JOHN HORNE TOOKE 1S

PHILOSOPHI OF LANGUAGE JOHN HORNE '1'000 • S PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGI

b;y

Barbara J. .Albu

.l thesis subllitted to the Facult;y of

Graduate Studies and Research in partial

taltilment of the reqmirements tor the

degree of Maater of Arts.

Departaent of Philosophy,

HcGill University,

Montreal. April, 196$ • PREFACE

Professor Raymond Klibansky suggested John Horne Tooke 1s philosopby of language as a thesis topic. He directed me to many of the JIOre illportant sources, and examined and copied out material in the

British Museum 1lhich would have been otherwise unavailable to me. I aa most gratetul also for the many stylistic suggestions resulting from his patient perusal of the manuscript as well as for his pointed questions

1lhich have helped me see the subject more clearly-.

I thank my father-in-law, Victor Claude Jlbu, who sent tome a microfilm of the British Museum cow of John Locke's !!! Essay Concerning

Human Understanding in which are contained Horne Tooke's manuscript notes.

Also, I thank: my husband, Anthony Leopold Jl.bu, who read the manuscript and suggested im.prov•ents in the style. Mrs. Marilyn Verhagen produced the typescript with both admirable accuracy and despatch.

The spelling of Greek, Gothie, md .Anglo-saxon words has been r011.8Jlized throughout.

I have consulted, but not listed separately elsewhere, several general reference works including the British Museum Catalogue, the

Dictionary ~National Biography, !!!,! Caabridge Historz ot English Literature, !!!! C•bridge Bibliograp;g of English Literature, and the Enczclopaedia Brita:nnica. The details of all other books and articles used have been given fully in each case in the footnote to the first reference to that book or article. TABIB OF CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION...... 1

A References to John Home Tooke •s Philosophy ~ Language Wbich Bave Appeared During· the Twentieth CentU1'7 ..... •• •• •••• •• ••• •• •• 1

B The Influence John Home Tooke 1 s Work Exercised•••••••••••••••• 3 C The Signiticance o.f Borne Tooke's Theor,r o.f Language••••••••••• 12 D Some Textua1 and Interpretive Difficultt.es Met in Reading Borne Tooke 1s Works•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 14 E The Present Thesis Out1ined•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 20 II BIOGRAPHY •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 21

III THE DEVELOPMmT OF HORNE 'IDOKE 1S INTEREST IN LANGUAGE •• •• ••• • • • 26 IV HORNE TOOKE'S EXPERIMBBTA.L TES!' OF AN A PRIORI THEORY OF SPEEŒ 43 V HORNE TOOKE 1S THEORY OF LANGUAGE••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 47 A Speech and the •Manner o.f Signification'••••••••••••••••••••••• 47 B The Notion o.f •Force'•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 52 C Substitutions and Abbreviations•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 66

D Two Necessar.f Parts of Speech•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 76 VI OONCLUDING REMARKS CONCERNING HORNE TOOKE'S THmRY OF LlNGtJAGE. 83

VII BIBLIOGRAPHY •••••• ~···••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 92 • ••• Words ••• are the neceasar,y channel through wbich his (the philosopher'~ most precious liquors must flow.•

Diversions ~ Pnrlez, p. 165. I INTRODUCTION

John Home 'l'ooke's philosophy of language is worth examiniDg

because, although his work has been infiuential, and although there is

much of intrinsic interest in what he wrote - particularlJ' for many of

the questions discussed b7 philosopher& recentl7 - still, he ba& seldom been mentioned in English philosophical circ1es during this centur.y.1

A References to John Horne Tooke•s Phi1o&OphY .2!, Language libich !!!!!. Appeared During .:!":!!.! Twentieth Century

In 1923 C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards included Home Tooke among

those writers froa whom. they bad derived 1 instruction and occasionally

amuseaent 1. 2 Beyond characterising Horne Tooke • s theorz as an example

of the philologica] approach to the science of symboliD, they said notbing

explicit about his philosopby.

Minnie Clare Yarborough included in ber biographz of John Horne

Tooke a chapter in which she SWIID.&rized his theorz of language and quoted

many estimates of his importance. She cœcluded, 'The principles 11hieh

1 John Borne, in 1782 upon the request ot his trieD.d Willia Tooke vhose property he bad saved in a lawsuit, by libelling the Speaker ot the House of Commons, added the surname 1Tooke' to his own, thus, •John Horne Tooke' (Dictio~2f National Biogr!Phy). I have reterred to him as 'Horne Tooke•, in part fo oving the •John Horne, atterwards Horne Tooke' of the British Museum catalogue. This practice is not universal. Even atter 1782 his name appearëdin indices as simplJ' 'Horne', whereas a few years later he became sometimes simp1y •Tooke'.

2 c.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards, The Meani!l of Meaning, eighth edition (New York, 1946), p. II. --- -- 2.

Tooke advanced vere sound ~d suggestive, but a deficiency of knovledge led him. to erroneous asser.tions. His vork vas completed just before the daw of the new era in pbi1ological research. By the middle of the nineteenth century the investigations of Bopp, Grimm, and Pott bad raised the stuey of language to the rank of a science. Had Tooke been familiar

Vith the funda.mentals of Modern Comparative Philology, his theories vould have undergone some radical changes. His discoveries, hovever, were far in advance of his predecessors' • As the originator of· an ingenious syste11. of language study, he occupies a unique position in the history of philology' • 3

Miss Yarborough 1 s estimate recapitulates in its main point that of Leslie Stephen. He bad vritten of 'Horne Tooke's '*Diversions of

0 Purley 1 which is a premature attempt to apply philological enquiries to the histor,y of thougbt•.4

Of more philosophical interest are two recent references to his vork. In the first, Willard van Orman Quine considered briefly Horne

Tooke's semantic reductionism.5 In the second, Anthony Quinton placed

Horne Tooke•s vork in the pre-bistory of linguistic philosophy.6

3 Minnie Clare Yarborough, ~ Horne Tooke (New York, 1926), P• 145. 4 Lesli~ Stephen, History of !nglish Thought .!!!. the Eighteenth Century, third edJ.tion (London, 1902}, I, ~B-59. 5 Willard Van Orman Quine, From a Lo~ical Point of Vi ev, second edition revised (Ne.w York and Evanston, c: 1 1), pp. 38-39.- . 6 Raymond K1ibansk.y, editor, PhilosoPhl ~the Mid•Centu;r! Survez (Firenze, 1958), II, 153. 3.

The onl.7 modern attempt at a eritieal estiaate, b;r Otto :runke,

is in Gerun and uavailable in English translation. Fanke gaTe a one­ sided view ot Horne Tooke's philosoph;r as a pre-scientitie philolog;r conditioned b;r hie· Weltansehauung.7

B !!'!! Intl•ence !2!!! Home Tooke 1 s ~ Exereiaed

Both graaaariana and philosophera read Horne Tooke • s conclusions eoneerning language. In 1778, Horne Tooke published im. -A Letter --to John Durming, lsq. the first resulta of his researeh eoneerning language. 8 A

few IIIDnths later Da.gald St81Jart noticed Horne Tooke's Letter, 1in a course

of lectures on Moral Philosoph;r, lihich (at a Terr earl;r period of BfT lite, and while stUl Protessor ot Matheaaties) I delivered at the Universit;r ot

Ed.inburgh, during the absence of Dr. Ferguson in North AMriea.•9 Although Stewart opposed what he consid.ered to be tbe uterialiatic iaplications of

Horne Tooke 1s theories, he ade use of the notions of' 1 abbreviation• md

~~despateh • which vere central to Horne Tooke 1 s thought.lO

7 Otto Funke, ID&lische Sprachphilosophie !!, splteren !!• Jahrhundert (Bern, 1934), pp. 86, 89• 8 John Horne Tooke, ! Letter ~ i2!!! J!!nn:i~, Bsq. (LondGn, 1778). This work vas included b7 Horne Tooke 1 a editor, chard TëV"lor, in ali the editions of Home Toote•s vork 1ihich he, TllJ'lor edited. Subsequent references to it will be to •Letter•, · to, the page nUilbering of Ta;rlor 1s 1840 edition.

9 Da.gald Stewart, &leaents of the Philosopbz' of' the Huan Mind IV. 38, 11ote 1. 'l'he te:x:t is that ôt Sir iill1811 H811ilton. 1sedition, TiieCOlleeted Works .!! !!lald Stewart (Edinburgh, 18S4-186o). - 10 Stewart, IV. 17 •

1 4.

Noah Webster 1 a contem.porar;y even more renowned, at least in North America, al8o made use of Horne Tooke•s theories in a series of lectures. Horne Tooke bad published a more developed version in 1786, under the title Epea Pteroenta, !!: the Diversions E!, Purlez.n Noah

Webster dealt with Horne Tooke' s work in his fourth r Dissertation' , as he travelled lecturing between Richmond, Virginia, and Portsmouth, New

Hampshire, during 1785 and 1786. These Dissertations were both reported in the newspapers and later published in book fora. He said, ' ••• the discovery of the true theory of the construction of language, seelll8 to have been reserved tor Mr. Horne Tooke, author of' the "Diversions of Purler' •.12

Webster misinterpreted Horne Tooke's theories. The noun vas not the principal part of speech f'or Horne Tooke, as Webster had claimed; nor vere the prepositions, conjunctions, and adverbs, to be classitied as abbreviations; nor did the verb express action and existence. Througbout his later Dissertations, Webster paraphrased Horne Tooke's work.

The anonymous author of an article entitled •English Orthoep:r' 1 reterring to the effect Horne Tooke's work had on his contemporaries, wrote,

• ••• this first onset of Tooke •••produced a shock which was then severelT telt, and .from which the followers ot Johnson have not yet entirely

llJohn H9rne Tooke, Epea Pteroenta, ~,!!!!Diversions~ Parlefo (London_, 1786) • For his use of H0118r' s phrase 1 w.i.Dged words, see page • 1 Purlez• vas the name of the estate of William Tooke which Horne Tooke ac(Jlired for hiliiBelt much later. References to the work will be to Diversions, to the version edited by Richard Taylor (London 1840). 1~oah Webster, Dissertations on the English Language, reprinted {Gainesville, Florida, 1951). -- 5.

recovered' •13 S81lue1 Johnson vas not hillself' aortal.l.y vounded, although

be ha.d. notieed Horne Tooke.

Jut befcre Letter appeared in 1778, Horne Tooke had been

imprisoned fo1lowing a trial .. in which he had been cœdeJIDed for haviDg

incited the .Uaeriean eolonists. He had collected funda to aid the var

vidowa of the Allerican dead. Johnson said, 1The;r sh1d set hia· in the

pilloey, that. he ma;r be puniahed in a wq th at w• d disgrace him' .14

Shortl;r afterwards èum Letter had been written Johnson reveraed

his judge.mt. Boswell wrote, •Johnson read it, and though l'lOt treated in

it vith sutficient respect, he had candeur enough to sq to Mr. Seward,

•were I to aalce a new edition of. rq Dictiona17, I would adopt several of

Mr. Horne' a et,.,1ogies. I hope they did not put the dog in the pillo17

1 for his libe1; he has too JRUch literature for that•. 15

In a note to his article on t .An' , Horne Tooke col'lfiraed Boswell 's q'llotation, as follows, •J.aediatel;r after the publication of 1117 1etter to

Mr. Dunning, I was informed b;r Mr. s. (an intiute friand of Dr. Johnson) that I was not llistaken in this opinion; Dr. Johnson haring declared, tbat

it àe 1ived to give a œw edition of his Dictionar;r, he should certa:inly

adopt 117 derivations • •16

13 .AnollJlllOus, •Engliah O.rtho.epy' The .Aae:rican .pter].z Review, IV (1828), 191-214! ---

14 Jaea Bosvell, Boawell r s Lite of Jobnaon: including tbeir Tour to the Hebrides, edited b;r John Wi1a0il'ër0ker (tô:ndon, 186ô), p. 6ô2. Sllbaequent references will be to this edition.

15 Boswell•s Johnson, p. 616 •

16 Diversions, p. 82 n.1. This note first appeared in Diversiœs in the • 1786 edition, p. 201 :n.l. 6.

Despite Johnson•s villingness to accept Horne Tooke's deriYations, we sbould not conclude that Johnson wuld have accepted

Horne Toote • s theor,y. Valter Savage Landor ilaagiœd a coDYersation 17 between Horne Tooke md Johnson in whicb Johnson pla,ed disciple.

But Johnson bad been on the opposite side froa Horne Tooke in politics.18

Therefore he would not likel;r have agreed vith ever;rtbing Horne Took.e said,

for Horne Tooke' s theories of language bad been designed at leut in part

to su.pport his political position.

Erasmus ·Darwin, an earl;r nolutionist, wrote in his ZoonGilia,..

pu.blished 1794, 1796, that Home Tooke 1first let in light upon the chaos

ot IDglish etyaology, and displayed the wonders of foraatien in langu.age -

at least in the particlea.•19 Darwin'& judgeaeDt is representative of

that of the .ajorit;r of Horne Tooke's readers ~ing the period tram 1786

until Horne Tooke 1 s deatb in 1812. In 1798, the anon,aou re"tiewer of the seconcl edition of Diversions wrote, 'The leadillg prineiple of the great discover,y published in that latter (to Dunnillg) ia nov generally ad.mitted;

nam.el;r, tbat all the particles, as they have been called, are worda of a

definite Maning, and are traceable to a clear corporeal signification, 20 either 1B the ••• or in the parent language• • In 1.866, an &DOJ31mOUS

17 Walter S&Yage Laador, !-lin&rl Colrrersatioll8, 34 and 4th series, Q3ost.on, 187'l). · ·

18 J'obll8on received a penai.on of f.300 troa Bute in 1762, he vrote against Wilkes in 17701 and he defended the governaent polia,r for Aaerica in l77S. Horne Tooke despised Bute, cam.paigœd for Wilkes, and supported the .Americans. 19 K. Schele De Vere, Outlines 2!, Coaparative Philologz (lev York, 18S3), P• 192. 20 AnoDJaoua, 'lpea-Fteroenta; or, The DiYersians of Purler••• 1798 1 • !!!!, Jlonthlzlleview, XlVII (l798)';42J-i31. - reviewer ot 11ax MÜller'• Lectures repeated this estiwaate. He vrote, 1To Horne Tooke, it seems, is to be ascribed the .f'irst gliapse of the nature of gr-.atical terllinations as broken doWil seœe-vords. ,21

Although William Hazlitt repeated in bis Grammar ma:DY' ot Horne Tooke 's chief points, he aiainterpreted or aod.i.f'ied others. Wbere Horne Tooke beld that in speech the aanner ot signification of &DTVord vaa prior to its •torce', Hazlitt determiœd the aaner ot signification of . ' . ~ substantives, adjectives, and verbs b;y •ms of their respeC!tive 'forces', as .f'ollovs: •a thing considered as su.bsisti:ag by itself', a 1 thing, considered as a cirCUtStance belonging to or connected with aother•, and 22 •a new or unknown circumstance belongi~ to another•.

Charles Richardson judged tbat Horne Tooke had laid the toundations tor Grt.•s law ot the correspondance or consonants in the older Indo­ Geraanic languages.23 Using Horne Tooke's prlnciple ot historical illustration tor the explanation of words as his .odel, Richardson collected the aaterials tor his Dictionarz, his chief work. 24

21 A.nonyaous, 'Max !fh1er, Lectures on the Science or Language, •• (London, 1864) •••• ' Qurt.erg Review, dîïi (1'806),394-435. - 22 William Hazlitt, A. lev and I~roved Gra.ar of the lnglish Tonpe (London, 1810), IV. J''r,-"39f; 3 • -- 2 3 Charlea Richardson, 2! .!!!, Stuc!z !!. Language {London, 18.$4), P• 31. 24 Charles iicbard.aon, ! Bew Diction:1!!. ~ Engliah :Langu.ge (London, 18WI.), I, Preface, dated 1811, aection • 8.

Home Tooke provided one ot the most illportant principles on which the work of the compilera of the oxtcrd English Dictionarz vas based. For Richardson'• use ot the prineiple of historieal illustration impressed Richard Chenevix Trench who inspired the Philological Society to tate the 2 action which resulted in that Dictionarr. S Trench himself wrote, 'What. ever may be Horœ Tooke's shortcœ:.i.JJgs (and ther are great), whether in details of et;ymologr, or in the philosophy of graJIII&r, or in matters aore serious still, ret,witb all this, what a epoch in manr a student•s intellectual lite bas been bis first acquaintance witb !!!!, DiversiODS of

Purler•.26

During the same tiae that lexicographers were excited b7 tbe method of historical illustration, critica of all kinda vere responsible tor the correctiGn of Home Tooke 1 a partieular derivations. Dagald S\ewart objected, 1hia speculations do not relate, in the least, to the aaalJais of a l&Dguage, after i t has as811Dl8d a regular and syntactic&l. fol"Jil; 'but to the gradual steps by which it proceeded to that state from the inartiticial jargon of savages. The7 are speculations, not of a aetaphysical, but of a purel7 philological nature; belonging to that particular species of disquisition wbi.ch I have elsewhere called theoreti.cal history•.27

2S The OXford l!glish Dictionarz, edited b7 Jaes A.H. Kurra7 et al. (OXford, 1933), I, Tii. 26 Richard. Ch.enevix Trench, On tlD.e Stu& cl Words, eleventh edition (London and Cabridge, 18l4),p.ri'i. - 27 Dagald Stewart, Philoso~cal Essan, v, 166-167. The text is that of Williaa Haailton's edition,~e Collected Works ot D!gald Stewart (Edinburgh, 18.,.·186o). - - For his Anal.ysis, Jaes Mill borrowed many etymologies frOJR

Horne Tooke. When John Stuart Mill edited his fatherts book be relied on the Scotch scboolmaster, Andrew Findlater, for the criticism of those etymologies.28 Findlater summarized his criticisms as follows: •The ingenious speculations of Mr. Tooke did great service to the cause of pbilology in England, by awakening a very great interest in the subject.

But his knowledge of the cognate languages was far too circlliii.Scribed to warrant his sweeping inductions. In his day, in fact, the accesses had not yet been opened up to this new mine, nor the right veina st.ruck that have since yielded such rich résulta. Accordingly nearly all Tooke's derivations are now discredited1 and among otbers his account of pre­ positions•.29

Walter w. Skeat condemned both the etymologist and the disciple.

He wrote, 1it would probably be difficult to find a worse philologist than

Richardson, who adopted many suggestions from Horne Tooke without inquiry, •••• Jo

There remains to be mentioned Horne Tooke•s influence on the philosophical tradition. Dugald Stewart•s reaction, already mentioned, t;ypifies one common point of view. Horne 'l'ooke's development of the notion of 1 abbreviation' particularly vas seen as a solution to the problem of the

28 James Mill, .Anallsis of the Alenomena of the Human Mind, edited by John Stuart Mill (London, 1869}; I. xx:. --- 2 9 James Mill, Analysis, I, 209 n. 61.

JO w~ter w. Skeat, .!:!!. E~Wlogical Di.ctionary of the !glish ~e, new ed1tion revised and en ged (Oxford, c. 1909}, P• nii. 10.

:meaning of those words which did not name objecta of sense. For example,

James Mill used the notions of •contrivances of language', 1nam.es of names•, auxiliaries to abbreviate•.

JereJJ.7 Bentham wrote, 'Al.most aJ.1 na:mes, employed in spealdng of the phenomena of the mind, are names of fictitious entities. In spealdng of arrr pneUJilatic (or say immaterial. or spiritual.) object, no nam.e bas ever been employed, that bad not first been employed as the name of some material.

(or say corporeal.) one. Lamentable have been the contusion and darkness, produced by taking the names of fictitious for the names of real entities•.31

He certainly based this judgement on Horne Tooke•s work which he approved, but with a qualification, elsewhere in the same book. Bentham. summarized thus, 1Without, and therefore, before, the discoveries made by Horne Tooke, no such universal gramma.r, it will be seen, could have been formed. By him the way bas been prepared for a work of this sort; but, for the forming of it, one of the requisites bas been a clear view of that logic in which, when taken in its most extended sense, gra:mmar, even universal gramm.ar, bas its foundation; and so it bas happened that no professed Grammarian seems, as yet, to have given himself this qualification•.32 Horne Tooke bad argued

31 Jeremy- Bentham., Chrestomathia, VIII. 120. The text is that of John Bowring's edition, !!!! Works of Jeremy Bentham (Edinburgh, 1843). 32 Bentham, Chrestomathia VIII. 188. 11. '

this Ter'J' point, and disagreed vith auch a conclusion•. J. fvther discussion • will tollow the exposition ot Home 'l'ooke' s position • .Bentbaa•a doct~e of rights required a fœndation of the kind.

