marks which so many skilful persons have left us upon this head. But it will be requisite to make a good choice of them, and exclude whatever does not fall under general use, or is above the capacity of youth. Long and frequent lectures upon so dry a subject may become very tedious to them. Short questions, regularly proposed every day by way of conversation, so as to put them upon thinking, or making them say what one would have them learn, would instruct thei at the same time it amused them, and by an insensible progression, if continued for a few years, would give them a perfect knowledge of the tongue.

Orthography is very frequently not known or neglected, and sometimes too by the most learned. This fault, to all outward appearance, is owing to their not having practised it early, and should remind masters how particularly careful they ought to be about it.

Custom, which is the sovereign judge of language, opposed to which reason itself must lose its rights, is the first rule to be consulted in orthography, as it has no less authority and jurisdiction over the manner of writing and pronunciation, than over the words themselves. Thus we have seen the project of reforming our orthography in opposition to custom, stifled in its birth; and the new manner of writing all words in general as they were pronounced, was no less offensive to the eyes of the public, than an endeavour towards introducing a new and fantastic fashion of dress would have been.

There are other alterations less noted, about which custom differs, and which may occasion some doubt. Is it necessary, for instance, to keep always certain letters in some words, which were anciently used, or which shew that they take their original from the Greek or Latin, such as thrésor, throsne, baptême, temps, saincteté, clef, genouil, debte, roy, loy, moyen, estre, escrite, rapport? Is it requisite that all nouns and participles, which end with an é masculine in the singular number, should end with a z in the plural?

I think

I think that in such words as these every one may take the liberty that custom allows him, and follow his own taste, especially when it seems to be founded upon reason and utility. [h] And in my opinion, both of them require, that we should come as near in writing to our manner of pronouncing, as possibly we can. For the characters of letters are appointed to preserve the different sounds we utter in speaking, and it is their proper office to lay them faithfully before the reader, as a deposite they have been entrusted with. The word written must therefore be the image of the word pronounced, and the letters express what we would say.

And thus as the first syllable of these two words éscrire and escrime, and the antepenultima of these respondans and correspondans is to be pronounced differently, why should they not also be written differently, écrire, escrime, répondans, correspondans?

There is a great difference in the manner of pronouncing the first syllable in the different tenses and different persons of the verb faire, and it would be reasonable to write them in a different manner too, and custom seems to comply with it. Je fais, tu fais, nous fesons, je fesois, je ferois, je ferai, tu feras.

The general rule of forming nouns plural is by adding an s to the singular pomme, pommes, fleur, fleurs. Why should nouns and participles ending in é be excepted? By this means aimez, which is the second person plural is confounded with the participle; whereas, by writing the participle with an s, aimés, the two words are distinguished, and the general rule observed.

As to words derived from the Latin, our language seems inclined to throw off by little and little the remaining marks of the deviation, though our ancestors appear to have been proud of keeping religiously to all the traces of it. This may be observed in innu[b]Ego,nisi quod consuetudo obtinuerit, sic scribendum, quoque judico, quomodo sonat. Hic enim usus est literarum, ut custodiant

voces, & velut depositum reddant legentibus. Itaque id exprimere debent, quod dicturi sumus. Quintil. lib. i. cap. 13.

merable

merable instances, debvoir,debte, tiltre, poulmon, nostre, &c.

Lastly, though one cannot absolutely prescribe which of these two methods should be followed, it seems necessary that the professors of the same college should agree with one of them, that the scholars may not be obliged to change their orthography, as they change their classes *. They cannot be too soon accustomed to write clearly and correctly, to place their great and little letters to advantage, to distinguish the vand j consonants from the u and i vowels, and to know what use they should make of stops, commas, accents, and other marks, which have been prudently invented to add clearness and order to writing.

And as I am now speaking of writing, I beg leave to give young persons one piece of advice, which inay seem a trifle, but is not so indifferent, and that is, that they would learn, at least before they leave school, to make their own pens, and to do it dexterously, according to rule. Many persons write very ill, only for want of it. And why should we depend upon another hand for so small a thing, so frequently wanted?

