Part 1 (2/2)

But it seems you are not of so much Credit with these _Gentlemen_, who question your Authority, and have given a very visible Proof of their Ingenuity in an Instance which plainly discovers, that they cannot believe their own Eyes.

The _Saxons_, say they, if we may credit Dr. _Hickes_, had various Terminations to their Words, at least two in every Substantive singular: whereas we have no Word now in use, except the personal Names that has so. Thus Dr. _Hickes_ has made six several _Declensions_ of the _Saxon_ Names: He gives them three _Numbers_; a Singular, Dual, and Plural: We have no Dual Number, except perhaps in _Both_: To make this plainer, we shall transcribe the six Declensions from that Antiquary's Grammar.

I would ask these Gentlemen, and why not credit Dr. _Hickes_? Is he not as much to be believ'd as those Gentlemen, who have transcribed so plain an Evidence of the six Declensions to shew the positive Unreasonableness and unwarrantable Contradiction of their Disbelief?

Did he make those six Declensions? or rather, did he not find them in the Language, and take so much pains to teach others to distinguish them, who have Modesty enough to be taught? They are pleased to say we have no Word now in use that admits of Cases or Terminations. But let us ask them, what they think of these Words, _G.o.d's Word_, _Man's Wisdom_, the _Smith's Forge_, and innumerable Instances more. For in _G.o.d's Word_, &c. is not the Termination _s_ a plain Indication of a Genitive Case, wherein the Saxon _e_ is omitted? For example_, Go?e?

?o??, Manne? ?i??om, ?mie? Heo?. Some will say, that were better supplied by _his_, or _hers_, as Man _his_ Thought, the Smith _his_ Forge; but this Mistake is justly exploded. Yet if these Gentlemen will not credit Dr. _Hickes_, the _Saxon_ Writings might give them full Satisfaction. The _Gospels_, the _Psalms_, and a great part of the _Bible_ are in _Saxon_, so are the _Laws_ and _Ecclesiastical Canons_, and _Charters_ of most of our _Saxon Kings_; these one wou'd think might deserve their Credit. But they have not had Learning or Industry enough to fit them for such Acquaintance, and are forc'd therefore to take up their Refuge with those Triflers, whose only Pretence to Wit, is to despise their Betters. This Censure will not, I imagine, be thought harsh, by any candid Reader, since their own Discovery has sufficiently declared their Ignorance: and their Boldness, to determine things whereof they are so ignorant, has so justly fix'd upon them the Charge of Impudence. For otherwise they must needs have been ashamed to proceed in manner following.

We might give you various Instances more of the essential difference between the old _Saxon_ and modern _English_ Tongue, but these must satisfy any reasonable Man, that it is so great, that the _Saxon_ can be no Rule to us; and that to understand ours, there is no need of knowing the _Saxon_: And tho' Dr.

_Hickes_ must be allow'd to have been a very curious Enquirer into those obsolete Tongues, now out of use, and containing nothing valuable, yet it does by no means follow (as is plain from what has been said) that we are obliged to derive the Sense, Construction, or Nature of our present Language from his Discoveries.

I would beseech my Readers to observe, the Candour and Ingenuity of these Gentlemen: They tell us, _We might give you various Instances more of the essential difference between the old _Saxon_ and modern _English_ Tongue_; and yet have plainly made it appear, that they know little or nothing of the old _Saxon_. So that it will be hard to say how they come to know of any such _essential difference, as MUST satisfy any reasonable Man_; and much more that this _essential difference_ is so _great, that the _Saxon_ can be no Rule to us, and that to understand ours, there is no need of knowing the _Saxon_._ What they say, _that it cannot be a Rule to them_, is true; for nothing can be a Rule of Direction to any Man, the use whereof he does not understand; but if to understand the Original and Etymology of the Words of any Language, be needful towards knowing the Propriety of any Language, a thing which I have never heard hath yet been denied; then do these Gentlemen stand self-condemned, there being no less than four Words, in the Scheme of Declensions they have borrowed from Dr. _Hickes_, now in use, which are of pure _Saxon_ Original, and consequently _essential to the modern English_. I need not tell any English Reader at this Day the meaning of _Smith_, _Word_, _Son_, and _Good_; but if I tell them that these are Saxon Words, I believe they will hardly deny them to be _essential to the modern English_, or that they will conclude that the difference between the old _English_ and the modern is so great, or the distance of Relation between them so remote, as that the former deserves not to be remember'd: except by such Upstarts who having no t.i.tle to a laudable Pedigree, are backward in all due Respect and Veneration towards a n.o.ble Ancestry.

