Part 1

Produced by Louise Hope, David Starner, David Newman and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net

Transcriber’s Note:

This e-text comes in three different forms: unicode (utf-8), latin-1 and ascii-7.

--If “œ” displays as a single character, and apostrophes and quotation marks are “curly” or angled, you have the utf-8 version (best). If any part of this paragraph displays as garbage, try changing your text reader’s “character set” or “file encoding”. If that doesn’t work, proceed to:

--If “œ” is two letters, but French words like “étude” have accents, you have the latin-1 version. Apostrophes and quotation marks will be straight (“typewriter” form). Again, if you see any garbage in this paragraph and can’t get it to display properly, use:

--The ascii-7 or rock-bottom version. All necessary text will still be there; it just won’t be as pretty.

Some sections of the primary text used Italic body text, with Roman (de-italicized) type for emphasis. In these passages, Roman type is shown with +marks+ for clarity.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Series Six: _Poetry and Language_

No. 1

John Oldmixon, _Reflections on Dr. Swift’s Letter to Harley_ (1712);

and

Arthur Mainwaring, _The British Academy_ (1712).

With an Introduction by Louis A. Landa

The Augustan Reprint Society September, 1948 _Price: 75 cents_

_GENERAL EDITORS_

RICHARD C. BOYS, _University of Michigan_ EDWARD NILES HOOKER, _University of California, Los Angeles_ H. T. SWEDENBERG, JR., _University of California, Los Angeles_

_ASSISTANT EDITOR_

W. EARL BRITTON, _University of Michigan_

_ADVISORY EDITORS_

EMMETT L. AVERY, _State College of Washington_ BENJAMIN BOYCE, _University of Nebraska_ LOUIS I. BREDVOLD, _University of Michigan_ CLEANTH BROOKS, Yale University JAMES L. CLIFFORD, _Columbia University_ ARTHUR FRIEDMAN, _University of Chicago_ SAMUEL H. MONK, _University of Minnesota_ ERNEST MOSSNER, _University of Texas_ JAMES SUTHERLAND, _Queen Mary College, London_

Lithoprinted from copy supplied by author by Edwards Brothers, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A. 1948

_INTRODUCTION_

The two tracts reprinted here, as well as Swift’s _Proposal for correcting, improving and ascertaining the English tongue_, which occasioned them, may be viewed in the context of the many seventeenth- and eighteenth-century suggestions for the formation of a British Academy. They are in part a result of the founding of the French Academy in 1635, although the feeling in England that language needed regulating to prevent its corruption and decline was not purely derivative. By the close of the seventeenth century an informed Englishman might have been familiar with a series of native proposals, ranging from those of Carew of Antony and Edmund Bolton early in the century to that of Defoe at the close. Among the familiar figures who urged the advantages of an Academy were Evelyn, the Earl of Roscommon, and Dryden. Of these Dryden was particularly vocal; but Evelyn’s suggestion, associated as it was with the Royal Society, was rather more spectacular. In 1665 he set forth for the Society’s Committee for Improving the Language an exhaustive catalogue of the forces tending to the corruption of the English tongue. Those, he declared, are “victories, plantations, frontiers, staples of commerce, pedantry of schools, affectation of travellers, translations, fancy and style of court, vernility and mincing of citizens, pulpits, political remonstrances, theatres, shops, &c.” There follows Evelyn’s careful formulation of the problems facing those who would refine the language and fix its standards.

This sense of the corruption of the language and of the urgent need for regulation was communicated to the eighteenth century, in which a number of powerful voices called for action. Early in the period Addison advocated “something like an Academy that by the best Authorities and Rules ... shall settle all Controversies between Grammar and Idiom” (_The Spectator_, No. 135). He was followed by Swift, who in turn was followed by such diverse persons as Orator Henlay, the Earl of Orrery, and the Earl of Chesterfield. Curiously, Johnson’s appears to be the only weighty voice in opposition: “the edicts of an English Academy,” he insisted, “would probably be read by many, only that they might be sure to disobey them.”

