[Transcriber’s Note:

This e-text includes brief passages in scripts that require UTF-8(Unicode) file encoding, primarily Greek:

 Ἐξ οὗ δὴ τα πρῶτα διαστήτην ἐρίσαντε. 

If the text does not display properly, or the apostrophes and quotationmarks in this paragraph appear as garbage, make sure your text reader’s“character set” or “file encoding” is set to Unicode (UTF-8). You mayalso need to change the default font. As a last resort, use the Latin-1version of the file instead. 

Text printed in blackletter type-- German, Middle English, Old French--is shown between #marks#. Since font support for Gothic and Saxon islimited, transliterations of these scripts are given at the end ofthe e-text, along with the one Hebrew word. ]

 THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY

 ELIZABETH ELSTOB

 An Apology for the Study of Northern Antiquities

 (1715)

 Introduction by Charles Peake

 Publication Number 61

 Los Angeles William Andrews Clark Memorial Library University of California

 1956

 * * * * *

 GENERAL EDITORS RICHARD C. BOYS, University of Michigan RALPH COHEN, University of California, Los Angeles VINTON A. DEARING, University of California, Los Angeles LAWRENCE CLARK POWELL, Clark Memorial Library

 ASSISTANT EDITOR W. EARL BRITTON, University of Michigan

 ADVISORY EDITORS EMMETT L. AVERY, State College of Washington BENJAMIN BOYCE, Duke University LOUIS BREDVOLD, University of Michigan JOHN BUTT, King’s College, University of Durham JAMES L. CLIFFORD, Columbia University ARTHUR FRIEDMAN, University of Chicago EDWARD NILES HOOKER, University of California, Los Angeles LOUIS A. LANDA, Princeton University SAMUEL H. MONK, University of Minnesota ERNEST C. MOSSNER, University of Texas JAMES SUTHERLAND, University College, London H. T. SWEDENBERG, JR. , University of California, Los Angeles

 CORRESPONDING SECRETARY EDNA C. DAVIS, Clark Memorial Library

 * * * * *

INTRODUCTION

The answerers who rushed into print in 1712 against Swift’s _Proposalfor Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining the English Tongue_ wereso obviously moved by the spirit of faction that, apart from a fewdebating points and minor corrections, it is difficult to disentangletheir legitimate criticisms from their political prejudices. AsProfessor Landa has written in his introduction to Oldmiron’s_Reflections on Dr. Swift’s Letter to Harley_ and Mainwaring’s_The British Academy_ (Augustan Reprint Society, 1948): “It is notas literature that these two answers to Swift are to be judged. Theyare minor, though interesting, documents in political warfare whichcut athwart a significant cultural controversy. ”

Elizabeth Elstob’s _Apology for the Study of Northern Antiquities_prefixed to her _Rudiments of Grammar for the English-Saxon Tongue_is an answer of a very different kind. It did not appear until 1715;it exhibits no political bias; it agrees with Swift’s denunciationof certain current linguistic habits; and it does not reject thevery idea of regulating the language as repugnant to the sturdyindependence of the Briton. Elizabeth Elstob speaks not for a partybut for the group of antiquarian scholars, led by Dr. Hickes, whowere developing and popularizing the study of the Anglo-Saxon originsof the English language--a study which had really started in theseventeenth century. 

What irritated Miss Elstob in the _Proposal_ was not Swift’s eulogyor Harley and the Tory ministry, but his scornful reference toantiquarians as “laborious men of low genius, ” his failure torecognize that his manifest ignorance of the origins of the languagewas any bar to his pronouncing on it or legislating for it, and hisrepetition of some of the traditional criticisms of the Teutonicelements in the language, in particular the monosyllables andconsonants. Her sense of injury was personal as well as academic. Her brother William and her revered master Dr. Hickes were among theantiquarians whom Swift had casually insulted, and she herself hadpublished an elaborate edition of _An English-Saxon Homily on theBirthday of St. Gregory_ (1709) and was at work on an Anglo-Saxonhomilarium. Moreover she had a particular affection for her fieldof study, because it had enabled her to surmount the obstacles tolearning which had been put in her path as a girl, and which hadprevented her, then, from acquiring a classical education. Her_Rudiments_, the first Anglo-Saxon grammar written in English, wasspecifically designed to encourage ladies suffering from similareducational disabilities to find an intellectual pursuit. Her personalindignation is shown in her sharp answer to Swift’s insulting phrase, and in her retaliatory classification of the Dean among the “light andfluttering wits. ”

As a linguistic historian she has no difficulty in exposing Swift’signorance, and in establishing her claim that if there is any refiningor ascertaining of the English language to be done, the antiquarianscholars must be consulted. But it is when she writes as a literarycritic, defending the English language, with its monosyllables andconsonants, as a literary medium, that she is most interesting. 

There was nothing new in what Swift had said of the character of theEnglish language; he was merely echoing criticisms which had beenexpressed frequently since the early sixteenth century. The numberof English monosyllables was sometimes complained of, because toears trained on the classical languages they sounded harsh, barking, unfitted for eloquence; sometimes because they were believed to impedethe metrical flow in poetry; sometimes because, being particularlycharacteristic of colloquial speech, they were considered low; andoften because they were associated with the languages of the Teutonictribes which had escaped the full refining influence of Romancivilization. Swift followed writers like Nash and Dekker inemphasizing the first and last of these objections. 

There were, of course, stock answers to these stock objections. Such criticism of one’s mother tongue was said to be unpatriotic orpositively disloyal. If it was difficult to maintain that English wasas smooth and euphonious as Italian, it could be maintained that itsmonosyllables and consonants gave it a characteristic and masculinebrevity and force. Monosyllables were also very convenient for theformation of compound words, and, it was argued, should, when properlymanaged, be an asset rather than a handicap to the English rhymester. By the time Swift and Miss Elstob were writing, an increasing numberof antiquarian Germanophils (and also pro-Hanoverians) were preparedto claim Teutonic descent with pride. 

Most of these arguments had been bandied backwards and forwardsrather inconclusively since the sixteenth century, and Addison in_The Spectator_ No. 135 expresses a typically moderate opinion onthe matter: the English language, he says, abounds in monosyllables, which gives us an opportunity of delivering our thoughts in few sounds. This indeed takes off from the elegance of our tongue, but at the same time expresses our ideas in the readiest manner, and consequently answers the first design of speech better than the multitude of syllables, which make the words of other languages more tunable and sonorous. 

It is likely that neither Swift nor Miss Elstob would have found muchto disagree with in that sentence. Swift certainly never proposed anyreduction in the number of English monosyllables, and the simplicityof style which he described as “one of the greatest perfections in anylanguage, ” which seemed to him best exemplified in the English Bible, and which he himself practised so brilliantly, has in English a verymarked monosyllabic character. 

But in his enthusiasm to stamp out the practice of abbreviating, beheading and curtailing polysyllables--a practice which seemed tohim a threat to both the elegance and permanence of the language--he described it as part of a tendency of the English to relapse intotheir Northern barbarity by multiplying monosyllables and elidingvowels between the rough and frequent consonants of their language. His ignorance of the historical origins of the language and his ratherhackneyed remarks on its character do not invalidate the generalscheme of his _Proposal_ or his particular criticisms of currentlinguistic habits, but they did lay him open to the very penetratingand decisive attack of Elizabeth Elstob. 