Horœ Tooke bad at tempted to provide. Benthaa be1d that rights are 1 the fruits ot the law, and of the 1av alone. There are n.o rights lli.thout law - no rights con.trar,r to the law- no rigbts anterior to the law, ••• •33

Horne 'l'ooke had derived 'right i troll •rectum• the pest pa.rticiple of the

Latin. Yerb •regere•, bence •wbat is right 1 is •wbat is directed'. 'l'here is a f1rt:t:er influence, aore difficult to trace, throagh the

vork: of John. Stuart Mill. He accepted Horne 'l'ooke as the source of bis tather•s linguiatic theories. Bec81lse Home Tooke•s wort bad been outaoàed

by Findlater, John. Stuart Mill discou.nted it in arguing agaiœ t his rather

to his ovn position. For exaap1e, where Ja.es Mill àad held a tbe~ry of the Yerb as the naae ot an action, John Stuart Mill objected. tbat tbey are not

the n8118s of actiœ.s because they are not n.es but entire predicat.ions ot events or states u:pressin.g a beliet. 34 Home 'l'ooke • s theory is not

defeated by this argmaent howeyer. For Home 'f'ooke held that the Yerb is

the cOIDillUlication itselt. He did not say 111hat that vas, but he bad

introduced an approach which John Stuart Mill llight be said to have worked out.

In the next seetioa the question of wbat Jdght be ot peraanent Y&lue in Horne Tooke •a work will be discussed.

33 .Jerea:r Benthaa, Pazmon.ial Frapents, III. 217-221. See also J. General !!!! or ! Coap1ete ,2!!!. !! ~~ III. 158-162, 181-116. - • 34 Ana].zais, I. l$h n., lSSn., 161 n. 12.

C !!!!, Significance of Home Tooke' s Theory ~ I.anguage

Horne Tooke' s editor, Richard Taylor, quoted from the Annual Review of 1805 the folloving estimate of Horne Tooke•s work: •This work is the most valuable contribution to the philosophy of language vhich our

literature has produced•••• • (Diversions, p xiv}. Even if this vere so,

why should we concern ourselves wi th the philosophy of language, in

particular vith that by Horne Tooke?

First, Horne Tooke's criticisms of his predecessors• theories are

at least of historical interest. For example he argued that there vas no

need to postulate non-verbal entities of an abstract sort to account tor

language. This vas an important point to make on the side of empiricism.

Locke bad argued to the affect that there vere no ideas whicb could not be

accounted tor in experience. Against this one could argue that it is still

necessary to ~ostulate general sorts or entity as the meanings of our general

vords. Horne Tooke wœld reply that our general words can also be accounted

for in experience • .. Second, in answer to the critics of Locke, Horne Tooke developed

a tunctionalist account of l&nguage. He is therefore an important link between Hobbes, Locke, and modern phllosophical thought. For Bertrànd

Russell remarked, •The study or grammar, in my opinion, is capable of

throwing far more light on philosophical questions than is comm.only supposed

by philosophera• •35 Horne Tooke attempted to see just how vell lit auch

questions, so treated, .are.

35 Bertrand Russell, !!!!, Principles E!, Mathematics, second edition (New York, 1938), P• 42. 1.3.

He recognized that in language we must distinguish the •manner or signification' from the signification. A communication bas a meaning in the sense of its application. The syntactic elements~ words and particles, have meaning also in the sense or their original senaory referent. Grammar is the atudy of the 'manner of signification• of 1verbs 1 • There is no relation between the •manner of signification' or a communication and the structure or the non ...verbal universe; we have been misled by thinking that there was auch a relation; therefore a critique of grammar is the necessary preliminary of all philosophy to guard against error. The •manner of signification' or syntactic element is conventional, relative to our purpose.

The whole impe tus behind Horne Tooke 1 s work was his sense or~ as he put it, •the importance of the meaning of words; not onl:y {as bas been too lightly supposed) to Metaphysicians and School~~ but to the rights and happiness or mankind in their dearest concerna - the decisions or Courts of Justice' • (Diversions, p. 40). Third, then, auch an avareness immediately attracts anyone raised within range or the echo from G.E.

Moore, or from Ludwig Wittgenstein. Further 1 there must be few today' unsympathetic to attempts to justify political reform. Home Tooke is interesting in this light for he believed that his account of the key words involved in political language would justify the position of moderate reform.36

.36 See below, PP• 87 t. 14.

Finally, Horne Tooke employed the etymological method in a philosophical context. His work representa one attempt to answer the question whether The Oxford lnglish Dictiona;z bas a peculiarly philosopbical value over and above its value as a history and its value as a writer•s tool.

D Some Textual and Interpretive Difficulties Met ~ Reading Horne Tooke•s Works

It is possible that Horne Tooke•s historical treatment of meaning and conventionist treatment of syntactic forma can provide the solution to certain questions of central importance for any empiricist. Whether this is true depends first on a precise knowledge of Horne Tooke•s theories. Unfortunately such a knowledge is not easily obtained for there are many difficulties in the way of understanding his writings. For example, while Horne Tooke•s style apparently added greatly to the popularity of his work, it obscured the philosophical problems raised. Instead of a systematic presentation and exposition of his theory, we find a sort of dialectical lexicography in which abbreviated hints have been rendered as snatches of dialogue interspersed among his etymological researches. Pages of literary illustration have been offered as Horne

Tooke 1 s contribution to a 1 dialogue' in which only occasionally did a participant mouth a point of view different from Horne Tooke's own. 37

37 See the passage in Letter, p. 719., which has been transcribed in Diversions, P• 1.47, without change, except as necessary to suit the dialogue form. 15.

At the same time, Horne Tooke indulged himself in almost unrelieved scorn against his predecessors, and in vituperation towards his contemporaries.

The accumulation of details to illustrate an etymologr was valuable, but the accumulation of the errors and omissions of the past obscureà; his own points.38

Yet even with this maas of examples Horne Tooke did not present all

"~ possible positions related to any given point. Certainly he did not alvays intend to provide inductfu evidence to weight an inference. He som.etimes intended to express a political viewpoint, or to displq the ignorance or infidelity of his opponents.39

More serious in relation to the interpretation of his system, was

Horne Tooke's love of paradox. A curator of etymologies, he vas deliberately equivocal, cr;yptic, us~ng vords in an earlier sense where they 'would be taken in a later, vithout providing the key. Thom.as Holcroft wrote of Horne

Tooke 1 s boldness, 'I have trequentlY heard him utter sentences, the first part of' which would have subjected him to d.eath, by the law, for the salvo that followed; ••• ,ho

A potentially more dangerous incident of' this sort occurred in 1794, wben, knoving that he vas being watched by a government spy, Horne Tooke sent a deliberately ambiguous note. What sounded like a practical joke, resulted in his inclusion in the notorious trial for high treason.hl

38 For example, Diversions, PP• 58 n. 2, 67 n. 1, 157 n. 1.

39 See p. 39 below, d.enigrating Squire Windham. ho The Lite of Thomas Holcrof't, continued by William Hazlitt, edited by ElbridgeCOI'bi; 2 volumes (London, 1925), II. 204. hl See below, Part II. 16.

<1\ Coleridge wrote in 1800 of •a sort ot charletanneey {!sic) in his 1I&Diler

that did not please •· He Jl8k:ea auch a JO"Steey and ditficulty out ot

plain and palpable ThiDga • and never tells ;yœ &DTthing withn.t tirat

exciting and detaining your curiosit;r. ,42 In 1809 he wrote again with distaste tor the 'detestable tricks of Horne 'l'ooke, ao to talk and write

that his words will be understood aeditiously, and convey the most

intlaaatoey talsehooda, and yet vhen exand ned according to the necessit;r of the logical illport are haraless' • 43 John Tiabs spoke ot his sha.rp logical wit. 44 Funke called it sophistey. 'l'his is too strong. Funke hu Jliaread the text.. For he said,

referring to Diversions, p. 4.$2, 'dieae w8rter Ctovn, ~~ t~] sind ilna

,.but oae ward, vith ~ ~~eaning; vis. Inclosed, lncompassed, Shut in: and

they on.ly differ (besides their spelling) in their :modern different

application md subawiition•. .lut diese Weise Hien auch die wlrter ~~ !!:!!l !.!!f, litt, loft trotz ibrer einheitlichen lt,.ologie zu nrscbiedenen 1 .. Bedeutu:ngen gek:OBeD. !liner derartigen Sophistik gegenuber 11\188 wàbl jede

Kritik nrstu..en. ,4.$ 'l'his latter reference is to DiTersions, pp. 417 to 4221

42 Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Collected Lattera of Salluel 'l'!ljd§ Col.eriye, edited b;r Earl Lealie Griggs (ôilerd, 1956Wl95'T; I, n1Uiber , Lëtter to Thoas Wedgwood, Postaark 2 Jtllluary 1800.

43 Collected Letters of Samuel !qlar Colerige, III, nlDibel" 764, Latter to Dâîîiei Stuart, 5 Ma71809. 44 John Tillbs, English lccentrics ,!!2 Eccentricities (London, 187$), p. 4So. 4.$ Il'aDke, Spraeh:philosophie, P• 126 • • 17.

1 1 1 wbere Horne Tooke wrote that •lord me ans • high-born' 1 wbereas lad7

1 1 aeans 'lo:f'ty• 1 'raised 1 or •exalted • He cont1nued1 •the past participle of the verb hlifian, besides LOAF, LORD, and LADY, bas :f'umished us with two other supposed substantives; Viz. LIFT (lyft) and LOF'!'. 1 Nov, on the previous page Horne Tooke bad painstaldngly pointed out that although

'lord' and 'lady' share a root1 they vere not derived from it in the same vay. 'Lady' vas derived frau. 'hli:f'ian', wbereas 1lord1 vas derived :t'rom

1hli:f'ian' plus •Ord' meaning •source', •origin', •birth1 • Funke erred in

1 1 arguing that Horne Tooke attributed only one etymology to lord 1 'lady', and so on. Horne Tooke did not argue in one place that one vord has one meaning despite di:f':f'erences of spelling and application, and in another place that one vord has me etymology but different meanings according to the differences of spelling and/or application.

It is true that Horne Tooke gave occasionally only the appearance of iconoclasm. But he made explieit his :f'irst principles and argued !rom theJD.. The di:f'!iculty is that he used words he did not de:f'ine. One is never sure in dealing vith them in wbat sense to take thea, since one does not knov which etymology Horne Tooke had in mind and whichever it vas one cannot assume that it was that to be :f'ound in aQy ety.mological dictionary.

Horne Tooke's key notion of •abbreviation' is ambiguous. Although neither his contemporary, Bruckner, nor the modern, Funke, grasped the ambiguity, their dif:f'iculties vith the notion point to that ambiguity.

Bruckner interpreted the conjunctions, prepositions, and adverbs treated in Diversions, Part I, as abbreViations. But Horne Tooke e:xplicit1Y denied this in the second edition (Diversions, p. 127). In Letter partiales are abbreViations, in Diversions they are not. This ambiguity may be lB. related to another division of abbreviations, into on the one hand improvements ( usually' borrpwed from another language), and on the other hand corruptions and contractions from the original tongue.46

Funke wrote that Horne Tooke spoke of the participles indifferently as 'abbreviationa in construction' or 1 abbreviations in manner of signification•. He said of Horne Tooke•s treatment of change of ward­ position, •rn pr~terem Sinne vird dieser K~zungsbegri:ff schliesslich im II. Teil der nDiversions" bei den Partizipien gebraucht, die Horne

Tooke nuseful abbreviations11 nennt. Wir finden da eine Type "abbreviation in construction" (die d~r Autor hier allgemeiner ,,abbreviation in the marm.er of signification• nennt) ••••• 47 On the contrary, the participles are examples ot 'abbreviations in sorts of words t • The se are never JRere 'abbreviations in construction•. A turther discussion Will be given below.

A related di:fficulty is connected vith Jlis •second class• of words.

Are they verbs, abbreviations as auch, or the second sort of abbreviations only? Why did he revise his terminology? It is unlikely that he was try:l.ng to incorporate a new source since at least al1 the sources he QQoted had been published early enough for Latter. It seeu rather that he revised his outlook. But if so, the revisions which occur pass unmarked b7 their author.

His work does not appear to be the late publication of a set of papers which

46 See below.

47 Funke, Sprachphilosopbie, p. 100. 19.

had lain in his •eloset• for went7 years.48 Rather it is the worked over result of possibl7 as aan7 as four 1818rS of theorising. 49 Horne Tooke is said to haYe burned Part III dealing with the .verb.

Was this a tragic loss? Or was Horne Tooke•s theor7 a failure because of an

irresoluble aabiguit7 in the nation? Or vas his theory eoapletel7 presented

in DiTersions but deliberatel7 buried u.oDg the illustrations, or perhaps

eTen out of sight in the Olli.tted et,..,lcgies of his ke;r ter.u?

48 DiTersions, first edition, p. 101.

49 Yarborough, John Home Tooke, pp. 236-237 • • 20.

E The Present Thesis Outlined

Horne Tooke's theory of language is sufficiently obscure to require explication at some length. There follows, therefore, after a few biographical ranarks {Part II), a sketch of how he deTeloped hia theory (Part III), and a summ.ary of his remarks concerning his method

(Part lV) 1 the main part of this paper, an outJ.ine of his theory of language (Part V). The first two $ections of Part V1 (A and B), daTelop the two notims involTed in his fundamental distinction between the 111l81ln8f' of signification' of a word and its 'forcer • Section B, particularly, deTelops his theory along the lines of the criticism his work eToked at the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth. Ne.xt are two sections {C and D) in which Horne Tooke•s system of •aanners of signification• is discussed: in Section C Tarious historical accretions to language, •substitut es and abbreviations•, in section D the two

•necèssary• parts of speech, rnoun r and 'Terb'.

Part VI is a culminating part, in which are presented the criticisms and concluding remaries which apply to Horne Tooke r s theory as i t bas been represented in tais paper. 21.

II The Rebel Cleric; ~ Horne Tooke (1736-1812)

John Horne Tooke t s conduct raises a problem: how could he justity his support of the radical political position while he rema.ined essentially conservative? His father, John Horne, a prosperous poulterer, after educating him at Eton and Cambridge, bought for him the right of' presentation to the church at lev Brentford. Horne Tooke vas ordained in

176o. Thirteen years later he resigned his living.5°

Horne Tooke' s early ex:perience bad providéd him with reason to respect the rule of law. His f'ather bad won a legal dispute concerning the trespass of Frederick, Prince of Wales.5l

Against this early experience IIIUSt be put the scandals that, in connection vith John Wilkes seemed, following the ascension of George III, to indicate a growing corruption in political affaira. During 1763 Horne

Tooke toured the continent as a travelling tutor. While he waà avay John

Wilkes published Nulllber 45 of his Borth Britain, in which he insinuated that the King bad been guilty of' a deliberate f'alsehood. Arrested shortly there- after on a general warrant, released a week later on groœds of privilege of parliament, Wilkes fled to France to avoid conviction. On November 1 of 1764 he vas œ.tlawed. Horne Tooke, back from France, publlshed anonymously his pamphlet defending Wilkes, !!!!_ Petition ,2! ~ Englishman. 52

50· Dictiona.ry .2!:, National Biography. The major contemporar;y biography is that ol Alexander Stephens, Memoire of~ Horne Tooke (London, 1813). 5l Yarborough, ~Borne Tooke, PP• 1-2. 52 The cambridge Modern Histoq (Cao(bridge, 1934), VI, 430-432. 22.

As a tutor, Horne Tooke toured the continent again, from 1765 to

1767 • He met Wilkes in Paris and later corresponded vith him. When Wilkes

retumed in 1768 to su.rrender to his outlawry, he vas elected vith Horne

Tooke's help as Member of Parliament for Middlesex.53 But he vas expelled

from the House. Three further attempts to elect him vere annul.leda Af'ter

the last, Wilkes' s defeated opponent vas declared ele cted.54 .Horne Tooke 1 Wilkes, and others, founded the Society for the Defence of the Bill of Rights

to compaign for Wilkes and to defend opposition to the government. The

Society vas supported by traders and shopkeepers dissatisfied vith the

colonial and economie policy and vith their small share in the government.

By tuming popular opinion into a force capable of growth this movement

brought a new element into eighteenth-centur,y politics.55

Horne Tooke did not uphold the extrema revolutionary point of view.

He held tbat George III bad abrogated the Constitution. The solution vas to

restore that Constitution. There vere two problems. First, which tradition

should be restored where there are rival traditions? Horne Tooke held tbat

the tradition to be restored is the one in accord vitb the •law of nature • 1

for the 1law of nature• representa the divine institution. Home Tooke did

not see that his &PJe&ls to divinity and natural law might be at variance

vith his appeal to tradition.

· 53 John Steven Watson, !!'!! Reign of George !!! 1760..1815 (OXford, 1960), PP• 132, 134. 54 .!!!! Cambridge Modem Histoq. VI, 441.

55 Watson, George !!!1 p. 139. Secondly:,. what l.Udt shœ.ld be placed on this restoration? This proQla arose becaase Wilkes included the coet of the aatisfac:tion of his own gluttoD.Y" aaong tbe itellS ot expenditure necessar;y to achieve the restoration. Home Tooke was a leader aaong those .who separated frOJil Wilkes on tbls issue to fjand the Constitutional Society.56

Horne Tooke lost. popular support during this ..coutrovery vith Wi.J)ces.

A.fter the election of 1771, which WUkes von, Horne Toolte was · burned in effigy:.57 The notorious and still unidentitied letter-writer •JUJ'J.ius 8 accused Horne Tooke of having gone over to the govemaent. But this· vould

.hardly haw ·been. possible, for, during the course of their diapute in the.

Publie Ad:vertiser, from January 14, 1771, Wilkes bad published Horne Tooke's sacrilegi~s letter.58 (Almost)all Horne Tooke's efforts to further his eareer tailed. Hia application to Cabridge for his Master or Arts. degree .was .. eontested• His applications to tbe bar in 1779 and three tilles later were tu.med. down.

When he finally achieved recognition as Mellber of ~liaeat for Old S&l"1Dl1 the Clerical Disqualification A.ct was passed to prevent his 'takiftg his seàt..

Horne Tooke's DlOSt aellf)rable aetivity was literar".l", ill the very broad sense of 'literary•. WhUe 1n prison, f'ollowing his conviction f'or inciting the Alllerican colonists during 1775Î he published! Letter .!:!?_ John Dann:Jee, Esq.

56 . Watson, George ill' PP• JJs.o-141.

57 George Rudè, Wilkes .!!,!! Libertz (Oxford, 1962}, p. 166. 5B Stephens, Meaoirs, I. Chapter 6, pp. 176-319. 24 •

The occasion vas the purported Yerbal error of' the judge. Horne • Tooke clailled to solve the problas raised by the Conjunction •that1 , and the prepositions •of'' and •concerning' • (Diversions, P• 38) He was encouraged to publish an expanded Tersi on in dialogue fora under the title

Bpea pteroenta, .2!: ~ Diversions of Parley, Part 1. The major point of Horne Tooke•s new material printed in 1805 as Part 2 of !2!! pteroenta is his treatment of 'rights•. Horne Tooke had been granted. the title of French citizen by the French National Assemb1y in 9 1792.5 In 1794, fear of a Jacobite rebellion was sufficiently strong in ' +; .... England to result in a suspension of habeas corpus,during which Horne Tooke . ~ and others vere tried for high treason. In a talk about the lawyer for the

defenee, Thomas Erskine, to vhom he referred as the greatest advocate of all,

Lord Birkett said recently, 'If these prosecutions bad succeeded, all

political agitation in England would have been banned, •••beeauae the

advocates of reform were actually charged w:l th seeking to bring about a .

revolution in this country:, and so constructively •to compass the death of \ 6o our Lord the King" •' William Wordsworth wrote,

1 0Ur Shepherds1 this sq merely, at that time .lcted, or seeJiled to act, like men Thirsting to m.ake the guardim crook of law A tool of m.urder • t61

59 Koncure Daniel Conway, The Life at Thomas Paine, third edition (New York and London, 1908), I, !>O.-- ,

6o Lord Birkett, "Greatest of Them Alln (Great Advocates), The Listener .(29 June 1961), p. 1130. - 61 Willia Wordsworth, •The Prelude" 1 quoted by Ford K. Brown, The Lite of William Godwin (London and Toronto, 1926) p. 71. --- • 1 25.

