disuse therefore of such an unnecessary appendage is a real improvement.

The relatives, as was hinted before, partake of the nature of conjunction, both as they are the instruments of linking the members of sentences together, and as they have no independent signification of their own. These, when in coupling the clauses of a paragraph they are joined with a preposition, form what may properly be termed a sort of complex conjunctions. Such are, according to the original form of the words, upon which, unto which, with that, by which, or, according to a method of combining entirely analogical in our language, whereupon, whereunto, therewith, whereby. In the use of such drawling conjunctions, whether in the loose or in the compound form, there is considerable risk, as is evident from the principles above explained, of rendering the sentence tiresome, and the expression languid.

66

Some writers, sensible of the effect, seem totally to have mistaken the cause. They have imputed the flatness to the combination, imagining that the uncompounded form of the preposition and the pronoun would nowise affect the vivacity of the style. Lord Shaftesbury was of this opinion, and his authority hath misled other writers. His words are: They have of late, it's true, reformed in some measure the gouty joints and darning work of whereunto's, whereby's, thereof's, therewith's, and the rest of this kind; by which complicated periods are so curiously strung, or hooked on, one to another, after the long-spun manner of the bar or pulpit 5." Accordingly several authors have been so far swayed by this judgment, as to condemn, in every instance, this kind of composition of the adverbs where, here, and there, with prepositions. But if we would be satisfied that the fault, where there is a fault, doth not lie in the composition, let us make the experiment on one of the long-spun complicated periods of which the author speaks, by resolving the whereupon into upon which, by saying unto which, for whereunto, and so of the rest, and I am greatly deceived, if we find the darning work less coarse, or the joints less gouty, than they were before this correction. And if in any case the combined shall displease more than the primitive form, I suspect that the disuse will be found the cause and not the consequence of its displeasing.

Compositions of this sort, with dissyllabic prepositions, are now mostly obsolete, and it would be silly to attempt to revive them. But with several of the monosyllabic prepositions they are still used. I shall therefore here offer a few arguments

5 Misc. v. chap. 1. For the same reason we should condemn the quapropter, quamobrem, quandoquidem, quemadmodum, of the Latin, whose composition and use are pretty similar. To these a good writer will not frequently recur; but their best authors have not thought fit to reject them altogether.

against dispossessing them of the ground which they still retain. First, they occasion a little variety. And even this, however inconsiderable, unless some inconvenience could be pleaded on the opposite side, ought, in conjunctions especially, for a reason to be given afterwards, to determine the matter. Secondly, they sometimes, without lengthening the sentence, interrupt a run of monosyllables (a thing extremely disagreeable to some critics), very opportunely substituting a dissyllable instead of two of the former. Thirdly, they in certain cases even prevent a little obscurity, or at least inelegance. It was observed, on a former occasion, that when any relative occurs oftener than once in a sentence, it will seldom be compatible with the laws of perspicuity that it should refer to different antecedents. And even if such change of the reference should not darken the sense, it rarely fails to injure the beauty of the expression. Yet this fault, in long periods and other complex sentences, is often scarcely avoidable. Sometimes the only way of avoiding it is by changing an of which, in which, or by which, into whereof, wherein, or whereby. This will both prevent the too frequent recurrence of the syllable which, none of the most grateful in the language; and elude the apparent inaccuracy of using the same sound in reference to different things. Fourthly, more is sometimes expressed by the compound than by the primitive form, and, consequently, there are occasions on which it ought to be preferred. The pronouns this, that, and which, do not so naturally refer to a clause or a sentence as to a word; nor do the two first refer so naturally to a plural as to a singular; whereas the compounds of here, there, and where, do, with equal propriety, refer to all these. Few will pretend that the place of therefore would be properly supplied by for that, or that with what would be in every case an equivalent for wherewith; or after this, for hereafter; but even in other instances not quite so clear, we shall on examination find a difference. In such a sentence as this, for example, "I flattered her vanity, lied to her, and abused her companions, and thereby wrought myself gradually into her favour;" it is evident that the words by that would here be intolerable; and if you should say by these actions, or by so doing, the expression would be remarkably heavier and more awkward.

