Reflections upon Ancient and Modern Learning/Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
Of Ancient and Modern Grammar.
GRammar is one of the Sciences which Sir William Temple says, that (g) Pag.44(g) no Man ever disputed with the Ancients.
As this Assertion is expressed, it is a little ambiguous: It may be understood of the Skill of the Moderns in the Grammatical Analogy of Latin and Greek, or of their Skill in the Grammar of their Mother-Tongues. Besides, Grammar may either be considered Mechanically, or Philosophically. Those consider it Mechanically, who only examine the Idiotisms and Proprieties of every particular Language, and lay down Rules to teach them to others. Those consider it as Philosophers, who run over the several Steps, by which every Language has altered its Idiom; who enquire into the several Perfections and Imperfections of those Tongues with which they are acquainted, and (if they are living Languages) propose Methods how to remedy them, or, at least, remove those Obscurities which are thereby occasioned in such Discourses where Truth is only regarded, and not Eloquence.
Now, this Mechanical Grammar of Greek and Latin has been very carefully studied by Modern Criticks. Sanctius, Scioppius, and Gerhard Vossius, besides a great Number of others, who have occasionally shown their Skill in their Illustrations of Ancient Authors, have given evident Proofs how well they understood the Latin Tongue: So have Caninius, Clenard, and abundance more, in Greek: Wherein they have gone upon sure Grounds, since, besides a great Number of Books in both Languages, upon other Subjects, abundance of Grammatical Treatises, such as Scholia upon difficult Authors, Glossaries, Onomasticons, Etymologicons, Rudiments of Grammar, &c. have been preserved, and published by skilful Men (most of them at least) with great Care and Accuracy. So that there is Reason to believe, that some Modern Criticks may have understood the Grammatical Construction of Latin as well as Varro, or Cæsar; and of Greek as well as Aristarchus, or Herodian. But this cannot be pretended to be a new Invention; for the Grammar of dead Languages can be only learned by Books: And since their Analogy can neither be increased, nor diminished, it must be left as we find it.
So that when Sir William Temple says, That no Man ever disputed Grammar with the Ancients; if he means, that we cannot make a new Grammar of a dead Language, whose Analogy has been determined almost Two Thousand Years, it is what can admit of no Dispute. But if he means, that Modern Languages have not been Grammatically examined; at least, not with that Care that some Ancient Tongues have been; that is a Proposition which may, perhaps, be very justly questioned. For, in the first place, it ought to be considered, that every Tongue has its own peculiar Form, as well as its proper Words; not communicable to, nor to be regulated by the Analogy of another Language: Wherefore he is the best Grammarian, who is the perfectest Master of the Analogy of the Language which he is about; and gives the truest Rules, by which another Man may learn it. Next, To apply this to our own Tongue, it may be certainly affirmed, that the Grammar of English is so far our own, that Skill in the Learned Languages is not necessary to comprehend it. Ben. Johnson was the first Man, that I know of, that did any Thing considerable in it; but Lilly's Grammar was his Pattern: and for want of Reflecting upon the Grounds of a Language which he understood as well as any Man of his Age, he drew it by Violence to a dead Language that was of a quite different Make; and so left his Work imperfect. After him, came Dr. Wallis; who examined the English Tongue like a Grammarian and a Philosopher at once, and showed great Skill in that Business: And of his English Grammar one may venture to say, That it may be set against any Thing that is extant of the Ancients, of that kind: For, as Sir William Temple says upon another Occasion, there is a Strain of Philosophy, and curious Thought, in his previous Essay of the Formation of the Sounds of Letters; and of Subtilty in the Grammar, in the reducing of our Language under Genuine Rules of Art, that one would not expect in a Book of that kind.
In France, since the Institution of the French Academy, the Grammar of their own Language has been studied with great Care. Isocrates himself could not be more nice in the Numbers of his Periods, than these Academicians have been in setling the Phraseology, in fixing the Standard of Words, and in making their Sentences, as well as they could, numerous and flowing. Their Dictionary, of which a good Part is already printed; Vaugelas's and Bouhours's Remarks upon the French Tongue, Richelet's and Furetiere's Dictionaries, with abundance of other Books of that kind, which, though not all written by Members of the Academy, yet are all Imitations of the Patterns which they first set, are Evidences of this their Care. This Sir William Temple somewhere owns: And though he there supposes, that these Filers and Polishers may have taken away a great part of the Strength of the Tongue, which, in the main, is true enough, yet that is no Objection against their Critical Skill in Grammar; upon which Account only their Labours are here taken notice of. So much for the Mechanical Part of Grammar.
Philosophical Grammar was never, that we know of, much minded by the Ancients. So that any great Performances of this sort are to be looked upon as Modern Increases to the Commonwealth of Learning. The most considerable Book of that kind, that I know of, is Bishop Wilkins's Essay towards a Real Character, and Philosophical Language: A Work, which those who have studied, think they can never commend enough. To this one ought to add, what may be found relating to the same Subject, in the Third Book of Mr. Lock's Essay of Humane Understanding.