reference to English grammar or etymology, as to make its acquisition a well-spent labor, unless it is pursued for other purposes than those of domestic philology. But that I may not be misunderstood, let me repeat that, so far from dissuading from the study of Greek as a branch of general education, I do but echo the universal opinion of all persons competent to pronounce on the subject, in expressing my own conviction that the language and literature of ancient Greece constitute the most efficient instrument of mental training ever enjoyed by man; and that a familiarity with that wonderful speech, its poetry, its philosophy, its eloquence, and the history it embalms, is incomparably the most valuable of intellectual possessions. The grammar of the Greek language is much more flexible, more tolerant of aberration, less rigid in its requirements, than the Latin. The varium et mutabile semper femina, of the Latin poet, for example, is so rare an instance of apparent want of concord, that it startles us as abnormal, while similar, and even wider grammatical discrepancies, are of constant occurrence in Greek. The precision which the regularity of Latin syntax gives to a period, the Greek more completely and clearly accomplishes by the nicety with which individual words are defined in meaning; and while the Latin trains us to be good grammarians, the Greek elevates us to the highest dignity of manhood, by making us acute and powerful thinkers.

Nothing could well have been more surprising than the discovery that the ancient Sanscrit exhibits unequivocal evidence of close relationship to the Greek and Latin, as well as to the modern Romance and the Gothic languages, in both grammar and vocabulary, and these analogies have served to establish a general alliance between a great number of tongues formerly supposed to be wholly unrelated. When linguistic science shall be farther advanced, the Sanscrit will probably in a great measure supersede the Latin as the common standard of grammatical comparison among the European tongues, with the additional advantage of standing much more nearly in one relation both to the Gothic and the Romance dialects. But at present, Sanscrit is accessible only to the fewest, and the English student can hardly be advised, as a general rule, to look beyond the sources from which our maternal speech is directly derived, for illustrations either of its

grammar or vocabulary. With respect to verbal forms, and points of grammatical structure not sufficiently explained by Anglo-Saxon, Latin, and French inflection and syntax, it may in general be said, that any one of the Gothic dialects will supply the deficiency, and if the inquirer's objects be limited to the actual use of his own tongue, the study of English authors is a better and safer guide than any wider researches in foreign philologies.*

*The American Senate and Bar have in my time been illustrated by four distinguished orators, all exceedingly remarkable, not only for argumentative and rhetorical power, but for an apparently exhaustive command of the utmost resources of their native tongue, which was with them all a never-ceasing subject of most careful study. They were all fair classical scholars, and all more or less acquainted with contemporaneous European literature, though I have reason to believe that not one of them was able to speak any language but his mother-tongue. I can hardly imagine that any amount of foreign linguistic study could have enabled either of them to use the speech of his fireside with more consummate mastery, or that the English tongue could ever be spoken with more graceful, persuasive, or majestic accents.

LECTURE V.

STUDY OF EARLY ENGLISH.

THE systematic study of the mother-tongue, like that of all branches of knowledge which we acquire, to a sufficient extent for ordinary practical purposes, without study, is naturally very generally neglected. It is but lately that the English language has formed a part of the regular course of instruction at any of our higher seminaries, nor has it been made the subject of as zealous and thorough philological investigation by professed scholars, as have the German, the French, and some other living languages. It is a matter of doubt how far we are aided in acquiring the mastery of any spoken tongue by the study of scientific treatises; but however this may be, it is only very recently that we have had any really scientific treatises on the subject, any grammar which has attempted to serve at once as a philosophical exposition of the principles, and a guide to the actual employment of the English tongue. The complete history of the language, the characterization of its periods, the critical elucidation of its successive changes, the full exhibition of its immediate and certain foreign relations as distinguished from its remote and presumptive affinities, has never, to my knowledge, been undertaken.* While, therefore, for class instruction, and for many purposes of private study, there is no lack of text-books and other critical helps, yet a historical knowledge of English must be acquired by observing

* I am certainly not blind to the great importance and utility of the works of Latham, Fowler, Brown, and other learned and laborious inquirers into the facts and theory of English Grammar; but the consideration of their merits does not come within the scope of these lectures, the object of which is to recommend and enforce the study of English, not at second hand or through the medium of precept, but by a direct acquaintance with the great monuments of its literature.

its use and action as the living speech of the Anglican race in different centuries, not as its organization is demonstrated in the dissecting-room of the grammarian.