On Horne Tooke' s acqui ttal Samuel Rogers wrote,

• To his hearth agaill .A.gain 'Ni th Honour to his hearth restored •••• He reads thanksgiTing in the e;yes of ali, All lll8t as at a holy festivall 62 On the day destined for his funeral1'

Home 'l'ooke 's acqui ttal provid.ed hill w1 th the opportunity of

~liahing !E!! Fteroenta, Part 2, his philological justification of the position of moderate reforlll.

62 S8111uel Rogers, •Huaan Lite•, quoted by Rosalie Gl1ftft Grylls, Willia Godwin and .!!!!. World (London, 1953) 1 P• 50. 26 •

III THE DEVELOPMDlT Q! ;;.HO;.;RN=E TOOIŒ'S I'NTJ!REST IN LANGUAGE

• Home Tooke becaae interested in language vhi1e fairly young. .A.t

school Home Tooke vas asked why he used a 110rd in a certain wq, and vhen

he ansvered, 'I do not know•, vas flogged. When another boy vas praised

for giving t.œ rule Home Tooke said, 'I lcnew the rule as well as he did,

but you did not ask for the rule, but the reason. • The master gave hi.li a 63 Virgil. .A.ccording to Dr. Beadon•s evidence at Home Tooke's trial in

1794, Horne Tooke began hia phi1o1ogical reaearches when he vas at Cambridge 6 during 1754-1758. 4 Horne Tooke himself claimed to have campleted his

phllological work by 1766, that is, by the end of his second trip abroad

(Diversions, p. 37).

Why did Home Tooke coœern himself ll:i. th language? There vere two

main reasona. To pursue any knowledge whatever we mst first understand

l&Dgllage, becaaae as ve shall see, where the ob3ect of knowledge is general,

it aust be verbal. He said, 'I very early round it, or thougtt. I found it,

iapossible to make JII&DY steps in the search after truth and the nature of

~ understanding, of good and evil, of right and wrong, without vell to 'oe. considering the nature of language, which appeared to me inseparably

connectèd vith them.' (Divers:iDns, p. 7) • "

Secondly, language is the vehicle of C9JDD.unication. A 'knowledge

of the nature of language and of the :raeaning of words, is a necessary fore-

~3 Crabb Robinson, Rellliniscences of Crabb Robipson, revised edition (Boston, 1927), I. 366, quoted by lirberough, P• 6. • 64 Richardsœ, Study of :Language, P• 3• 27.

ru.ner' of the' 'veey different sort of 'Logick. and Critick1 'sœght by Locke

(Diversions 1 p. 644). Words vere •the necessa17. charmel thro~h vhich his 1 ~he philosopher•~ aost precious liquors aust flpw.• {Diversions, P• 16S).

Home Tooke atteapt ed to provide the stud;r of lal guag e Locke bad conc1uded to be necessar;y.

Many attempts to supersede Locke vere publisb.ed, following David

Hume•s sceptic&l attack in the Treatise and Enq~, beginning vitb Hume 1s own account of association and inc1uding tbe attempts of David Hart1ey,

Adam 8l'll.ith, and Joseph Priestley. Home Took:e did not diseuse H1Dle 1s 6 theories, althœgh he is knovn to have owned a cop,y of Hume•s Dialogues. S

He said of Htœe 1s Essazs that he re ad. th811 1d. th delight one by one as they 66 came out. Htœe 1s Historz, hovever, see•d to hia to have been written backvard.67

During 176S Home Tooke visi ted Paris vhile acting as tutor to the son of a Mister Taylor. Samuel Rogers left the follotd.ng anecdote.

•Tooke told • that in his earl;r days a friand gave hia a letter of introduction to D1llembert at Paris. Dressed !,-la-mode, he presented the letter, and 1!f&s veey courteous1y receiYed by D'.llem.ber~, who talk:ed to hia about operas, coaedies1 and suppers, etc. Tooke had expected conversation on veey different topics, and vas greatly disappointed. When he took· :1eave,

6S Books. ! Catal!'{e of the Valuable Library, .!!!!. the property!!!,!!.!!! Horne Tooke, Esq.... London ? 1817).

66 Su:o.el Rogers, Recollec.tiens, edited by Willia Sharpe (Boston, 1859) 1 p. 136. 67 Samuel Rogers, Recollectiena, p. 146. 28 •

he vas f'olloved b7 a gentleun in a plain suit, who had been in the rooa • d.uri.ng his inteniew vith D'Aleaber~, and who had perceiTed. his chagrin.

"D'.Aleabert,• said the gentleJ1811 1 •suppœed f'rœ .,our gq apparel that you vere Mrely a pa tit aattre. • The gentleaan vas Da:rid Huae. On his ne:x:t

rlsit to D'Alembert, Tooke's dress vas altogether different; and so vas the conTera at ion. 168

Horne Tooke agreed vith HliiMt md Berkeley that, as Hume said in the

Enguiry, •It seems to me not iapossible to &Toid tœse absurdities and

contradictions if' it be admitted that there is no ach thing as abstract or

general ideas, properly speak:ing, but that all general ideas are in reality particular ones attached to a general tera lilich re caUs, upon occasion,

other particular ones that resemble in certain circumstances the idea present to the a:Lnd. •69

But Hume distinguished mental iapressions ad ideas on the one band,

f'roa feelings on the other 1 md he regarded signa as ef'f'ects •. As he said in

a note to the second edition of' the Enquiry distinguishing causes f'roa signa, 'A Sign is nothing but· a correlatin Ef'f'ect. from the saae Cause.• 70

Whereas Horne Tooke distingu:ished the phenoaena of' the aind as all passiTe,

, ...-~ ...... ~... --. $ from •ilp.& Whi ch WM"e active •

68 Sauel Rogers, Recollectims, p. lb-8. Bue was in France from 14 October 1763 until 1766.

69 Darld Hume, An Inquirz CoDC~ Baa Understa:nd~ edited wi th an Introduction by ëhar1es w. Belldêiïêw York, 1955), Jh , n.2. 10 DaTid Hue, Philosophical Ess9! Concerning Hua Understanding, second • edition (London, 1751), p. 125 n • 29.

HU11le held both '.!!!!!:. ,!!! .2!!: distinct perceft!ons !!:.! distinct

existences, and ~ _!!! !!!!!, DeYer ;e!rceives !!!l !:!!! connection u.ong . 71 distiDct existences •. He cteveloped a theory of feelings or J~UD.ers ot

coœ eption to aecount for what he called • associations 1 of ideas in his

title to IDquirz, Section iii, but •connections• of ideas in the 1748 and

17SO editions of the PbiloSOpbical Bss!l! ConcerniDS Human Understanding.

Then Hue hiJRself spoke of 'connections • as SJ110n7Jl0us wi.th • co.aunication'.

He said •Among different languages, even when we c¬ suspect the least

conneetion or communication, it is foœd tbat the words expressive of ideas 72 the aost coapounded do yet nearl7 correspond to eaeh other -· •• 1 low Horne Tooke denied &ll:- aetiTit7 to Blind, and put the activit7 in language.

But the hint vas perhaps contai:œd in. this SJDOn1Jid.t7 of expression in

Hume 1s usage.

For Horne Tooke then, as we sball see, connection is accounted for b7 the manner of signification. What sort ot connections did he consider?

There are relations between things, such as 'being in front of', •being the

si11ter of' , •being similar to', and so on. The re is also the problem of identit7, noticed b7 Hume, who concluded in the Treatise, 'all the nice

and subtile questions eoncerning personal identit7 can never possibl.J' be

decided, and are to be regarded rather as gramatieal thanas philosophical

di:tficulties• and again, 1.A.ll the disputes concerning the identit7 of

7l David Hu:ae, A. Treatise Cil HUIIa'l. lature, introda.ced b7 A.~. ,Lindsa7 (London and lev York, l9li);-II, 319. • 72 Hume, InQ!irz, p. 32 • eonnected abjects are m.erely verbal, e:x:cept so far as the relation of parts gives rise to some fiction or imaginary principle of union, as we have already observed.t73

David Hartley developed a genetic and assoeiationist account of languàge.74 Hartley•s genetic account suffers from bifurcation in this sense that not all words originate as names of ideas. On his associationist account there is red1mdanqr. Words are associated it associated with associated ideas. Wby not just associate the words? And why do we need another sort of element? Would not this element function _simpl;y as a ~ for the association?75 Horne Tooke ovned a cop,y of Hartley's Observations but did not mention Hartley in either Latter or Diversions.

Horne Tooke did not refer explicitly to Thomas Reid beyond his disavowal of Reid r s theory of common sense. 76

Adam Smith, a pupil of Hume, began from the proposition instead of the ward and presented a genetic version of language such that the structure of the sentence increases in complexity Vith our progress in

73 Hume, Treatise, I, 248. 7 4 David Hartley, Observations on Man, His. Fréllll8, His DngJ' and His Expectations (London, 1791), I, 2'08'""H. See above,note • --

75 Horne Tooke was not an associational psycho1ogist, as Winde1band bas suggested. Wilhelm Windelband, !_ Histoey 2!:, Pbi1osOpbY, Harper Torchbook edition (New York, 1958), II, 440. ·

76 Thomas Reid, Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man (Edinburgh, 1785). Essazs ~ the Active Powers of !!!!!; (Ëdinburgh, 1788}. - 31 •

•taphyeical. analysis. For eDl:llp].e, he held that a fora like 'plut• • wollld be prior to the anal7Bed 'Alexander ambulat. '11 Joseph Priestley attempted to account genetically tor each •ode of expression in isolation. For exaaple, the nouns nbstantive vere the

first words invented and applied. 78 Only aft.er each necessary .OOe of

speech bad been developed wu speech possible. Because the sole use of

speech wu ~mtual information, there was no need t.o naae, only to af'fira. 79

In effect, there were two stages, a prelinguistic one. during vhich the

materiala vere developed, and a linguistic one when the aaterials vere used. He distinguiahed the two necessar7 parts of speech, (first, naaes -

whi.ch were general and included adjectives - and second, au:iliaries •

wbich deœted the relations of the naaes to one another) t'rOll what he called the compendia and elegancies, substitutes and contractions.8° 1

Priestle)'~s theory is marred,fro• Horne Tooke•s point of view,by the use

of difference of meaning as the criterion of difference of part of speech.

11 Adaa &aith, 'l'he Tbeorz of Moral Sentiments. or, An Essay Towards an An~is of the 'Priiiciples bi lïhich .n naturâl ~e concerniDS the- coriûët aiid Cliiracter~ lliator their ne urs, af'terward8 oftliea.. selves. TO Which is added, .l'Dissertation on e O'rigin of lan~iiea;-­ eleventh idition (Edinburgh,-1808), II, 383tf-:-Horne To~ke dilîôt mention Smith at all.

78 Joseph Pr1estle7, ! Course 2! Lectures 2!!. ~ Theory "2! Langu.ge and Universal Gr..ar (Warrington, 1162), p •. 50. . . 79 Priestley, Language, PP• SS-56. 80 Priestle;r, Language,. PP• 6.)-66 • • 32.

Most of the materials whieh Horne Tooke developed vere present in Priestley, although Horne Tooke mentioned Priestley only once in connection Vith the gender of the sun and the moon (Diversions, p. 27 n. 1) • In Priestley there vas also this problem: why soould we invent the preposition prior to our use of it in speech? What is our purpose in speech? Priestley recognized a need to account for our purpose in speech, yet he did not provide an account of that purpose sufficient to explain the development of speech. 81 The • crux grammaticae' in Locke vas the conjunction. If al1 words are signa of ideas, of what sort of idea are conjunctions the sign?

If of none, vhat was the cause of their use? Hov could they be parts of speech? What are the parts of speech? And vhat is their criterion?

Horne Tooke provided a polemical survey o~ the two possible positions: the philosophical and the non-philosophical.

a Horne Tooke's Negative Polemic against Philosophical Accounts

~ the Parts ~ Speech

In a 1philosophical account• of the parts of speech, a •cause' of the division is postulated. For each of the two possible starting points,

1 'sign 1 •mannar of signification•, Horne Tooke distinguished an 'ontological' from a psychologie al account.

i Beginning ~ !!!.!. ~

On the principle that there must be as many sorts of sign as of

81 1Ex:tracts from a Letter from Mr. Horne to John Dunning Esq. on the Construction of the English Particles.• The Annua1 Register (1778), 183-189. --- 33.

thing, two sorts of thing vere distinguished, and tt«> sorts of sign to correspond. Here is the distinction as Horne Tooke described ft:

'All th:l.ngs, said they, aust have nues, But there are ~wo

sorts of things:

1, !!!!, quae J! rmanent,

2 • !!!, !1!!! fluunt.

9\ There must therefore be ~ sorts of words or parts of speech: vis. 1, Notae rerum .9.!!!! permanent, 2, Notae reru:m. S!!! fluunt. q Well; but surely there are words which. are nei ther notae rernm. permanentium,

nor yet notae rerum fiuentium.,• (Diversions, P• 10).

Even if two further parts of speech • the conjunction and the article - are

added, the question remained,

'• ••to determine to whi.ch of these four classes each word belonged. In the attempting of 'Wbich, succeeding Grammarians could n!!Jither satisfy

themselves nor others: for they soon discovered som.e words so stubborn, that no sophistr;y nor violence could by any aeans reduce them. to anYJ!ne of *j these classes.• (Diversions, P• 11).

Or, beginning .f'roll a psychological. significatua, 'Modern Gra:mm.arians ack:nowledge them to be (as indeed Aristotle called them, szmbola pathematon) the signa of ideas: at the same time denying the other

assertion of Aristotle 1 that ideas are the likenesses of thinis.' (Diversions,

p. 12) Locke vas the chief axample of 1 cleaving open the head of man'.

(Letter, P• 69S). From auch a starting point then, if there are only two sorts of • things and words, we Dl'llst either deny that the conjunctions are conjunctions, tryi.ng b7 •sophistey' and •violence' to squeeze them in to the first two

cluses, or exclude the sœnds fl"'a speecb.

ii. Beginning !!':!! !!!!, 1181Ul8r E!_ signification

Herne Tooke conaidered. next the principle that 'there must be as

many diffe:Pences of things as of signa •. He objected that this led to

•..any illaginary differences of things • and added greatly • to the n11Jlber of

parts of speech, and in consequence to the el"l"'rs of philosophy. 1

(Diversions, p. 11) The saae objection applied to the illaginar;r operations

of mind required to produce the illaginar'7 iéieas needed when the

p87Cbological road vas taken. As Horne Tooke impliecl, ' the very same gaae

bas been plqed over again with ideas•. (DiTersions, P• 12)

iii. Criticia ~ Locke:

Locke bad concluded that if he vere to begin again he 11011ld begin

from language. He bad distinguished the •torce• of a word which 1depenù

upon the nuaber of Ideas af which tlat110rd is the sign'(DiTersion, P• 20 n.l),

fr011 the 'aanner of signification • •

He bad begun fl"'il the 'force•. The effect bad been to 1denti.f'y"

~word• with •tera' so that 1 the whole business• of Locke•s book bad been

the consideration of the • force' ot teras. Horne Tooke wrote 1 "I imagine that Mr. Locke 1 s intention ot confining hiaselt to the consideration of

the~ onl71 was the reasœ that he wnt no further than to the Foree of Term.s; and did not aeddle vith their Hanner of signification, to which • the Mind alone could never lead hill." (Diversians, p. 26) 35.

Home Tooke believed that he was onl;y working out the implications of Locke' s theor;y. Because Wilkins had confined 'his attention to ideas

(in llb.ich he was f'ollowed b;y Mr. Locke) • he O"f'erlooked the et1JIC)logy of'

words, which are their signa, and in which the secret la;y. t (Diversions 1 P• 249). Similarl;y, where Locke thought he was tracing ideas to their

origin, he was in !act tracing words to their origin.

Horne Tooke allowed that 'the proper starting-post • of' a

gramma.rian who is to treat of the signs of' ideas, is with their origin.

{Diversions, p. 18). But beyond this, the supposition of' ideas was

unnecessar,y. He ref'erred to Locke's proof' against innate ideas, and

continued b;y adapting it, as f'ollows,

'lver;y purpose for which the composition of' Ideas was imagined

being m.ore easil;y and naturall;y answered b;y the composition of' Terms: whilst

at the same tim.e it does likewise clear up JD8llY' difficulties in which the

supposed composition of' Ideas necessaril;y involYee us.• (Diversions, p. 20) •

Renee, Horne Tooke's conclusion that Locke 1 s subject is reall;y gramm.ar.

Home Tooke wrote in! Letter ~John Dunning, Esq.,

r ••• it was for m.ankind a luck:;y lldstake (for it was a m.istake) whicb Mr. Locke m.ade when he called his book, an Essa;y on Huma:n Under­ stand:l.ng. For som.e part of the 1nest1Dlable bene.fit ot that book has, merely' on aecount of' its :t.itle, reached to Jll8.DY thousands m.ore than, I fear, it would have done, bad he called it (what it is merel;y) a grammatical Essa;y, or a Treatise on Words or on I.anguage. The hum.an ~~ or the human Understanding, appears to be a grand and noble them.e; and all m.en, even the m.ost insufficient. conceive That to be a proper object ot their contemplation; wbilst in~iries into the nature of Lane;,• (through which alone they can obtain an;y knowledge beyond the beas ta are !allen into auch extrema disrepute and contempt, that even those who "neither have the accent of Christian, pagan. or man,• nor can speak so many words together with as much propriet;y as Balaam' s Ass did, do ;,ret imagine Words to be infinitely beneath the concern of their exalted understandings!• (Letter, PP• 723·724). 36.

In grammar, Locke treated only 'the origin of Ideas and the

composition or Terms• (Diversions, p. 16, n. 2).

Locke did attempt to .deal with that manner or signification

involved when we speak of 'particles' • 82 Horne Tooke argued,

1 The only Division Mr • Locke has made of words, is, into - lames . of Ideas and Particles. This division is not made regularly and foiilâJJ.y, but is reserved to his seventh Chapter. And even there it is done in a very cautious, doubting, loose, uncertain manner, very different from that incomparable author • s usual method of proceeding. For, though the general title of the seventh Chapter is, Of Particles; -- yet he seems to chuse to leave it uncertain whether he dOes or does not include Verbs in that title, and partiéularly what he calls "~Marks or the Mind 1 s affirming .2!: denying." • (Diversions, PP• 20·21)

Locke defined particles as 1 •the words whereby the mind signifies what

connection it gives to the several affirmations and negations that it 83 unites in one continued reasoning or narration." ' (Diversions, p. 101 n. 2) Yet in section 1, Locke had divided the words which are names of ideas

in the mind from others •made use or to signify the connexion that the

mind gives to ideas, or to propositions, one with another •••• signs •••to

show or intimate some particu1ar action of its own, at that time, relating

to those ideas. This it does several ways; as Is, and Is ~~ are the

general marks, of the mind, affirming or denying. •

Locke had observed in his seventh chapter that no one bas given

a rule for their use. Horne Tooke pointed out that the reason it seemed

difficult is that given by Locke himselt: these words 'are not truly Èl

themselves the names of !!'!Z ideas•. (Diversions, p. 120).

82 John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed.ited by Alexander Campbeii ~aser, Dover paperback edition (New York, 1959), III vii.

