_June_ 22, 1785.
Since I received your book,[1] Sir, I scarce ceased from reading till I
had finished it; so admirable I found it, and so full of good sense,
brightly delivered. Nay, I am pleased with myself, too, for having
formed the same opinions with you on several points, in which we do not
agree with the generality of men. On some topics, I confess frankly, I
do not concur with you: considering how many you have touched, it would
be wonderful if we agreed on all, or I should not be sincere if I said I
did. There are others on which I have formed no opinion; for I should
give myself an impertinent air, with no truth, if I pretended to have
any knowledge of many subjects, of which, young as you are, you seem to
have made yourself master. Indeed, I have gone deeply into nothing, and
therefore shall not discuss those heads on which we differ most; as
probably I should not defend my own opinions well. There is but one part
of your work to which I will venture any objection, though you have
considered it much, and I little, very little indeed, with regard to
your proposal, which to me is but two days old: I mean your plan for the
improvement of our language, which I allow has some defects, and which
wants correction in several particulars. The specific amendment which
you propose, and to which I object, is the addition of _a's_ and _o's_
to our terminations. To change _s_ for _a_ in the plural number of our
substantives and adjectives, would be so violent an alteration, that I
believe neither the power of Power nor the power of Genius would be able
to effect it. In most cases I am convinced that very strong innovations
are more likely to make impression than small and almost imperceptible
differences, as in religion, medicine, politics, &c.; but I do not think
that language can be treated in the same manner, especially in a refined
age.
[Footnote 1: Mr. Pinkerton was a Scotch lawyer, who published a volume
entitled "Letters on Literature" under the name of Heron; which,
however, he afterwards suppressed, as full of ill-considered ideas,
which was not strange, as he was only twenty-five.]
When a nation first emerges from barbarism, two or three masterly
writers may operate wonders; and the fewer the number of writers, as the
number is small at such a period, the more absolute is their authority.
But when a country has been polishing itself for two or three centuries,
and when, consequently, authors are innumerable, the most super-eminent
genius (or whoever is esteemed so, though without foundation) possesses
very limited empire, and is far from meeting implicit obedience. Every
petty writer will contest very novel institutions: every inch of change
in any language will be disputed; and the language will remain as it
was, longer than the tribunal which should dictate very heterogeneous
alterations. With regard to adding _a_ or _o_ to final consonants,
consider, Sir, should the usage be adopted, what havoc it would make!
All our poetry would be defective in metre, or would become at once as
obsolete as Chaucer; and could we promise ourselves, that, though we
should acquire better harmony and more rhymes, we should have a new
crop of poets, to replace Milton, Dryden, Gray, and, I am sorry you will
not allow me to add, Pope! You might enjoin our prose to be reformed, as
you have done by the "Spectator" in your thirty-fourth Letter; but try
Dryden's "Ode" by your new institution.
I beg your pardon for these trivial observations: I assure you I could
write a letter ten times as long, if I were to specify all I like in
your work. I more than like most of it; and I am charmed with your
glorious love of liberty, and your other humane and noble sentiments.
Your book I shall with great pleasure send to Mr. Colman[1]: may I tell
him, without naming you, that it is written by the author of the comedy
I offered to him? He must be struck with your very handsome and generous
conduct in printing your encomiums on him, after his rejecting your
piece. It is as great as uncommon, and gives me as good an opinion of
your heart, Sir, as your book does of your great sense. Both assure me
that you will not take ill the liberty I have used in expressing my
doubts on your plan for amending our language, or for any I may use in
dissenting from a few other sentiments in your work; as I shall in what
I think your too low opinion of some of the French writers, of your
preferring Lady Mary Wortley to Madame de Sévigné, and of your esteeming
Mr. Hume a man of deeper and more solid understanding than Mr. Gray. In
the two last articles it is impossible to think more differently than we
do.[2] In Lady Mary's "Letters," which I never could read but once, I
discovered no merit of any sort; yet I have seen others by her
(unpublished) that have a good deal of wit; and for Mr. Hume, give me
leave to say that I think your opinion, "that he might have ruled a
state," ought to be qualified a little; as in the very next page you
say, his "History" is "a mere apology for prerogative," and a very weak
one. If he could have ruled a state, one must presume, at best, that he
would have been an able tyrant; and yet I should suspect that a man,
who, sitting coolly in his chamber, could forge but a weak apology for
the prerogative, would not have exercised it very wisely. I knew
personally and well both Mr. Hume and Mr. Gray, and thought there was no
degree of comparison between their understandings; and, in fact, Mr.
Hume's writings were so superior to his conversation, that I frequently
said he understood nothing till he had written upon it. What you say,
Sir, of the discord in his "History" from his love of prerogative and
hatred of churchmen, flatters me much; as I have taken notice of that
very unnatural discord in a piece I printed some years ago, but did not
publish, and which I will show to you when I have the pleasure of seeing
you here; a satisfaction I shall be glad to taste, whenever you will let
me know you are at leisure after the beginning of next week. I have the
honour to be, Sir, &c.
[Footnote 1: Mr. Colman was manager of the Haymarket Theatre.]
[Footnote 2: It is difficult to judge what were the published letters of
Lady Mary which Walpole could have seen. If Mr. Pinkerton preferred them
to those of Mme. de Sévigné, he could certainly have adduced plausible
reasons for his preference. There is far greater variety in them, as was
natural from the different lives led by the two fair writers. Mme. de
Sévigné's was almost confined to Paris and the Court; Lady Mary was a
great traveller. Her husband was English ambassador at Constantinople
and other places, and her letters give descriptions of that city, of
Vienna, the Hague, Venice, Rome, Naples, &c., &c. It may be fitly
pointed out here that in a letter to Lord Strafford Walpole expresses an
opinion that letter-writing is a branch of literature in which women are
likely to excel men; "for our sex is too jealous of the reputation of
good sense to hazard a thousand trifles and negligences which give
grace, ease, and familiarity to correspondence."]
_CRITICISM ON VARIOUS AUTHORS: GREEK, LATIN, FRENCH, AND ENGLISH--HUMOUR
OF ADDISON, AND OF FIELDING--WALLER--MILTON--BOILEAU'S "LUTRIN"--"THE
RAPE OF THE LOCK"--MADAME DE SÉVIGNÉ._