The genuine source of most of these modern refinements is, in my opinion, an excessive bias to every thing that bears a resemblance to what is found in France, and even a prejudice against every thing to which there is nothing in France corresponding :

Whose manners still our tardy apish nation
Limps after, in base awkward imitation®.

Shakspeare, Richard II.

Hence it proceeds, that we not only adopt their words and idioms, but even imitate their defects, and act as if we thought it presumption to have any words or phrases of our own, to which they have nothing correspondent. I own that this may happen insensibly, without design or affectation on the part of our writers;, and that either from the close intercourse which we have with that nation, or from the great use that we make of their writings, and the practice now so frequent of translating them. But that I may not be thought unreasonable in imputing to this cause what is not justly chargeable on it, I shall specify in the margin a few instances wherein the penury of the French language hath, in the way of which I am speaking, been hurtful to the English 7.

7 The local adverbs are very properly classed with us, as in Latin, into three orders, for denoting rest or motion in a place, motion to it, and motion from it. In every one of these orders, there are three adverbs to denote this place, that place, and what, or which place, interrogatively or relatively. In French there are only two orders, the first and second being confounded. See the scheme subjoined.

Since the restoration, which I take to be neither the only nor the earliest, but the most successful era, in regard to the introduction of French books, French sentiments, and French modes, into this island, the adverbs of the first order have almost always been employed in conversation, and frequently in print, for those of the second. Thus we say, "Where are you going?" and sometimes, "Come here," though the only proper adverbs, in such cases, be whither and hither. Another instance the above scheme furnishes of the absurd tendency we have to imitate the French, even in their imperfections. The local adverbs of the third order are with them distinguished from those of the first and second only by prefixing the preposition de, which signifies from. This is manifestly the origin of those pleonastic phrases in English, from hence, from thence, and from whence. I shall produce another evidence of the bad effect of this propensity. So many of Nature's works are known to us by pairs, the sexes for example, and the most of the organs and the members of the human body, and, indeed, of every animal body, that it is natural, even in the simplest state of society, and in the rise of language, to distinguish the dual number from the plural. And though few languages have made, or, at least, retained this distinction in the declension of nouns, yet most have observed it in the numeral adjectives. The English, in particular, have observed it with great accuracy, as appears from the annexed scheme :

This distinction in French hath been overlooked altogether, and in English is beginning, at least in some instances, to be confounded. Perhaps the word every will not be found in any good writer applied to two; but it is certain that the word each hath usurped the place of every, and is now used promiscuously by writers of all denominations, whether it be two or more that are spoken of. The pronominal adjective whether is now quite obsolete, its place being supplied by which. About a century and a half ago, whether was invariably used of two, as appears from all

I shall only here subjoin to these observations, that if the whereunto's, and the therewithal's, may be denominated the gouty joints of style, the viz.'s, and the i. e.'s, and the e. g.'s, for videlicet, id est, and exempli gratia, may not unfitly be termed its crutches. Like these wretched props, they are not only of foreign materials, but have a foreign aspect. For as a stick can never be mistaken for a limb, though it may, in a clumsy manner, do the office of one, so these pitiful supplements can never be made to incorporate with the sentence, which they help in a bungling manner to hobble forward.