ARTICLE II.

OF THE READING FRENCH BOOKS..

MASTERS may find abundance of books to enable them to instruct their scholars well in the rules of the French tongue.

But we

The grammar of M. L'Abbé Régnier, of the French academy, is perfect in its kind. They may als read over some others, which are very valuable. must not forget M Arnauld's general and rational grammar, which plainly discovers the profound judgment and sublime genius of that great man. A judicious master will make his advantage of these performances, and extract from them what we shall think

Since this valuable book has been written and translated, the French language has undergone great alterations, which have at last made the language more conformable to reason, I mean, that now the pelling and pronouncing of it agree better together.-Note of the CORRECTOR.

useful

useful for the instruction of youth. The same may be said of the observations made upon the French tongue by M. de Vaugelas, Thomas Corneille, F. Bouhours, M. Menage, and other ingenious writers [i] which the master may read in private, and having taken from them the best and most useful rules, may explain them to the boys as he sees occasion. It were to be wished, that a short grammar were drawn up expressly for them, containing the most necessary rules and reflections.

When they have got a tincture of Greek and La tin, it will be proper, by the reading of authors, to give them a taste of the genius and character of the French tongue, in making them compare it with those languages. The French wants many helps and advantages wherein their principal beauty consists. And without speaking of the vast abundance of terms and turns peculiar to the two languages, and especially the Greek, the composition of one word out of several is scarce known in our tongue. It has not the art of va rying ad infinitum the force and signification of words, whether nouns or verbs, by a variety of prepositions joined to them. It is extremely clogged and tied up by the necessity of placing words in a certain order, which seldom allows it the liberty of transposing them. It is subject to the same terminations in all the cases of its nouns, and several tenses of its verbs, especially in the singular number. It has one gender less than the other two languages, which is the neuter. And except [k] in a very few words, which are borrowed from the Latin, it has neither the comparative nor superlative degrees. It scarce ever makes use of diminutives, which add so much grace and beauty to the Greek and Latin. Quantity, which contributes exceedingly to the numbers, and cadence of a discourse, has no share in it; I mean in the manner it is used in Greek and Latin, and especially with respect to the feet of verses. And yet notwithstanding all these

[i] It will be proper to join with notes which T.Corneille has written M. Vaugelas's observations the upon them.

seeming impediments, can it be perceived from the writings of good authors that our language is any way defective, either as to copiousness, variety, harmony, or any other grace? And has it not this inestimable advantage above the other two. that it is so averse to all intricacy, and lays every thing so clearly before the understanding, that it is impossible its meaning should be mistaken, when properly expressed? And thus we have full amends for whatever may be wanting to it, and it is capable of disputing the superiority with the richest languages of antiquity.

At the same time that youth are taught the principles and rules of their own tongue, we should begin likewise to form their taste and judginent. But as the reflections to be made upon this subject do not relate to grammar, and are besides common to all languages, I shall forbear to treat it with the extent it deserves, till I come to speak of rhetoric.

Only here it may be proper to observe, that whilst they are conversing with French authors, though we should constantly pay a particular regard to the rules of the language, yet we should not content ourselves with the bare examination of them. It will be proper to observe the propriety, justness, force, and delicacy of the terms and expressions; and still more, to dwell upon the solidity and truth of the thoughts and topics. It may be convenient to point out the connexion and disposition of the different proofs and parts of the discourse. But above all, we should be careful to prefer whatever is capable of forming the heart, of inspiring it with sentiments of generosity, disinterestedness, contempt for riches, love for the public good, aversion to injustice and insincerity; in a word, whatever will make an honest inan, and still more a true Christian.

We shall speak of what concerns the choice to be made of authors with reference to the morals in another place. As to style, we must keep close to [/] Quintilian's rule, of making them always read the best au

[ Ego optimos quidem & statim, & semper. Quintil. lib. ii. c. q. thors,

VOL. I.

E