83 Locke, Essay, III. vii. 2. 37 •

Locke argued tbat tbese particles'~ all .arks of some action or intillation of the Hind; and tberefore, to underatand thea rightq, the • - . several vievs, postures, stands, turns, l.iaitations cd exceptioBs, and

several other tboughts of the Mind, !!!: which.!! ~ either ~ ..2!:. !!!:l deficient n&DBs, are d.iligentq to be studied. Of. these there are a great

Tariety, DlUch exceeding the nUJil)er of iàrticlea.• • (DiTersions, PP• 21-22) • Because Locke argued thus, cd beeaase•Âle was (as he p-ofessed and thought)

writing on the bUJil&ll Understand:lng; and therefore should not su rely bave left mankind still in the same. darlmess in which he foœd them, concerning these hitherto unnamed and (but by hiaself) undiscoTered operations of the Miner/\ {DiTersions, p. 22), therefore, Locke 1 too hastily' adopted the •opinion . . , of Aristotle, Scaliger, and Mess. de PortfRoyal concerning the 1 pretend'd'

copula •- '::[!' and '!! ~·. •Be supposed, vith tha, tbat affiraing and d§nviDi vere operations of the Mind; and referred an, the otber sorts of Words to the saœe source.• (DiTersions, p. 22). Beyond passiTeq aensing, Horne Tooke objected to Locke' s whole

progra of aental. operations to account for the Tarious distinctions

necessary. He wrote 1No 1 opposite •the;r frame an idea1 , and •x no'

opposite •the power of caaparing 1n the llind', and •none' opposite

1 production of collectiTe ideaa of substance •. 84 Locke hiaself was not certain that the idea vas alwaya prior to

the word. He spoke of •so close a connection between ide•s and Words, that

it is impossible to speak clearly and distinetly of œr knowledge, which

·84 John Locke, .!!! Essf! Concerning HlDilal Understanding, fifteenth edition (London, 1760), Borne ooke 1 s aarginâl notes to his own copy which is nov • in the British Muaeua, III. iii. 7; Table of Contents. &11 coœists in propositions, withou.t considering, first, the nature, JUSe, • and signification of language•.8S There is a close connection between 18Dgllage md thou.gb.t. Soae words (nases of llixed llOd.es and relations) are

prior to ideas. If he vere to begin aga:ln; he --ould begin w.i.tb language.

But it there are some. words vhich do not d.epeDd on ideas for their origin,

are ide~ necessary at all? Locke 1 s account of -1181'1ner of significatioD was inadequate.

b Horne Tooke•s Negative Polem:t,c Against Fol'll.&l Gramur

'l'he alternative to a philosophical account of the parts of speech was a non-philosophical accou.nt: attention to 'the differences observable

in words, without any regard to the things signified. • (Diversioas, P• 11).

For example, the French graaariz and autbor Claude Buffier said, • Certains 11.0ts sont Adverbes, Pr'positions, et Conjonctioœ en même temps: et

r&pondent ainsi au ~me temps ~ diverses parties d'oraison selon que la

grammaire les emploie diversement. • Home Tooke cOJIIIRented, •And so say al1

other Gra.narians.• {(Diversions, p. 42 1 11. 1).

Of Robert Lowth he sa:ld, that he also 1proceeds to his exaaples of the proper and iaproper use of t:œse connectivess-witbout haTing the

aost distant notion of the meaning of the wor&s whose employaent he under.. takes to settle.' (~vert~ans, p. 148 n).86 The class of •conjunction'

85 Locke, Essaz, II. xxxiii. 19.

86 Robert Lowth, A Short Introductiœ to En'lish Grammar vith Critical Botes, a new edition corrected (Lond.on,l771. He had said"i'hat •The Prepositiœ TO placed before the Verb makes the Infinitive Mood.• (Diversions, P• 191. N.l) - 39 •

had been fov.nded on ue only; bence the diffieulty of giving the rul.e for. • that use. Horne Tooke summarized the developœent as follows,

'From this tiu the num.ber of parts of speech bas beeJ?. Tariously' reckoned: :rou will .find different Grau.arians eontending .for more than thirt:r. But most of those who adllitted: the revest, acknowledged eight• This 1fU long. a fa;yourite num.ber; and bas been kept to b:r 11&117 llbo yet d1d not include the saa parts to aake up tb.at nlœber. For those vho rejected the article reek:oned eight: and those who did not allov the interjection still reckoned eight. 1 (Diversions, p. 11). ·

Horne Tooke asked, if the mannar of signification depended on the

convention alone, how could ve account for the regular appearance cK certain

'improprieties' in all languages, auch as the use of the article 'that t as

a conjunction? (Letter, P• 686). HorneTooke illustrated the point as .follovs,

1Call this Squire, my Lord; then he will be cc::mparative: Cali hia by' the new... faagled title of Marpis, or eall hia Duke; then he will be superlative: And :ret vhosoever shall trust hia, er have tc do with hia, will find to their cost that it is the sam.e individual Squire Windham still. So neither is the substance or m.eaning or real import or value of an:r. wrd altered by its grammatical class and denoldnatiœ. • (Diversions, p. l.!ù.).

c. Synthesis: · Insigni.ficant Si~s

James Harris alitacked the viev of language as a kind of picture of the 11Diverse on the ground tbat tbere are tbings about vlùch ve want to

speak which are not analogous to any of the qualities of speech, that is, there are things whicb possess neitber soun4 nor motion.87

87 James Harris, Heraes: or, A Philosophical ~ concerning Lang!5e and Universal Gr-.ar (Londin,-1751), PP• 327.ji9.Jaes Harris (1709-1780), M.P. for Christchurch, 1761·1780, a lord of the treasur,r, 1763·1765, secretar:r to George III' s queen in 1774, infiuenced Herder .for lÎlOll Hamann ordered Hermes in 1768. See Ernst Cassirer, The Philosophy of ~olic Forma, translated by Ralph Manheill (New Haven, 1953), I, 14J-l4 • 40 •

For Harris language is symbolical. He presupposed a distinction • between ne.turally' significant sound, the interjections, and the voice articulate whieh is significant by compact, words. 88 Speech is a

publication of the powers of the soul; the sorts of speech or sentence correspond to the power concerned. 89

But how can we be understood, if what we mean is private to us?

Harris held that it is the matter, or sound which varies from one language to another, and the torm which is common. Al1 minds are similar, and their

general ideas are c0111111on. The parts of speech 1 words 1 are the symbols of those ideas. 90

But what is the cause of gramm.ar? Harris held that the grammatical relations do not name anything real but merely correspond to the relations

of the essence signified. 9l The same word can be one part of speech or

anotber, depending on how it is used. For example, Harris argued that

•thatt may be either article ar pronoun. Home Tooke objected that the same word cannot be now one thing and now another. There vere two parts of speech, the princip1es whieh were

independently meaning.tul, and included substantives and attributives, and

the acceasories llhich were dependentl.y meaningful. 92 Some things 1n nature

88 Harris 1 Hermes 1 PP• 289-290; PP• 309 tt• 89 Harris, Hermes, PP• 2, 12 tt. 90 Harris, Bermes, pp. 20.21; 347 ...348.

91 Harris, Hermes, p. 203. 92 Harris, Hermes, PP• 269w274; P• 279. For his discu~sion of the 'Principles', see Harris, Her~~es, Book 11 chapters 4-11; for 'Accessories' 1 see Book 2, chapt;ers 1-4. 41 •

natwall)" coalesce, tor example, • a tierce lion' • Here there is natural • concord ot subject md accident, theretore, gr~tical conèord ot substantive and adjective. Whereaa in the case ot two substances, the words must be joined by a preposition; but the preposition doés not name &DJt.hing real. 93

Horne Toolœ objected that Harris bad contradicted himselt. For exaaple, in connection vith the preposition, Horne 'l'ooke said of Harris,

1Havi.Dg defined a word to be a "Sound sipiticant; 11 he nov definea a

Preposition to be a word "devoid 2! signitication.• :And a few pages after,

he sa;rs, "Prepositions coliiD.onl)" transt'a.se sc:aething of their ~ meaning

~!!!, ~ ·!!!:!'! llhich they!!!. compounded.• t (Diversions, P• 155). Basides, hov J18D.Y prepositions are tbere? 'l'heir number varies

froa language to language. But it Jlinds and things are everywhere the saae,

why are there not the same nWilber in all languages? Harris was forced to

recognize degrees of llind and diversity· of' lan8uage, auch that where the

primary genera differ, the character and genius of the n~tion differ, and so the languages differ.94 But even Witb this admission Horne 'l'ooke

objected that there are other differences of language which cannot be so accounted for. For example, Harris spoke ot that • subtle ldnd of reasoning (as he calls it) which discerna even in things without sex, a distant analogy to that great natura.l distinction. • (Diversions, p. 27). Horne

Tooke objected, 1For his very first instances, - the SUN apd the MOON, -

93 Harris, Hermes, PP• 291·303. 94 Harris, Hel'lles, P• 374. .. deatl'DJ' the whole aubtilt7 ar this kind of reasoDillg. Fer Mr. Harris ought • to haYe knovn, that in any .A.siatic Languages, and in aU the northern Languages of this part of the globe wbich we inbabit, and·particularl)" in

our Mother-la:nguage the Anglo...Saxon {from which SUN and MOCJl are iJalediatel)"

derived to us), SUN is' Feainine, and MOON is Masculine. So feminine ia the

SUn, •• that our northern Myt.hology Mk:es her the !!!!, of Tuisco.• !nd in the second edition of Part 1 Horne Tooke added the folloWing froa Shalœspeare,

Henry ,!!1 Part 1, referring to the SUn as•llthat fair bot wench in flame­

colour•d tatfata"~

Horne Tooke accepted the distinction betveen natural and

conventional sound, and identified speech with the latter as ha« Harris.

But he argued that there is no distinction of parts of speech unless there

is a distinction of manner of signification. Harris had attEIItpted an accoumt

ot the JÙanner ar significatiœ in terms of torce. Furtber, Harris had not 'be.....,•e."'. full)" appreciated the differeœes ~ languages. Far froll being similar,

tbere was at least one language, tbat of the Indiana of New England,

deseribed b7 Jonathan Edwards, in whicb the adjective distinction was not

recognized (Diversions, pp. 646-647). Horne Tooke suggested :furtber that a consideration of sense lligbt show general ideas to be illlpossible. He

required a theorywhich would recognize a universal element in speech, while at the same time permitting the most far-reaching differences. • IV HORNE 'l'OOO:•S BIPERIMENTAL ...... ----TEST OF AN A PRIORI 'ŒEORY -OF SPEECH The result of Horne Tooke•s historical polemic was th:ls dilemaa -

should he start from the •torce' of words, or from their mannar of signification? Bacon bad recolllllended the former, the relation between word and thing, the stu.dy of the natural laws of speech, as the subject of

philosophical gr8DJDJ.ar. Locke bad attempted it. But Locke 1 s problea bad been, how account fer particles? Starting from the force, only proper names on the occasion of their first use would be meaningtul, and communication would be impossible.

Starting !rea the unner of signification, hov could he account tor different m.anners of signification without presupposing torce? For Horne

Tooke the proper Jl&thod was not to collect and arrange al.l the ll.&terials ot language. Gr8lllllarians bad tried to fix the number of the prepositions

necessary in language before deciding •what the nature of a Preposition is 1

(Diversions, p. 160). lor vas a rational aetbod always applicable. Home Tooke denied

botb that either things or the operations of the human llind bad been

different at different times, and that the number of prepositions bad

alwaya been the same (Diversions, p. 160) • His opinion appeared in his criticiSDJ. of John Wilkins. He vrote, •Jo worder that Wilkins f'ound it so

hard to fix the number which was necessar.y, Binee their number in ever,r language depends :merely upon how m.an;y of the most colllllon words shall becoae

obsolete or corrupted. This being mere utter of particular tact and of'

accident, can have no place in general cr philosophical graamar.' (DiTersions,

P• 167, n. 2) Home Tooke did not abolish auch distinctions bowever. He 44. sai.d,

'To the.pedagogue, indeed, ••• the distinction of pre~sitions and conjunctions may be useful enough ••••Nor would the7 ~is and similar distinction!) have caused anr mschief or confusion, if the philosopher bad not adopted these distinctions; tak:en them for real differences in nature, or in the operations 2,!!!!!, human ~; and then atteapt;ed to aecount for what he did not understand. And thus the Gramaatist bas aisled the Grammarian, and both of them. the Philosopher.• (Diversions, P• 176). The nature of language as Horne Tooke saw it is decided b7 general reasoniqg a priori, 'Philosophy of language' (Diversions, p. 158). The prior question vas not 1Whence?' as in Loeke's genetic account, but 1What?• What is the nature of language? What is necessary, its nature, and proper signification? What are the causes of the different aanners of signification? He collected genuinel7 historical illustrative materials to use as a test of his theory. As he e:xplai.ned, he was not writing a dictionary (Diversions, p. 218), nor a polyglot lexicon (Diversions, p. 55) 1 nor a collection ar particular grammatical facts and accidents (Diversions, p. 167 n. 2). He said,

1 ...it vas general reasoning ! priori, that led me to the particular instances; not particular instances to the general reasoning.... •If _, reasoning concerning these conjunctions is vell founded, there must then be in the original language from which the English (and so of all other languages) is derived, 1iterall7 such and sucb words bearing pr'ecisel7 auch and such significations." - •••the experiiiiëiit presented to me ~ mean,-either or­ disabusing myself from error (which I greatl7 feared); or of obtaining a confirmation sufficiently strong to encourage me to believe ••• that I had really made a discovery. For, if upon trial I should-find in an unknown language precisely those very words both in sound, and signification, and application, wbich in ~ perfect ignorance I had foretold; what must I conclude, but either that sc:me Daemon had m.aliciousl7 inspired me with the spirit of true propb.ec7 in order the more deeply to deceive me; or that ~ reasoning on the nature of language was not fantastical? The event was beyond my e:xpectation •••• • (Diversions, PP• 67..68).

Horne Tooke 1s problem vas to decide which articulated realit7 caused the articulation of speech. The extra-verbal thing or idea signified .. h5. is rùed out be cause i t 110uld account only for nudng. But there are more

Dl81Ulers ot sighifying th~ nUling to be accounted for. The original aeaning of the word. is ruled ou.t because tbat accounted for the application.

Home Tooke interpreted 1what? 1 as 1wbat for?' He gave a purposive account of speech. Horne Tooke noted that the sensual form of a word aay change: letters aay drop off, or tbere 1U.7 be coalescence, or abbreviation and corruption, abbreviatian in construction, or - bis s:p!cial discoveey - abbreviation in manner of signification (Diversions, p. 15). As a result, wbich manner of signification is involved in any use aay not be obvious. It is necessar.y to trace the speech materials bistoricall:r until a use is fœnd where the manœr of signification is clear.

On this t.heoey, Horne Tooke accounted for changes in the use of signa in tel'DlS of changes c:L purpose; develoJaent in terms of progressive abbreviatian; the lllultiplicity of languages in terms of the accident of available materials.

Home Tooke 1 s topic w~ not onl7 language in general, the purposive account of tbat manner of signification Which is the communication ot thougbt, but also the use and convenience of words. His problem became that of reconciling the notion of a neeessar,y structure ot tbougbt, with the recognition of the historical nature of linguistic materials. He argued that this necessary structure underlles conventional speech bistoricall:y. The conventional additions are abbreviations ·of the necessacy parts. All words were originall:y names. But, for speech, despateh is requ.ired, so we use the naae again, its aeaning the cause of the new 46.

application. The sound is no longer a naae, but a word 1fi. th a general marmer of signification. V BORRE 'IDOKE•S TBIORY OF LANGUAGE

• Speech ~ !!.! •Hanner E!_ Signification•

Which matner of signification is uaed defends on the purpoae in signitying. Horne Tooke held that it is the Terb of which the qustion of 11811ner of signitication is aaked. There vere 1twenty or aore' different

V&78 of signif)ing. He described only the two vbich were illportant fer hilll. They are to be round in Locke: communication of thought, and coll!IIIWlicati œ vi th des patch. 95 Prnious thinkers bad erred in attempting to reduce deTices intended to achieTe the second, to the first (Diversions, . ~ .

PP• 9, 14). For exam.ple 1 llistreat•nt of the participles and adjectiTes bad •caused a aetaph7sical jargon and a false aorality•. (Diversions,

P• 31.3). ..--. Charles Be Brosses,Aearly. French student of primitive man,had. noted despatch, but he bad not givan it a i\mdaaental role in accounting for language; he bad giTen f'irst place to clarity. He said, •on ne parle que pour ~etre entendu. Le plus grand avantage d •une langue est d' etre~ claire. '

{quoted in D:i.Tersions, P• 14 n.) Horne Tooke objected, tbat when ve seek clarity, as in legal docUJI.Eilts, prolixity multiplies beyond ord.inary comprehension. Clear language is the opposite of language as it is usual.l7 f'ound; not abl:reTiated speech but endless redundancy.

Horne Tooke carefully delimited his topic. He distinguished maDT purposes vith which he did not wish to deal, tor eXBilple: beauty, ornaaent,

95 Locke, Ess![, II. xxiii. 36; III. vi. jJ; III. x. 23, 24; IV. xii. 3•

.• 48. ease, grace, pleasure (Diversions, p. 14). He excluded the organical. part of language, which depended on natural philosophy and anatomy. However, he offered soma rules which prec1ude the identification of the word with the sound. He wrote •The perpetual. change of T into n, and !!2!, Tersa, is so Tery familiar to all who ha"Ye ever paid the smal.lest attention to Language, that I shou1d not think it worth while to notice it in the present instance; if al.l the etym.ological canoniste, whom I have seen, had not been rem.arkably inattentive to the organical causes of those literal changes or which they treat.• (Diversions, p. 47 n. 1). He added, 'For these seven couple of simple consonants, viz.

B • p G•K D•T With the z- s Without the Compression f>-1 Compression v-r J .. SH differ each from its partner, by no variation whatever or articulation; but singly by a certain unnoticed and almost imperceptible motion or compression of or near the Larynx;' (Diversions, p. 47 r., n. 1 See al.so pp. 142 and 196, n. 2). He distinguished the interjection - brutish, inarticUlate

(Diversions, P• 30) • frc::a the artful contrivances of language. (Diversions,

P• 32). He said, •Voluntary Interjections are only employed when the suddenness or vehemence of soma affection or passion returns men to their natural state; and makes them for a moment forget the use or speech: or when, from some circumstance, the shortness of time will not permit them to exercise it1 (Diversions, PP• )2.. )3). He said, •the dc::ainion or Speech is erected upon the down.fall or Interjections.' (Diversions, P• 32). This 49.

~ill remark is never fully explained. On the next pag~ Horne Tooke reiterated1 '••• where Speech can be employed, they Q.nterjectionsJ are never totally useless; and are always insufficient for the purpose of communicating our thoughts.• (Diversions, P• 33) Why? Does the interjection fail to communicate thought? Or does it fail to communicate?

Are interjections names?

Language is an art whose invelitors were artless. They 'took such and the same (whether great or small, whether llOnosyllable or pol;rsyllable, without distinction) as they em.ployed upon other occasions to mention the same .!:!!! objecta. 1 (Diversions, PP• 170..171). Horne Tooke distinguished the parts of speech necessary tor the·. primary purpose of speech from the parts used for a secondar,y purpose.

The primary parts comprised the noun and the verb 1 de ~ and ~ loquimur. Horne Tooke explained his distinction between what was necessary for communication and what was not, by three analogies. First,

'! imagine that it is, in some measure, with the vehicle of our thoughts, as with the vehicles for our bodies. Necessity produced both. The first carriage for men was no doubt invented to transport the bodies of tho se who from infirmity, or otherwise 1 could not move theli.Selves: But should any one 1 desirous of understanding the purpose and meaning of all the parts of our modern elegant carriages, attempt to explain them upon this one principle alone, viz. ~That they vere necessary for conveyance-; he wculd find himself wofully [sic 1 puzzled to account for the wheels, the seats, the springs, the blinds, the glas'ses, the lining, &c •••• Abbreviations are the wheels of language, the wings of Mercury. And though we might be dragged along without them, it would be with much difficulty, very heavily and tediously.• (Diversions, PP• 12·13).

Horne Tooke had used as frontispiece an engraving showing Mercury, or Hermes, his bonnet lying on the floor baside hill, putting on his winged 50. sandals. His allusion to Hermes is not to the. divine or sem-divine invention and regulation of words, but rather to the arti:f'ical nat12.re o:f' the conveyance.

