And though at firft view they may be thought equally useful for eftimating the comparative merit of different languages; yet this holds not in fact, because no person can readily be found who is fufficiently qualified to apply the standard. What I mean is, that different nations judge differently of the harshness or smoothness of articulate founds: a found, harsh and difagreeable to an Italian, may be abundantly fmooth to a northern ear. Where are we · to find a judge to determine this controverfy? and fuppofing a judge, upon what principle is his decifion to be founded? The case here is precifely the fame as in behaviour and manners. Plain-dealing and fincerity, liberty in words and actions, form the character of one people. Politenefs, referve, and a total disguise of every sentiment that can give offence, form the character of another people. To each the manners of the other are difagreeable. An effeminate mind cannot bear the leaft of that roughness and feverity, which is generally efteemed manly when exerted upon proper occafions. Neither can an effeminate ear bear bear the leaft harfhnefs in words that are deemed nervous and founding by those accuftomed to a rougher tone of language. Muft we then relinquish all thoughts of comparing languages in the point of roughness and smoothness, as a fruitless inquiry? Not altogether fo; for we may proceed a certain length, though without hope of an ultimate decifion. A language with difficulty pronounced even by natives, muft yield the preference to a fmoother language. Again, fuppofing two languages pronounced with equal facility by natives, the preference, in my judgement, ought to be in favour of the rougher language; provided it be also stored with a competent share of more mellow founds. This will be evident from attending to the different effects that articulate found hath upon the mind. A smooth gliding found is agreeable, by smoothing the mind and lulling it to reft. A rough bold found, on the contrary, animates the mind. The effort perceived in pronouncing, is communicated to the hearers: they feel in their own minds a fimilar effort, which which roufes their attention and difpofes them to action. I must add another confideration. The agreeableness of contraft in the rougher language, for which the great variety of founds gives ample opportunity, muft, even in an effeminate ear, prevail over the more uniform founds of the smoother language *. This appears to me all that can be fafely determined upon the present point. With respect to the other circumstances that constitute the beauty of words, the standard above mentioned is infallible when apply'd to foreign languages as well as to our own. For every man, whatever be his mother-tongue, is equally capable to judge of the length or shortness of words, of the alternate opening and clofing of the mouth in speaking, and of the relation which the found bears to the sense. In these particulars, the judgement is susceptible of no prejudice from custom, at least of no invincible prejudice. * That the Italian tongue is rather too fmooth, feems to appear from confidering, that in verfification vowels are frequently fuppreffed in order to produce a rougher, and bolder tone. That That the English tongue, originally harsh, is at prefent much softened by droping in the pronunciation many redundant confonants, is undoubtedly true. That it is not capable of being farther mellowed, without fuffering in its force and energy, will scarce be thought by any one who poffeffes an ear. And yet fuch in Britain is the propenfity for dispatch, that overlooking the majesty of words composed of many fyllables aptly connected, the prevailing tafte is, to fhorten words, even at the expence of making them disagreeable to the ear and harsh in the pronunciation. But I have no occafion to infift upon this article, being prevented by an excellent writer, who poffeffed, if any man ever did, the true genius of the English tongue *. I cannot however forbear urging one obfervation borrowed from that author. Several tenses of our verbs are formed by adding the final fyllable ed, which, being a weak found, has remarkably the worse ef * See Swift's propofal for correcting the English tongue, in a letter to the Earl of Oxford. fect fect by poffeffing the most confpicuous place in the word. Upon that account, the vowel is in common fpeech generally fuppreffed, and the confonant is added to the foregoing fyllable. Hence the following rugged founds, drudg'd, disturb'd, rebuk'd, fledg'd. It is ftill lefs excufeable to follow this practice in writing; for the hurry of speaking may excuse what is altogether improper in a compofition of any value. The fyllable ed, it is true, makes but a poor figure at the end of a word: but we ought to fubmit to that defect, rather than multiply the number of harsh words, which, after all that has been done, bear an overproportion in our tongue. The author above mentioned, by fhowing a good example, did all in his power to restore that fyllable; and he well deferves to be imitated. Some exceptions however I would make. A word which fignifies labour, or any thing harsh or rugged, ought not to be fmooth. Therefore forc'd, with an apostrophe, is better than forced, without it. Another exception is, where the penult fyllable ends with a vowel. In that cafe the |