Very often propriety and perfpicuity both are facrificed to it.

It is juftly observed by Abbé Girard*, that when a performance grows dull through an ex-. cefs of uniformity, it is not fo much because the ear is tired by the frequent repetition of the fame found, as because the mind is fatigued by the frequent recurrence of the fame idea. If, therefore, there be a remarkable paucity of ideas, a diverfity of words will not answer the purpose, or give to the work the agreeable appearance of variety. On the contrary, when an author is at great pains to vary his expreffions, and for this purpose even deferts the common road, he will, to an intelligent reader, but the more expofe poverty, the more he is folicitous to conceal it. And, indeed, what can more effectually be tray a penury of words, than to be always recurring to fuch as cuftom hath appropriated to purposes different from thofe for which we ufe them? Would the glitter of jewels which we know to be stolen, produce an opinion of the wearer's affluence? And muft not fuch alienations of words, if I may be allowed the metaphor, awaken a fufpicion of fome original defects which Synonymes François. Preface.

his

have given occafion to them? We should hardly fay that a houfe were richly furnished, I am fure we could not fay that it were well furnished, where we found a fuperfluity of utenfils for anfwering fome purposes, and a total want of thofe adapted to other purposes not less neceffary and important. We should think, on the contrary, that there were much greater appearance both of opulence and of tafte, where, though there were little or nothing fuperfluous, no veffel or piece of furniture ufeful in a family were wanting. When one is obliged to make fome utenfils fupply purposes to which they were not originally destined; when, for inftance," the copper pot “boils milk, heats porridge, holds small beer, "and, in cafe of neceffity, ferves for a jorden *;” there are always, it must be confeffed, the ftrongest indications of indigence. On the contrary, when every real ufe hath fome inftrument or utenfil adapted to it, there is the appearance, if not of profufion, of what is much more valu able, plenty.

IN a language there may be great redundani cies, and at the fame time great defects. It is infinitely less important to have a number of fy

• Swift.

nonymous

nonymous words, which are even fometimes cumbersome, than to have very few that can be called homonymous, and confequently to have all the differences which there are in things, as much as poffible, marked by correfponding differences in their figns. That this should be perfectly attained, I own is impoffible. The varieties in things are infinite, whereas the richest language hath its limits. Indeed, the more a people improve in tafte and knowledge, they come the more, though by imperceptible degrees, to make distinctions in the application of words which were used promifcuoufly before. And it is by thus marking the delicate differences of things, which in a ruder state they overlooked, more than by any other means, that their language is refined and polished. Hence it acquires precifion, perfpicuity, vivacity, energy. It would be no difficult tafk to evince, as partly may be collected from what hath been obferved already, that our own language hath from this fource received greater improvements in the course of the last century and of the prefent, than from the acceffion of new words, orˇperhaps from any other caufe. Nothing then, furely, can serve more to corrupt it, than to overturn the barriers use hath erected, by confounding words

it

words as fynonymous to which distinct fignifications have been affigned. This conduct is as bad policy with regard to ftyle, as it would be with regard to land, to convert a great part of the property into a common. On the contrary, as it conduceth to the advancement of agriculture, and to the increase of the annual produce of a country, to divide the commons and turn them into property, a fimilar conduct in the appropriation of words, renders a language more ufeful and expreffive.

PART II. Impropriety in phrafes.

I COME now to confider the improprieties which occur in phrafes. The firft of this kind of which I fhall take notice, is, when the expreffion, on being grammatically analyfed, is discovered to contain some inconfiftency. Such is the phrafe of all others after the fuperlative, common with many English writers. Interpreted by the rules of fyntax, it implies that a thing is different from itself. Take these words for an example, "It celebrates the church of

England, as the most perfect of all others." Properly, either" as more perfect than any "other," or " as the moft perfect of all

• Swift's Apology for the Tale of a Tub.

"churches."

"churches." This is precifely the fame fort of impropriety into which Milton hath fallen in thefe words,

- Adam,

The comelieft man of men fince born.

His fons. The fairest of her daughters Eve †.

And in these

-The loveliest pair

That ever fince in love's embraces met *.

Use indeed may be pleaded for fuch expreffions, which, it must be acknowledged, ufe hath rendered intelligible. But ftill the general laws of the language, which conftitute the most extenfive and important ufe, may be pleaded against them. Now it is one principal method of purifying a language, to lay afide fuch idioms as are inconfiftent with its radical principles and conftituent rules; or as, when interpreted by fuch principles and rules, exhibit manifeft nonsense. Nor does the leaft inconvenience refult from this conduct, as we can be at no lofs to find expreffions of our meaning, altogether as natural, and entirely unexceptionable.

SOMETIMES, indeed, through mere inattention, flips of this kind are committed, as in the

+ Paradife Loft.

* Ib. B. iv.

following