Their great Condescension to Dr. _Hickes_ in allowing him to have been a very curious Inquirer into those _obsolete Tongues, now out of use, and containing nothing valuable in them_, is a Compliment for which I believe you, Sir, will give me leave to a.s.sure them, that he is not at all obliged; since if it signifies any thing, it imports, no less than that he has employ'd a great deal of Time, and a great deal of Pains, to little purpose. But we must at least borrow so much a.s.surance from them, as to tell them, that your Friends, who consist of the most learned sort of your own Countrey-men, and of Foreigners, do not think those Tongues so obsolete and out of use, whose Significancy is so apparent in Etymology; nor do they think those Men competent Judges to declare, whether there be any thing contained in them valuable or not, who have made it clear, that they know not what is _contain'd_ in them. They would rather a.s.sure them, that our greatest Divines[A], and Lawyers[B], and Historians[C] are of another Opinion, they wou'd advise them to consult our Libraries, those of the two Universities, the _Cottonian_, and my Lord Treasurers; to study your whole _Thesaurus_, particularly your _Dissertatio Epistolaris_, to look into Mr. _Wanleys_ large and accurate Catalogue of _Saxon_ Ma.n.u.scripts, and so with Modesty gain a t.i.tle to the Applause of having confest their former Ignorance, and reforming their Judgment. I believe I may farther take leave to a.s.sure them, that the Doctor is as little concerned for their _Inference_, which they think _so plain from what has been said, that they are not obliged to derive the Sense, Construction, or Nature of our present Language from his Discoveries_.

He desires them not to _derive_ the _Sense_ and _Construction_ of which they speak, in any other manner, than that in which the Nature of the things themselves makes them appear; and so far as they are his _Discoveries_ only, intrudes them on no Man. He is very willing they should be let alone by those, who have not Skill to use them to their own Advantage, and with Grat.i.tude.

[Footnote A: Archbishops _Parker_, _Laud_, _Usher_, Bishop _Stillingfleet_, the present Bishops _of Worcester_, _Bath_ and _Wells_, _Carlisle_, St. _Asaph_, St. _Davids_, _Lincoln_, _Rochester_, with many other Divines of the first Rank.]

[Footnote B: The Lord Chief Justice _Cook_, Mr. _Lombard_, _Selden_, _Whitlock_, Lord Chief Justice _Hales_, and _Parker_, Mr. _Fortescue_ of the Temple, and others.]

[Footnote C: _Leland_, who writes in a Latin Style in Prose and Verse, as polite and accurate as can be boasted of by any of our modern Wits. _Jocelin_, _Spelman_, both Father and Son, _Cambden_, _Whelock_, _Gibson_, and many more of all Ranks and Qualities, whose Names deserve well to be mention'd with Respect, were there room for it in this place.]

But to leave these Pedagogues to huff and swagger in the heighth of all their Arrogance. I cannot but think it great Pity, that in our Considerations, for Refinement of the _English_ Tongue, so little Regard is had to Antiquity, and the Original of our present Language, which is the _Saxon_. This indeed is allow'd by an ingenious Person, who hath lately made some Proposals for the Refinement of the _English_ Tongue, _That the old _Saxon_, except in some few Variations in the Orthography, is the same in most original Words with our present _English_, as well as with the _German_ and other _Northern_ Dialects_; which makes it a little surprizing to me, to find the same Gentleman not long after to say, _The other Languages of _Europe_ I know nothing of, neither is there any occasion to consider them_: because, as I have before observ'd, it must be very difficult to imagin, how a Man can judge of a thing he knoweth nothing of, whether there can be occasion or no to consider it. I must confess I hope when ever such a Project shall be taken in hand, for _correcting_, _enlarging_, and _ascertaining_ our Language, a competent Number of such Persons will be advised with, as are knowing, not only in _Saxon_, but in the other Languages of _Europe_, and so be capable of judging how far those Languages may be useful in such a Project. The want of understanding this aright, wou'd very much injure the Success of such an Undertaking, and the bringing of it to Perfection; in denying that a.s.sistance toward adjusting the Propriety of Words, which can only be had from the Knowledge of the Original, and likewise in depriving us of the Benefit of many useful and significant Words, which might be revived and recalled, to the Increase and Ornament of our Language, which wou'd be the more beautiful, as being more genuine and natural, by confessing a _Saxon_ Original for their native Stock, or an Affinity with those Branches of the other _Northern Tongues_, which own the same Original.

