name of that object; most commonly in the final letters, and by some Languages, in the initial.

All Languages, however, do not agree in this mode of expression. The Greek, Latin, and several other Languages, use declension. The English, French, and Italian, do not; or, at most, use it very imperfectly. In place of the variations of cases, the modern Tongues express the relations of objects, by means of the words called Prepositions, which denote those relations, prefixed to the name of the object. English nouns have no case whatever, except a sort of genitive, commonly formed by the addition of the letter s to the noun; as when we say "Dryden's Poems," meaning the Poems of Dryden. Our personal pronouns have also a case, which answers to the accusative of the Latin, I, me, -he, him, who, whom. There is nothing, then, or at least very little, in the Grammar of our Language, which corresponds to declension in the ancient Languages.

Two questions, respecting this subject, may be put. First, Which of these methods of expressing relations, whether that by declension, or that by prepositions, was the most ancient usage in Language? And next, Which of them has the best effect? Both methods, it is plain, are the same as to the sense, and differ only in form. For the significancy of the Roman Language would not have been altered, though the nouns, like ours, had been without cases, provided they had employed prepositions; and though, to express a disciple of Plato, they had said, "Discipulus de Plato," like the modern Italians, in place of" Discipulus Platonis."

Now, with respect to the antiquity of cases,

1

although they may, on first view, seem to constitute a more artificial method than the other, of denoting relations, yet there are strong reasons for thinking that this was the earliest method practised by men. We find, in fact, that declensions and cases are used in most of what are called the Mother Tongues, or Original Languages, as well as in the Greek and Latin. And a very natural and satisfying account can be given why this usage should have early obtained. Relations are the most abstract and metaphysical ideas of any which men have occasion to form, when they are considered by themselves and separated from the related object. It would puzzle any man, as has been well observed by an author on this subject, to give a distinct account of what is meant by such a word as of, or from, when it stands by itself, and to explain all that may be included under it. The first rude Inventors of Language, therefore, would not, for a long while, arrive at such general terms. In place of considering any relation in the abstract, and devising a name for it, they would much more easily conceive it in conjunction with a particular object; and they would express their conceptions of it, by varying the name of that object through all the different cases; hominis, of a man ; homini, to a man; homine, with a man, &c.

. But, though this method of declension was, probably, the only method which men employed at first for denoting relations, yet, in progress of time, many other relations being observed, besides those which are signified by the cases of nouns, and men also becoming more capable of general and metaphysical ideas, separate names were gradually invented for all the relations which occurred, forming that Part

of Speech which we now call Prepositions. Prepositions being once introduced, they were found to be capable of supplying the place of cases, by being prefixed to the nominative of the noun. Hence it came to pass, that, as nations were intermixed by migrations and conquests, and were obliged to learn, and adopt the Languages of one another, prepositions supplanted the use of cases and declensions. When the Italian Tongue, for instance, sprung out of the Roman, it was found more easy and simple, by the Gothic nations, to accommodate a few prepositions to the nominative of every noun, and to say, di Roma, al Roma, di Carthago, al Carthago, than to remember all the variety of terminations, Romæ, Romam, Carthaginis, Carthaginem, which the use of declensions required in the ancient nouns. By this progress we can give a natural account how nouns, in our modern Tongues, come to be so void of declension: a progress which is fully illustrated in Dr. Adam Smith's ingenious Dissertation on the Formation of Languages.

With regard to the other question on this subject, Which of these two methods is of the greater utility and beauty? we shall find advantages and disadvantages to be balanced on both sides. There is no doubt, that, by abolishing cases, we have rendered the structure of modern Languages more simple. We have disembarrassed it of all the intricacy which arose from the different forms of declension, of which the Romans had no fewer than five; and from all the irregularities in these several declensions. We have thereby rendered our Languages more easy to be acquired, and less subject to the perplexity of rules. But, though the simplicity and ease of Lan

guage be great and estimable advantages, yet there are also such disadvantages attending the modern method, as leave the balance, on the whole, doubtful, or rather incline it to the side of antiquity.

For, in the first place, by our constant use of prepositions for expressing the relations of things, we have filled Language with a multitude of those little words, which are eternally occurring in every sentence, and may be thought thereby to have encumbered Speech; by an addition of terms; and, by rendering it more prolix, to have enervated its force. In the second place, we have certainly rendered the sound of Language less agreeable to the ear, by depriving it of that variety and sweetness which arose from the length of words, and the change of terminations, occasioned by the cases in the Greek and Latin. But, in the third place, the most material disadvantage is, that, by this abolition of cases, and by a similar alteration, of which I am to speak in the next Lecture, in the conjugation of verbs, we have deprived ourselves of that liberty of transposition in the arrangement of words, which the ancient Languages enjoyed.

In the ancient Tongues, as I formerly observed, the different terminations, produced by declension and conjugation, pointed out the reference of the several words of a sentence to one another, without the aid of juxtaposition; suffered them to be placed, without ambiguity, in whatever order was most suited to give force to the meaning, or harmony to the sound. But now, having none of those marks of relation incorporated with the words themselves, we have no other way left us of shewing what words in a sentence are most closely connected in meaning,

than that of placing them close by one another in the period. The meaning of the sentence is brought out in separate members and portions; it is broken down and divided. Whereas the structure of the Greek and Roman sentences, by the government of their nouns and verbs, presented the meaning so interwoven and compounded in all its parts, as to make us perceive it in one united view. The closing words of the period ascertained the relation of each member to another; and all that ought to be connected in our idea, appeared connected in the expression. Hence, more brevity, more vivacity, more force. That luggage of particles (as an ingenious author happily expresses it), which we are obliged always to carry along with us, both clogs style, and enfeebles sentiment.*

*The various terminations of the same word, whether verb or noun, are always conceived to be more intimately connected "with the term which they serve to lengthen, than the additional, "detached, and in themselves insignificant particles, which we are "obliged to employ as connectives to our significant words. Our "method gives almost the same exposure to the one as to the "other, making the significant parts, and the insignificant, equally "conspicuous; theirs much oftener sinks, as it were, the former "into the latter, at once preserving their use, and hiding their "weakness. Our modern Languages may, in this respect, be "compared to the art of the carpenter in its rudest state; when "the union of the materials employed by the artisan, could "be effected only by the help of those external and coarse imple"ments, pins, nails, and cramps. The ancient Languages resem"ble the same art in its most improved state, after the invention "of dovetail joints, grooves, and mortises; when thus all the "principal junctions are effected, by forming, properly, the "extremities, or terminations of the pieces to be joined. For, by "means of these, the union of the parts is rendered closer; while "that by which that union is produced is scarcely perceivable." The Philosophy of Rhetoric, by Dr. Campbell, vol. ii. p. 412.