Intr. tion of the human mind; and the works of nature are likewife far more noble and excellent than the works of art, being the production of divine wifdom; whereas the other are produced by human intelligence, working in imitation of divine wifdom, and upon that model forming a kind of new creation: for not only are the materials of this creation furnished by nature, but every idea which we have of order, regularity, beauty, and fymmetry of defign, are all taken from the great archetype of divine creation. In this way does man form a little world of his own, of which he is the fovereign, and which may be called the world of Art, in contradiftinction to the great world of Nature. This creative power we have by degrees extended to every fubject of nature within our reach; but we have chiefly exercised it upon ourselves, being the fubject of all others the most in our power, and which we have, from nature, the capacity of moulding and fafhioning to our own conceit, more than any other animal has that we have yet difcovered. The greatest work of art therefore is man himself, as we fee him; for we have made ourselves, as

I have endeavoured to fhew, both a Intr. rational and political animal; and also have acquired that great inftrument of the rational and political life, the faculty of fpeech. The fubject of this art is both the body and mind of mạn. The firft furnishes what I call the material part of language; for of the breath, modified by the organs of the mouth, is produced articulation; and the mind furnishes the ideas, which make the form of language.

We have, in the preceding part of this work, endeavoured to fhew how men became first poffeffed of this faculty of speech, which, for being common, is not the lefs wonderful in the eyes of the philofopher. We have alfo fhewn, not only from theory, but from fact, how imperfect this first language must have been, both in found and expreffion. We are now to explain how, from thofe rude eflays, which may be called rather attempts towards speaking than speech, an art of language was at laft formed. And what I chiefly propofe, in this part of the work, is to fhew wherein this art confists, and how great the difficulty must-have been, even from the rude materials furnished by the first favages who articulated, to form

Intr. a regular fyftem of a language. This is a view in which language has not hitherto, fo far as I know, been confidered; and I hope it will ferve the purpose of vindicating from obfcurity a learned profeffion, held in high efteem among the antients, but which, in modern times, has become almost a name of contempt, I mean the profeffion of the grammarian. For I think I fhall be able to fhew, that it is a matter of great difficulty to explain well the principles of this most wonderful art, even after it is invented; and as the grammarian profeffes to teach us the practice of an art which distinguishes us chiefly from the brute creation, and not the practice only, which children have, and the most illiterate of the vulgar, and even fome brutes in a certain degree, but likewife the fcience, fo that we may fpeak as becomes rational creatures, it ought to be accounted an art of no lefs dignity, than ufe.

ВООК

BOOK I.

Of the Analysis of the FORMAL PART of
LANGUAGE.

5

That there must have been, in the progress of language, two kinds of it; the one rude and barbarous, the other fucceeding to it a language of art.—The requifites of a language of art.

T

HAT a regular and formed language, Ch. 1. fuch as is used by every civilized

nation, is a work of art, no man who knows any thing of language, or of art, will deny. It is equally clear, both from reafon, and from the facts mentioned in the preceding volume, that the first attempts to speak must have been very rude and imperfect; and that the first languages among men, though they may have ferved the purposes of communication in a very narrow fphere of life, with few wants, and as few arts to fupply those wants, must have been almost entirely art

lefs.

Ch. 1. lefs. If therefore language was invented, there must have been a first and a fecond language; the one altogether rude and artlefs, the other formed by rules of art, and the work of men of art; for that it could not have grown out of popular use merely, I will endeavour, in the fequel, to make evident. But, in the first place, it will be proper to fhew wherein the art of language confifts, which is what I propofe to do in this second part of the work. When that is done, it is hoped very little argument will be neceffary to prove, that it could not have been produced by the mere people, but must have been the work of artifts, and men of fuperior abilities.

The art of language appears to confist in four things. 1. In expreffing accurately

and distinctly all the conceptions of the human mind. 2. In doing this by as few words as poffible. 3. In marking the connection that thofe words have with one another. And, laftly, The found of the language must be agreeable to the ear, and of fufficient variety. Before I enter more particularly into my fubject, I will make fome general reflections on these four requifites; and what I am to fay, will be the

better