But if the two tracts reprinted here may be viewed in this context, they may also be seen from another vantage--as part of the interminable wrangling in the period between Whigs and Tories, even over a matter so apparently non-political as the founding of an Academy. Since it was Swift’s “petty treatise on the English Language”--the epithet is Johnson’s--which provoked these two replies, we must look briefly at his handiwork. Swift was undoubtedly guilty of pride of authorship with respect to his _Proposal_, which appeared on May 17, 1712, in the form of a _Letter to the Earl of Oxford_. He had touched on the problem earlier in the _Tatler_ (No. 230), but this is a more considered effort. In June, 1711, he first broached to Harley the idea of “a society or academy for correcting and settling our language,” and with Harley’s approval he began to compose the _Letter_. Yet it was eight months before the document reached Harley and another two months, during which it circulated among friends, before Swift retrieved it for the printer. Thus, and this fact has significance, the _Proposal_ had its inception and its first consideration in the Tory circles attached to the Harley ministry. A few days before its publication Swift wrote to Stella: “I suffer my name to be put at the End of it, wch I nevr did before in my Life.”

Now this willingness to publish under his own name also has a special significance. It is not merely, as is often assumed, that he cherished the project, though very likely that played a part. He was motivated, I am convinced, by a desire to flaunt the _Proposal_ as a party document. It is true that he wrote to Stella two weeks after its publication that “there are 2 Answers come out to it already, tho tis no Politicks, but a harmless Proposall about the Improvement of the Engl. Tongue.” “I believe,” he added, “If I writt an Essay upon Straw some fool would answer it.” But this disclaimer is ingenuous in the light of the political overtones in the _Proposal_; for example, the extended praise of Barley as one who saved his country from ruin “by a foreign war and a domestic faction.” In fact, the lengthy panegyric of the Lord Treasurer, as well as other matter, is bluntly and deliberately partisan. It could not conceivably have been interpreted otherwise by contemporaries; nor could Swift have been unaware of its provocative impact upon his readers. Oldmixon remarks ironically of this part the _Proposal_--and small wonder that he does--that it is “incomparable, full of the most delicate Eulogy In the World.” Furthermore Swift knew, in view of his position as leading writer for the Tory ministry, that to sign his name was to invite attack--even if he wrote, as he says, upon straw.

There is no doubt he thought the formation of an Academy a matter of great importance. Why then did he deliberately introduce controversial elements and thus make impossible a discussion of his proposal wholly on its merits? I suggest as a possible answer that he wished the Whigs to dissociate themselves from the project and that he used the tactics expected to achieve this end, in the desire that entire credit for the founding of the Academy should rest with Harley and Harley’s supporters. The partisan approach was therefore shrewdly calculated to provoke opposition and to avoid any leaven of Whiggism in the “institution and patronage” of the Academy. Swift wanted the contemporary prestige, as well as the favorable verdict of posterity, to be unmistakably placed. Nevertheless there was no intention of excluding meritorious Whigs from the original membership--only, as is clear from Swift’s attitude, from the “institution and patronage” of the Academy. In a list of Academicians drawn up by Swift and Harley, unhappily not extant, members of both parties were included--so Swift wrote to Archbishop King in Dublin, and there is no reason to doubt it. Even Oldmixon grudgingly reports that Swift had promised “the Whigs that they shall come in if they will.” However violent his partisanship at times, Swift could and did respect merit; and Harley was always ready to placate individual members of the Opposition. There is therefore no need to take seriously, as Oldmixon and the authors of _The British Academy_ pretend to do, the list of potential members of the Academy printed first in the _Amsterdam Gazette_ and quoted in _The British Academy_. It will be seen at a glance that they constitute that dinner group of Tory “Brothers,” the Society to which Swift belonged, a group sufficient for its avowed purpose--“to advance conversation and friendship, and to reward deserving persons”--but of course he would not have accepted them _in toto_ for the Academy.