I proceed to exemplify further in our own language the general observation made above, that an improvement of taste leads men insensibly to abbreviate those weaker parts of speech, the connexive particles. I have remarked already the total suppression of the conjunction that after because, before, although, and many others of the same stamp, with which it was wont to be inseparably combined. But we have not stopped here. This particle is frequently omitted, when there is no other conjunction to connect the clauses, as in this example, "Did I not tell you positively, I would go myself?" In order to construe the sentence, we must supply the word that after positively. Concerning this omission I shall just observe, what I would be understood, in like manner, to observe concerning the omission of the relatives, to be mentioned afterwards, that though in conversation, comedy, and dialogue, such an ellipsis is graceful, when, without hurting perspicuity, it contributes to vivacity; yet, wherever the nature of the composition requires dignity and precision in the style, this freedom is hardly to be risked.

Another remarkable instance of our dislike to conjunctions is a method, for aught I know peculiar to us; by which the

the writings of that period, and particularly from the translation of the Bible; thus Matt. xxi. 31, "Whether of them twain did the will of his father?" and xxiii. 17, "Whether is greater, the gold, or the temple?" The rest of this class have hitherto retained their places amongst us. How long they may continue to do so, it will be impossible to say. Indeed, the clumsy manner in which these places are supplied in French, doth perhaps account for our constancy, as it will prove, I hope, our security against a sudden change in this particular. It would sound extremely awkward in our ears all the two, or the one or the other, and nor the one nor the other, which is a literal version of tous les deux, ou l'un ou l'autre, and ni l'un ni l'autre, the phrases whereby both, either, and neither, are expressed in French. It may be said, custom softens every thing, and what though several words thus fall into dissince experience shows us that we can do without them? I answer, first, change itself is bad, unless evidently for the better; secondly, perspicuity is more effectually secured by a greater choice of words, when the meanings are distinct; thirdly, vivacity is promoted both by avoiding periphrasis, and by using words as much as possible limited in signification to the things meant by the speaker; fourthly, in an abundance without confusion, there is always greater scope for variety. And to come to the particular defect which gave rise to these observations, every body must be sensible that the frequent recurrence in French to these uncouth sounds, quoi, que, qui, quelque, and the like, doth not serve to recommend the language to the ear of a stranger.

use,

66

particles though and if, when in construction with any of the tenses compounded with had, could, would, or should, are happily enough set aside as unnecessary. This is effected by a small alteration in the arrangement. The nominative is shifted from its ordinary station before the auxiliary, and is placed immediately after it, as in these words, " Had I known the danger, I would not have engaged in the business;" that is," If I had known the danger." "Should you remonstrate ever so loudly, I would not alter my resolution," that is, Though you should remonstrate,”- -The reason that this transposition cannot be admitted in the other tenses is, that in them it would occasion an ambiguity, and give the sentence the appearance of an interrogation, which it scarcely ever hath in the tenses above mentioned. Sometimes, indeed, the preterimperfect admits this idiom, without rendering the expression ambiguous; as in these words, "Did I but know his intention," for "If I did but know his intention."-" Were I present," ," for "If I were present." The tense, however, in such instances, may more properly be termed an aorist, than a preterite of any kind; and the mood is subjunctive,

SECTION II. Of other Connectives.

Now that I am speaking of the auxiliaries, it may not be amiss to remark, that they too, like the conjunctions, the relatives, and the prepositions, are but words of a secondary order. The signification of the verb is ascertained by the infinitive or the participle which follows the auxiliar in the compound tenses of the active voice, and always by the participle in the passive. The auxiliaries themselves serve only to modify the verb, by adding the circumstances of time, affirmation, supposition, interrogation, and some others. An abridgment in these, therefore, which are but weak, though not the weakest parts of discourse, conduceth to strengthen the expression. But there are not many cases wherein this is practicable. Sometimes had supplies emphatically the place of would have, and were of would be. An instance of the first we have in the words of Martha to our Saviour. "Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died." The last clause would have been feebler, had it been, "my brother would not have died." An example of the second is the words of the Israelites on hearing the report of the spies. "Were it not better for us to return into Egypt9?" for "Would it not be better?"

But to come to the consideration of the relatives; the first real improvement which taste hath produced here, is the dis

8 John xi. 21

9 Num. xiv. 3.