which would feem not altogether improper, because they are joined to nouns; but it is not accurate, because it does not distinguish the adjective from the participle and verb, which are alfo joined to nouns. The Participle, Participium, (in Greek † metachê) was probably fo called, beause it partakes of the nature both of the verb and of the adjective; of the former, by expreffing time, and of the latter, by denoting a quality, But, though derived from the verb, it is not to be confidered as a part of it; becaufe, though it may resemble a verb in expreffing a quality with time, it implies no affirmation, and confequently wants the verb's diftinguishing character. If its derivation were to give it any right to be confidered as a part of the verb, then the adverb presumptuously might as well claim to be a part of the adjective prefumptuous, of the noun prefumption, and of the verb prefume. Accordingly, the Latin grammari ans, while they confound adjectives with nouns, do yet very properly diftinguish the participle from every other part of fpeech. Wherever adjectives and participles admit the diftinctions of gender, number, and cafe, it would feem natural, that, in these three refpects, they D 3 fhould If adjectives may ever with propriety be called Adnouns, it feems to be, when they are neceffary to give the full figni, fication of a noun. Thus, the golden eagle is no more than the name of one fpecies of the aquiline tribe. Accordingly, what in one tongue is thus expreffed by two words may in another be fignified by one. Thus xevodistos is the name of the fame bird in Greek. Similar inftances are innumerable; as the Mediterranean fea, a fetting dog, &c. See The Philofophy of Rhetorick. Book iii. chap. 2. + Μ.τοχ", from μετεχειν participare. fhould agree with the nouns to which they belong. Indeed, I cannot fee, why adjectives and participles fhould have thofe diftinctions, unless it be, that they may the more effectually coincide with their refpective nouns. For bonus, movens, good, moving, or any other adjective or participle, confidered in itself, cannot be of any number or of any gender: for it may be afferted of one, or of many; and of that which is either mafculine or feminine, and of that which is neuter. Twelve men or women, for example, may be good, or in motion, as well as one; and many forts of animals and inanimate things, as well as one fort.-Agreeably to these remarks, we find, that in Latin, Greek, and fome other languages, wherein the termination of adjectives and participles varies according to the gender and number; that in thofe languages, I fay, adjectives and participles follow the gender, number, and cafe of the fubftantives to which they are joined: but English adjectives and participles, which never vary the termination, and are all of the nature of indeclinable Latin adjectives (as frugi, nequam, centum) adapt themfelves, without any change, to nouns of all genders, cafes, and numbers. Whence we may infer, that the declenfion of adjectives and participles, though it takes place in many tongues, and may contribute to elegance and harmony of style, is not effential to language, and is therefore a confideration which belongs not to Univerfal Grammar. And it will appear afterwards, that the fame thing is true of the declenfion of nouns. The comparison of adjectives is another fource of variety, which demands attention; that we may fee how far it is, or is not, effential to language. guage. Things or perfons, that have a certain quality in common, may differ in refpect of the degrees in which they have it. This paper is white, and fnow is white; but fnow is whiter than this paper, Pliny was eloquent, Cefar was more eloquent, and Cicero was the most eloquent of the three. Sophocles was wife, Socrates was wiser 3 but Solomon was the wifeft of men. These, and the like degrees, of the fame quality, must be obferveable in all ages and nations, must be fpoken of by all men, and must therefore in one way or other be expreffed in all languages. In Latin and English, there are four ways of expreffing this variety. The first is, by joining to the adjective an adverb of comparative increase; as more hard, very hard, most hard; magis durus, valde durus, maxime durus.-The fecond is, by varying the termination of the adjective: wife, wifer, wifeft; fapiens, fapientior, fapientiffimus; fophos, fophoteros, fophotatos.-The third is, by affuming other adjectives, which do themselves denote both a quality and comparison; as good, better; bad, worse; bonus, melior, optimus.-The fourth is, by blending the two methods last mentioned as in English, good, better, best; where beft (contracted from the Saxon Betteft or Betft) is plainly allied to better, but better (though formed from the Saxon Bet) is, in English, a primitive word, not derived from good, nor from any other adjective now in the language. So in Latin, malus, pejor, peffimus; and fo in Greek † kakos, cheiron, cheiriftos. In other tongues, other methods equally convenient, perhaps, and equally elegant, may have been adopted, for marking thofe Σοφος, σοφώτερος, σοφωταίος. † κακος, χείρων, Χειρίσος. those increafing degrees of qualities, which are commonly called degrees of comparison. If it were asked, whether participles have this variety, I should anfwer, No. As attributives, they might have it, no doubt; for most attributes or qualities admit the diftinctions of more and lefs but participles, as expreffive of time, cannot have this variety; because time, whether confidered as paft, or prefent, or as future, admits not thofe diftinctions. Of two things that are good, one may be more and the other less fo; but if two perfons are writing at this present time, the writing of the one cannot be more connected with time prefent, than that of the other; and if Milton was writing in the last century, and Virgil twenty centuries ago, the time in which Milton wrote is as really paft, as that in which Virgil wrote. And therefore, when an attribute, bearing the form of a participle, is varied by a comparative or fuperlative termination, or has its meaning heightened by an adverb of comparative increase, as amans, amantior, amantiffimus; doctus, doctior, doctiffimus; a loving friend, a more loving friend, a moft loving friend,—that attributive is to be confidered, not as a participle expreffing a quality with time, but as an adjective expreffing a fimple quality. As many verbs either denote, or imply action; and as the fame action may be performed with greater or with lefs energy; it seems reasonable, that they, as well as adjectives, fhould admit of increase or of decrease in their fignification; which is probably the cafe in all languages. But in every language that we know, it is done by means of adverbs, and not by varying the termi nation of the verb: for this would have added unneceffarily to the complexnefs of that attributive, which in moft languages is complex enough already. Thus we fay in English, Brutus loved money much, Cato loved it more, Craffus loved it exceedingly. So in Latin, amat, magis amat, vehementer amat. Such adverbs as exprefs the meaning of attributives, may admit of comparifon, if the attribute itself be capable of more and lefs. Thus diu, for a long time, is varied into diutius and diutiffime; ftulte, in a foolish manner, or foolishly, into ftultius and ftultiffime; prope, in a near fituation, into propius, and proxime, &c. So in Englifh we fay, adverbially, long, longer, very long; foolishly, more foolishly, moft foolishly; near, nearer, nearest or next. If Those words admit not of comparison, which denote what is fo definite as to be unfufceptible of more and lefs. Quality, fays Ariftotle, admits of more and lefs; but fubftance does not. this be allowed, it follows, that fubftantives do not admit of comparifon, but that attributives do. Goliah was taller and stronger than David; but David was as much a male of the human fpecies as Goliah. If we fay of any one, that he is more a man than another, we give to the noun the fense of an attributive; for the meaning muft be, that he is more manly, or that he poffeffes fome other good qualities in a higher degree. So when Pope fays, of a certain perfon, that he is "a tradesman, meek, and much a liar," the last phrafe is the fame with much given to lying. And when the fcripture declares, of the pharifee's profelyte, that he is more a child of hell, the |