In her reply to Swift she repeats all the stock defenses of theEnglish monosyllables and consonants, but, by presenting them incombination, and in a manner at once scholarly and forceful, shemakes the most convincing case against Swift. Unlike most of herpredecessors, Miss Elstob is not on the defensive. She is always readyto give a sharp personal turn to her scholarly refutations--as, forinstance, when she demonstrates the usefulness of monosyllables inpoetry by illustrations from a series of poets beginning with Homerand ending with Swift. There can be little doubt that Swift isdecisively worsted in this argument. 

It is not known whether Swift ever read Miss Elstob’s _Rudiments_, though it is interesting to notice a marked change of emphasis inhis references to the Anglo-Saxon language. In the _Proposal_ he haddeclared with a pretense of knowledge, that Anglo-Saxon was “exceptingsome few variations in the orthography. . . The same in most originalwords with our present English, as well as with German and othernorthern dialects. ” But in _An Abstract of the History of England_(probably revised in 1719) he says that the English which came inwith the Saxons was “extremely different from what it is now. ” Thetwo statements are not incompatible, but the emphasis is remarkablychanged. It is possible that some friend had pointed out to Swift thathis earlier statement was too gross a simplification, or alternativelythat someone had drawn his attention to Elizabeth Elstob’s_Rudiments_. 

All writers owe much to the labors of scholarship and are generallyill-advised to scorn or reject them, however uninspired anduninspiring they may seem. Moreover when authors do enter into disputewith “laborious men of low genius” they frequently meet with more thantheir match. Miss Elstob’s bold and aggressive defense of Northernantiquities was remembered and cited by a later scholar, GeorgeBallard, as a warning to those who underestimated the importance ofa sound knowledge of the language. Indeed, he wrote, “I thought thatthe bad success Dean Swift had met with in this affair from theincomparably learned and ingenious Mrs. Elstob would have deterredall others from once venturing in this affair. ” (John Nichols, _Illustrations of the Literary History of the Eighteenth Century_, 1822, IV, 212. )

 Charles Peake University College, London

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 The RUDIMENTS of GRAMMAR

 for the English-Saxon Tongue, First given in ENGLISH:

 with an Apology For the Study of

 NORTHERN ANTIQUITIES. 

 Being very useful towards the understanding our ancient _English_ POETS, and other WRITERS. 

 By ELIZABETH ELSTOB. 

Our Earthly Possessions are truly enough called a _PATRIMONY_, as derived to us by the Industry of our _FATHERS_; but the Languagethat we speak is our _MOTHER-TONGUE_; And who so proper to play theCriticks in this as the _FEMALES_. 

 In a Letter from a Right Reverend Prelate to the Author. 

 LONDON. 

 Printed by _W. Bowyer_: And Sold by J. BOWYER at the _Rose_ in _Ludgate-street_, and C. KING in _Westminster-hall_, 1715. 

 * * * * *

 The PREFACE

 to the Reverend Dr. _Hickes_. 

SIR, Soon after the Publication of the Homily on St. Gregory, I was engagedby the Importunity of my Friends, to make a Visit to _Canterbury_, aswell to enjoy the Conversations of my Friends and Relations there, as for that Benefit which I hoped to receive from Change of Air, andfreer Breathing, which is the usual Expectation of those, who are usedto a sedentary Life and Confinement in the great City, and whichrenders such an Excursion now and then excusable. In this Recess, among the many Compliments and kind Expressions, which theirfavourable Acceptance of my first Attempt in _Saxon_, had obtained forme from the Ladies, I was more particularly gratified, with the newFriendship and Conversation, of a young Lady, whose Ingenuity andLove of Learning, is well known and esteem’d, not only in that Place, but by your self: and which so far indear’d itself to me, by herpromise that she wou’d learn the _Saxon Tongue_, and do me the Honourto be my _Scholar_, as to make me think of composing an _EnglishGrammar_ of that Language for her use. That Ladies Fortune hath sodisposed of her since that time, and hath placed her at so greatdistance, as that we have had no Opportunity, of treating farther onthis Matter, either by Discourse or Correspondence. However though aWork of a larger Extent, and which hath amply experienced yourEncouragement, did for some time make me lay aside this Design, yetI did not wholly reject it. For having re-assumed this Task, andaccomplish’d it in such manner at I was able, I now send it to you, for your Correction, and that Stamp of Authority, it must needsreceive from a Person of such perfect and exact Judgement in theseMatters, in order to make it current, and worthy of Reception from thePublick. Indeed I might well have spared my self the labour of suchan Attempt, after the elaborate Work of your rich and learned_Thesaurus_, and the ingenious Compendium of it by Mr. _Thwaites_;but considering the Pleasure I my self had reaped from the KnowledgeI have gained from this Original of our Mother Tongue, and that othersof my own Sex, might be capable of the same Satisfaction: I resolv’dto give them the Rudiments of that Language in an English Dress. However not ’till I had communicated to you my Design for your Advice, and had receiv’d your repeated Exhortation, and Encouragement to theUndertaking. 

The Method I have used, is neither entirely new, out of a Fondnessand Affectation of Novelty: nor exactly the same with what has beenin use, in teaching the learned Languages. I have retain’d the oldDivision of the Parts of Speech, nor have I rejected the other commonTerms of _Grammar_; I have only endeavour’d to explain them in such amanner, as to hope they may be competently understood, by those whoseEducation, hath not allow’d them an Acquaintance with the Grammars ofother Languages. There is one Addition to what your self and Mr. _Thwaites_ have done on this Subject, for which you will, I imagine, readily pardon me: I have given most, if not all the _Grammatical_Terms in true old _Saxon_, from _Ælfrick_’s Translation of _Priscian_, to shew the _polite_ Men of our Age, that the Language of theirForefathers is neither so barren nor barbarous as they affirm, withequal Ignorance and Boldness. Since this is such an Instance of itsCopiousness, as is not to be found in any of the polite modernLanguages; and the _Latin_ itself is beholden to the _Greek_, not onlyfor the Terms, but even the Names of Arts and Sciences, as is easilydiscerned in the Words, _Philosophy_, _Grammar_, _Logick_, _Rhetorick_, _Geometry_, _Arithmetick_, &c. These Gentlemens ill Treatment of ourMother Tongue has led me into a Stile not so agreeable to the Mildnessof our Sex, or the usual manner of my Behaviour, to Persons of yourCharacter; but the Love and Honour of one’s Countrey, hath in all Agesbeen acknowledged such a Virtue, as hath admitted of a Zeal evensomewhat extravagant. _Pro Patria mori_, used to be one of the greatBoasts of Antiquity; and even the so celebrated Magnanimity of _Cato_, and such others as have been called Patriots, had wanted their Praise, and their Admiration, had they wanted this Plea. The Justness andPropriety of the Language of any Nation, hath been always rightlyesteem’d a great Ornament and Test of the good Sense of such a Nation;and consequently to arraign the good Sense or Language of any Nation, is to cast upon it a great Reproach. Even private Men are mostjealous, of any Wound, that can be given them in their intellectualAccomplishments, which they are less able to endure, than Povertyitself or any other kind of Disgrace. This hath often occasion’d myAdmiration, that those Persons, who talk so much, of the Honour of ourCountrey, _of the correcting, improving and ascertaining_ of ourLanguage, shou’d dress it up in a Character so very strange andridiculous: or to think of improving it to any degree of Honourand Advantage, by divesting it of the Ornaments of Antiquity, orseparating it from the _Saxon_ Root, whose Branches were so copiousand numerous. But it is very remarkable how Ignorance will make Menbold, and presume to declare that unnecessary, which they will not beat the pains to render useful. Such kind of Teachers are no new thing, the Spirit of Truth itself hath set a mark upon them; _Desiring to beTeachers of the Law, understanding neither what they say, norwhereof they affirm, 1 _Tim. _ 1. 7. _ It had been well if those wise_Grammarians_ had understood this Character, who have taken upon themto teach our Ladies and young Gentlemen, _The whole System of anEnglish Education_; they had not incurr’d those Self-contradictionsof which they are guilty; they had not mention’d your self, and yourincomparable Treasury of _Northern Literature_ in so cold andnegligent a manner, as betrays too much of an invidious Pedantry: Butin those Terms of Veneration and Applause which are your just Tribute, not only from the Learned of your own Countrey, but of most of theother Northern Nations, whether more or less Polite: Who would any ofthem have glory’d in having you their Native, who have done so muchHonour to the Original of almost all the Languages in Europe. 