English is generally reputed to be among the more difficult of the great European languages, but it is hard for a native to say how far this opinion is well founded. The comparison of our own tongue with a foreign speech is attended with a good deal of difficulty. Particular phrases and constructions, of course, are easily enough set off against each other, but the general movement of our maternal language is too much a matter of unconscious, spontaneous action to be easily made objective, and, on the other hand, in foreign tongues we are too much absorbed in the individual phenomena to be able to grasp the whole field. The enginery of the one is too near, the idiomatic motive power of the other too distant, for distinct vision. But I am inclined to the belief, that English is more difficult than most of the Continental languages, at least as a spoken tongue, for I think it is certain that fewer natives speak it with elegance and accuracy, if indeed violations of grammatical propriety are not more frequent among the best English writers, and it sometimes happens that persons exact in the use of individual words are lax in the application of rules of syntactical construction. A distinguished British scholar of the last century said he had known but three of his countrymen who spoke their native language with uniform grammatical accuracy, and the observation of most persons widely acquainted with English and American society confirms the general truth implied in this declaration. Courier is equally severe upon the French. "There are," says that lively writer, "five or six persons in Europe who know Greek; those who know French are much fewer." Primâ facie, irregular as English is, we should expect it to be at least as correctly spoken as French, because the number of unrelated philological facts, of exceptions to what are said to be general rules, of anomalous and conventional phrases, is greater in the latter than in the former; but the proportion of good speakers, or rather of good talkers, is certainly larger among the French than among the English or Americans. It is interesting to observe how much value has been attached to purity of dialect in some of the less known countries of Europe. The grand old Catalan chronicler, Ramon Muntaner, who wrote about the year

1325, himself no book-worm, but a veteran traineur de sabre, more than once concludes his eulogiums of his heroes with a compliment to the propriety and elegance with which they spoke his native tongue, and he gives an interesting account of the means by which two of the nobility arrived at such perfection of speech. "And this same Syr Corral Llança grew up one of the fayrest menne in the world, and best langaged and sagest, insomuch that as at that tyme menne saide, the finest Cathalan in the worlde was hys and Syr Roger de Luria's; and no mervaile, for as yee have harde before, they came ryght yonge into Cathalonye and were norysshed there, and in alle the good townes of Cathalonie and of the reaume of Valence whatsoever seemed to them choyce and faire langage, they dyd their endeavoure to learne the same. And so eche of hem was a more parfyt Cathalonian than alle other, and spake the fayrest Cathalan.” *

The systematic cultivation of the modern Continental languages began much earlier than that of English. They had generally advanced to a high degree of development, and acquired the characteristic grammatical features which now distinguish them, at a period when even the most polished of the English dialects was but a patois. Several of them indeed had produced original works in both poetry and prose, which still rank among the master-pieces of modern genius, before Anglo-Norman England had given birth to a single composition which yet maintains an acknowledged place in the literature of the nation. Although Icelandic can hardly be called a modern language, yet it possesses, besides the poems and traditions of the heathen era, an original modern literature modified by the same general Christian influ

"E aquest En Corral Llança exi hu dells bells homens del mon, e mills parlant e pus saui, si que en aquell temps se deya, quel pus bell cathalanesch del mon era dell e del dit En Roger de Luria; e no era marauella, que ells, axi com dauant vos he dit, vengren molt fadrins en Cathalunya, e nudrirense de cascum lloch de Cathalunya e del regne de Valencia tot ço que bo ne bell parlar los paria ells aprengueren. E axi cascu dells fo lo pus perfet Cathala que negun altre, e ab pus bell cathalanesch."-Ramon Muntaner, 1562, cap. xviii.

The Catalan En, N', Na. the equivalent of the Castilian Don, Doña, and of the English Sir, Madam, is of disputed etymology, some holding it to be a mere locative particle corresponding to the French De, others, and I think with greater probability, considering it a remnant of the Latin SENIOR.