A.s he described them. in a second analogy,

•words have been called ~ed; and they well deserve that naae, when tb.eir abbreviations are c0111pare with the progress which speech could make Without the se inventions; but compared vith the rapidity of thought, . they ·have not the smallest claiœ to that title. Philosophera have calculated the difference o:f' velocity be;tween sound and light: but wb:> will attempt to caleulate the difference betwf)en speech and thought1 · What 1iDnder then tb.at the invention of all ages slxluld have been. 11pon the stretch to add such wings to their conversation as :ai.ght enable it, if possible, ·to keep pace in aome measure with their minds. - Hence chiefiy the variety of worda.' (Diversions, PP• 14•15). Horne Tooke added that Hermes bad blinded the 100-eyed Argus

(Diversions, p. 14). It was philosophy he called 1100 - eyed', but the Hermes here was no dœbt James Harris' s book.96 For the attributions which, for Harris, indicated a feature of the universe vere mere artificial abbreviations for despatch.

In a third analogy, Horne Tooke wrote,if philosophera approached short-band wri ting as they do speech, they would 'suppose each mark to be the sign of a single S)und& ' Whereas in fact there are not ohly signa .of sounds, but also 'for the sake of abbrertation, signs of those signa, one a under t~ther in a continued JrOgression.• (Diversions, pp. 13.... 14). The distinction implied is between parts of speech (signs of things), and abbreviations (signs of signs). This double distinction does not hold where the parts of speech signity signa Without abbreviation.

96 See above, n. 85. Horne Teoke's own book fits the éategory. He sometimes spoke carelessly, as if the only signs of signs were abbreviations. For example, 1 the errors of Grammarians have arisen from supposing ail words to be immediately. either the signs of thi.ngs or the signs of ideas:- whereas in fact many words are merely abbreviations employed for despatch, and are the signa of other words.• {Diversions, P• 14) •

Which were the parts of speech? Horne Tooke wrote,

'In the strict sense of the term, no doubt both the necessary Words and the Abbreviations are all of them Parts of Speech; because they are all useful in limguage, and each has a different manner of signification. But I think i t of great consequence both to knold edge and to Languages, to keep the words employed for the different purposes of speech as distinct as possible. And therefore It am inclined to allow th ali rank only to the necessar.r words: and to includê"the others (wbich are not necessary to speech, but merely substitutes ar the first sort) under the title of Abbreviations.• (Diversions, p. 24). Horne Tooke spoke also of a •second class•. He said of his first edition of Diversions, 'I hope I have there spoken with sufficient clearness to make it ~possible for any attentive reader ••• to suppose that I have hitherto spoken one word about those Abbreviations which compose ~ second he t-e. class. 1 (Diversions, p. 127). Did he intendl\the second sert of abbreviations, or abbreviatiœs as sueh in distinction from something else? Not the former because he did not treat abbreviations in Part 1. But if the latter, of what are they the second class? Possibly he was thinking of a division of words into two classes sueh that the first class were necessary to any communicati. on, hence to be called the parts of speech, and such that the 'fW\&rC second class were unnecessary,Asubstitutes of the first. The source of this distinction between neeess~ and unnecessary words was quite possibly a remark of J .c. Sealiger' s whi.ch he quoted, 'Res necessarias philosophus primo loco statuit: accessorias autem et vicarias, mox.• (Diversic:ns, p. 24 n. 1). There remains in Horne Tooke 1 s work a complexity of classification

'Miiidh suggests an unreconciled progress of thought .from. the postulate of three sorts of word, noun, verb, and particle1 to their division into necessary or unnecessar.y. The difference between the necessar,r parts o.f speech and the unnecessary abbreviations was then seen as a difference in the level of signi.fying. This development was possibl7 .followed by the analysis o.f language in terme of three functions and a misf'unction, signi.fying,

communicating, abbreviating, and corrupting. What resulted was the attempt to .fit words whose role was operational into the group~ or words which f'unction together as names.

B The Notion o.f 'Force•

If the •mannar o.f signification' o.f a sign is prior to the '.force' or a sign1 how are signa meaning.ful? They must be meaning.ful otherwise it will be necessary to recognize insigni.ficant signa. The question whether any word is meaning.ful is illegitimate, .for being meaning.fu.l is what a word is. Indeed; .for Horne Tooke, •that is not a ward, whose signification is unknown.• (Diversions, p. 662). For example, against the theocy that

1 prepositions are meaningless, Horne Tooke argued1 i.f preposit.ions bad no proper meaning o.f their own, why several unmeaning prepositions; when one alone must have answered the pu.rpose equall7'1 The qpher 1 which has no value of itself, and anl7 serves (if I may use the language of Grammarians) to connote and consigni.fy, and to change the value o.f the .figures, is not several and various, but uni.fonù.y one and the sue.' (Diversions, PP•

163•164). Horne Tooke•s question is whether a given sound is m.eaning.ful.

What is the '.force' or 1meaning.ful 1 ? 53.

One approach vasto identify the word vith the sound, and allow ambiguity of meaning:· a meaning for each use. For ex•ple, Samuel Johnson listed forty-s:ix •anings of ..'for•; Johnson•s second meaning of •for' vas

•With respect to, vith regard to•. He gave as illustration, 1 Lo, some are vellom, and the rest as good/ FOR all his lordship knows, but they are wood.• Horne Tooke wmote of 'for•, 'I believe it to be no other than the

Gothie substantive FAIKINA, CAUSE.• (Diversions, p. 199). He interpreted

Johnson•s passage, 'As far as ali that his lordship knows is the Cause of their being denominated good or bad, the rest are as good.' (Diversions, p. 203).

In connection vith •amd 1 Horne Tooke wrote,

•conjunctions, it seems, are to have their denomination and definition from the use to which they are applied: ~ accidens, essentiaa. Prepositions connect words; but - nthe Conjunction connecta or joins together sentences; so as out of two to make one sentence. Thus - •You AND I, AND Peter, rode to London,' is one sentence made up of three, 11 &c. -- -- •Welll So far matters seem to go on very smoothly. It is, "You rode, I rode, Peter rode.• •'BUt let us-now change the instance, and try some others vhich are full as common, th011gh not al.togebher so convenient. Two AND two are four. A. B and B C and C D form .! triangle. John AND Jane are a handsome couple. Does A B form a triangle, B-C torm a triangle? &c .... Is John a couple? Is Jane a couple? - Are two, four?•

He concluded, • ••• there is not one of those words which they call conjunctions, which is not sometimes used (and that very properl.y) without connecting sentences.• (Letter, PP• 714-715). In general, Horne Tooke objected that where we identify meaning with use we transfer to the ward in question the meaning of some other word in the sentence (Diversions, P• 199, p. 496). He quoted an example from

Harris, 'if we sa7 - That lamp bangs FR)M the cieling [sic] - the preposition 54 •

FROM assumes a eharacter .of guiescence. But if wa say - That lamp is •., [s•c.] ' falling Fl{)M.!:!!! qéWling, - the preposition in sucb case as~wœs a • 1\ character of motion.• (Diversions, p. 184) • Horne Tooke remarked, •:rou ,..... will plàinly perceiT8 that the u charaeters of t!••eenco md of JlltJ'tion.

•What sort of word would tlat be, which, (used too wi'!:-h propriet;r,)

soaetimes had a meaning, and somètimes. had not a me ming, and soaetimes a

different meaning?' (Diversicns, p• 653) • He wrote, 1that is not a word which is not the .!!!!!! of a thing. Ever;r wcrd, being a sound sipificant,

JRUst be a sign; and, if a sign, the !!!!;1 of a Thing.r (Diversions, p. 632).

He favoured the principle that, •one word or one termination should be used vith œe signification and for one purpose.' (Diversions, p. 667).

The wrd in a given use cœld not depend on the thing signified;

for, then, coDUII\lllication liDUld ~t be possible, each liOrd being tied to one

object onl;r. Communication in the absence of the object meant would be

impossible, and in the presence of the object redundant, since pointing

would be sufficient. There would reaai.n, besides, the problem of the

meaning of words which are not names.

If the meaning of a word cannot be identified with the use, then

the word cannot be. identified vith a certain sound. If it were we would

have to cali 1 the sae word' words in otœr languages with the same sound

but DOlsiailarity of meaning or bistor;r. There are, as Horne Tooke • recognized, variations in sound which could not be due to cha~e of 55.

aeaning.97

The word could not. dep!tnd on our parpoee in using it, for if it.

did we could not dist.inguish œe language frœ anot.her, as~ th at. t.bere

are different. languages, and that. tvo speakers each of a different. langUage

could have the sam.e purpose.

Home Tooke•s p!"oblea vas this: hov can a s:>und significant, the

name d a thing, be used in a situation where. it does not nae that. thing1

or even any thing at all? Home Tooke's solution vas that such 110rds vere

originally 1181les. It was from its origin that the unit.y of the word vas

derived. · As Richard Taylor eJqressed it,, •the individuality••• of a word

consist.s •••in it.s historical continuity, with regard to vhich facts m.ust

be e.ep our guide.• (Diversions, P• li, n. 2). It vas Home Tooke's

discovery in Lett.er that., •the mrds themselves continue fai thtully and

st.eadil.y at.tached1 each to the standard under vbich it vas originally

enlisted.' (Let. ter1 P• 686). For Home Tooke this theory vas confiraed

by the et;pJ.Ology of words of several languages ltlich had been disguised by

abbreYiation.

A f'ew examples of Horne Tooke' s et:ymologies will serve to

illustrate his approach. 'Trut.h' 1 he wrote, 'is the third person singular

of t.be Indicative TROW. It vas form.erly written Troweth, Trowth, Trop.t.h1

and Troth. And it means - (aliquid1 any thing1 something) that which one TROWETH, i.e. thinketh, or firsùy believeth. • (Di.v.ersions, pp. 61<>-611) •

97 See belov1 P• 64 • • He said of •TRUE• t.hat it •is also a past participle of the verb

Tkanan, ..~ Think1 1:2. Believe fi.rmly, To be·. thoroughly eersuad.ed of, !2

Trow.• (D1versioœ1 P• 606).

His rem.arks in connecti an wi th the Latin 1verw11 1 require to be

quoted in full. He wrote, •Res, a thing, gives us Reor, i.e. I am Thi.nfld:

!!-~, I am strongly Thinged; for!! in Latin com.position means Valde,

i.e. Valide. And Verum., i.e. strongly impre~ssed upon the.m.ind1 is the

contracted participle of Vereor.' (biyen\oM, r· '0%) . .A:f'ter Home Tooke's partner to the dialogue cla:imed, '!!2!:,, however, is a deponent, and m.eans ! think', Home Tooke continued, 'And do yau. imagine there ever was auch a thing as a deponent verb; except for the purpose of translation, or of concealing our ignorance of the original m.eaning of the verb? The doctrine of deponents is not for men, but for children; who,at ., the beginning, DlUSt learn implicitly J and not be disturbed or bewildered

with a reason for everithing:· which reason they would not understand, even

if the teacher was always able to give it. You do not call Think a

deponent. ABd ;yet i t is as much a deponent as ~. Remember, where we now say ! Think, the antient expression was - !!,. · thinketh, i.e. !!_ Thingeth, It Thingeth !!•' (Diversions, pp. 608-609).

'False t is the participle of • .t'allito •, and maans that which deceives (Divèrsions, p. 324).

'Wrong 1 meant wrested from the right. Home Tooke wrote of •right•

that it 'is no other than RECT~ (Regitum) 1 the }:&st participle of the Latin verb Regere.• {Diversions, p. 304).

'Just' is the past participle of the verb r jubere'. Home Tooke

explaiœd, 1! JUST man is, auch as he is commanded to be -' (Diversions, • PP• 305, 306). • Law' is the past tense and past participle •laJ • or t 1ae31 of the Gothie and Anglo-Sax:on verb •1ec3an•, •poneret, and it means something

•Laid down - ... as a rule of conduct 1 (Diversions, p. 306). Among participles 'poetieally embodied, and substantiated by those who use them' were •Accident•, •Chance•, ·~•, •Providence•, 1Spirit1 (Diversions, PP• 313-314).

An example of Horne Tooke•s use of his method is provided by his solution to his main problem in Let ter: does the sentence (1) 1 below, entail the •averment• that 'Crooke had been indicted for forgery 1 ?

(1) •She knowing that Crooke had been indicated for forgery, did so and so.• (Letter, p. 685). Horne Tooke had been prosecuted for a libel, viz.·that the American colonists had been 'inhwnanly murdered by the King' s troops at or near Lexington and Concord ••• •. In his appeal of the conviction he argued that there had been an omission in the information against him, hence the charge and trial were in error. The reply to the effect that such omissions were not without precedent occasioned his objection that there was in fact E2 omission in the supposed precedent; that is (1) is correctly rendered thus,

(2) 1Crooke had been indicted for forgery. She knowing that [averment], did so and so. • Horne Tooke based his •resolution' on his etymology of •that•, the •neuter article Bat• (Letter, p. 697), or the •Article or Pronoun Dat• (Diversions, p. 70). In his second edition of Diversions, Part 1, he wrote of 'that• that it 1means Taken, Assumed; being merely the past participle of the Anglo­

Saxon verb -Bean •••• TO THE, T(} Q!!., To ~~ To Assume (Diversions, p. 344). 58.

On Horne Tooke • s theoey of mental acts and • truth • even if (1) were true so also could be

(3) Crooke had not been indicted for forgery.

Horne Tooke was careless over wbat vas •subaudited• in each case.

In (1) what did she lm.ow? A form of words, a fact about Crooke, a legal

point? Horne Tooke resolved propositional-attitude com.pounds into two

statements such that one contained a word denoting the other, but without

classif,ying the other. As a result, his doctrine obscures the difference

between •lm.owing that• and 'saying that• constructions. We cannot 1know 1 what is false, although we can know that it is false, whereas we can both

say wbat is false and say that it is false. The reason the averment was

presupposed in (1) and (2), if it was truly presupposed, was that she 1knew'

it. If she lm.ew it the averment lllUSt have been trul.y presupposed. When

Horne Tooke changed to examples involving 'sqing that', his resolution

failed. For example,

(4) •You say THAT the saae arm. which when contracted can lift -'• was resolved as,

(5) 1The same arm which when contracted can lift - •• ••Y ou say THAT .• (Letter, p. 687). Horne Tooke cannot claim (5) as the resolution of (4) on the analogy of (2) and (1) • At most he could claim,

(6) 'The same arm which when contracted can lift --' •••• You say THAT.

Funke pointed out that •Horne Tooke verwechselt rein semasiolo­ gisch das direkte und indirekte Urteil; der dass-Satz gibt das indirekte ·

Urteil1 nur im direkten Urteil••• liegt die wirkliche Behapptung•.98 But

98 Funke, Spr&ehphilosophie 1 P• lll. Funke's second example 'hoping tbat' is a different case from 'knowing that•. Horne Tooke alao contused statements compounded as proposition&! attitudes witb tbose compounded as molecules (lxUlples 1-41 7·12). Horne Tooke paid special attention to •but•. Locke had said of

•but• that it •seems to me to intimate several relations the mind gives to the several propositions or parts of them which i t joins by this monosyllable•.99

Horne Tooke argued that Locke had been Dlisled. He wrote 1 • ••• in the five instances which he has given for five different meanings of the word BUT, there are indeed only two different meanings •••• BUT, in the first, third1 fou.rth, and fifth instances, is corruptly put for BOT, the imperative of Botan: •In the second instance only it is put for Bute, or Butan, or Be-utan. •In the .first instance,-•!2, say~ !2!:!,• is a mere parenthesia: and Hr. Locke has unwarily attributed to BUT, the IIBaning contained in the parenthesis: tor suppose the instance had been thia1 - •BUT 1 to proceed. • Or this, - •BUT, to go tairly thro• this matter.• Or this, - "BUT, not to stop.• •noes BUT in any of these instances inti.aate a stop of the Blind in the course it vas going? The truth is, that BUT itself is the furthest of any word in the language from •inti.mating a stop.• On the contraey it d.ways intimates sometbing K>RE, something to follow.... (Letter, pp. 709-710)

And tberefore whenever any one in discourse finishes his words with BUT, the qo.estion always follows - BUT what?-{Letter, P• no).

Horne Tooke continued1 'BOT ...will al.ways be found to alJay equally the~~ or the~~ precedent; by something ~ that follows. For Bcft.e means - to Boot, i.e. to superadd, to supply, to substitute, to compensate with, to r~with, to make amands with, to add sœething MŒŒ in order to make up a deficiency in something else. So likewise in the third and fou.rth instances ••••Hr. Locke has attributed to BUT, a meaning which can only be collected from the words which follov it.• (Jetter, p. 711).

Horne Tooke traced 'but' to the two original.s, •but' and 'bot' 1

1 the imperatives respectively of Beon-utan' meaning •to be-out• 1 i.e.

r 99 Locke, Essay, III. vii. ~· 60.

•without•, and of' 1Botan1 meaning •to boot• (Latter, pp. 697, 713). He continued, •they were both originally used indiff'erent1y eitber as conjunctions or prepositions. But later writers, having adopted the tàlse

notions and distinctions of' language maintained by the Greek and Latin

grammarians, bave successive1y endeavour~d to make the English language

contorm more and more to the same roles. Accordingly WITHOUT, in approved modern speech, is now entirely contined to the of'f'ice of' a Preposition; and

BUT is general.ly {though not always) used as a Conjunction.' (Letter, pp.

713-714).

Horne Tooke 1 s conclusion was that the words called 1 conjunctions • vere not •a separate vort of' words, or part ot speech by themse1ves. For they have not a separate manner of' signification: àl.tbough they are not

•deoliilaf' signification.• '· (Letter1 PP• 691-692). They sprang from corruption or abbreviation in construction (Latter, PP• 692-717).1°0

Dugald Stewart•s argwaents against Horne Tooke•s position are representative of' those of' the majority of' Horne Tooke•s critics. Stewart

thœgbt tbat even if' the conjunctions bad been derived, it wœld not f'o11ow

that there are no conjunctions now.101 Horne Tooke bad contounded the

ety:m.ology vith the 'present use 1 • In the case of the figurative language used tor mind, for examp1e, Stewart believed that the constant search for

the term. for the subtlest mat ter was more si~f'ic an t than the tact that . 102 f'igurati"''e language was used.

100 See below, P• 63

101 Stewart, Philosophical Essap, V, 167. 102 Stewart, Philosophical Essap, V1 164·. SaJIIUel Tqlor Coleridge argp.ed. to ·the saae ~ffeçt that Horne

Tooke bad confounded the etJmOlOgy vith the true •an1Dg. Coleridge quoted as an •apt lfotto for a Critique on Home Tooke•a Epea Pteroenta1 the following: 'Aliud est Etyaologia et ali'a.d significatio nollinis.

Etyaologia attenditur secundum id A quo iaponitlD" nomen ad significanduu Nominis vero significatio secuadum id ad quod significandum ~ponitur.• 103

Otto Funke rephrased this objecti œ in aodern tel'IIS as a· general criticiaa of Horne Tooke • s sceptical sensualiaa. He spoke of 'die

Vermengung von deskriptiver und genetischer Betrachtung•.104

Certainly if Horne Tooke bad held such a position he vwld be easil7 refuted. For, first, it is impossible alvays to use words ~ their priJiitive signification, either in the case of the absolute]Jr prilllitive signification, or in 11.81J.7 cases of the. rela~ivel7 priaitive signification.

We siDI.p]Jr do not hare records dating back to the first use of l&llgllage.

Although we aa7 trace .te their origin vords of recent iJmcwation, this is impossible for the large groups of words which aust have existed pt"ior to the first records ve have. If a fol"'l of action is iapossible, as so using

-.:>rds is, then it is idle to recommend it. Besides, as Kant objected, to identif7 the vord Vith its origin is metapby'sicall7 llisleading.105 And

103 . Coleridge on the Seventeenth Century, edited b7 Roberta Florence Brinkle7 (Duke Universit7. Press, 1955), p. 154. l04 Funke, Sprachphilosopbie, P• 111. l05 IIII'J.8D.uel Kant t s Critique ot Pare Reason, translated b7 Nol"'l88l Kemp Smith (Lôndon, 1956), Preface 'iO iiC'Ond edition. 106 Plato bad eriticized that awthieal goa1.

Seeondl.y, tbere are Mn)" things for which 1re laçk naaes. But

t.here is · still that in sùch unnaed 1ilings by virtue of whieh we would ·

identify them. This something is not lillited b;r the et)'JIOlegy- of • the

name becaue the t.hing has not jet been named. Nothing in the thing

changes wh en i t is nue9..

Thir~i all the partieu1ar etymologies to whieh Horne Tooke's crities objected as being examples of the· eonfufian of etymolog;r and •true

'meaning' or whatever, are llistaken for the above two reasons. It is

neee&Sar)" to dist~ish the etJilOlOg;r Of a word from its application.

