you have given me satisfaction on those points, you will permit me to ask you a few questions further.

H.-You may learn its necessity, if you please, from Mr. Locke. And that once proved, it follows of consequence that I must deny its absence from the Latin or from any other Language'. B.-Mr. Locke! He has not so much as even once mentioned the Article.

H.-Notwithstanding which he has sufficiently proved its necessity; and conducted us directly to its use and purpose. For in the eleventh chapter of the second book of his Essay, sect. 9, he says," The use of words being to stand as outward marks of our internal ideas, and those ideas being taken from particular things; if every particular idea should have a distinct name, names would be endless." So again, book 3. chap. 3. treating of General Terms, he says," All things that exist being particulars, it may perhaps be thought reasonable that words, which ought to be conformed to things, should be so too; I mean in their signification. But yet we find the quite contrary. The far greatest part of words that make all languages, are General Terms. Which has not been the effect of neglect or chance, but of reason and necessity. For, first, it is impossible that every particular thing should have a distinct peculiar name. For the signification and use of words depending on that connexion which the mind makes between its ideas and the sounds it uses as signs of them; it is necessary, in the application of names to things, that the mind

and to hear him prove that the Latin not only has Articles; but even the very identical Article 'O of the Greeks: for he says (and, notwithstanding the etymological dissent of Vossius, says truly) that the Latin Qui is no other than the Greek kat ỏ.

Articulum, Fabio teste, Latinus sermo non desiderat: imo, me judice, plane ignorat."-G. J. Vossius.

Displeased with the redundance of Particles in the Greek, the Romans extended their displeasure to the Article, which they totally banished."-Notes on the Grammatica Sinica of Mons. Fourmont, p. 54.

1 "L'Article indicatif se supplée sur tout par la terminaison, dans les langues à terminaisons, comme la langue Latine. C'est ce qui avoit fait croire mal-à-propos que les Latins n'avoient aucun Article; et qui avoit fait conclure plus mal-à-1 -propos encore que l'Article n'étoit pas une partie du discours."-Court de Gebelin, Gram. Universelle, p. 192. The Latin quis is evidently kaι os; and the Latin terminations us, a, um, no other than the Greek article ós, ǹ, óv.

should have distinct ideas of the things, and retain also the peculiar name that belongs to every one, with its peculiar appropriation to that idea. We may therefore easily find a reason why men have never attempted to give names to each sheep in their flock, or crow that flies over their heads; much less to call every leaf of plants or grain of sand that came in their way by a peculiar name.-Secondly, If it were possible, it would be useless: because it would not serve to the chief end of Language. Men would in vain heap up names of particular things, that would not serve them to communicate their thoughts. Men learn names, and use them in talk with others, only that they may be understood; which is then only done, when by use or consent, the sound I make by the organs of speech excites in another man's mind who hears it, the idea I apply to it in mine when I speak it. This cannot be done by names applied to particular things, whereof I alone having the ideas in my mind, the names of them could not be significant or intelligible to another who was not acquainted with all those very particular things which had fallen under my notice."And again, sect. 11.-" General and Universal belong not to the real existence of things; but are the inventions and creatures of the Understanding, made by it for its own use, and concern only signs. Universality belongs not to things themselves, which are all of them particular in their existence. When therefore we quit Particulars, the Generals that rest are only creatures of our own making; their general nature being nothing but the capacity they are put into of signifying or representing many Particulars."

Now from this necessity of General Terms, follows immediately the necessity of the Article: whose business it is to reduce their generality, and upon occasion to enable us to employ general terms for Particulars.

So that the Article also, in combination with a general term, is merely a substitute. But then it differs from those substitutes which we have ranked under the general head of Abbreviations: because it is necessary for the communication of our thoughts, and supplies the place of words which are not in the language. Whereas Abbreviations are not necessary for communication; and supply the place of words which are in the language.

B.-As far then as regards the Article, Mr. Harris seems at present to be the author most likely to meet with your approbation: for he not only establishes its necessity, in order "to circumscribe the latitude of genera and species," and therefore treats of it separately; but has raised it to a degree of importance much beyond all other modern Grammarians. And though he admits of only two Articles, "properly and strictly so called," viz. A and THE; yet has he assigned to these two little words full one-fourth part in his distribution of language which, you know, is into-" Substantives, Attributives, Definitives, and Connectives."

H.—If Mr. Harris has not intirely secured my concurrence with his Doctrine of Definitives, I must confess he has at least taken effectual care to place it compleatly beyond the reach of confutation. He says,

1. "The Articles have no meaning, but when associated to some other word.”

