language hath from this source received greater improvements in the course of the last century and of the present, than from the accession of new words, or perhaps from any other cause. Nothing then, surely, can serve more to corrupt it than to overturn the barriers use hath erected, by confounding words as synonymous to which distinct significations have been assigned. This conduct is as bad policy with regard to style as it would be with regard to land, to convert a great part of the property into a common. On the contrary, as it conduceth to the advancement of agriculture and to the increase of the annual produce of a country to divide the commons and turn them into property, a similar conduct in the appropriation of words renders a language more useful and expressive.

PART II. Impropriety in Phrases.

I come now to consider the improprieties which occur in phrases. The first of this kind of which I shall take notice is when the expression, on being grammatically analyzed, is discovered to contain some inconsistency. Such is the phrase of all others after the superlative, common with many English writers. Interpreted by the rules of syntax, it implies that a thing is different from itself. Take these words for an example: "It celebrates the Church of England as the most perfect of all others."* Properly, either" as more perfect than any other," or 66 as the most perfect of all churches." This is precisely the same sort of impropriety into which Milton hath fallen in these words:

* Swift's Apology for the Tale of a Tub.

That ever since in love's embraces met."+

Use, indeed, may be pleaded for such expressions, which, it must be acknowledged, use hath rendered intelligible. But still the general laws of the language. which constitute the most extensive and important use, may be pleaded against them. Now it is one principal method of purifying a language to lay aside such idioms as are inconsistent with its radical principles and constituent rule, or as, when interpreted by such principles and rules, exhibit manifest nonsense. Nor does the least inconvenience result from this conduct, as we can be at no loss to find expressions of our meaning altogether as natural and entirely unexceptionable.

Sometimes, indeed, through mere inattention, slips of this kind are committed, as in the following instance: "I do not reckon that we want a genius more than the rest of our neighbours." The impropriety here is corrected by omitting the words in italics.

Another oversight, of much the same kind, and by the same author, we have in the following passage: "I had like to have gotten one or two broken heads for my impertinence."§ This unavoidably suggests the question, How many heads was he possessed of? Properly, "I was once or twice like to have gotten my head broken."

Another from the same work, being a passage formerly quoted for another purpose, is this: "The first project was to shorten discourse by cutting polysyllables into one."|| One thing may be cut into two or more; but it is inconceivable that, by cutting, two or more things should be made one.

Another, still from the same hand: “I solemnly declare that I have not wilfully committed the least mistake." The words used here are incompatible. A wrong wilfully committed is no mistake.

Addison hath fallen into an inaccuracy of the same kind in the following lines:

"So the pure limpid stream, when foul with stains

Of rushing torrents and descending rains."**

A stream may doubtless be at one time limpid and at another foul, which is all that the author meant; but we cannot prope erly call it a pure limpid stream when it is foul wuh stains.

* Paradise Lost.

+ Ib., b. iv.

Swift's Proposal for ascertaining the English Tongue.
Voyage to Brobdignag.

Remarks on the Barrier Treaty.

|| Voyage to Laput ** Cato.

So much for those improprieties which involve in them some absurdity.

I shall next illustrate those by which an author is made to say one thing when he means another. Of this kind I shall produce only one example at present, as I shall have occasion afterward of considering the same fault under the article of perspicuity. "I will instance in one opinion, which I look upon every man obliged in conscience to quit, or ir prudence to conceal; I mean, that whoever argues in de fence of absolute power in a single person, though he offers the old plausible plea that it is his opinion, which he cannot help unless he be convinced, ought, in all free states, to be treated as the common enemy of mankind.” From the scope of the discourse, it is evident he means, that whoever hath it for his opinion that a single person is entitled to absolute authority, ought to quit or conceal that opinion; because otherwise he will, in a free state, deserve to be treated as a common enemy; whereas, if he says anything, he says that whoever thinks that the advocates for absolute power ought to be treated as common enemies, is obliged to quit or conceal that opinion; a sentiment very different from the former.

The only species of impropriety that remains to be exem plified is that wherein there appears some slight incongruity in the combination of the words, as in the quotations following: "When you fall into a man's conversation, the first thing you should consider is—."† Properly, “fall into conversation with a man." “I wish, sir, you would animadvert frequently on the false taste the town is in with relation to plays as well as operas." Properly, "the false taste of the town."

"The presence of the Deity, and the care such an august Cause is to be supposed to take about any action." The impropriety here is best corrected by substituting the word Being in the place of cause; for though there be nothing improper in calling the Deity an august Cause, the author hath very improperly connected with this appellative some word totally unsuitable; for who ever heard of a cause taking care about an action?