The Whig writers began their attack on the _Proposal_ immediately. In the _Medley_, founded by Mainwaring and Oldmixon “to provide an Antidote against the Poison of the Examiner,” there is a brief reference in the issue of May 19-23, 1712, to “the very extraordinary Letter to a Great Man,” followed in the next issue by an extended political attack with the _Proposal_ as the point of departure. Thus at the outset Swift’s pamphlet was treated as a party document. At the same time the Whig writers were readying two pamphlets in answer, both announced in the _Medley_ of May 19-23 as soon to be printed. Apparently neither of these appeared, at least not under the announced titles; but by May 26 Oldmixon’s _Reflections_ had been published anonymously and was referred to in the _Medley_ as “a very ingenious Pamphlet.” As any reader of the _Reflections_ will observe for himself, the pamphlet opens on a violent political note and sustains it throughout. Although Oldmixon is more concerned to level charges against Swift--a lewd, irreverent cleric, a turncoat, a party scribbler, etc.--than to deny the validity of Swift’s views concerning the language, he does directly challenge certain points. And he arrives at a conclusion which may well have been the result of honest conviction rather than mere party opposition: that it is neither desirable nor possible to fix the language forever. In a sense this was the chief issue, and the one where the authoritarian view as represented by Swift and others was most vulnerable. Is it possible, by the edicts of an academy however eminent its members and respected its authority, to negate or control the principle of change inherent in language? Unfortunately Oldmixon did not live long enough to see his attitude aggressively expounded by one of greater stature who also took issue with Swift, both in the _Preface to the Dictionary_ and in the life of Swift.

_The British Academy_, published May 30, 1712 (advertised in the _Spectator_ of that date), is of composite authorship. The one person known to have had a hand in it--“a great Hand,” says Oldmixon--is Arthur Mainwaring (_The life and posthumous works of Arthur Maynwaring, Esq._ [London, 1715], p. 324; this is the source of most of our knowledge of Mainwaring.). The identity of Mainwaring’s collaborators is a matter of conjecture. Perhaps the most eligible are those who assisted with the _Medley_, as Steele, Anthony Henley, and White Kennett. Among other possibilities are such active Whig writers as Thomas Burnet and George Duckett; and even Oldmixon cannot be ruled out. Doubtless Mainwaring was the inspiring spirit--of this as well as other attacks on the group surrounding Harley. Poet, ardent Jacobite convert to Whiggism, member of the Kit Kat Club, member of Parliament, and Auditor of the Imprest, Mainwaring had a brief but full career. It included a part in the _Whig Examiner_ and chief responsibility for the _Medley_. In the course of his political opposition he appears to have developed a genuine hatred of Swift, to whom he always referred, if Oldmixon’s word can be trusted, as “one of the wickedest Wretches alive.” By May, 1712, when _The British Academy_ was published, he was already ill of the disease which ended in his death a few months later; but he seems to have retained his vigor and his clear intelligence to the end. _The British Academy_ is shrewdly conceived to cast odium on Swift’s proposal for an Academy by identifying its potential members as a Tory faction and the whole project as merely a scheme to provide Harley with a set of pensioners who would be obliged in gratitude “to revere his Virtue and his Memory.” Whereas in the _Reflections_ Swift is assaulted with hard obvious blows, in _The British Academy_ a more subtle intelligence is evident: the attack is oblique and ironic, and a tone of Addisonian urbanity is fairly well maintained. Nevertheless it is not as literature that these two answers to Swift are to be judged. They are minor, though interesting, documents in political warfare which cut athwart a significant cultural controversy.

-- Louis A. Landa Princeton University

John Oldmixon’s _Reflections on Dr. Swift’s Letter to Harley_ (1712) is reproduced here, with permission, from the copy owned by the University of Chicago Library; Mainwaring’s _British Academy_ (1712) is reproduced here, with permission, from the copy owned by the Newberry Library, Chicago.

* * * * * * * * *

REFLECTIONS

on

Dr. _Swift_’s

LETTER

to the

Earl of _OXFORD_,

About The

_English_ Tongue.

_LONDON:_

Sold by _A. Baldwin_ at the _Oxford Arms_ in _Warwick-Lane_. (Price Six Pence.)