But it seems you are not of so much Credit with these _Gentlemen_, whoquestion your Authority, and have given a very visible Proof of theirIngenuity in an Instance which plainly discovers, that they cannotbelieve 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 henot as much to be believ’d as those Gentlemen, who have transcribedso plain an Evidence of the six Declensions to shew the positiveUnreasonableness and unwarrantable Contradiction of their Disbelief?Did he make those six Declensions? or rather, did he not find them inthe Language, and take so much pains to teach others to distinguishthem, who have Modesty enough to be taught? They are pleased to say wehave no Word now in use that admits of Cases or Terminations. But letus ask them, what they think of these Words, _God’s Word_, _Man’sWisdom_, the _Smith’s Forge_, and innumerable Instances more. For in_God’s Word_, &c. Is not the Termination _s_ a plain Indication of aGenitive Case, wherein the Saxon _e_ is omitted? For example_, GoꝺeꞅǷoꞃꝺ, Manneꞅ Ƿiꞅꝺom, Ꞅmiðeꞅ Heoꞃð. Some will say, that were bettersupplied by _his_, or _hers_, as Man _his_ Thought, the Smith _his_Forge; but this Mistake is justly exploded. Yet if these Gentlemen willnot credit Dr. _Hickes_, the _Saxon_ Writings might give them fullSatisfaction. 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 mightdeserve their Credit. But they have not had Learning or Industry enoughto fit them for such Acquaintance, and are forc’d therefore to take uptheir Refuge with those Triflers, whose only Pretence to Wit, is todespise their Betters. This Censure will not, I imagine, be thoughtharsh, by any candid Reader, since their own Discovery has sufficientlydeclared their Ignorance: and their Boldness, to determine thingswhereof they are so ignorant, has so justly fix’d upon them the Chargeof Impudence. For otherwise they must needs have been ashamed to proceedin 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 ofthese Gentlemen: They tell us, _We might give you various Instancesmore of the essential difference between the old _Saxon_ and modern_English_ Tongue_; and yet have plainly made it appear, that they knowlittle or nothing of the old _Saxon_. So that it will be hard to sayhow they come to know of any such _essential difference, as MUSTsatisfy any reasonable Man_; and much more that this _essentialdifference_ 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; fornothing can be a Rule of Direction to any Man, the use whereof he doesnot understand; but if to understand the Original and Etymology of theWords of any Language, be needful towards knowing the Propriety of anyLanguage, a thing which I have never heard hath yet been denied; thendo these Gentlemen stand self-condemned, there being no less thanfour Words, in the Scheme of Declensions they have borrowed fromDr. _Hickes_, now in use, which are of pure _Saxon_ Original, andconsequently _essential to the modern English_. I need not tell anyEnglish Reader at this Day the meaning of _Smith_, _Word_, _Son_, and_Good_; but if I tell them that these are Saxon Words, I believe theywill hardly deny them to be _essential to the modern English_, or thatthey will conclude that the difference between the old _English_ andthe modern is so great, or the distance of Relation between them soremote, as that the former deserves not to be remember’d: except bysuch Upstarts who having no Title to a laudable Pedigree, are backwardin all due Respect and Veneration towards a noble Ancestry. 

Their great Condescension to Dr. _Hickes_ in allowing him to have beena very curious Inquirer into those _obsolete Tongues, now out of use, and containing nothing valuable in them_, is a Compliment for which Ibelieve you, Sir, will give me leave to assure them, that he is not atall obliged; since if it signifies any thing, it imports, no less thanthat 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 Assurance fromthem, as to tell them, that your Friends, who consist of the mostlearned sort of your own Countrey-men, and of Foreigners, do not thinkthose Tongues so obsolete and out of use, whose Significancy is soapparent in Etymology; nor do they think those Men competent Judges todeclare, whether there be any thing contained in them valuable or not, who have made it clear, that they know not what is _contain’d_ inthem. They would rather assure them, that our greatest Divines[A], and Lawyers[B], and Historians[C] are of another Opinion, they wou’dadvise 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 intoMr. _Wanleys_ large and accurate Catalogue of _Saxon_ Manuscripts, and so with Modesty gain a Title to the Applause of having confesttheir former Ignorance, and reforming their Judgment. I believe Imay farther take leave to assure them, that the Doctor is as littleconcerned for their _Inference_, which they think _so plain fromwhat 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_ ofwhich they speak, in any other manner, than that in which the Natureof the things themselves makes them appear; and so far as they are his_Discoveries_ only, intrudes them on no Man. He is very willing theyshould be let alone by those, who have not Skill to use them to theirown Advantage, and with Gratitude. 

 [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 ofall their Arrogance. I cannot but think it great Pity, that in ourConsiderations, for Refinement of the _English_ Tongue, so littleRegard 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 Variationsin the Orthography, is the same in most original Words with ourpresent _English_, as well as with the _German_ and other _Northern_Dialects_; which makes it a little surprizing to me, to find the sameGentleman 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 toimagin, how a Man can judge of a thing he knoweth nothing of, whetherthere can be occasion or no to consider it. I must confess I hopewhen ever such a Project shall be taken in hand, for _correcting_, _enlarging_, and _ascertaining_ our Language, a competent Numberof such Persons will be advised with, as are knowing, not only in_Saxon_, but in the other Languages of _Europe_, and so be capable ofjudging how far those Languages may be useful in such a Project. Thewant of understanding this aright, wou’d very much injure the Successof such an Undertaking, and the bringing of it to Perfection; indenying that Assistance toward adjusting the Propriety of Words, whichcan only be had from the Knowledge of the Original, and likewise indepriving us of the Benefit of many useful and significant Words, which might be revived and recalled, to the Increase and Ornament ofour Language, which wou’d be the more beautiful, as being more genuineand 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 unkindPrejudice towards them: which some have introduced out of Rashness, others have taken upon Tradition. As if those Languages were made upof nothing else but Monosyllables, and harsh sounding Consonants; thanwhich nothing can be a greater Mistake. I can speak for the _Saxon_, _Gothick_, and _Francick_, or old _Teutonick_: which for aptness ofcompounded, and well sounding Words, and variety of Numbers, are bythose learned Men that understand them, thought scarce inferior to the_Greek_ itself. I never cou’d find my self shocked with the Harshnessof those Languages, which grates so much in the Ears of those thatnever heard them. I never perceiv’d in the Consonants any Hardness, but such as was necessary to afford Strength, like the Bones in ahuman Body, which yield it Firmness and Support. So that the worstthat can be said on this occasion of our Forefathers is, that theyspoke at they fought, like Men. 

