CHAP. I.] GRAMMAR LITERARY AND PHILOSOPHICAL. 219 



kind of a grammar, if any one, well versed in numerous 

 languages, both the learned and vulgar, should treat of their 

 various properties, and show wherein each of them excelled 

 and fell short ; for thus languages might be enriched by 

 mutual commerce, and one beautiful image of speech, or one 

 grand model of language for justly expressing the sense of the 

 mind, formed, like the Venus of Apelles, from the excellencies 

 of several. And thus we should, at the same time, have 

 some considerable marks of the genius and manners of people 

 and nations from their respective languages. Cicero agree 

 ably remarks, that the Greeks had no word to express the 

 Latin ineptum ; l &quot; Because,&quot; says he, &quot;the fault it denotes 

 was so familiar among them, that they could not see it in 

 themselves;&quot; a censure not unbecoming the Roman gravity. 

 And as the Greeks used so great a licentiousness in com 

 pounding words, which the Romans so religiously abstained 

 from, it may hence be collected that the Greeks were better 

 fitted for arts, and the Romans for exploits ; as variety of 

 arts makes compound words in a manner necessary, whilst 

 civil business, and the affairs of nations, require a greater 

 simplicity of expression. The Jews were so averse to these 

 compositions, that they would rather strain a metaphor than 

 introduce them. Nay, they used so few words and so un 

 mixed, that we may plainly perceive from their language 

 they were a Nazarite people, and separate from other nations. 

 It is also worth observing, though it may seem a little 

 ungrateful to modern ears, that the ancient languages are full 

 of declensions, cases, conjugations, tenses, and the like ; but 

 the later languages, being almost destitute of them, slothful ly 

 express many things by prepositions and auxiliary verbs. 

 For from hence it may easily be conjectured, that the genius 

 of former ages, however we may flatter ourselves, was much 

 more acute than our own. And there are things enough of 

 this kind to make a volume. It seems reasonable, therefore, 

 to distinguish a philosophical grammar from a simple literary 

 one, and to set it down as deficient.&quot; 1 



1 Orator, ii. 4. 



m Considerable pains have been bestowed upon this subject by rarioui 

 authors ; an account whereof is given by Morhof in his &quot; Polyhistor.&quot; 

 See torn. i. lib. iv. cap. 3, 4, 5; or more particularly, Abraham Mylii 

 De Linguae Belgicse cum aliiaLinguiBCommunitate ;&quot; Henrici Schsevi; 