THE PREFACE

_The Bold Manner of publishing the +Letter+ for +correcting, improving+, and +ascertaining the+ English +Tongue+, made me conclude there was something very extraordinary in it, and more than any one could expect from Persons that were never thought to trouble themselves much about +Fine Language+. But upon dipping into it, I found there was nothing worthy the Character the Author acquir’d by other Ingenious Pieces in our Tongue, tho’ I confess, it was not so much for the Beauty of his Style as for other Qualities, some of which a Divine need not brag of._

_’Tis probable, our late Correspondence with +France+ put such a Whim into some Folks Heads, and because they have an +Academy+ for the same Use at +Paris+, we forsooth must have one at +London+. The Foreign News, which sometimes tells us more Truth of our doings here than our own, has the very Names of the Members of the +Academy+ which the Doctor speaks of. I do not find that it is come to any thing more yet than meeting over a Bottle once a Week, and being Merry. At which Times People mind talking much, more than talking well. I shou’d have taken what is printed in the +Amsterdam+ Gazette to have been only a dull +Dutch+ Jest upon those Men, if this +Letter+ had not been written, and some broad Hints given, that we are to be happier than we thought of, and to be surpriz’d with a Society that shall make us as Polite as that of +Reformation+ has made us +Godly+; and I wish it may answer the Ends of it with all my Heart. But the more I reflected upon this +Project+ and the +Projectors+, the more I was diffident of it, for the Reasons mention’d in the following Pages._

_I know very well the Epistle has but a sorry Reputation, even with the Writer’s own +Party+, that it is looked upon as a silly superficial Performance, and to be design’d only for an Opportunity to shew what a +Nack+ he has at +Panegyrick+. Be that as it will, after I had consider’d the Subject he writes more leisurely than I was won’t to do, I was loth to lose those Considerations; and having put ’em into this Form, I flatter’d my self the Publick would not receive them ill; at least all those whom Faction and Prejudice have not render’d Insensible of Truth and Reason, and to such, a Man must be well set to work that writes a Task suitable to the Integrity and Ability of +Abel+ and his Brethren, among whom I am very unwilling to reckon our Author._

REFLECTIONS

on

Dr. _Swift_’s Letter,

about

Refining the ENGLISH TONGUE.

I should be guilty of the greatest Folly in the World, if I should go about to give a Character of Persons of whom I have no manner of Knowledge. To speak well or ill of ’em wou’d be equally Ridiculous and Dangerous: For it must be all Invention, and I might then abuse a Man both in my Praise and Dispraise. It is thus with me with Respect to the Author of the Letter lately publish’d about our Language, and to his Patron. I know neither of them, and if I say a Word more than themselves, or the World have said of them, I must have recourse to Fiction, which I cannot think of without abhorrence, where Reputation is concern’d.

That good old Church Martyr the Earl of _Strafford_ was of Opinion, _Common Fame_ was enough to hang a Man, as in the Case of the Duke of _Buckingham_, when he was impeach’d by the Commons for Male Practices in his Ministry; and there were no better Grounds for accusing him, than that every Body said so. I am quite of another Mind, and let the World say what they will of any one, I am for condemning no body but whom the Law Condemns, and therefore in these Reflections I shall not consider so much how to please the Spleen of one Party, as how to expose the Arrogance of another, who would lord it over us in every Thing, and not only force their Principles upon us, but their Language, wherein they endeavour to ape their good Friends the _French_, who for these three or fourscore Years have been attempting to make their Tongue as Imperious as their Power.

This most Ingenious Writer has so great a Value for his own Judgment in Matters of Stile, that he has put his Name to his Letter, and a Name greater than his own, as if he meant to Bully us into his Methods for pinning down our Language and making it as Criminal to admit Foreign Words as Foreign Trades, tho’ our Tongue may be enrich’d by the one, as much as our Traffick by the other. [Sidenote: _Page 28._] He would have it _corrected, enlarg’d and ascertain’d_ and who must do it? He tells you with great Modesty and Discernment in the 27th Page, _The Choice of Hands should be left to him_, and _he would then assign it over to the Women_, because they are softer mouth’d, and are more for _Liquids_ than the Men, as he try’d himself in a very notable Experiment. I wonder a grave, serious Divine, who is so well vers’d in College Learning, should in Compliment to a certain Lady, whose Breeding and Conversation must have given her wonderful Opportunities to refine our Tongue, imagine, that the Two Universities would give up so Essential a Branch of their Privileges to the Ladies, and take from them the Standard of _English_. This puts me in mind of _Fontenelle_’s way of Learning a Language, which he recommends to be by having an Intrigue with some Fair Foreigner; and beginning with the Verb _I Love, You Love_, &c. It is well enough from Him, a _Papist_, or _Layman_, but for a Protestant Divine to erect an Academy of Women to improve our Stile, is very extraordinary and gallant, and little agrees with the cruel Quotation of the Author of _the Tale of a Tub_, p. 163.