The Author of the _Proposal_, may think this but an ill Return, forthe soft things he has said of the Ladies, but I think it Gratitudeat least to make the Return, by doing Justice to the Gentlemen. I willnot contradict the Relation of the ingenious Experiment of his vocalLadies, tho’ I could give him some Instances to the contrary, in myExperience of those, whose Writings abound with Consonants; whereVowels 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 hemay 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 exhibitedagainst the _Northern Languages_ is true, that they consist of nothingbut _Monosyllables_; and secondly, whether or no the Copiousness andVariety of _Monosyllables_ may be always justly reputed a fault, andmay not sometimes as justly be thought, to be very useful andornamental. 

And first I must assert, that the ancient _Northern Languages_, do notwholly 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 thisto 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 plainestand simplest manner, and in the least compass: and the Qualitiesand Relations, by suitable Additions, and Composition of _Primitive_Words[D]; for which the _Saxon_ Language is very remarkable, as hasbeen before observed, and of which there are numerous Examples, in thefollowing Treatise of _Saxon Grammar_, and infinitely more might havebeen added. 

 [Footnote D: Of this the _Greeks_ give as a fair Example, when they express the Original and Author of all Things, their Πατὴρ ἀνδρῶντε θεῶντε, by their Monosyllable Ζεύς. As the _Hebrews_ do by יה, the _Goths_ the Ancestors of our _Saxon_ Progenitors by the Word 𐌲𐍉𐌸, the _Saxons_, old _Germans_, _Teutons_, _Francick_, and _English_, in the _Monosyllable_ Goꝺ, the _Germans_ #Gott#, and the _French_ _Dieu_. ]

The second Enquiry is, whether or no the Copiousness and Varietyof _Monosyllables_ may be always justly reputed a fault, and may notas justly be thought, to be very useful and ornamental? Were this afault, it might as justly be charged upon the learned Languages, the _Latin_ and _Greek_: For the _Latin_ you have in _Lilly_’s Rulesconcerning Nouns, several Verses, made up for the most part of_Monosyllables_, I mention him not as a Classick, but because theWords are Classical and _Monosyllables_; and in the _Greek_ thereare several as it were, idle _Monosyllables_, that have littleSignificancy, except to make the Numbers in Verse compleat, or togive a Fulness to their Periods, as the Verses of _Homer_ and other_Greek Poets_ plainly evidence: An Instance or two may suffice;

 Ἐξ οὗ δὴ τα πρῶτα διαστήτην ἐρίσαντε. 

Here are four _Monosyllables_ in this Verse, Τὴν δ’ ἐγὼ οὐ λύσω, πρίν μιν καὶ γῆρας ἔπεισεν. 

Here are six _Monosyllables_, and one cutting off. 

 Ἀλλ’ ἴθι, μὴ μ’ ἐρέθιζε, σαώτερος ὥς κε νέηαι. Ὅς ἤδη τά τ’ ἐόντα, τά τ’ ἐσσόμενα πρό τ‘ ἐόντα. 

 Hom. Il. 1. L. 70. 

Here are seven _Monosyllables_; yet so far is _Virgil_ from being angrywith his Master _Homer_ on this Account, that he in a manner transcribeshis very Words, imitating him as near as the _Latin_ wou’d permit;

 Quæ sint, quæ fuerint, quæ mox ventura trahantur. 

Here is the whole Sense of _Homer_ exprest, and five _Monosyllables_. But Mr. _Dryden_, who has exprest the Sense of _Virgil_ with no lessAccuracy, gives you the whole Line in _Monosyllables_;

 He sees what is, and was, and is to come. 

Mr. _Pope_ is equally happy in the Turn he has given to the Original, who as he is an exact Master of Criticism, so has he all thoseAccomplishments of an excellent Poet, that give us just Reason to hopehe will make the Father of the Poets speak to us in our own Language, with all the Advantages he gave to his Works in that wherein they werefirst written, and the modest Opinion he prescribes to his own, andother Mens Poetical Performances, is no Discouragement to these Hopes;

 Whoever thinks a faultless Piece to see, Thinks what ne’er was, nor is, nor e’er shall be. 

And _Horace_, while he is teaching us the Beauties in the Art of Poetry, gives no less than nine _Monosyllables_ in the compass of a Verse and ahalf;

 _Sed nunc non_ erat _his_ locus: & fortasse cupressum _Scis_ simulare. _Quid hoc si_, &c. 

Now if these are Beauties, as I doubt not but the _politer Criticks_will allow, I cannot see why our Language may not now and then betolerated in using _Monosyllables_, when it is done discreetly, andsparingly; and as I do not commend any of our Moderns who contractWords into _Monosyllables_ to botch up their Verses, much less such asdo it out of Affectation; yet certainly the use of _Monosyllables_ maybe made to produce a charming and harmonious Effect, where they fallunder a Judgment that can rightly dispose and order them. And indeed, if a Variety and Copiousness of Feet, and a Latitude of shifting andtransposing Words either in Prose or Poetical Compositions, be of anyuse, towards the rendering such Compactions sweet, or nervous, orharmonious, according to the Exigencies of the several sorts of Stile, one wou’d think _Monosyllables_ to be best accommodated to all thesePurposes, and according to the Skill of those who know how to managethem, to answer all the Ends, either of masculine Force, or femaleTenderness; for being single you have a Liberty of placing them where, and as you please; whereas in Words of many Syllables you are moreconfined, and must take them as you find them, or be put upon thecruel necessity of mangling and tearing them asunder. Mr. _Dryden_, it is true, wou’d make us believe he had a great Aversion to_Monosyllables_. Yet he cannot help making use of them sometimes inentire Verses, nor conceal his having a sort of Pride, even where hetells us he was forc’d to do it. For to have done otherwise would havebeen a Force on Nature, which would have been unworthy of so great aGenius, whose Care it was to study Nature, and to imitate and copy itto the Life; and it is not improbable, that there might be somewhat ofa latent Delicacy and Niceness in this Matter, which he chose ratherto dissemble, than to expose, to the indiscreet Management of meanerWriters. For in the first Line of his great Work the _Æneis_, everyWord is a _Monosyllable_; and tho’ he makes a seeming kind of Apology, yet he cannot forbear owning a secret Pleasure in what he had done. “My first Line in the _Æneis_, says he, is not harsh. 

 “Arms and the Man I sing, who forc’d by Fate. 