Dugald Stewart concluded that et,.alog;r has no place in pbilosophy

for it lcaads to false resulta, such as materialiSil. He suggested as an •· alternati'Ye methOd the analysis of language at the mature stage.

In replj to Stewart, it is not neeessary that etymology lead to

false resulta. The conneetion between the etymology- of a word, e.g.

1breath1 , and its application to an illmaterial substance need not be

similarity in the very re~pect in which dissimilarity is essential. The

connection between the original meaning al).d the application nl\8d not 'be .

similarity at al.l. David Hume had adlllitted other connections, and there is 107 no reasan to think that Home Tooke would not. There is rather ff'fery

reason to think he would, since he held that there is .a causal relation

between the et)'JIOlogy and awlication of a vord •.

106 Plato, Cratzlus, 42lc, translated by B. Jowett, third edition, .!!!!, Dialoiues ~ Plato (New ~ork, 1937).

107 Hume, Enquiry, Section J, note 4. 63.

The source of a:n.y one word is lthat language where its· meaning, which is the cause of it.s application, can be fou.nd.' (Diversions, P• 4.54).

The rational etymological question of words is not, 'vhence do they~~

(Diversions, p. 141). For words do not have any 'locomotive faculty1

(Diversions, p. 139). One coul.d trace 1span1 to 1 the German, the French,

the Italian, the Latin, or the Gree~.' But it is found 1more readily at

home'. It is the past tense of the Anglo-8axon 1Spinan1 aeaning ~~ Spin1

(Diversions, PP• 505-506). Stewart had claimed that an analysis of language would demonstrate

that.there arè conjunctions, even though they cannot be justified

etymologically. Horne Tooke seemed t.o deny this in refuting Locke 1s

interpretation of 'but•. Actually, his point was that there is no

distinction in manner of signification between 'prepositions 1 and 'conjunctions' •

At beat there was a distinction of scope. He. wrote 1 1 For I may very well

emplqy the same word of direction, whether it be to add a ~ or to add a

sentence: And again, one and the same word of direction will serve as well

to take away a~ ts to take away a sentence.• (Diversions, p. 174).

He tried to show how if all words were names, a:n.y word could function as a

. 1conjoiner•. He then has the difficulty ~r reconciling his claim that

'eonjunctions' are only nouns and verbs vith the conjoining manner of signification of the words in question. He need not have denied that

conjunctions are parts ot speech, taking 1 parts of speech 1 in the broad

sense.

The question can be put to Stewart, how do we know when language

is at the mature stage? Languages do not sprout from seed. There is the 64.

. 108 further qnestion whether ana~sis is possible. Horne Tooke did not confUse the etymology of a word vith its •present use'. Rather he attempted to draw a sharp distinction between the force of a word and its manner of signification.109 One word could have two or more applications. For example, he wrote of 'the meaning of BOARD and BROAD being the same, though their modern application is different.• (Diversions, p. 364). Two or more words might be required for one application. He intended the etymological method to be a scientific way of approaching words. Philosophy had not worked. Induction was futile; the use of an instance was rather to 'justify its offered etymology' (Diversions, pp. 596-597). He relied on etymology to explain both the force and the manner ar signification of a word and in doing so obscured the distinction. He did not ask what method would be appropriate to distinguish our purposes in speech and the corresponding manners of signification. Stewart objected that we should not accept an etymology on similarity or identity of sound, but seek collateral considerations.110 Horne Tooke had already recognized that point. He himself provided an excellent example of a dissimilarity of sound which did not imply different

1 words, when he quoted a Welshman1 who said, "I :row, PT Cot, 9at Shenkin iss- a Wissartn ' instead of ' "I vow, by God, Bat Jenkin iz a Wizzard.• t (Diversions, PP• 47 f., n. 1). Nor did one sound or shape necessarily imply one •word'. The Latin 'ibo' contained •three words; two Verbe and a Pronoun.• (Diversions, p. 628) •

108 See below, p. 91. This question is beyond the scope of the present work.

109 Richardson, Language, P• 194, pointed to the distinction in Horne Tooke in refutation of Horne Tooke's critics. llO Stewart, Essaya, IV, 66 n. 1. 6$.

He did not seek the absolute origin of &.Dy' 110rd ( absolute in the sense of the first use of the sound), although he sanetimes spoke mis­ leadi.ngly. For e:x:ample, he said, 'A little regard to the individual etymology ot the vord wh ose meaning is sougbt, vould secure them from this perpetually repeated error; and conduct them to the intrinsic meaning ot the word.' (Diversions, p. 496). And bis disciple, Richardson, certainly did seek auch a goa1.1ll Rather, tor Horne Tooke, tbere could be a family ot related meanings only it there 1ras an actual bistorically discovered head of the family.

Horne Tooke sought that 'original' meaning of a sound vbich 110uld explain the use in question. The objection may be put that it the vord meant the original thing named, how could there be more than one language?

There would be just one language with a vocabulary as large as all the words ot ali the languages recognized. To avoid this conclusion it is necessary to identify the vord vith the range ot conventional sounds baving one origin.

Horne Tooke distinguished translation in the sense of transliteration from. explanation (Diversions, pp. 139, 424). It was not a similar sound in some other language be wanted but, where tvo sounds are similar, the 'idea•.

He wrote, •This is a question which lfl3" Critics never ask themselves; and yet it is the only rational object of etymology.• {Diversions, p. 139). For example, he wrote of 'WALL' that the Latin 'Val.lum' would not tell us the meaning and application. 'WALL• is the past participle 'Pilan' and means

•consolidated1 • This etymology provides a full and perfect meaning, and a clear cause of the application of the word to the thing.' The Latin •vanum• has the same source (Diversions, PP• 504-$0$). The unfortunate effect is

lll Richardson, Dictionary, Preface, section 2. 66.

that • translation:• will be possible only tor th ose languages or parts of languages which share a colllDlOn origin. If the m&aning- ot a ll)rd is · determined by the original denotation

how can Horne Tooke speak of •a given conjunction1 ., •lJnl,ess•, 'Nisi~ 1 ~', {o ...... , r· ,.) . in a context af two or more languages? The manœr of signification, if it " . . cœld be detached frœ the words used,cœld play auch a role. C •Substitution• -and 'Abbreviation• If a wrd was originally the naae of a given thing, how can the

word be used to name any other · thing? And how can the word be used to

communicate to an audience what lies outeide -its experience? Locke had

solved these pr.s by mems ot the notion of generality (Diversions; PP• '.:.~· . . .34·.35> •. ~~ Locke'.s problem had been, if all things that exist are particulars, ~~; what do 'genêral maes name? He had postulated a special class of. general,

possibly public, ideas, the fictions and· eontrivances abstraeted by our

mental operations.11.3 Similarly, Jerenty' Bentham had postù:lated ,fictitioua

entities for general subject terms to name. 1 Horne Tooke 8XDended Locke•s. theory of. the generality of soma signa to the generality of all signs used for communication. But there were no ' ..

general 1deas.l.l.4 There was no class of general ·naes,. that is na.mes of

general sorts of things. Horne Tooke jumped from the· particulai:' · l'lames of

•substances• (conceived simply in childre:r\., sensible only, and generally of figure, Diversions, pp. .30•.31), through the observation of similarity .. ,•" between any two 'substances', to the use of the name of the first 'substance r

ll2 Based on Locke, Essay, III-. ,iii. 1•.3.

11.3 Locke, Essay, IV. vii. 1-.3, 9 • l.l.4 Horne Tooke wrote •none' beside 'general ideas•, Locke, Essay, Table of Contents: III. 1 • .3. 67.

quali.f'ied if' necessaey to aame the second •substance•, for despatch. There vere no mental acta to account for the different manners of signification.

Rather, Horne Tooke postulated a series of speech acte.

Home Tooke classified the speech acte vith vhich he vas concerned as 1 substitutes 1 • There vere two major classes, substitutes of 1words vhich

!:!:! ~ in the language' and substitutes of •vord.s which !!:!. in the language'. The latter class com.prised vhat he called 'abbreviations • (Diversions, p. .35).

The general vord is a deviee making possible communication. It does not bave exclusive application to ~ thoughtJ it is a name vhose meaning is the cause of its application to other similar objecta such that it is not the factor of similarity which is naed, but the p&rticular thing vhich is similar. If a wrd bas a general manner of signification, hov is the application to particulars possible? Because naming is necessary for communication, but because .communication is possible only by virtue of general vords, so a substitute of those m.issing names is necessary, viz. a general word plus a limiting deviee, the article (Diversions, pp • .35, 125, 171). For example, 1THI1 is the comparative of '.Blan' meaning 1!!!!,'• •THAT' and

1IT 1 mean 1Taken• (Diversions, P• .345). •A• means 12!!!,1 (Diversions, p. 59.3). The general vord is a part of a whole comple:x: name auch that the nominatum is sim.ilar to that which the general word by i tself originally named. This is an advance over the position that the general name names a general thing, for on tbat theory ve could never name any particular.

Of abbreviated speech Horne Tooke sa:id tbat it • answers the purpose of a map upon a reduced scale: i t assista greatly the comprehension of our understanding: and, in general reasoning, frequently enables us, at 68.

one glmce, to talee in ver7 nuaerous and distant illportant relations, and conclnsions, which would otherwise tot&l.q escape us.• (D:l.Tersions, P• 683).

Progressive abbreviation accounts for the develop~~ent of language.

WhilEt. the variet7 of languages can be accounted for partl7 b7 the differences of purpose of the. spealœrs who abbreviated according to tbeir-purpose.

There vere three main t1}l8s of ab breviation. Just as in speech Horne

Tooke distinguisbed the force of the wortij trœ its manner of signification/ and its sound or shape, so he distinguished a class of abbreviation corresponding to each: the first class of abbreviation in terras, the second class of abbreviation in aanner of signification, and the third · class of abbreviation in construction. It wu the second claaaswhieh Horne Tooke believed to be his chief claim to taae.

Wbere Locke bad acco:anted for general 110rds b7 means of the notion of 'abstraction' , Horne Tooke arped that 'abstraction' is no mental act but ll8rel7 one of the contrivmces of language for the purpose ot despatch. Be wrote, 'Tbese words, these Participles and Adjectives, not understood as such, bave caused a metaph7Bical jargon and a talse moralit7, lfhich can onl7 be dissipated b7 etymolog7. •• .moral deities, moral causes, and moral qU(l].ities ••• ridiculousl7 coined md impœed upon their followers.' (Diversions, p. 31.3) •

'Abstract• terms were farmed b7 abbreviation in construction or subaudition

(Diversions, pp • .312 1 6o0). Tbe7 are generall7 'Participles or Adjectives used without an7 Substantive to which the7 can be joined; and are tberefore, in construction, considered as SUbstantives' (Diversions; p. 313). Horne

Tooke offered as proof 1000 words, explained (Diversions, P• 6oo).

There is a ae~1 a, probla. If abstract terras are not naes but adjectives or particip1es, bov can adjectives, mich are wcrds, be names? Horne Tooke opposed all the variœs atteapts to distinguish

substantive fro• adjectiYe. For exaple, to the appèal to a distinction

betwem nbstance and accident Home Tooke objected that both substmces

and accidents are naaed by eitPer nouns or adjectives.

The attem.pt to distinguish substantive frœ adjectiYe by their

different use fa.ils1 Home Tooke argued, because it ,is based chiefly on spelling. How can the adjective be' .the wcrd which cannot stmd alone wben

i:rl Persia i t is the noun which has the tendnation and therefore cannot

stand alone? Or· when in English the noun 'IJi:m's' cannot stand alone

(D:L.versiœs, P• 634, n~) • Of course, Horne Tooke seems to have overlooked here the point that if the added termination were wbat distinguished the

adjective from the noun, thm how could one. spaak· of the termination being

added to the noun?

The writers of the Port Royal grammar attributed to adjectives a kind

of obscure signification in addition to the nominal signification.

Horne Tooke objected that all these positions depend on the

assertion that adjectives are not the names of things. He said1

11 think :rou will not deny .that Gold and Brass and Silk, is each of them the .!!!!! or! thj,.ng, and denotes ! sübit'ance. If then I say - a Gold-ring, a Brasa-tube, a Silk•string: Here are the Substantives adjective posita, yet names of things, and denoting substantives. · If again I sq - a Golden ring, a Brazen tube, a Silken string; do Gold and Brasa and Silk, cease to be the maes of things, and cease to denote substantives; because, instead of cœpling thea with ~~ ~ and string by a hyphen thus .. , I couple them to the sau.e words by adding the tendnation en to · each of thea? Do not tœ Adjectives (which l' ha:v'e aade such by the iaded terlldnation) Golden, Brazen, Silken, (uttered by themselws) convey to the hearer' s Blind aiil denote thë S811le things as Gold', Brasa, and Silk? Surel:y the tel"JJination en tâtes nothing awa7 from the substantiveSGOld1 Brasa, and Silk, t.o whië'li it is united as a terminatiœ: and as surely it adda nothing to their signification, but this single circumstance, viz. that Gold, Brasa, and Silk, are desigaated, b7 this terraination en, to be joined • to'Som.e other substantive.' (Diversions, p. 626). - 70 •

But what thing is tgold• the name of? By itself, being general • it does not name any pa.rticula:r thing. Horne Tooke a:rgued that 1gold1 named the same thing as 'golden' uttered by itself. But 1golden1 is an

incomplete symbol, for Horne Tooke, to be read as • the thing which is gold

and. •• t • If we take an instance of its use, for example, 'Pick up that

goldi •, we might also say 'Pick up that golden ringS', or 1 Piek up that

gold-ringl' Here we have m example which seems to fit Home Tooke•s

requirements: 'g~ld', •gold-ring•, 'golden ring•, denote the same abject.

The adjective class is not necessary for speech, beeause thEre is

at least one language with no adjectives.

Horne Tooke quoted Jonathan Edwards, "The Mohegans have no

Adjectives in all their language. llthough it may at first seem not only

singular and curious, but impossible, tha t a language should exist w:i. thout

Adjeçtiyes, yet it is an indubitable fact.• (D:iversiœs, pp. 646-647) •115

Hqpte Tooke coneluded, an adjective is the nam.e of a thing 'Nb.ich is

directed to be joined to some other name of a thing, so that the two will

serve the purpose of one complex term. (Diversions, p. 633).

Because a language of distinct complex words for every collection

of ideas is impossible, we need sub~itutes ot the missing complex 110rds.

For example, 'l H2lY ~tian 1 is an abbreviation in sorts of words equivalent to the complex:. term. or abbreviation in terms •Saint' (Diversions, P• 633) • Horne Tooke added,

/And we shall find hereafter that en and the equivalent adjective terminations !! and .!1 (our modern z) conveyall three' by their own

llS Jonathan Edwards, Observations on the La.nguage of the Muhhekaneew • Indiana, (Conneticut Society of ArtsmdScience, 17118'):- 71.

intrinsic meaning1 that designatipn an~ nothing else; for they me...s Give, Add1 .!!2!!!• And this single added circUllàtance of tlpértaining Y:!!": ii'l'is Wilktns trliÙ.1' tella us) . the only difference between a substanti ~ and an adjective; betwèen Gold and Golden, &.c 1 (Diversions, pp~ 626.î-627). ·

Other auch endings include, ..1y, ..tous;. -tul.·, -some,· •les, •ish, or just difference of ter.mination, e.g. holinees, holy. (Diversions, P• 644) The

t sipif'icance of the '•ive• ending on •adjective' 1 is that the word so designated •may' lie close to a nowi (Diversions, p.· 642) ·• Some words wbich appeared only às adjectives were èxamplés of borrowing. For example, where we ùse the su bstant·ive •mant, we use ·the foreign adjectives, •virile•, 'human', •masculine•, 'ma1è'; for the

1 1 1 substantive 'lllindt 1 the adjectives 'mentàl' 1 'magnanimous pusillanimous ,

1unanimous•; for •sight', we use •visual', •perspicuous•, tconspicuous 1 ' . 1 • optic t; for • speech • • we use • loquaciœs •, 'garrulous •, • eloquent'; for

1 1 1 folk' we use tvu1gar'; for ''being', •essential•; for •thing' 1 real ; for . ·:· . ~- 'kind•, 'general', tgeneric', •congenial'; for •beliet•, tcrédulous•.

(Diversions, PP• 636-9).

His account d colour words is interesting. He wrote, 'BROWN/an~BRUNT /as vell as BRAND, are the past participle of the verb to Bren, .or To Brin. The French and Italians have in their languages 1 1 1 this 'Sa'm.ë"j)irtici'Pïe; written by thea Brun and Bruno. BROWN aeans Burned, (subaud. col.our). I't is tha't colour lilhich things have that have been Burned. • •• •Neve grene chese of smal1e c1am.ynes coatortethe a hotte stomake, as Rasis sayth, it repressethe his BROUNIS and beate.• Regiment 2f He1the1 ![ !• P31Del.1 {1541.) fol. 61. P• 1 • ••• (Bence also the Italians have their Bronzo: from which the French and Eng1ish have their Bronze.) Nor is this pecullar to our language alone; nor to this colour only. All colours in al1 languages must have their denoDdnation from some co•on object, or from some circumstancee which produce those colours.• (Diversions, pp. 422-423). 72 •

Horne 'l'ooke trace411 'yellow• to the past participle of Ge-aelan meaning • accendere; •green• to the past partieiple of Grenian meaning virescere; 'white• to the past participle of hwlthyln meaning spumare; and 'grey'

to the past partieiple of Geneznan JII8Zi~ inficere (DiYersions, p. 423).

A more difficult case llight appear to be that of •walking' in

'His walking lasted five minutes.' Here the substantive 'walking 1 nam.es

an action, not a thing. In •He vas walking for five llinutes. • an act is

joined to the noun. Horne Tooke related the pBl"ticiple to the verb in the

same w~ as he related the adjective to the noun. The participle is an 'adjected' verb whieh signifies all that the unadjected verb signifies and

no more, except the circUlllStanee of ad.jection (Diversions, p. 650). For

examplè, 'rising' in •The rising Sun always gladdens the earth1 is a simple

Yerb adjectiYe (Diversions, PP• 648ft); •writ 1 in 1For wlD can show m.e,

siœe they- first vere writ/ They- e•er converted one hard-hearted Wit? 1 is . ' a past tense adjective (Diversions, pp. 655tr.). Others include the

potential active adjective: words in•-ive• (Diversiœs, PP• 670ft); the

potential. passive. adjective: words in1•ble1 (Diversions, PP• 658tf .) ; the

official DIOod passive adjective: words in'-end• (Diversions, PP• 676ft);

and the- future tense adjective: words in'·ure• (Diversions, PP• 679f'f.). 'l'hus, 'visible' meant •able to be seen•; •sensitive• meant •may sense•;

1multiplicand1 meant 'ought to be multiplied'; •tuture' meant ~about to be• • Other substitutes for Jl.issing c011plex tel"JilS includèd constructions

involving, signiticant position, hyphenated constructions, abbreviations in

tel"Dls, and prepositimal constructions (Diversions, pp. 633-6.36) • • 73.

Locke had argued thai# the best definiti on enWErates the sialple . ideas cœbined in the complex idea being defined. For example, 1 to one who desired to know what idea the word!!! stood forJ. ••• say that man vas

a solid extended substance, having life, sense, spontaneous motion, and ,

the taculty of reasoning, ... • L:(Locke,Essaz, III. iii. 10.) Horne Tooke

objected in a marginal note 'This or any definition hitherto given of the

word Man, does not convey the !dea, -why? If it be complex?• Where

Locke suggested small aarginal pictures as possible alternatives, Horne

Tooke commented in a note •not only beat, but only by seeing them.• Home

Tooke argued against Locke that as a collection of stars is not a complex

star but a constellation, so a collection of ideas is not.a complex idea

but a complex term (Diversions, p. 19). In this sense, Horne Tooke wrote,

1Mr. Locke•s Essay is the best guide to the first•, that is abbreviations in terms (Diversions, p. 15). Horne Tooke denied the substance..quali t;r distinction. But what

did he intEild by that denial? He did not mean that we cannot speak of a

particular in a particular vay, tor he admi tted • cireumstances • of things.

For example, adjectives are nanes with the added circumstance of

1pertaining to 1 (Diversions, P• 626}.

