LECT. ftantive nouns, number, gender, and cafe, which require our confideration,

VIII.

NUMBER diftinguishes them as one, or many, of the fame kind, called the Singular and Plural; a distinction found in all Languages, and which muft, indeed, have been coëval with the very infancy of Language; as there were few things which men had more frequent oc-. cafion to exprefs, than the difference between one and many. For the greater facility of expreffing it, it has, in all Languages, been marked by fome variation made upon the fubftantive noun; as we fee, in English, our plural is commonly formed by the addition of the letter S. In the Hebrew, Greek, and fome other antient Languages, we find, not only a plural, but a dual number; the rife of which may very naturally be accounted for, from feparate terms of numbering not being yet invented, and one, two, and many, being all, or, at least, the chief numeral diftinctions which men, at firft, had any occafion to take notice of.

GENDER, is an affection of fubftantive nouns, which will lead us into more difcuffion than number. Gender, being founded on the diftinction of the two fexes, it is plain, that, in a proper sense, it can only find place in the names of living creatures, which admit the diftinction

distinction of male and female; and, therefore, LECT. VIII can be ranged under the mafculine or feminine genders. All other fubftantive nouns ought to belong, to what grammarians call, the Neuter Gender, which is meant to imply the negation of either fex. But, with respect to this distribution, fomewhat fingular hath obtained in the structure of Language. For, in correspondence to that diftinction of male and female fex, which runs through all the claffes of animals, men have, in most Languages, ranked a great number of inanimate objects alfo, under the like diftinctions of mafculine and feminine. Thus we find it, both in the Greek and Latin Tongues. Gladius, a fword, for inftance, is mafculine; fagitta, an arrow, is feminine; and this affignation of sex to inanimate objects, this diftinction of them into mafculine and feminine, appears often to be entirely capricious; derived from no other principle than the casual structure of the Language, which refers to a certain gender, words of a certain termination. In the Greek and Latin, however, all inanimate objects are not distributed into masculine and feminine; but many of them are alfo claffed, where all of them ought to have been, under the neuter gender; as, templum, a church; fedile, a feat.

BUT the genius of the French and Italian. Tongues differs, in this refpect, from the Greek

N 4

VIII.

LECT. Greek and Latin. In the French and Italian, from whatever caufe it has happened, fo it is, that the neuter gender is wholly unknown, and that all their names of inanimate objects are put upon the fame footing with living creatures; and diftributed, without exception, into. mafculine and feminine. The French havetwo articles, the mafculine le, and the feminine la; and one or other of thefe is prefixed to all substantive nouns in the Language, to denote their gender. The Italians make the fame univerfal ufe of their articles il and lo, for the mafculine; and la, for the feminine.

IN the English Language, it is remarkable that there obtains a peculiarity quite oppofite. In the French and Italian, there is no neuter gender. In the English, when we use common discourse, all fubftantive nouns, that are not names of living creatures, are neuter, without exception. He, fhe, and it, are the marks of the three genders; and we always use it, in speaking of any object where there is no fex, or where the fex is not known. The English is, perhaps, the only Language in the known world (except the Chinese, which is faid to agree with it in this particular), where the diftinction of gender is properly and philofophically applied in the ufe of words, and confined, as it ought to be, to mark the real diftinctions of male and female.

HENCE

VIII.

HENCE arifes a very great and fignal ad- LE CT. vantage of the English Tongue, which it is of confequence to remark *. Though in com-. mon discourse, as I have already obferved, we employ only the proper and literal diftinction of fexes; yet the genius of the Language permits us, whenever it will add beauty to our discourse, to make the names of inanimate objects mafculine or feminine in a metaphorical fenfe; and when we do fo, we are understood to quit the literal ftyle, and to use one of the figures of discourse.

FOR inftance; if I am fpeaking of virtue, in the course of ordinary converfation, or of strict reasoning, I refer the word to no fex or gender; I fay, "Virtue is its own reward;" or, "it is the law of our nature." But if I chufe to rife into a higher tone; if I feek to embellish and animate my difcourfe, I give a fex to virtue; I fay, "She defcends from Heaven;" "fhe alone confers true honour upon man; "her gifts are the only durable rewards." By this means, we have it in our power to vary our style at pleasure. By making a very flight alteration, we can perfonify any object that we chufe to introduce with dignity; and by

*The following obfervations on the metaphorical use of genders, in the English Language, are taken from Mr. Harris's Hermes.

this

VIII.

LECT. this change of manner, we give warning, that we are paffing from the ftrict and logical, to the ornamented and rhetorical ftyle.

THIS is an advantage which, not only every poet, but every good writer and speaker in profe is, on many occafions, glad to lay hold of, and improve and it is an advantage peculiar to our Tongue; no other Language poffeffes it. For, in other Languages, every word has one fixed gender, mafculine, feminine, or neuter, which can, upon no occafion, be changed; agern, for inftance, in Greek, virtus in Latin; and la vertu in French, are uniformly feminine. She, muft always be the pronoun answering to the word, whether you be writing in poetry or profe, whether you be ufing the style of reafoning, or that of declamation whereas, in English, we can either exprefs ourselves with the philofophical accuracy of giving no gender to things inanimate; or by giving them gender, and transforming them into perfons, we adapt them to the style of poetry, and, when it is proper, we enliven profe.

Ir deferves to be further remarked on this fubject, that, when we employ that liberty which our Language allows, of afcribing fex to any inanimate object, we have not, however, the liberty of making it of what gender we