“But a much better Instance may be given from the last Line of_Manilius_, made _English_ by our learned and judicious Mr. _Creech_;

 “Nor could the World have born so fierce a Flame. 

“Where the many liquid Consonants are placed so artfully, that they givea pleasing Sound to the Words, tho’ they are all of one Syllable. ”

It is plain from these last Words, that the Subject-matter, _Monosyllables_, is not so much to be complain’d of; what is chiefly tobe requir’d, is of the Poet, that he be a good Workman, in forming themaright, and that he _place them artfully_: and, however Mr. _Dryden_may desire to disguise himself, yet, as he some where says, Nature willprevail. For see with how much Passion he has exprest himself towardsthese two Verses, in which the Poet has not been sparing of_Monosyllables_: “I am sure, says he, there are few who make Verses, have observ’d the Sweetness of these two Lines in _Coopers Hill_;

 “Tho deep, yet clear; tho gentle, yet not dull; “Strong without Rage, without o’erflowing full. 

“And there are yet fewer that can find the reason of that Sweetness, I have given it to some of my Friends in Conversation, and they haveallow’d the Criticism to be just. ”

You see, Sir, this great Master had his Reserves, and this was one ofthe _Arcana_, to which every Novice was not admitted to aspire; thiswas an Entertainment only for his best Friends, such as he thoughtworthy of his Conversation; and I do not wonder at it, for he wasacquainted not only with the _Greek_ and _Latin Poets_, but with thebest of his own Countrey, as well of ancient as of latter times, andknew their Beauties and Defects: and tho’ he did not think himselfobliged to be lavish, in dispersing the Fruits of so much Pains andLabour at random, yet was he not wanting in his Generosity to such asdeserved his Friendship, and in whom he discern’d a Spirit capable ofimproving the Hints of so great a Master. To give greater Probabilityto what I have said concerning _Monosyllables_, I will give someInstances, as well from such Poets as have gone before him, as thosewhich have succeeded him. It will not be taken amiss by those whovalue the Judgment of Sir _Philip Sydney_, and that of Mr. _Dryden_, if I begin with Father _Chaucer_. 

 #Er it was Day, as was her won to do. #

Again, #And but I have her Mercy and her Grace, That I may seen her at the lefte way; I nam but deed there nis no more to say. #

Again, #Alas, what is this wonder Maladye? For heate of colde, for colde of heate I dye. #

 _Chaucer_’s first Book of _Troylus_, fol. 159. B. 

And since we are a united Nation, and he as great a Poet, consideringhis time, as this Island hath produced, I will with due Veneration forhis Memory, beg leave to cite the learned and noble Prelate, _GawenDouglas_, Bishop of _Dunkeld_ in _Scotland_, who in his Preface to hisjudicious and accurate Translation of _Virgil_, p. 4. Says, Nane is, nor was, nor zit sal be, trowe I, Had, has, or sal have, sic craft in Poetry:

Again, p. 5. 

 Than thou or I, my Freynde, quhen we best wene. 

But before, at least contemporary with _Chaucer_, we find Sir _JohnGower_, not baulking _Monosyllables_;

 #Myne Herte is well the more glad To write so as he me bad, And eke my Fear is well the lasse. #

 #To _Henry_ the Fourth. #

 #_King Salomon_ which had at his asking Of God, what thyng him was leuest crave. He chase Wysedom unto governyng Of Goddes Folke, the whiche he wolde save: And as he chase it fyl him for to have. For through his Witte, while that his Reigne laste, He gate him Peace, and Rest, into his laste. #

Again, #Peace is the chefe of al the Worldes Welth, And to the Heven it ledeth eke the way, Peace is of Soule and Lyfe the Mannes Helth, Of Pestylence, and doth the Warre away, My Liege Lord take hede of that I say. If Warre may be lefte, take Peace on Hande Which may not be without Goddes Sande. #[E]

 [Footnote E: Besides the Purpose for which these Verses are here cited, it may not be amiss to observe from some Instances of Words contain’d in them, how necessary, at least useful, the Knowledge of the _Saxon Tongue_ is, to the right understanding our _Old English Poets_, and other Writers. For example, #leuest#, this is the same with the _Saxon_ leoꝼoꞅꞇ, _most beloved_, or _desirable_. #Goddes folke#, not _God his Folk_, this has plainly the Remains of the _Saxon_ Genitive Case. #Sande#, this is a pure _Saxon_ word, signifying _Mission_, or _being sent_. See the _Saxon Homily_ on the Birth Day of St. _Gregory_, p. 2. He ðuꞃh hıꞅ ꞃæꝺe ⁊ ꞅanꝺe uꞅ ꝼꞃam ðeoꝼleꞅ bıᵹᵹenᵹum æꞇbꞃæꝺ. He through his Counsel and Commission rescued us from the Worship of the Devil. ]

Nor were the _French_, however more polite they may be thought, than weare said to be, more scrupulous in avoiding them, if these Verses areupon his Monument;

 #En toy qui es fitz de Dieu le Pere, Sauue soit, qui gist sours cest pierre. #

This will be said to be old _French_, let us see whether _Boileau_ willhelp us out, who has not long since writ the Art of Poetry;

 Mais moi, grace au Destin, qui n’ai ni feu ne lieu, Je me loge où je puis, & comme il plaist à Dieu. 

 _Sat. _ vi. 

And in that which follows, Et tel, en vous lisant, admire chaque traite, Qui dans le fond de l’ame, & vous craint & vous hait. 

Let _Lydgate_, _Chaucer_’s Scholar also be brought in for a Voucher;

 #For _Chaucer_ that my Master was and knew What did belong to writing Verse and Prose, Ne’er stumbled at small faults, nor yet did view With scornful Eye the Works and Books of those That in his time did write, nor yet would taunt At any Man, to fear him or to daunt. #

Tho’ the Verse is somewhat antiquated, yet the Example ought not to bedespised by our modern Criticks, especially those who have any Respectfor _Chaucer_. 

I might give more Instances out of _John Harding_, and our good oldCitizen, Alderman _Fabian_, besides many others: but out of that Respectto the nice Genij of our Time, which they seldom allow to others, I willhasten to the Times of greater Politeness, and desire that room may bemade, and attention given to a Person of no less Wit than Honour, the_Earl of Surrey_, who at least had all the Elegancy of a gentle Muse, that may deserve the Praises of our Sex, Her Praise I tune whose Tongue doth tune the Spheres, And gets new Muses in her Hearers Ears. Stars fall to fetch fresh Light from her rich Eyes, Her bright Brow drives the Sun to Clouds beneath. 

Again, O Glass! with too much Joy my Thoughts thou greets. 

And again upon the Chamber where his admired _Geraldine_ was born;

 O! if _Elyzium_ be above the Ground, Then here it is, where nought but Joy is found. 

And _Michael Drayton_, who had a Talent fit to imitate, and to celebrateso great a Genius, of all our _English_ Poets, seems best to haveunderstood the sweet and harmonious placing of _Monosyllables_, and haspractised it with so great a Variety, as discovers in him a peculiarDelight, even to Fondness; for which however, I cannot blame him, notwithstanding this may be reputed the Vice of our Sex, and in himbe thought effeminate. But let the Reader judge for himself;

 Care draws on Care, Woe comforts Woe again, Sorrow breeds Sorrow, one Griefe brings forth twaine, If live or dye, as thou doost, so do I, If live, I live, and if thou dye, I dye; One Hart, one Love, one Joy, one Griefe, one Troth, One Good, one Ill, one Life, one Death to both. 

