I except the cafe where the words are intended to express the coldness of the speaker; for there the redundancy of copulatives is a beauty.

Dining one day at an alderman's in the city, Peter obferved him expatiating after the manner of his brethren, in the praises of his firloin of beef. Beef," faid the fage magiftrate, is the king "is of meat: Beef comprehends in it the quintef cence of partridge, and quail, and venison, "and pheasant, and plum-pudding, and custard." Tale of Tub, $4.

And the author fhows great tafte in varying the expreffion in the mouth of Peter, who is represented more animated.

"Bread," fays he, "dear brothers, is the staff "of life, in which bread is contained, inclufivè, "the quintefcence of beef, mutton, veal, veni"fon, partridge, plum-pudding, and custard."

We proceed to the second kind of beauty, which confifts in a due arrangement of the words or materials. This branch of the fubject is not lefs nice than extenfive; and

I defpair to put it in a clear light, until a fketch be given of the general principles that govern the structure or compofition of language.

Every thought, generally speaking, contains one capital object confidered as acting or as fuffering. This object is expreffed by a fubftantive noun. Its action is expreffed by an active verb; and the thing affected by the action is expreffed by another fubftantive noun. Its fuffering or pasfive state is expreffed by a paffive verb, and the thing which acts upon it, by a substantive noun. Befide thefe, which are the capital parts of a sentence or period, there are generally under-parts. Each of the substantives as well as the verb, may be qualified. Time, place, purpose, motive, means, inftrument, and a thousand other circumftances, may be neceffary to complete the thought. And in what manner these feveral parts are connected together in the expreffion, will appear from what follows.

In a complete thought or mental propofition, all the members and parts are mutually related, fome flightly, fome more intimately.

mately. In communicating fuch a thought, it is not fufficient that the component ideas be clearly expreffed: it is alfo neceffary, that all the relations contained in the thought be expreffed according to their different degrees of intimacy. To annex a certain meaning to a certain found or word, requires no art. The great nicety in all languages is, to exprefs the various relations that connect together the parts of the thought. Could we fuppofe this branch of language to be still a fecret, it would puzzle, I am apt to think, the greatest grammarian ever exifted, to invent an expeditious method. And yet, by the guidance merely of nature, the rude and illiterate have been led to a method fo perfect, that it appears not susceptible of any improvement. Without a clear conception of the manner of expreffing relations, one at every turn must be at a lofs about the beauties of language; and upon that subject therefore I find it neceffary to fay a few words.

Words that import a relation, must be distinguished from those that do not. Subftantives commonly imply no relation, fuch

as

Adjectives,

as animal, man, tree, river. verbs, and adverbs, imply a relation. The adjective good must be connected with fome substantive, some being poffeffed of that quality. The verb write must be applied to fome person who writes; and the adverbs moderately, diligently, have plainly a reference to some action which they modify. When in language a relative term is introduced, all that is neceffary to complete the expreffion, is, to ascertain that thing to which the term relates. For anfwering this purpose, I obferve in Greek and Latin two different methods. Adjectives are declined as well as fubftantives; and declenfion ferves to afcertain the connection that is betwixt them. If the word that expreffes the subject be, for example, in the nominative case, fo alfo muft the word be that expreffes its quality. Example, vir bonus. Again, verbs are related, on the one hand, to the agent; and, on the other, to the fubject upon which the action is exerted. A contrivance fimilar to that now mentioned, serves to express this double relation. The nominative cafe is appropriated to the agent, the accu

fative

fative to the paffive fubject; and the verb is put in the first second or third perfon, to correfpond the more intimately with both. Examples: Ego amo Tulliam; tu amas Semproniam; Brutus amat Portiam. The other method is by juxtapofition, which is neceffary with respect to words only that are not declined, adverbs for example, articles, prepofitions, and conjunctions. In the English language there are few declenfions; and therefore juxtapofition is our chief refource. Adjectives accompany their fubftantives *; an adverb accompanies the word it qualifies; and the verb occupies the middle place betwixt the active and paffive fubjects to which it relates.

It must be obvious, that thofe terms which have nothing relative in their fignification,

Taking advantage of a declenfion to feparate an adjective from its fubftantive, as is commonly practifed in Latin, though it detract not from perfpicuity, is certainly less neat than the English method of juxtapofition. Contiguity is more expreffive of an intimate relation, than resemblance merely of the final fyllables. Latin indeed has evidently the advantage when the adjective and fubftantive happen to be connected by contiguity as well as by the resemblance of the final fyllables.