account have a high opinion of himfelf; C. II.
and the chief praise he would bestow on
himself would be, that though he was far
fhort of what he fhould be, he was free
of that contemptible quality, vanity; for
such a man, though he might pass for
proud, would be (as Swift has well diftin-
guifhed) too proud to be vain.
return to our fubject:

But to

I have now finished the grammatical part of this work, which I hope will at least serve to fhew, what I chiefly intended by it, that a language of art is indeed a work of great art. If I have otherwife failed in the execution of this work, through the want of knowledge of fo many particular languages as may be neceffary for fuch an undertaking, or through any other want, I think I may venture to fay, that I have treated the fubject according to a method which will take in, under one or other of its heads, every thing belonging to every language that ever existed.I will conclude this volume with fome obfervations upon the Chinefe language, and that invented by Bifhop Wilkins; after which I will endeavour to fhew, that a language of art could not have grown out of popular use, but must VOL. II.

3 H

have

C. 11. have been the invention of men of genius

and fcience.

C. 12.

Of the Chinese language.—The most extraordinary language in the world.-Very imperfect, and the reafon why it has continued fo long in that fate.-Probably came from Egypt through India.

TH

'HE language of this people is very fingular, nor do I believe that there is fuch another language at prefent to be found on the face of the earth. It cannot be called a language of art; nor is it entirely barbarous; but it participates of both, and may be faid to be an intermediate ftage betwixt the two. For it has fo much of the language of art, one word to exprefs whole fentences, but has different words for different things: and with respect to the found, it has not that peculiarity of all the barbarous languages, namely, very long words; but, on the contrary, all its words are monofyllables; a fingularity which distinguishes

that it does not use

it from all other languages, fo far as I C. 12. know, that are any where spoken. On the other hand, it so far resembles the barbarous languages, that it has neither compofition, derivation, nor flection; and it is fo much more barbarous than they, that it does not fhew any thing like an attempt towards any of those great arts of language; whereas the barbarous languages, as we have seen, have fome beginnings of all the three; fo that, though they have not yet attained to art, they seem to be in the progrefs towards it. And that the Chinese have not the art of compofition, is the more furprifing, for this reafon, that in the characters which make their written language they have fuch compofition. For example, the character by which they exprefs miffortune, is compofed of a character which fignifies house, and another which denotes fire, because the greatest misfortune that can befall a man is to have his houfe on fire*. But with respect to the language that they fpeak, though they very often employ many words to exprefs one thing, yet they do not run them together into one

*Du Halde, tom. 2.

p. 227.

3 H 2

word,

C. 12. word, making certain alterations upon them, that they may incorporate the better, as is practifed in other languages, but preferve them entire and unchanged.

I have spoken elsewhere of the Chinese characters, and have fhewn them to be no other than natural reprefentations of things, but very much abridged, for more expeditious ufe, and compounded together, as we have feen, in order to exprefs compounded ideas, with many marks of arbitrary inftitution, to exprefs things which cannot be reprefented by corporeal forms. And I will now proceed to give a short account of the nature of their language, taken from that great collection upon the fubject of China, made by Du Halde.

And, in the first place, it must appear surprising, that, having nothing but monofyllables in their language, they should be able to express so many things as a life of great policy and refinement, fuch as theirs, requires to be expreffed. For without the variety which the composition of fyllables gives to our words, it would be impoffible for us to exprefs one half of the things which we have occafion to express. But, in the first place, they use several

words,

words, as I have just now faid, to denote C. 12, one thing; and though they have not the art of compofition, I am perfuaded they pronounce them fo as to diftinguish them from other words, fignifying different and detached things. And, fecondly, they diverfify their monofyllables fo, by different tones which they give them, that the fame word, differently accented, fignifies fometimes ten or eleven different things *, which makes their language appear to ftrangers to be no better than fing-fong t. It is in this way that they supply the poverty of their articulation, which indeed is very great; for befides their having no compofition of fyllables, they want the ufe of many letters that we have, particularly the letters b, d, r, x, z ‡.

?

As they diverfify the words fo much by

* Du Halde gives an example of this in the monofyllable ro, which, by different accents, and inflections of the voice, as he expreffes it, is made to fignify eleven different things, vol. 2. pag. 225.

+ Du Halde denies this, and affirms, that the authors who say so are mistaken. Ibid. But I rather believe that he is mistaken, because I have heard feveral perfons who had been in the country, fay the fame.

‡ Du Halde, ibid. pag. 230:

tones,