Again, Where as thou cam’st unto the Word of Love, Even in thine Eyes I saw how Passion strove; That snowy Lawn which covered thy Bed, Me thought lookt white, to see thy cheeke so red, Thy rosye cheeke oft changing in my sight, Yet still was red to see the Lawn so white: The little Taper which should give the Light, Me thought waxt dim, to see thy Eye so bright. 

Again, Your Love and Hate is this, I now do prove you, You Love in Hate, by Hate to make me love you. 

And to the Countess of _Bedford_, one of his great Patronesses;

 Sweet Lady yet, grace this poore Muse of mine, Whose Faith, whose Zeal, whose Life, whose All is thine. 

The next that I shall mention, is taken out of an ingenious Poem, entituled, _The Tale of the Swans_, written by _William Vallans_ inblank Verse in the time of Queen _Elizabeth_; for the reprinting ofwhich, we are obliged to that ingenious and most industrious Preserverand Restorer of Antiquities, Mr. _Thomas Hearne_ of _Oxford_;

 Among the which the merrie Nightingale With swete, and swete (her Brest again a Thorne. )

In another Place, And in the Launde, hard by the Parke of _Ware_

Afterwards, To _Ware_ he comes, and to the Launde he flies. 

Again, And in this Pompe they hie them to the Head. 

I come now to the incomparable _Spencer_, against whose Judgment andPractice, I believe scarce any Man will be so bold as to oppose himself;

 Assure your self; it fell not all to Ground; For all so dear as Life is to my Heart, I deem your Love, and hold me to you bound. 

Again, Go say his Foe thy Shielde with his doth bear. 

Afterwards, More old than _Jove_, whom thou at first didst breed. 

And, And now the Prey of Fowls in Field he lies. 

Nor must _Ben. Johnson_ be forgotten;

 Thy Praise or Dispraise is to me alike; One doth not stroke me, nor the other strike. 

Again, Curst be his Muse, that could lye dumb, or hid To so true Worth, though thou thy self forbid. 

In this Train of Voters for _Monosyllables_, the inimitable _Cowley_marches next, whom we must not refuse to hear;

 Yet I must on; what Sound is’t strikes mine Ear? Sure I Fames Trumpet hear. 

And a little after, Come my best Friends, my Books, and lead me on; ’Tis time that I were gone. Welcome, great Stagirite, and teach me now All I was born to know. 

And commending _Cicero_, he says, Thou art the best of Orators; only he Who best can praise thee, next must be. 

And of _Virgil_ thus, Who brought green Poesy to her perfect Age, And made that Art, which was a Rage. 

And in the beginning of the next Ode, he wou’d not certainly haveapply’d himself to WIT in the harsh Cadence of _Monosyllables_, had hethought them so very harsh;

 Tell me, O tell, what kind of thing is Wit, Thou who Master art of it. 

Again, In a true Piece of Wit all things must be Yet all things there agree. 

But did he believe such Concord to be inconsistent with the use of_Monosyllables_, he had surely banished them from these two Lines; andwere I to fetch Testimonies out of his Writings, I might pick a Jury ofTwelve out of every Page. 

And now comes Mr. _Waller_, and what does he with his _Monosyllables_, but, Give us new Rules, and set our Harp in Tune. 

And that honourable Peer whom he commends, the Lord _Roscommon_ thuskeeps him in Countenance;

 Be what you will, so you be still the same. 

And again, In her full Flight, and when she shou’d be curb’d. 

Soon after, Use is the Judge, the Law, and Rule of Speech, And by and by, We weep and laugh, as we see others do, He only makes me sad who shews the way: But if you act them ill, I sleep or laugh. 

The next I shall mention is my Lord _Orrery_, who, as Mr. _Anthony Wood_says, was a great Poet, Statesman, Soldier, and great every thing whichmerits the Name of Great and Good. In his Poem to Mrs. _Philips_, hewrites thus;

 For they imperfect Trophies to you raise, You deserve Wonder, and they pay but Praise; A Praise which is as short of your great due. As all which yet have writ come short of you. 

Again, In Pictures none hereafter will delight, You draw more to the Life in black and white; The Pencil to your Pen must yield the Place, This draws the Soul, where that draws but the Face. 

But having thank’d these noble Lords for their Suffrage, we will proceedto some other Witnesses of Quality: And first I beg leave to appeal tomy Lord Duke of _Buckinghamshire_, his Translation of _The Temple ofDeath_;

 Her Chains were Marks of Honour to the Brave, She made a Prince when e’er she made a Slave. 

Again, By wounding me, she learnt the fatal Art, And the first Sigh she had, was from my Heart. 

My Lord _Hallifax_’s Muse hath been very indulgent to _Monosyllables_, and no Son of _Apollo_ will dare to dispute his Authority in thisMatter. Speaking of the Death of King _Charles_ the Second, and hisImprovement of Navigation, and Shipping; he says, To ev’ry Coast, with ready Sails are hurl’d, Fill us with Wealth, and with our Fame the World. 

Again, Us from our Foes, and from our selves did shield. 

Again, As the stout Oak, when round his Trunk the Vine Does in soft Wreaths, and amorous Foldings twine. 

And again, In _Charles_, so good a Man and King, we see, A double Image of the Deity. Oh! Had he more resembled it! Oh why Was he not still more like; and cou’d not die?

My Lord _Landsdown_’s Muse, which may claim her Seat in the highestPoint of _Parnassus_, gives us these Instances of her Sentiments in ourFavour;

 So own’d by Heaven, less glorious far was he, Great God of Verse, than I, thus prais’d by thee. 

Again on _Mira’s_ singing, The Slave that from her Wit or Beauty flies, If she but reach him with her Voice, he dies. 

In such noble Company, I imagin Mr. _Addison_ will not be ashamed toappear, thus speaking of Mr. _Cowley_;

 His Turns too closely on the Reader press; He more had pleas’d us, had he pleas’d us less. 

And of Mr. _Waller_, Oh had thy Muse not come an Age too soon. 

And of Mr. _Dryden_’s Muse, Whether in Comick Sounds or Tragick Airs She forms her Voice, she moves our Smiles or Tears. 

And to his Friend Dr. _Sacheverell_, I’ve done at length, and now, dear Friend, receive The last poor Present that my Muse can give. And so at once, dear Friend and Muse, fare well. 

To these let me add the Testimony of that Darling of the Muses, Mr. _Prior_, with whom all the Poets of ancient and modern Times of otherNations, or our own, might seem to have intrusted the chief Secrets, andgreatest Treasures of their Art. I shall speak only concerning our ownIsland, where his Imitation of _Chaucer_, of _Spencer_, and of the old_Scotch Poem_, inscribed the _Nut-Brown Maid_, shew how great a Masterhe is, and how much every thing is to be valued which bears the Stamp ofhis Approbation. And we shall certainly find a great deal to countenancethe use of _Monosyllables_ in his Writings. Take these Examples;

 Me all too mean for such a Task I weet. 