He siilp!y Mant, as I interpre t hia, that v hat is talc: en as substance and what is taken as qualit;r is relative to our speech, not to the

nature of things. For example, we can say either •a perverse nature• or

•a natural perversit;r' (Diversions, p. 627). There are cases 1Ïlere ve cannot

convert with the same meaning. For example, •an appetizing pig' does not

mean the same as •a piggish appetité'. But this does not -prove that there • is not an acceptable conversion. We cœld speak of •a piggish appetizable' 74.

for e.xam.ple. So that if we object to Home Tooke's theor.r tbat the application of any word presupposes a similarity between that to lilich we apply' the liDrd and that to ltlich the 'IW)rd bas been previously applied, and that this, in 'rlrtue ~ which the two a:re similar, must be rega:rdec:l as qualitati Ye in distinction .from tbat in virtue of which the two are distinct,

Horne Tooke could reply, that in another language, or expression, what is now distinct llight very well have been similar to the denotata of the expression. So t'bat the substzce-quality distinction is relative to the particular noun-adjective being used.

But let us consider another example: a grœp of four Jl'Ople each of whom is blind. Here the collection has tliD features, that of having four and that of having blind members. From the point .or view of the members, the way that they .are blind is different from the way that they are

.t'our. They are blind apart from the collection, but four only as collected.

Did Home Tooke intend any thing which is blind to be blind only in relation to a particula:r expression similarly to the way in which the blind members of the above mentioned collection are .t'our? I think not. He distinguished things which remain the same and things which change: '!!! quae permanent•, and '!!! S!!! .t'luunt' {Diversions, P• 10). He criticized only the use of this distinction as the basis of a corresponding verbal distinction. This distinction cannot be that between substance and quality. Could it be intended as a distinction between things and relations? Horne Tooke's objection to the substance-quality distinctiœ applies only if we interpret one of the qual.ities as being the substance, but not if it is the enduring manner of being together possessed by some qualities 11hich is substantial. 75.

Horne Tooke. need not deny this point, since he J'J1J!1.7 in fact have intmded

on+,y tQ point out that whate'f'er the nature ar things, we cannot discover

i t by ana]1sing the forms of ·language.

But,. if so, theil.? is Horné Too~e•s theory of c0111plex terms and

abbreviat:ions ·in teras possible? Is it a purely linguistic :aatter lihich

complex terms are possible? . Horne Tooke argued as if, ha'Ving referred to a thing by the signa of several or its circUIIStances of s:ùlilarity, the

speaker can choose one of the signa to abbreviate or stand for those signs.

But which sign do we choose? If oneHb:me Tooke's 11.0del the sign is chosen because of some si.Jdlarity. between. the denotatUil and the original meaning,

then, eitber the sign signifies the other. signs or it promotes one quality

of the thing to the statua of sub$tance. But if it signifies or

abbreviates ibe signa, thm we lose the wh ole point of using this particular

sign which vas its denoting a circUIIStalce similar '00 the prior circumstances

known to the audience. This problem of how -we choose the sign wltlch

abbreviates a group ar signa vas untDuched by Horne Tooke.

Furthermore, the article is itself a general sign for one. How

can it naae any particular:- one? Without the article no number of general words cœld re duce the generaJ.it;y of the name, sinee the general word

presupposes similarity so tbat there would al.ways be at least two things wbi.cb are its possib~e denotata. The article bad to cross bis categories, being general and used as a substitute, ;ret necessary. Horne Tooke must

after all return to sœe form of subject.. predicate distinction auch that one or more particulars ar:-e claimed to be of such and such a sort. ~· '. · ... ·

D Two Necessa;r Parts !! Speech

Horne Tooke held that in addition to the substitutes 1there are

only :!::!2, sorts of 110rds which are necessary for the cOJIDil'Unication of our thoughts•: nouns and verbs (DiveriBfans, pp. 23·24). Nouns are •the signa

of those illpr essions, or naae s of ide as'. In Qu,D.ntilian 1 s phrase, they are

''t!!, quo lopimur~,. '1 Horne Tooke followed Locke on the sorti: siaple or

Jcomplex, particular or general. The Terb is 'in fact the collllllUilication

\\itself: and therefore wêll denoainated Rheu., Dictum. For the Verb is

QUOD loauimur• (Diversions, PP• 25-26).

The chief problem of interpreting Horne Tooke is to decide how he

intended this distinction between noun and Terb to be taken, for sanetimes

he wrote as if nouns and verbs vere sorts of word on a par with substitutes1 differing onl;r in function. For example, in discussing etymolog;r, he wrote

that derivations need not go •further than to some Noun or Verb of a

determina te signification•••• ' (D.lTersiœs, p. 248),. At other times he

wrote as if the distinction between noun and verb corresponded somewhat to

the distinction between the foree and manner of signification of the word.

He wrote towards the eni of Part II that a noun substantive 'is the N•e of

a thing- and nothing ~·' (Diversions, P• 632). Whereas a verb is both

a noun, and also 1something more' (Diversions, P• 683).

'l'bose lilo have discussecl his theory of the verb have considered

that Horne Tooke did net finish his acco~t. That he did, but cryptically,

is, I think, his great lJoke. The consequences, if he did not, are

considered below, page 82.

Here is the problem as prescted b;r 'F' on the last page of Part 2: 77.

•You have told me that a Verb is (as every word also must be) a lotmJ but ;rou added, that it is al'iOiomething !!!!:!.= and that the title o"f Verb vas given to i t, on aecount of that distinguishing somethin§ more thali"'ïhe •re Nouns convey. You haYe then proceeded to the· silîple Ve~ adjectived, and to the different adjectived Moods, and to the different adjecti't'ed Te~es of' the verb. But 7011 have not all the while ex:plained to • what ;rou mean by the nalted simple Verb unadjectived. Nor have you uttered a single syllable concerning tha~aœething which the naked Verb unattended by Mood, Tense, Number, Person, and Gender, (which last also some languages add to"Tt} signifies More or Besides the mere Noun. What is the Verb? Whatii that peculiar differentia! circuastance which, addëd· to the definition of a Noun, constitutes the Verb? 1 (Diversions, PP• 68.3-684) • · -

Horne Tooke did not publish Part .3, which dealt w:i. th the verb. He did append to the above paragraphs a list of ten of the theories of the verb which he did not hold, including definitions of' the verb in terms of

the object (examples 1, .3, 4, 5, 10), as an accident (examples 2, 7, 8), or as a syntactic f'eature (examples 6, ,9).

Because his own account vas tunctional, his objections to the definitions in terms of' accidents are interesting. He bad objected to the

verb as an 1 adtirmation 1 because that would require two things. Presumably he would object to the verb as an 'assertion •, example 7, tor the same reason. In exam.ple 8, he objected to the verb as a f'astener. Home Tooke said he vas using the word •verb• in the ordinary sense.

What is the ordinar.y sense? In the usual gr8111D.&t1cal sense of' •verb 1 as

one sort of' word among other sorts, such that each of the underlined words

in the f'ollov.ing examples are all verbs and none of' the other words are 1 Home Tooke did not use the word in its ordinary sense.

1). Figs ~FROM Turkey.

2) • Lamp falls FROM Cieling •

.3) • Lamp bangs FROM Cieling. 78.

Horne Tooke classitied ·~· as a complex term tor one speeies of motion, and •ha.ngs• as a complex term for a species of attachment (Diversions, p.

184). Nor is there ~ vord in the sentence vhich seems to till the role of verb tor him, tor 1FROM 1 is a botm meaning 1Bl!XliNNING' ~

Horne Tooke vas avare of Plato 1 s distinction of notm from verb,

Sophist 262A1 at least insotar as he bad read Plutarchls tenth Platonic Q!estion (Diversions, p. 75, n. 1).116 Horne Tooke did not deal vith the distinction explicitly, however.

Severa]. of Horne Tooke's successors tried to till the gap. John

Barclay supplied an accotmt of the verb vhich is of purely etymological. interest.117

Richardson oftered an interpretation libich vas ambiguous: the 118 verb vas both a noun vhich may act, and a noun vhich may atfirm an act.

This ambiguity resulted from hia attempt to reconcile Horne Tooke's notion ot the verb as a noun active, vith his own of a subject-predicate form of proposition corresponding to the agent-act distinction. For example,

Richardson took 1 to love 1 as an example of a verb auch that the • to • is the only difference between this verb and the noun •love • • And so did Horne

Tooke, who wrote, •there ie no d:U'terence between the NOUN, Love, and the

VERS, TO !2!.!.1 but what lllUSt be comprised in the prefix TO. • (Diversions, p. ·190). Other verbal marks included, the termination, the position of the

ll6 Plutarch • s Miscellanies and lem~" corrected and revised by William W. Goodwin, Sixth edition (BostOn, 9 ) , I, w.4-WI,9.

117 John Barclay, .A Sequel to the Diversions of Purley: containing An Essay on English Verbe, withReiiirka on Mr. To0ke 1 s Work, and on SomeTerms Em.plozëd to Denote~ or Spirit (Loiidoii; 1826), Parti'.--- 118 Richardson, Study ~ Language, PP• 213 tt. 19.

word, or a fo1'11l of 1 do• (Diversions, PP• 193-19$) • ~tupc:tte..k lkt'llc. Te.oke.'~.) :Now, •to• aeant •act• for Horne 'l'ooke. Funke~ved tàé'verb' as

11 a_ .. ~!!t. vh!~ -~~~at!? .. ~ction. 9 He said1

(~Ir kennt lberhappt fL- das ;;~ische Leben, vie es· sich 1 in der Sprache ft . aussert, nichte als .impressions cr feelings•; daher sindl ibJI die einsig

psychisch bedington Redeteile das noun, das der Beseichn~ dieser

- 1 •Eindriicke• oder Empfindungen•• dient, œd das verb, dem er.• ausdrücklich• den gleichen semasiologischen Wert wie dem. Substantiv suerkennt,1 wenn er ibm auch in durchaus vager Weise fur. den sprachlichen Mitteilingssweck' noch ' einen die Alétion .anseigend.en11 ligencharakter zuteilen mochte.. t Yet Horne 'l'ooke bad explicitly ruled out the thec:>ry that the verb 1 was the na:me of an actiœ. The difference was in manner of signification.

1 Elsewhere, Horne 'l'ooke wrote of the •tot as not a part of the simple verb itself. For example, tto hie' was a simple verb plus an infinitive prefixe The pure and simple verb was '!'!!!.! (Diversions, p. 628). Hence the sc.thing more lilich the verb was over and abovj the noun must be alread.y present in this pure and simple verbe If the verb is to be . i distinguished from the noun b7 the sign for 'act t meaning :something other

than that the word f'o~~owing names azw: action, then the v~b must itsell be

the act, that is, the noun•in-action, the noun""in•use.

On this theoq, however, Horne 'l'ooke oould not h,ve argued that the noun and verb have each a different m.anner of significatidn, for the noun,

1 the word apart from a.rrr use, would have no manner of signtfication. Horne

119 Funke, Sprachphilosophie, P• 97. ao •

. 1 Tooke in tact wrote tbat we do not get tq the .aanne,r of signification

1 • until we get to the verb. The noun witbout the verbal eharaeter is the noun substantive, it may •substllt~ The verb eou.ld be ealled the •noun

infinitive', i.e. a word which may be unlilll:ited1 beeause it is the vord­ in-use-limited•b,y•the-applieation.

Horne Tooke's remarks suggest ' distincti~ between the

commnnieating ar thonght, and tbat b.r .nieh the tbought is eommunieated. The verbal qualit;y, added to the noun, is the • eollll1lUnieating' i tself.

Untortunatel.;y Horne Tooke did not work out the distinction. His •word'

is ambiguousl;y the eommunieating b;y aeans of the group of sounds,. whieh tulfUls ou.r purpose, or, tbat by whieh we eommunicate '· the eonventional

groups of ~ounds. By' means of et1Jil0logy1 · we diseover the 110rd in the sense of a group of sounds vith one, origin. There is also the word in the

sense or the group.of sounds fulfilling one function.

Horne Tooke began from the conventional word; and distinguished

its historieally originating 'foree' from its •unner or signification•, or

purposive use. His problem arose beeause that whieh f'ul.filled the funetion

did not neeessaril;y correspond to tbat ~ieh was:a historieal unit. He

argued that several historical 1 words 1 substituted fœ one f'unctional •vord • •

Or one or more funetional -'•words' abbreviated seTeral historieal '~rds•.

Horne Tooke did not discuss the science of disti.nguishing the

1purposes• pf words. This science eould not haTe l::een psyehology-, sinee

Horne Tooke did not allow mental acta. It eou.ld not l'ave been a historieal

science for then the confusion between •foree' and •manner of signification'

arises. Dugald Stewart argued that etym.olog;y should be replaced as the 81.

prior science by analysis. Horne Tooke's work suggests the analysis or sentential tunctions as the programme tor the future. Horne Tooke held that the only relation possible between word and thing was 1naming'. It tollows that communicating is naming, and that the eemplexity or the sentence, that by which communicating is possible, is purely verbal. There is then no distinction between •the yellow book', and

1The book is yellow.• Horne Tooke quoted Scaliger on opposition such that where two substantives are placed adjacent so that •one' can be understood no copula is necessary, ' "Si aliqua substantia ejusmodi est, ut ex ea et alia, unum intelligi queat; earum duarum substantiarum totidem notae (id est nomina) in oratione sine conjunctione cohaerere poterunt.n ' (Diversions, P• 213). Horne Tooke did not go on to deal with cases where •one• cannot be understood. Nor did he provide any means of distinguishing 'The book is yellow.• from •The book is John's.• where reference cannot be made to the quantity or the denotatum. On this interpretation, Horne Tooke assimilated questions or class membership and questions of order. This con:tusio.n is at the root of his contusion of the propositional-attitude torm of sentence with the molecular. Ultimately he is guilty or the same tault with which he charged Locke (Diversions, P• 19). Just as a group or stars is not a complex star, just as a group of ideas ;i.s not a com.plex idea, so a group of words is not • a complex word. Home Tooke failed to recognize the- sentence as ·a special case of eom.pounding words. As a result he did not treat the manner of

sentential compounding apart froa the manner of signifying.

It is,however, possible that Home Tooke not only burned

Diversions, Part Ill which vas to have dealt vith the verb, but that, as

Locke failed, so he failed to treat the verb ·in his published work. What he

published was a theoey of the commu.nication of tbœght in the sense of the

signification of the sentential subject. Just as Horne Tooke diseovered

that the mannar of signification at a werd was prior to its force, so he

would have discovered the function of a word in the sentence to be prior to

its 1part of speech•. From his actual starting point Home Tooke could not

have dealt vith the verb. 83 •

VI Concluding Rema:rks Concerni.Îlg Home Tooke's-Theorz of Language

• Horne Tooke•s attempt to provide the etymology of English words

!ails not o~y because his actual etymologies vere false~ but also because he did not conjecture ar.r:y etymology for certain key vords, such as 120 t grammar• and 'sciençe • • There vere, further 1 all the vords he had marted problematic in his copy of Locke but which he did not explain in his

own vo~k. They included, 'gradual•, •consciousness•, 'spirit•, 'senses•,

1 1 'notions•, 'perfection•, 'definition•, •substance•, 'existence•, beings 1

•real' 1 'reality• 1 •~eal existence•, •man• ."'i"i:!;..;y perhap~ pre~~&turely a priori.

It is possible to correct false etymologies and to vrite the

histor,y of many of his untreated vords. Horne Tooke' s disciple Richardson

argued against the criticism of Horne Tooke's etymologies that 1 the abuse

of etymology is no objection to the use of etyaology.•121 It would be

fallacious to argue against Horne Tooke that siœe the etym.ology vbich ·

implied his philosopq, is false, so must be his philosophy. On the other hand even if the etymologies were true that would be

no proof of Horne Tooke•s philosopby. .As J•es Mill argued in relation to

the reduction of vords to •the names of sensible objects ••••we shall easil.y' demonstrate that this is no reason whatever for supposing that all the operations .of the mind may be resolved into the operations of the senses:

120 See report by M.C. Yarborough, PP• 1•2, above. • 121 Richardson, taneap, p. 179• 84.·

or as he is pleased to tera it, into the receiving of i.m.pr'ess:ions.•l22 • Home Tooke's argument need not be interpreted as Jaaes Mill interpreted it. Horne Tooke believed that tbere was no other argument

which could establish the existencè cf asntal acta. Locke's ps.ychological attempt reduced to verbal confusion, as did Jlletaph7sics. Of the latter Horne Tooke said, •the very term Metaphzsic being nonE,sense; and all the

systss of it, and controversies concerning it, that are or have been in

the world, being founded on the grossest ignorance of ~rds and of th~ , ' nature of speech.' (Diversions, p. 216). Horne Tooke's own work accounted

for ali' the phenomena of language Wi.thout postulating mental acta, he believed. Horne Tooke had argued in effect that the onl.y' possible proof of

the existence of an entity is that we seœe it, or have the 'idea' of it,

or a name for it. If none of these three is true of a purported entity then there is no auch enti ty. For example, where Lord Monbodà>is,.. quoted as vriting that, •every

kind of relation is a E.!:!. ~ ,2! intellect, which never.:!!!. be awrehended

~ sense; ~ th at the se particles which are expressed by cases are m.ore abstract and metaphysical than the others', Horne Tooke held rather that •the naues of all abstract relation (as it is called) are taken either from

122 Jaes Mill, The Literaq Journal; A Review of Domestic md Foreign Literature, Second"ieries, I (1866) 1 p.-14. - - This s•e point as made by the anon1J1ous reviewer of w. Hamilton Reid's Memoire, Qu.arterly Review, VII (1812), PP• 322·323. · 85. the adjectived common names of objecte, or from the participles of common verbs. The relations of place are more commonly' from the names of some parts of our body; such as, Head, Toe, Breast, Side, Back, Womb, Skin, &:c. t _....._,_ ---- (Diversions, p. 249).

In what sense was œ.etaphysics tnon.~sense•? Horne Tooke cannot :mean meaningless, for he attempted to show that al.l words nam:ing purportedly'

œ.etaphysicd entities were meaningful, that is, had been applied to a thing on the first occasion of their use •. Another sense of •non[ïense• is possible, viz. what is written in incorrect s,ntactic form. For example, talk of generalities, which could not be applied, written in the form of applicable statements. In. effect, Horne Tooke would interpret 'man is mortall as meaning either •all men are mortal', or' nman• is mortall. For

Horne Tooke, •man• is a three-letter word.

If things are particular, and if knowledge of things is based on sense experience, then Horne Tooke established that it is impossible to account for connection naturally or psychologically. Connection is purely verbal.

Of 1 truth' Horne Tooke said that 'instead of· its being a rare commod.it7 upon earth; except only in. word.s, there is nothipg but TRUTH in the world. 1 (Diversions,' p. 607). Truth is relative to the •trowerl, beca:use 'what is true• means lwhat has been trowed', that is, what has been believed, or thought, what has 1 thinged 1 me • Even if Horne Tooke • s theory of language is contradictor,r to that of Horne Tooke's predecessors, then, both could be true. If his own theor.r is correctly calle d 1 true i , then

Horne Tooke must have thought in his own sense-histoey the originale of al1 the words he studied and in the order of the historical development of language. He eould not have been present throughout that developtent, bence he must • have le arned at seeond-~and •.. ;eut how. ~ld a · teaeher be round already aequainted with Horne Tooke • s 1 revolutionar;r' theories before Horne Tooke bad

published them? !<...... , ...... !! c. Horne Tooke spoke o:t ta priori• 4;ufhk (Letter, P• 720). · He e011ld

not here be referring to 'wbat bad thinged him' for he eould not have thought

what he thought, before he th011ght -it. What other •truth• was there for

Horne Tooke?

When Barclay. objeeted that t.ruth is not dependant on m'an, for

animal.s might believe .things, Home Tooke agreed. Horne Tooke held that we

get beyond the beasts only in abbreviations. A priori truth eould be what

is truly implied by arry abbreviation. As noted above, p. 44, he had. used etym.ology as a test of what he foretold. He had distinguished the

improvs.ents of language from the corruptions. The im:provements vere the

abbreviations auch that one sign signitied ~~ or one function signified

many, or part of a construction vas omitted by means of 'subaudition'. Where the implication of an abbreviation did not lDld Home Tooke

spoke of •corruption•. He recognized departure from traditional usage, the

confusion or two words of similar sound for one, terminations, adverbe, and

the use of Latin gramm.ar to prescribe the Engl.ish (Diversions; pp.· 175, 252,

662). But he did not believe that language was &TStematically misleading,

as Bacon had thought. These corrùptions vere a source of error only to ·those

grammarians who tried to acco1mt for them rationally {Diversions,· p. 16.3).