I shall produce but one other instance. "Neither implies that there are virtuous habits and accomplishments already attained by the possessor, but they certainly show an unprejudiced capacity towards them." In the first clause of this sentence there is a gross inconsistency: we are informed of habits and accomplishments that are possessed, but not attained; in the second clause there is a double impropriety: the participial adjective is not suited to the substantive with

* Sentiments of a Church of England Man.
+ lb., No. 22. Pope s View of the Epic Poem.

+ Spectator, No. 49

Guardian, No. 31

which it is construed, nor is the subsequent preposition expressive of the sense. Supposing, then, that the word possessor hath been used inadvertently for person, or some other general term, the sense may be exhibited thus: "Neither implies that there are virtuous habits and accomplishments already attained by this person, but they certainly show that his mind is not prejudiced against them, and that it hath a capacity of attaining them."

Under this head I might consider that impropriety which results from the use of metaphors or other tropes, wherein the similitude to the subject, or connexion with it, is too remote; also, that which results from the construction of words with any trope, which are not applicable in the literal sense. The former errs chiefly against vivacity, the latter against elegance. Of the one, therefore, I shall have occasion to speak when I consider the catachresis, of the other when I treat of mixed metaphor.

I have now finished what was intended on the subject of grammatical purity; the first, and, in some respect, the most essential of all the virtues of elocution. I have illustrated the three different ways in which it may be violated; the barbarism, when the words employed are not English; the solecism, when the construction is not English; the improoriety, when the meaning in which any English word or phrase is used by a writer or speaker is not the sense which good use hath assigned to it.

CHAPTER IV.

OME GRAMMATICAL DOUBTS IN REGARD TO ENGLISH CONSTRUCTION STATED AND EXAMINED.

BEFORE I dismiss this article altogether, it will not be amiss o consider a little some dubious points in construction, on which our critics appear not to be agreed.

One of the most eminent of them makes this remark upon the neuter verbs: "A neuter verb cannot become a passive. In a neuter verb the agent and the object are the same, and cannot be separated even in imagination; as in the examples to sleep, to walk; but when the verb is passive, one thing is acted upon by another, really or by supposition different from it.' To this is subjoined in the margin the following note: "That some neuter verbs take a passive form, but without a passive signification, has been observed above. Here we speak of their becoming both in form and signification pas* Short Introduction, &c. Sentences.

sive, and shall endeavour farther to illustrate the rule by example. To split, like many other English verbs, hath both an active and a neuter signification; according to the former we say, The force of gunpowder split the rock; according to the latter, the ship split upon the rock; and converting the verb active into a passive, we may say, The rock was split by the force of gunpowder, or the ship was split upon the rock. But we cannot say with any propriety, turning the verb neuter into a passive, The rock was split upon by the ship."

This author's reasoning, so far as concerns verbs properly neuter, is so manifestly just, that it commands a full assent from every one that understands it. I differ from him only in regard to the application. In my apprehension, what may grammatically be named the neuter verbs are not near so numerous in our tongue as he imagines. I do not enter into the difference between verbs absolutely neuter and intransitively active. I concur with him in thinking that this distinction holds more of metaphysics than of grammar. But by verbs grammatically neuter I mean such as are not followed either by an accusative, or by a preposition and a noun; for I take this to be the only grammatical criterion with us. Of this kind is the simple and primitive verb to laugh; accordingly, to say he was laughed would be repugnant alike to grammar and to sense. But give this verb a regimen, and say To laugh at, and you alter its nature by adding to its signification. It were an abuse of words to call this a neuter, being as truly a compound active verb in English as deridere is in Latin, to which it exactly corresponds in meaning. Nor doth it make any odds that the preposition in the one language precedes the verb, and is conjoined with it, and in the other follows it, and is detached from it. The real union is the same in both. Accordingly, he was laughed at is as evidently good English as derisus fuit is good Latin.

Let us hear this author himself, who, speaking of verbs compounded with a preposition, says expressly, “In English the preposition is more frequently placed after the verb, and separate from it, like an adverb; in which situation it is no less apt to affect the sense of it, and to give it a new meaning; and may still be considered as belonging to the verb, and a part of it. As, to cast is to throw; but to cast up, or to compute an account, is quite a different thing: thus, to fall on, to bear out, to give over," &c. Innumerable examples might be produced to show that such verbs have been always used as active or transitive compounds, call them which you please, and therefore as properly susceptible of the passive voice. I shall produce only one authority, which, I am persuaded, the intelligent reader will admit to be a good one. It is no other than this ingenious critic himself, and the pas