The want of knowing the _Northern Languages_, has occasion'd an unkind Prejudice towards them: which some have introduced out of Rashness, others have taken upon Tradition. As if those Languages were made up of nothing else but Monosyllables, and harsh sounding Consonants; than which nothing can be a greater Mistake. I can speak for the _Saxon_, _Gothick_, and _Francick_, or old _Teutonick_: which for aptness of compounded, and well sounding Words, and variety of Numbers, are by those learned Men that understand them, thought scarce inferior to the _Greek_ itself. I never cou'd find my self shocked with the Harshness of those Languages, which grates so much in the Ears of those that never heard them. I never perceiv'd in the Consonants any Hardness, but such as was necessary to afford Strength, like the Bones in a human Body, which yield it Firmness and Support. So that the worst that can be said on this occasion of our Forefathers is, that they spoke at they fought, like Men.

The Author of the _Proposal_, may think this but an ill Return, for the soft things he has said of the Ladies, but I think it Grat.i.tude at least to make the Return, by doing Justice to the Gentlemen. I will not contradict the Relation of the ingenious Experiment of his vocal Ladies, tho' I could give him some Instances to the contrary, in my Experience of those, whose Writings abound with Consonants; where Vowels must generally be understood, and appear but very rarely.

Perhaps that Gentleman may be told that I have a _Northern_ Correspondence, and a _Northern_ Ear, probably not so fine as he may think his own to be, yet a little musical.

And now for our _Monosyllables_. In the Controversy concerning which, it must be examined, first whether the Charge which is exhibited against the _Northern Languages_ is true, that they consist of nothing but _Monosyllables_; and secondly, whether or no the Copiousness and Variety of _Monosyllables_ may be always justly reputed a fault, and may not sometimes as justly be thought, to be very useful and ornamental.

And first I must a.s.sert, that the ancient _Northern Languages_, do not wholly nor mostly consist of _Monosyllables_. I speak chiefly of the _Gothick_, _Saxon_, and _Teutonick_. It must be confest that in the _Saxon_, there are many _Primitive_ Words of one Syllable, and this to those who know the Esteem that is due to Simplicity and Plainness, in any Language, will rather be judged a Virtue than a Vice: That is, that the first Notions of things should be exprest in the plainest and simplest manner, and in the least compa.s.s: and the Qualities and Relations, by suitable Additions, and Composition of _Primitive_ Words[D]; for which the _Saxon_ Language is very remarkable, as has been before observed, and of which there are numerous Examples, in the following Treatise of _Saxon Grammar_, and infinitely more might have been added.

[Footnote D: Of this the _Greeks_ give as a fair Example, when they express the Original and Author of all Things, their ?at??

??d???te ?e??te, by their Monosyllable ?e??. As the _Hebrews_ do by ??, the _Goths_ the Ancestors of our _Saxon_ Progenitors by the Word ??????, the _Saxons_, old _Germans_, _Teutons_, _Francick_, and _English_, in the _Monosyllable_ Go?, the _Germans_ #Gott#, and the _French_ _Dieu_.]

The second Enquiry is, whether or no the Copiousness and Variety of _Monosyllables_ may be always justly reputed a fault, and may not as justly be thought, to be very useful and ornamental? Were this a fault, it might as justly be charged upon the learned Languages, the _Latin_ and _Greek_: For the _Latin_ you have in _Lilly_'s Rules concerning Nouns, several Verses, made up for the most part of _Monosyllables_, I mention him not as a Cla.s.sick, but because the Words are Cla.s.sical and _Monosyllables_; and in the _Greek_ there are several as it were, idle _Monosyllables_, that have little Significancy, except to make the Numbers in Verse compleat, or to give a Fulness to their Periods, as the Verses of _Homer_ and other _Greek Poets_ plainly evidence: An Instance or two may suffice;

?? ?? d? ta p??ta d?ast?t?? ???sa?te.

Here are four _Monosyllables_ in this Verse,

??? d' ??? ?? ??s?, p??? ?? ?a? ???a? ?pe?se?.

Here are six _Monosyllables_, and one cutting off.

<script>