2. "Nothing can be more nearly related than the Greek article 'O to the English article THE."

3. "But the article A defines in an imperfect manner."

4. Therefore the Greeks have no article correspondent to our article A.”

5. However," they supply its place."

-And How, think you?

6. "By a Negation"-(observe well their method of supply) -"by a negation of their article 'O;" (that is, as he well explains himself,)--" without any thing prefixed, but only the article 'O withdrawn."

7. "Even in English, we also express the force of the article A, in plurals, by the same negation of the article THE'.”

"It is perhaps owing to the imperfect manner in which the Article A defines, that the Greeks have no article correspondent to it, but supply its place by a negation of their Article '0.-'0 ar0рwоs eжEσey, THE man fell; аν0ршñоs ежеσеv, A man fell;-without any thing prefixed, but only the Article withdrawn."

Even in English, where the Article A cannot be used, as in plurals, its force is expressed by the same negation.-Those are THE men, mcans, Those are individuals of which we possess some previous knowledge. Those are men, the Article apart, means no more than they are so many vague and uncertain individuals; just as the phrase,—A man, in the singular, implies one of the same number." Book 2. chap. 1.

Now here I acknowledge myself to be compleatly thrown out; and, like the philosopher of old, merely for want of a firm resting-place on which to fix my machine: for it would have been as easy for him to raise the earth with a fulcrum of ether, as for me to establish any reasoning or argument on this sort of negation. For, "nothing being prefixed,” I cannot imagine in what manner or in what respect a negation of 'O or of THE, differs from a negation of Harris or of Pudding. For lack however of the light of comprehension, I must do as other Grammarians do in similar situations, attempt to illustrate by a parallel.

I will suppose Mr. Harris (when one of the Lords of the Treasury) to have addressed the Minister in the same style of reasoning." Salaries, Sir, produce no benefit, unless associated to some receiver: my salary at present is but an imperfect provision for myself and family: but your salary as Minister is much more compleat. Oblige me therefore by withdrawing my present scanty pittance; and supply its place to me, by a negation of your salary."-I think this request could not reasonably have been denied: and what satisfaction Mr. Harris would have felt by finding his theory thus reduced. to practice, no person can better judge than myself; because I have experienced a conduct not much dissimilar from the Rulers of the Inner Temple: who having first inticed me to quit one profession, after many years of expectation, have very handsomely supplied its place to me by a negation of the other.

ADVERTISEMENT.

THE three following chapters (except some small alterations and additions) have already been given to the public in A Letter to Mr. DUNNING in the year 1778: which, though published, was not written on the spur of the occasion. The substance of that Letter, and of all that I have further to communicate on the subject of Language, has been amongst the loose papers in my closet now upwards of thirty years; and would probably have remained there some years longer, and

have been finally consigned with myself to oblivion, if I had not been made the miserable victim of--Two Prepositions and Conjunction.

The officiating Priests indeed' were themselves of rank and eminence sufficient to dignify and grace my fall. But that the Conjunction THAT, and the Prepositions of and CONCERNING (words which have hitherto been held to have No meaning) should be made the abject instruments of my civil extinction, (for such was the intention, and such has been the consequence of my prosecution,) appeared to me to make my exit from civil life as degrading as if I had been brained by a lady's fan. For mankind in general are not sufficiently aware that words without meaning, or of equivocal meaning, are the everlasting engines of fraud and injustice: and that the grimgribber of Westminster-Hall is a more fertile, and a much more formidable, source of imposture than the abracadabra of magicians.

Upon a motion made by me in arrest of judgment in the Court of King's Bench in the year 1777, the Chief Justice adjourned the decision: and instead of arguments on the merits of my objection, (which however by a side-wind were falsely represented by him as merely literal flaws) desired that Precedents might be brought by the Attorney General on a future day. None were however adduced, but by the Chief Justice himself; who indeed produced two. (Thereby depriving me of the opportunity of combating the Precedents and their application, which I should have had if they had been produced by the Attorney General3.) And on the strength of these

1 Attorney General Thurlow-since Chancellor and a Peer. Solicitor General Wedderburne-since Chancellor and a Peer. Earl Mansfield, Chief Justice.

Mr. Buller-since a Judge.

Mr. Wallace-since Attorney General.

Mr. Mansfield-since Solicitor General and C. J. of the C. Pleas. Mr. Bearcroft--since Chief Justice of Chester.

Lord Mansfield,

If the Defendant has a legal advantage from a Literal flaw, God forbid that he should not have the benefit of it."-Proceedings in K. B. The King against Horne.

3 "Lord Mansfield,

"I fancy the Attorney General was surprized with the objection."