Again, Grasps he the Bolt? we ask, when he has hurl’d the Flame. 

And, Nor found they lagg’d too slow, nor flew too fast. 

And again, With Fear and with Desire, with Joy and Pain She sees and runs to meet him on the Plain. 

And, With all his Rage, and Dread, and Grief, and Care. 

In his Poem in answer to Mrs. _Eliz. Singer_, on her Poem upon _Love_and _Friendship_, And dies in Woe, that thou may’st live in Peace. 

The only farther Example of _Monosyllabick Verses_ I shall insert here, and which I cannot well omit, is what I wou’d desire the Author to applyto his own Censure of _Monosyllables_, they are these which follow;

 Then since you now have done your worst, Pray leave me where you found me first. 

 Part of the seventh Epistle of the first Book of _Horace_ imitated, and address’d to a noble Peer, _p. Ult. _

After so many Authorities of the Gentlemen, these few Instances fromsome of our Female Poets, may I hope be permitted to take place. I willbegin with Mrs. _Philips_ on the Death of the Queen of _Bohemia_;

 Over all Hearts and her own Griefs she reign’d. 

And on the Marriage of the Lord _Dungannon_, May the vast Sea for your sake quit his Pride, And grow so smooth, while on his Breast you ride, As may not only bring you to your Port, But shew how all things do your Virtues court. 

To _Gilbert_ Lord Archbishop of _Canterbury_, That the same Wing may over her be cast, Where the best Church of all the World is plac’d. 

Mrs. _Wharton_ upon the Lamentations of _Jeremiah_;

 Behold those Griefs which no one can repeat, Her Fall is steep, and all her Foes are great. 

And my Lady _Winchelsea_ in her Poem entituled, _The Poor Man’s Lamb_;

 Thus wash’d in Tears, thy Soul as fair does show As the first Fleece, which on the Lamb does grow. 

Sir, from these numerous Instances, out of the Writings of ourgreatest and noblest Poets, it is apparent, That had the Enmityagainst _Monosyllables_, with which there are some who make so greata Clamour, been so great in all Times, we must have been deprived ofsome of the best Lines, and finest Flowers, that are to be met with inthe beautiful Garden of our _English_ Posie. Perhaps this may put ourCountreymen upon studying with greater Niceness the use of these kindof Words, as well in the Heroick Compositions, as in the softer andmore gentle Strains. I speak not this, upon Confidence of any JudgmentI have in _Poetry_, but according to that Skill, which is natural tothe Musick of a _Northern Ear_, which, if it be deficient, as I shallnot be very obstinate in its Defence, I beg leave it may at least bepermitted the Benefit of Mr. _Dryden_’s Apology, for the Musick of oldFather _Chaucer_’s Numbers, “That there is the rude Sweetness of a_Scotch_ Tune in it, which is natural and pleasing, tho’ not perfect. ”

Sir, I must beg your Pardon for this long Digression, upon a Subjectwhich many will think does not deserve it: but if I have hereindiscover’d some of the greatest Beauties of our _English_ Poets, itwill be more excusable, at least for the respect that is intended toso noble an Art as theirs. But to suspect the worst, considering thatI am now writing a Preface, I am provided with another Apology fromMr. _Dryden_, who cautions his Reader with this Observation, _That theNature of a Preface is Rambling, never wholly out of the way, nor init_. Yet I cannot end this Preface, without desiring that such asshall be employ’d in _refining_ and _ascertaining_ our _EnglishTongue_, may entertain better Thoughts both of the _Saxon Tongue_, and of the Study of Antiquities. Methinks it is very hard, that thosewho labour and take so much pains to furnish others with Materials, either for Writing, or for Discourse, who have not Leisure, or Skill, or Industry enough to serve themselves, shou’d be allowed no otherInstances of Gratitude, than the reproachful Title of Men of _lowGenius_, of which low Genius’s it may be observed, that they carrysome Ballast, and some valuable Loading in them, which may bedespised, but is seldom to be exceeded in any thing truly valuable, by light and fluttering Wits. But it is not to be wonder’d, that Menof Worth are to be trampled upon, for otherwise they might stand inthe way of these Assumers; and indeed were it not for the Modesty oftheir Betters, and their own Assurance, they wou’d not only be put outof the way of those Expectations that they have, but out of all mannerof Countenance. There is a Piece of History that I have met with inthe Life of _Archbishop Spotswood_, that may not unfitly be rememberedon this Occasion, shewing that studious Men of a private Character arenot always to be reputed Men of _low Genius_: “Nor were his Virtues(says the History) buried and confined within the Boundaries of hisParish, for having formerly had a Relation to the noble Family of_Lenox_, he was looked upon as the fittest Person of his Quality toattend _Lodowic_, Duke of _Lenox_, as his Chaplain in that honourableEmbassy to _Henry_ the fourth of _France_, for confirming the ancientAmity between both Nations; wherein he so discreetly carried himself, as added much to his Reputation, and made it appear that Men bred upin the Shade of Learning might possibly endure the Sun-shine, and whenit came to their turns, might carry themselves as handsomly abroad, as they (whose Education being in a more pragmatick way) usuallyundervalue them. ”

But that of _low Genius_ is not the worst Charge which is broughtagainst the _Antiquaries_, for they are not allow’d to have so muchas common Sense, or to know how to express their Minds intelligibly. This I learn from _a Dissertation on reading the Classicks, andforming a just Stile_; where it is said, “It must be a great fault ofJudgment if where the Thoughts are proper, the Expressions are not sotoo: A Disagreement between these seldom happens, but among Men ofmore recondite Studies, and what they call deep Learning, especiallyamong your _Antiquaries_ and _Schoolmen_. ” This is a good careless wayof talking, it may pass well enough for the _genteel Negligence_, inshort, such _Nonsense_, as _Our_ Antiquaries are seldom guilty of;for Propriety of Thoughts, without Propriety of Expression is such aDiscovery, as is not easily laid hold of, except by such Hunters afterSpectres and Meteors, as are forced to be content with the Frothand Scum of Learning, but have indeed nothing to shew of that deepLearning, which is the effect of recondite Studies. And there was aGentleman, no less a Friend to polite Learning, but as good a judge ofit as himself, and who is also a Friend to Antiquities, who was hugelypleased with the Humour of his saying _YOUR Antiquaries_, being veryready to disclaim an Acquaintance with all such Wits, and who toldme the Antiquaries, were the Men in all the World who most contemn’d_Your Men of Sufficiency and Self-conceit_. But here his Master_Horace_ is quite slipt out of his Mind, whose Words are, Scribendi recte, sapere est & principium & fons. Rem tibi Socraticæ poterunt ostendere chartæ: Verbaque provisam rem non invita sequentur. 

Thus translated by my Lord _Roscommon_, Sound Judgment is the ground of writing well: And when Philosophy directs your Choice To proper Subjects rightly understood, Words from your Pen will naturally flow. 

