A

our island; and continued fo till the arrival of the Saxons in England, in the year of our Lord 450; who, having conquered the Britons, did not intermix with then, but expelled them from their habitations, and drove then, together with their language, into the mountains of Wales. The Saxons were one of thofe northern nations that over-ran Europe; and their tongue, a dialect of the Gothic or Teutonic, altogether diftinct from the Celtic, laid the foundation of the prefent English tongue. With fome intermixture of Danish, a language, probably, from the fame root with the Saxon, it continued to be spoken throughout the fouthern part of the island, till the time of William the conquerer. He introduced his Norman or French, as the language of the court, which made a confiderable change in the fpeech of the nation; and the English which was spoken afterwards, and continues to be spoken now, is a mixture of the ancient Saxon, and this Norman French, together with fuch new and foreign words as commerce and learning have, in progrefs of time, gradually introduced.

The hiftory of the English language can, in this manner, be clearly traced. The language fpoken in the low countries of Scotland, is now, and has been for many centuries, no other than a dialect of the English. How, indeed, or by what fteps, the ancient Celtic tongue came to be banished from the low country in Scotland, and to make its retreat into the Highlands and iflands, cannot be fo well pointed out, as how the like revolution was brought about in England. Whether the fouthernmost part of Scotland was once fubject to the Saxons, and for.ned a part of the kingdom of Northumberland →or, whether the great number of English exiles that retreated into Scotland, upon the Norman conqueft, and upon other occafions, introduced to that country their own language, which after

wards, by the mutual intercourfe of the two nations, prevailed over the Celtic, are uncertain and contested points, the difcuffion of which would lead us too far from our fubject.

From what has been faid, it appears, that the Teutonic dialect is the bafis of our prefent fpeech. It has been imported among us in three different forms, the Saxon, the Danish, and the Norman; all which have mingled together in our language. A very great number of our words, too, are plainly derived from the Latin. Thefe, we had not directly from the Latin, but most of them, it is probable, entered into our tongue through the channel of that Norman French, which William the conqueror introduced. For, as the Romans had long been in full poffeffion of Gaul, the language fpoken in that country, when it was invaded by the Franks and Normans, was a fort of corrupted Latin, mingled with Celtic, to which was given the name of Romanfhe and as the Franks and Normans did not, like the Saxons in England, expel the inhabitants, but, after their victories, mingled with them; the language of the country became a compound of the Teutonic dialect imported by thefe conquerers, and of the former corrupted Latin. Hence, the French language has always continued to have a very confiderable affinity with the Latin; and hence, a great number of words of Latin origin, which were in ufe among the Normans in France, were introduced into our tongue at the conqueft; to which, indeed, many have fince been added, directly from the Latin, in confequence of the great diffufion of Koman literature throughout all Europe.

From the influx of fo many ftreams, from the junction of fo many diffimilar parts, it naturally follows, that the English, like every compoundedlanguage, muft needs be fomewhat irregular. We

cannot expect from it that correspondence of parts, that complete analogy in structure, which may be found in thofe fimpler languages, which have been formed, in a manner, within themfelves, and built on one foundation. Hence, as I before fhowed, it has but finall remains of conjugation or declenfion; and its fyntax is narrow; as there are few marks in the words themselves that can fhow their relation to each other, or, in the grammatical ftyle, point out either their concordance, or their government, in the fentence. Our words having been brought to us from feveral different regions, ftraggle, if we may fo fpeak, afunder from each other; and do not coalefce fo naturally in the ftructure of a sentence, as the words in the Greek and Roman tongues.

But thefe difadvantages, if they be fuch, of a compound language, are balanced by other advantages that attend it; particularly, by the number and variety of words with which fuch a language is likely to be enriched. Few languages are, in fact, more copious, than the English. In all grave fubjects efpecially, hiftorical, critical, political, and moral, no writer has the least reafon to complain of the barrenness of our tongue. The ftudious refiecting genius of the people, has brought together great store of expreffions, on fuch fubjects, from every quarter. We are rich too in the language of poctry. Our poetical ftyle differs widely from profe, not in point of numbers only, but in the very words themfelves; which fhows what a ftock and compafs of words we have it in our power to felect and employ, fuited to thofe different occafions. Herein we are infinitely fuperior to the French, whofe poetical language, if it were not diftinguished by rhyme, would not be known to differ from their ordinary profe.

It is chiefly, indeed, on grave fubjects, and with

th

respect to the stronger emotions of the mind, that our language difplays its power of expreffion. We are faid to have thirty words, at leaft, for denoting all the varieties of the paffion of anger*. But, in defcribing the more delicate fentiments and emotions, our tongue is not fo fertile. It must be confeffed, that the French language far furpaffes ours, in exprelling the nicer fhades of character; efpecially thofe varieties of manner, temper, and behavi-. our, which are difplayed in our focial intercourfe with one another. Let any one attempt to tranflate, into English, only a few pages of one of Marivaux's novels, and he will foon be fenfible of our deficiency of expreffion on these subjects. Indeed, no language is fo copious as the French for whatever is delicate, gay, and amufing. It is, perhaps, the happiest language for converfation in the known world ; but, on the higher fubjects of compofition, the English may be justly eftemed to excel it confiderably. Language is generally understood to receive its predominant tincture from the national character of the people who speak it. We must not, indeed, expect, that it will carry an exact and full impreffion of their genius and manners; for, among all nations, the original ftock of words which they received from their ancestors, remains as the foundation of their speech throughout many ages, while their manners undergo, perhaps, very great alterations. National character will, however, always have fome perceptible influence on the turn of language; and the gaiety and vivacity of the French, and the gravity and thoughtfulness of the English, are fufficiently impreffed on their respective tongues.

Anger, wrath, paffion, rage, fury, outrage, fierceness, fharpnefs, animofity, choler, refentment, heat, heartburning; to fume, ftorm, inflame, be incenfed; to vex, kindle, irritate, enrage, exafperate, provoke, fret; to be fullen, hafty, hot, rough, four, peevish, &c. Preface to Greenwood's grammar.

From the genius of our language, and the character of those who speak it, it may be expected to have itrength and energy. It is, indeed, naturally prolix; owing to the great number of particles and auxiliary verbs which we are obliged conftantly to employ; and this prolixity muit, in fome degree, enfeeble it. We feldom can exprefs fo much by one word as was done by the verbs, and by the nouns, in the Greek and Roman languages. Our ftyle is less compact; our conceptions being spread out among more words, and split, as it were, into more parts, make a fainter impresion when we utter them. Notwithanding this defect, by our abounding in terms for expreffing all the ftrong emotions of the mind, and by the liberty which we enjoy, in a greater degree than most nations, of compounding words, our language may be eftcemed to poffefs confiderable force of expreffion; comparatively, at least, with the other modern tongues, though much below the ancient. The ftvle of Milton alone, both in poetry and profe, is a fufficient proof, that the English tongue is far from being deftitute of nerves and energy.

The flexibility of a language, or its power of accommodation to different ftyles and manners, fo as to be either grave and ftrong, or eafy and flowing, or tender and gentle, or pompous and magnificent, as occafions require, or as an author's genius prompts, is a quality, of great importance in speaking and writing. It feems to depend upon thred things; the copioufnels of a language; the different arrangements of which its words are fufceptible; and the variety and beauty of the found of those words, fo as to correfpond to many different subjects. Never did any tongue poffefs this quality fo eminently as the Greek, which every writer of genius could fo mould, as to make the flyle perfectly expreffive of his own manner and peculiar turn