---- _Cunnus Teterrimi Belli_ _Causa_ ------------

That Excellent Moralist has not been pleas’d to discover himself, nor to Print his Name, but has set his Mark to his Works, which he has Embellish’d with new Flowers of Rhetorick, that shew what a Genius he has for refining Language, and how happily one may use the Figures of Cursing, Swearing, and Bawdy, which before were entirely exploded. Tho’ we cannot well suppose the Writer of that _Merry Tale_ is any way related to the Author of the Letter, yet out of my great Zeal to promote his Project of polishing Us, I must refer to some shining Passages in that incomparable Treatise, and let the World judge if any Man can be more fit to Preside in a Society for refining the _English_ Tongue.

[Sidenote: _Tale of a Tub. p. 109_] _Z---nds where’s the wonder of that? By G--- I saw a large House of Lime and Stone travel over Sea and Land. By G--- Gentlemen, I tell you nothing but Truth, and the Devil broil them eternally that will not believe me._ If there is any Thing like this in our Language from the lewdest of our Stage-Writers, I give them over to Mr. _Collier_ and the Reformers to do with them what they please. Yet I am inform’d these Florid Strokes came from the Pen of a Reverend Doctor, who has sollicited lately for a Deanery, and sets up mightily for a Refiner of our Tongue, which he would adorn with some more such graces of Speech; as, [Sidenote: _Preface, p. 21._] _Lord, what a Filthy Croud is here; Bless me! what Devil has rak’d this Rabble together; Z---nds, what squeezing is this! A Plague confound you for an overgrown Sloven? Who in the Devil’s Name, I wonder, helps to make up the Crowd half so much as your self? Don’t you consider with a Pox, that you take up more room with that Carcass than any Five here? Bring your own Guts to a reasonable Compass, and be d----d._ I tremble while I repeat such Stuff, which I defy any Man to match in any Language, Dead or Living, _Pagan_ or _Christian_; and yet this is the Eloquence, as is pretended, of a sound Orthodox Divine; one of the Champions of our Church, and the design’d Chairman of a new Academy to reform and improve our Stile. I shall only add here another Flower in p. 101. _If you fail hereof G---- damn you and yours to all Eternity_, says the same Reverend Author, whose Works on some other Occasion I shall examine, as to their Divinity, Piety, and other Merit, that the World may see on what Foot that Author has establish’d his Fame, and how judiciously a Man of his Cloth made himself first known to the World. Whether the late _Examiner_, the _Miscellanies in Prose and Verse_ publish’d by _Morphew_, and some more such Political and Pious Productions, did not come from the same Hand, I shall not determine. They are generally said to be written by the same Person, and how nearly related that Person is to our Letter Writer, is as well known as that he is a Doctor of Divinity, and hopes to make his Fortune by Preferments in that Church of which he is so bright an Ornament, as appears by what has been already quoted; by which one may perceive, how well qualify’d he is to form Schemes, for the _refining of our Tongue_, and the _Advancement of Religion_; of both which he has written. The latter does not come under Consideration so naturally in this Discourse as it will in another, and therefore it shall be deferr’d till such an Opportunity offers. Perhaps Our Elegant Writer will pretend to justify these Innovations in our Speech, for which the best Critick upon him would be my Lord Chief Justice, by the Example of our Modern Poets, and the Oaths and Curies of the Stage, where I never heard any thing so very Lewd, in Defyance of our Religion, Laws, and whatever is held Sacred by Christians, and Protestants. If he had a hand in the _Conduct of the Allies_, the _Remarks_, and other such Factious Papers, as is reported, and he never once thought fit to disown, being more Proud of the Honour done him in it, than asham’d of the Falshood and Scandal of those Libels, it is no strange Matter that a Man of such a Conscience should do or write any Thing; Cursing and Swearing being not so bad as the Robberies that Libeller has committed on the good Name of the best and greatest Men of this Age and Nation.