_Horace_’s _Sapere_, and my Lord _Roscommon_’s _Proper Subjectsrightly understood_, I take to be the same as _Propriety of Thought_, and the _non invita sequentur, naturally flowing_, I take to importthe Fitness and Propriety of Expression. I also gather from hence, that there is a very easy and natural Connexion between these two, andthese same Antiquaries of OURS, must be either very dull and stupidAnimals, or a strange kind of cross-gran’d and perverse Fellows, to bealways putting a Force upon Nature, and running out of a plain Road. He must either insinuate that they are indeed such, or that _Horace_’sObservation is not just, or that for the Word _invita_ we ought tohave a better reading, for which he will be forced to consult the_Antiquaries_. I know not how some of the great Orators, he hasmention’d, will relish his Compliments upon the Score of Eloquence, when he has said such hard things against Antiquaries; many of them, and those of chief Note, were his Censure just and universal, mustof necessity be involv’d in it. For example, the late _Bishop_ of_Rochester_, of whom, he says, “He was the correctest Writer of theAge, and comes nearest the great Originals of _Greece_ and _Rome_, bya studious Imitation of the Ancients. ” So that, as I take it, he wasan Antiquary: If he excludes _English Antiquities_, I desire him toremember the present _Bishop_ of _Rochester_, of whom he has giventhis true Character, “Dr. _Atterbury_ writeth with the fewest Faults, and greatest Excellencies of any who have studied to mix Art andNature in their Compositions, _&c. _” He hath however thought fit toadorn the Subject of Antiquities with the Beauties of his Stile, without any Force upon Nature, or the being obliged to forsake hereasy and unconstrain’d Method of applying proper Expressions to properThoughts. The _Bishop_ of St. _Asaph_ hath shewn his Skill inAntiquities, by more Instances than one; yet do I not find, that evenin the Opinion of this Gentleman, it hath spoil’d his Stile. I shalladd to these the late and present _Bishops_ of _Worcester_, theformer, Dr. _Stillingfleet_, is allow’d by all to have been one ofthe most learned Men and greatest Antiquaries of his Age; and for thepresent Bishop, who is also a learned Antiquary, take the Characterwhich is given of his Skill and Exactness in the _English_ Tongue from[F]_Bishop Wilkins_;

 I must acknowledge my self obliged, saith he, to the continual Assistance I have had from my most learned and worthy Friend, Dr. _William Lloyd_, than whom (so far as I am able to judge) this Nation could not have afforded a fitter Person, either for that great Industry, or accurate Judgment, both in _Philological_, and _Philosophical_ Matters, required to such a Work. And particularly, I must wholly ascribe to him that tedious and difficult Task, of suiting the Tables to the _Dictionary_, and the drawing up of the _Dictionary_ itself, which, upon trial, I doubt not, will be found to be the most perfect, that was ever yet made for the _English Tongue_. 

I will only farther beg leave to mention, the _Bishop_ of _Carlisle_, _Your Self_, and Dr. _Gibson_, who for good Spirit, masterly Judgment, and all the Ornaments of Stile, in the several ways of Writing, may beequalled with the best and most polite. To conclude, if this Prefaceis writ in a Stile, that may be thought somewhat rough and too severe, it is not out of any natural Inclination to take up a Quarrel, butto do some Justice to the Study of Antiquities, and even of our ownLanguage itself, against the severe Censurers of both; whose Behaviourin this Controversy has been such, as cou’d not have the Treatment itdeserved in a more modest or civil manner. If I am mistaken herein, Ibeg Pardon: I might alledge that which perhaps might be admitted foran Excuse, but that I will not involve the whole Sex, by pleadingWoman’s Frailty. I confess I thought it would be to little purposeto write an _English Saxon Grammar_, if there was nothing of Worthin that Language to invite any one to the study of it; so that Ihave only been upon the Defensive. If any think fit to take up Armsagainsst me, I have great Confidence in the Protection of the Learned, the Candid, and the Noble; amongst which, from as many as bear theEnsigns of St. _George_, I cannot doubt of that help, that trueChevalrie can afford, to any Damsel in Distress, by cutting off theHeads of all those Dragons, that dare but to open their Mouths, orbegin to hiss against her. But, Sir, before I conclude, I must doyou the Justice to insert an extract of two Letters from the RightHonourable _D. P. _ to the Reverend Dr. _R. Taylor_, relating to your_Thesaurus. Lingg. Vett. Septentrion. _ which indeed might moreproperly have been placed in the eighth Page of this Preface, hadit come sooner to my Hands. It is as follows, --“The _Dean_’s Present, which I shall value as long as I live for his sake. _Dom. Mabillon_ was the first that told me of that Work, and said, that the Author was a truly learned Person, and not one of those Writers who did not understand their Subject to the bottom, but, said he, that learned Man is one of ten thousand. ”

 [Footnote F: See the Epistle to the Reader in the Essay towards a Real Character, p. 3. ]

And in another Letter to the abovemention’d Dr. _Taylor_--. “When_Dom. Mabillon_ first told me of it, he did not name the Author, so asI understood who he was, but the Elogium he made of him, was indeed verygreat, and I find that the _Dean_ in one Word, has done that worthy ManJustice. ” This high Elogium of your self, and of your great Work, fromso renowned an Antiquary, as it is a great Defence and Commendation ofthe _Old Northern Learning_, so is it the more remarkable, in that itwas given by one, against whom you had written in the most tender Pointof the Controversy, _De Re Diplomatica_, as may be seen in your _Lingg. Vett. Septentr. Thesaur. Præfat. General. _ p. _xxxvi_, &c. 

Sir, I once more heartily beg your Pardon for giving you so muchtrouble, and beg leave to give you my Thanks for the great AssistanceI have received in the _Saxon_ Studies from your learned Works, andConversation; and in particular for your favourable Recommendation ofmy Endeavours, in a farther cultivating those Studies, who with sincereWishes for your good Health, and all imaginable Respect for a Person ofyour Worth and Learning, am, _SIR_, Your Most Obliged, Humble Servant, _Elizabeth Elstob. _

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

William Andrews Clark Memorial Library: University of California

THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY

 _General Editors_

 R. C. BOYS University of Michigan

 RALPH COHEN University of California, Los Angeles

 VINTON A. DEARING University of California, Los Angeles

 LAWRENCE CLARK POWELL Wm. Andrews Clark Memorial Library

 Corresponding Secretary: Mrs. EDNA C. DAVIS, Wm. Andrews Clark Memorial Library

THE SOCIETY exists to make available inexpensive reprints (usuallyfacsimile reproductions) of rare seventeenth and eighteenth centuryworks. The editorial policy of the Society remains unchanged. As inthe past, the editors welcome suggestions concerning publications. Allincome of the Society it devoted to defraying cost of publication andmailing. 

All correspondence concerning subscriptions in the United States andCanada should be addressed to the William Andrews Clark MemorialLibrary, 2205 West Adams Boulevard, Los Angeles 18, California. Correspondence concerning editorial matters may be addressed to any ofthe general editors. The membership fee is $3. 00 a year for subscribersin the United States and Canada and 15/- for subscribers in GreatBritain and Europe. British and European subscribers should addressB.  H. Blackwell, Broad Street, Oxford, England. 

 * * * * *

Publications for the eleventh year [1956-57]

(At least six items, most of them from the following list, will bereprinted. )