One word or termination ahœld be used with one· signification and for one • purpose. However, although a departure is itself a new institution, Horne 87 •...

Tooke held that it should be left unchanged.unlessa good reason to the • contrar,y could be proposed (Diversions) p. 667}. ·The notions of 1co:i-rùpti bn •, • righi 1 , and •wrong' , are difficult

to work into his theory. He said, 1Establish what you please: Do but

establish; ·and, libil.st that establisl:urient &hall last,_ we sba:l.l be perfectly

convinced of its propriety.•· ·(Diversions, p. 667h And 1.! thing may be at

the saine . tiine both RIGHT and WBONG 1 . as vell as RIGHT and· LEFT. It may be commanded to be done, and cammanded not to be done. 1 (Diversions, P• 310). Insofar aa political revolution is a corruption or tu.rriing away from what has been instituted Horne Tooke would see:m jùstified, on his

theory, in condemm.ing it. He condemned the-French revolution,· partzy in the

form of an ·attack on Painels rationalism. ·But he supported the American

Revolution on the ground that George III had abrogated the constitution. If

fidelity to tradition is the only criterion of right action, it is difficult

to see how the restoration of a broken tradition can be justified for a nëw

tradition was thereby established. In fact Horne Tooke found it necessary

to appeal to consistency with the natural. law and hlllli.an nature, which were

the divine institution (Diversions, pp. 3091 311)~ The good lawmaker is

the amanuensis of Gode

Is that whieh is· in accord vith natlll'e right if it has pot yet

been instituted by a temporal power? Horne Tooke didnot answer'this question.

Had he done so he vould perhaps,..found"""-"' it necessary to support the French

revolution as well. Horne Tooke did not succeed in providing a philologieal

justification for tradition while recognizing tbat not all traditions are • right. · 88.

\j"~"'"~ic.. For Home Tooke. the only ~ts are CODlll'IUllieating, naming , ,.. ' 1 • abbreviatiDg. The expressions •Qrdered•, 'directed', •commanded', concem onq lHil •to Vhom alone language ):>e;Lqs' 1 who are •the subjects of Orders and commanda• (Diversiona, p. J09},

Directed behaviour is necessary for Horne .Tooke becaœe there is

directive language, for U:&.J.~Ple,, 'add'. Ia directed linguistic bebaviour - ~ . ' " the only directed be}laviour .possible?. What is the distinction betveen

vrong.deing and error if only linguis~ic misdemeanour is possible? Even if

physical acta are possible wrong-doing 'WOUld nqt be, .because men are part

of the natural world, God' s institution. Bence whatever they do must· be

right.

In language ite,elf1 the ·funct ion of a vord corresponds to the speakers. purpose. If aental acta are impossible, what is' a purpose?

Home Tooke's Jlistakes with 1 that' could be resolved by treating

a la.rger unit, 1lmowing that•, and •saying that•, tor. example. To admit

these would seem to require a~ssion.of mental acta as vell as verbal ones.

If it is possible to use ~rda for a purpose, if purely verbal

com.binations of speech are possible, then sureq ~t is necessary to

distinguish this use pf words froll what might be called the pureq passive verbal reaction. This distinction 110Uld correspond to Horne 'l'ooke's

distinction between languap and the interjection. Independant activity,

in this sense, might just as .vell be called 'llind' as •lmguage'. Horne

'l'ooke h~ }rovided a syntactie proof of the. existence of Jlind without

recognizing it. His point should be not so mueh that there is no mind, as • that the fora of spiritual activity is verbal • 89.

If God is spiritual, and if spiritual activity is verbal and exclusively hU1118ll, how can there be divine spirituality? If physical. activi ty is possible God might cOIIDiand the physical. uniTersè, while men command the verbal universe, auch that the material which men form. is the result of divine physical activity. But the forming would still be an independant human activity to satisfy human purposes.

The purposes which Horne Tooke considered important vere collllllUilication of thought and de spateh. He could eliminate Locke 1 s third purpose of language, conveying the knowledge of tbings, because, for Horne

Tooke, what is thought is identical with what is lmown.

Where Descartes' first goal bad been clear and distinct ideas,

Locke bad substituted for distinctness applicability, and Horne Tooke replaced clarity by greater comprehension, •a map on a reduced scale1 • The aim of science is to be abbreviating language.

What is the aim of mathematics? Wbere Locke explained our knowledge of 'one and two are equal to three 1 as self-evident, Horne Tooke 2 wrote in the margin •mere meaning of terms t .1 3

He may have meant sanething like this: the quantity of units that •one• was used to nam.e, added to the quantity of units •two' was used to name, are the same in quantity with the quantity of units •three' wa.s used to name. Here he would presuppose an act of comparing, which could not be accommodated in bis theory.

If communication involving both generality and applicability is possible, then Horne Tooke wrote, •Two similitudes necessary for general terms. 1. That different men receive like Feelings frœ the Same Object.

123 Locke, Ess&, IV. vii. 10. 2. That the saae man receives similar feelings frc:m the 88118 ~ of •• objecta •••• •124 This is necess&rT both in the case of naning the same thing and in the case of mming a. different but simil81:' thing. How can

Hol"Jle Tooke al.so argue that wœt etfect'5us is· one or more particulars? . To

the extent that. comunmi.cation Jresupposes similarity, but thee 81:'e only

particul81:'s, to that extent communication falsifies.the thought wbich it

is the spealc:er's purpose to cominunicate.

Home Tooke.•s theor,y preauppc:ses both that language ia

systematically llisleading, and that .itis not. Whether language is or is not

s;ystematicall;y Dd.sl eatlling turns for Horœ Tooke on the , question of similarity,

rather than vice versa. Therefore Home Tooke's theor;y of language is not

prior to philosophy, and Horne Tooke•s progr81111.e fai+s on this, his 1110st

ambitioas claill. Some scieme of similarities is required.

The etymological method presupposes that,wbose histor;y is to be

traced. Soae science is necess~ to distinguish these subjects of history.

Whether this science is to be called 'anal.;ysis' as Benth811 suggested, or not,

the tact remains tba.t Horne Tooke at tempted i t wbere he distinguished two

necessar;y partsof speech, wbich he believed demonstrà>le in an earlier stagë

of' language. However, this attem.pt remains obscure because of the

inadequacy of his wr:iting concerning the noun and verb.

Horne Tooke prepared the w~ by reinstating Locke's distinction

between 'force' a:td 'manner ot signiticatiϥagainst Locke's critics. He erred

124 Home Tooke's marginal note, near Locke, Essay_, III. iii. l•J• The • material ollitted consista of two or three illegible words •. 91.

in appealing too soon to histo17. The question whether analysis is possible is beyond the scope of this thesis. 92.

VII, BIBLIOGRAPHY·

la MAIUSCRIPI' SOURCES Il THE BRITISH MUSEUM

• A. Collection of paaphlets and single sheeta relating to &Dd chiefl7 written b7 Borne Tooke, rith copiov.s Ms. notes and additioaa b7 hia• 1 covering the years 1778-1812. Harris, Jues, lel"Ms: er, A. Philosephieal. !!!1!!!!z eoncerrli.!l ;-page md. Univeraal. ira.iar, LondGîï1751~ a great D1lllber of i8. notes b7 Mr. Tooke.J ·

Horne Tooke, John, !f!! rteroenta. Or, ~ DiTeraions !!. Parlq, Part 11 Lond.on 1786. [;rnterlined vith eopious aatograph additions and corrections b7 the av.thor .]

Locke, John, Essay Conca~ Huam Uncieratanting, fitteenth editi0n, 2 volumes, London 17 • [lia. aotea by John Borne Tooke.]

118 1 lclward, Dictiouriu Saxonica' et Gothico-Latinua•• ,, Londini 1772. [copious Ms. notes b7 J. Horne Tooke~ Priestle7, Joseph, tisguiaition relating !.2, Matter !!:!!! Spirit ... , London 1777. [1111. notes by J. Borne Tooke~ ---- The Doctrine .2f Philoaophieal Neceasity iUutrated; .. , London rrf1. tM•. mot es in pencil, by J. Horne Taoke ~ ; Proceedi!lgs in an action tor debt betwen the Ript Hon. c. J. Il'd%, Plantitf, and"1:."1iorne TooiC'8';" Detendant, Publlshed b7 the Detendant. LoD~: nJ2. (A copy vith Ms. Dotes by the authorJ ·

Skinner, Stephen, Etpologicon Linpae .Anglicanae 1 • , , Londini 1671. fçopioua Ms. Dotes by J. Home Tooke ~

'l'he Trial (at §ge) of John Horne ...v.pon an iDf'oraation tor a libel, - AJtÏÏJ , 1777, Pabliahëd b7 the DetendâDt troa Mr. iurne7'• short hmd ao\ea:-T.ondon 1777. [With Ms, Dotes and corrections by John Horne Tooke~ Further Proceediags on the 'l'rial of John Horne, •• v.pon aa Iatoraation tiled !2 !a:! !ajeitii8A.ttorne1Geliiral tor! Libel;-the ~!!!! 24th!! lcwaber.. ,, Londen 1777. hbliahed i7 the Detëiidant, troa Kr. Gv.rney1s short hand notes. (!iith Ms. Botes and correctiœs by J. Horne Tooke~ Wallis, Jobn, .. ,gra.aatica li.Dg!ae àglicanae •• ,, si.xth edition, Londeai.Di 176S. l*• notes b7 J.H. TookeJ lb MAHUSCRIPI' IN '!HE BRITISH MUSEUM AND WROIGLY ASCRIBED TO JOHN HORNE TOOKE

Junius, (paeudonym~ The Genuine Letters of Junius. To wbich are prefixed Anecdotes ot the Author, London 1171. [CopiOus Hs.notii, chiefly copied tromWoodtall•s edition, llhich notes are, on the f17-leat, wrongly ascribed to J. Horne Tooke~ . 94 .•

2;j PRIHTED OOURCES:A.WRKS BY ROINE TOOJŒ

!!! Petition !! !! l!gliabaan, London 1765. A Ser.on, second edition, London 1769. - . ~ Appeal to ~ Pablie Touehing the Daath!! llr. George Clarke who receiYed a:DJ.aw a\ BraDtf.,i{ôîÇ'l'liVoaâz" 'r::=iV of DocMbêr lUt, of iti!Oilhela.nguâbed ad M.ed on liinëa tiii Fourteentii"''?' tlië aae llOBth,by John Foot,TviiOi,Len· .~paii il""~ COPT ill the library of Yale UniYersity bas beeD illseribed by T. Holt White, attributing this wrk to John Horne Tooke"tt •*lleNh:i.p;}

Gemdne Copies of all the Letters which Passed between the Ript HODorable Lord ciiinc.Iior-and the Sheriffs of Loidon andtiadleaex, •• 'etwen the Shei'lfts and theSecret;z orS'tate, relitiYe .:!!, ~ eiëëution !f Beyle and Valine, London 17 o. 'lvritten by Home Tooke, accordiJii to Yarborough, P• li4~

~ oration deliYerecl ,2z the !!!• !!:• Home, !l! l1111.8rous Meeting ~,!!!. FreeholAlera of Micldleaex, •••Harch 30, 1770, to conaider or an address, re:aOnstrance, ,!!!!! :petition~ hia M83'eaty, ContifnJig !!_u detail of... t.lle ...llllconatitu.tional ateps 11hich have bHD taken !!:2! thËtseirue of !!:• lfilkea•a papera ~the j!O'ëieiittœ, ... London 1170.

!!!! Whole Proceedings !! !!!! Cause ~ .!!!!_ Action Brougbt ,2z!!!! !!• ~· !!!!• Onalow, Baq. f!ainat tiîe ReY. llr. John Borne, on Frid&, April 6, atJi! aton, Ôr ! Detaiiator, 'Libel, betore the ttlght Bonourablë' ~ ir a :Blaekstone, taken in short hand ...by Joseph Ourney... London 1770.

The Trial (at ~"';) or John Horne ...upom an infor~~&ti.on for a libel, 4th - Juil, _, Lon'd0ii""l777. - ---

Fu.rther Proceed.i.Dga on the Trial of John Horne ...upon u. Infol'll&tion tiled ~ his Majestlr.-.A.ttome7G'8ie'ra1 !2!: .! Libel;-the 19th and 24th !! lovëii&tr ••• , London 177r. Facts addressed to the landholdera, stockholdera, •rchanta, ramera, :aan1ïtactirii=i, trâde8MB, proprietera of. .!!!!7 description, and generally to all tîï8 aîîbjecta of GreatBritiiii aaël Irelad, LOiidon · 178o. B.r J. HOr'ai""foolœ vith Ricluîrd Priee. ('rhere vere at least eight editions or this work in 1780~

!E!! Pteroenta. 2,!:1 .!!!! DiYersions !! Parlez, Part 1, London 1786. !!! !!!!: (sie] !! portraita preseated to _!B !!!, UDbiused eleetors .!!. Great BritaiB; and es:peeiall.T to the eleetGrs ot Westainster, London 1188. --:- - ~ -:

~ .!!!!_ nectors .2!, Westlliuter, ...LoadoD 1790.

! reviev .2!, !:!!!. constitution .2!, Great Britaia: )tt~ the aubst.anoe .!! ! speech deiivered ii a nu.eroas aasëâb~~ fo~ •••stiont 1!! the pt!titiOD Of ifr. Herne Toote! Jii1 en tiîe~!! Ce_.u, or a jut st.atea.&t il~lic grieYances atff, tr• aa ijitafr re;asentatien of \he eo e." 17 a triea 0 he peojiie. .lppendi.x coDâiïîiDi the jitllion o • Home Tooke, together w1 th Jais t.wo ad.dreases to the electors of Westaiuter, second edition, · London 1791.

Procee!!!ls iD. an Action for debt betveen the ~tht Bonourable C.J. Fu:, Pl&liitilf, aad J:-Jioii.üitTooke, DeTeiidan , Pâbfiahëd b7-tli'e - &fendant, 'LO!ldin ·1792. · · . !!!! .lddress md Declaration B.Œ_ctrf the French lew1ution !!!! the led.iition of Tues 1 wle toiii ilie .l:p~ to the !jiJîts ot lan, Part iëc:ond; aad. ~tir»f.bi""a seëtlliëtiii the Friands !! UDiYe'rsal Feace aa:it~.bëitz, .. eii .it .tlie fhat.ched•Heisi'Tavem ••• London. Written b7 ThO~ Paine... L.ad'On 1792? Qiigaed at enda J. Horne Toeke, Chairaart.~ .

!!!!, Trial !! !.·!~!., !!. ! charge !! bigh treason, lewcast1e 179lt. !!!!, Trial ot .!•!!•!• ·!!!:.. !!!J!!. Treaaon at... t.he ...Q.!! Bailez.. S1794, .. tat. !!! Short ~. ~ Joseph Gurnez;, -:2 volaes. London 17' •

The Proceeding, at large oa the trial at J.H.'l'.• taken in short hancl ·'b7 J.H. - ilanchard'.... Londinl7'95. ----

!!!! Weatllinster Election in .!!!!. .l!.!! -f!2!; ~. ~ accurate state. !f ,!!.! poil .ea.ch :§; &lio, ! c«!'Plete eoïliition M. the üdresses !;!!!! sneohes troll the Buati.J:Is ...of ••• c.J. rex, .. .Sir .l. Gardaer, ... BD J.H. TGOie, ...tôiœn 1796:- 1).-sicond editica ievlaed and eorrëeted, appeare

l'.. ., '~ . ._.,/lft • ' •IDtantl'1", k. um...... ,al llili~ J!ê:~, =~h .!!!! Fl'ellolll !!! vbièli are fftl•d))ii:Tera.?èf 1!!. 'Princi .· Sciences that .!!:! leeeaa~ or. e rnrc:;r.tiou. 7 an 0. er, 7 Charles Jaes, ~r.- --

•Two Pairs of Portraits~ Preaen~ed to the unbiassed llectors of Great• Britain; -.d especially to the Bleetora of Weatai.Jlster.• The ~-Jacobin Rerlew ,!'!! Haguine, ...I (1798), S7~·S79, 702:'Ri9. Bea Pt.eroenta!!!!!! Diversions!! hrlq, Part 2, London 180S. lpea rteroenta .!!:. the Diversions !f. Purley, tirst .blaricm editioa, troa tbë se•onëi""f,oiidOn edition, ~ volu.aea, Philadelphial806-1807.

! Wand.Dg ~ !!!! Eleetors ~ Wes~er, London 1807.

! Ser!AJJ.1 ~other edition of A Se:raon 1769J London 181S.

The e&lllles ad affecta of the national debt and .1!!2!.!: lney oa real and - nailir&l pSErtj,iii the p."eseiitititi i?Cin sociitz••• To lili iëh ~ ed !! ippiiidii, conta;l!i!s ! just !!! !!ertiar reri.ev ot the .t\mda et lnglan.d ...b7 the late Dr. Priee, London 1818. -- - !1!!! Pteroenta or the. Di.'Veraioas of Parlez,. a new editioa re'Yised and correctedrtth nuaeroua idditiona .froa the autàor•s ·COPTI to which is a:rmexed his latter t.o J. l'Junn:ing, editeci by Richard '1'a7lor, 2 vol1U18s, London 1829. • . . ~ rteroenta!!!!!! Diversions~ Parle};; lfith nuaerous additions trea ' the cow preparëd lij' tille aatJiGr or repùlicat.ion, t.o 1ilhich is annexed his ·letter to John Dunning, lsq.: . J. Iev lditien D'Yised and Corrected lfith additional notes by 'Richard Tqlor, Lond.on 1840. 1: #. ---- Lo...,d.o.-. 11 S 1. ---- London 186o. •Horne 'l'ooke 1a Diaey't [troa Ma7 to Oct.ober, 1794J eontributed by G.J.w., 1 lotes and. Q!eriea, 8th series, n (1897)' 21-22, 61-62, 103-104, 162:J:6J. 97. "

2b OORRBSPOHBNCE ·

~ Sir John Gibbons, 1770? [s.l.) . The Controversial. Letters ot Johll Wilkes lsq., The ReT. John Horne, and - their Eincipal âdherents; With a l!lllpple.ent' containing materia1 anony.ous pieces, ••• London 1771.

"Extracts from a Letter from Mr. Horne to John Duœing, Esq. on the Co~stitutian of certain English Partic1es•, The Annual Resister (1778), 183-189. . A Letter :!:.! Jehn D!œning, lsq., London 1778. . . . A Letter to Lord Ashburton occasioned S[ last T11esday 1s debate in the - 'Hou'SëOr COIUilOns, !!! !!!:• Pitt1 s iilOticm, ~ndon 1782. --

~'Let ter .!!! Par1iaaemtarz Refora ContaiDing the Sketch of ! Plan, second edition, LondGn [.17831]

A Latter to a Friand on the rzorted Marriage of Bis Royal. Highness the - Prince of Walis, Lon n 1787. · (A sec'Oiid edition appeared ~ London the sue year, as did an edition from Dublin.)

~ Letter .!:,! the Editor ~ the Ti.llles, London 1807.

Veritas, Horne Tooke Retuted ~~ .:!:!!!, AbsurdiV of bis Calumious Latter !2 !!!!. Editor ot the Tbles Flîliz Exposed, In a Latter to John . Horne Tooke, lsq., contaiDing his Letter to Mr. Pall, London 1807. --m6The Lite md Correspondance.. --- ot Major -_John cartwright,- 2 Tolumes, London 2c DUBIOUSLY ASCRIBID TO BORHB TOOII

The !ravels of C;rlle:niu. A Poea, 'by c. DickiD.aen, 2 vol'aaes, London 1796. - twitlla hUilONU tableot content•, b7 Home Tookei) . 99.

2d MEMOIRS AND OOHTIMPORARY FOLIMIC [î~c\c.d.,·~) Jo..-w.<.<; H:l\, 1,..._1" ~~~el.....t: .... ~ Jt."-.k ~+u.."-rT H;ll} !!! Apostate Bcc1esiutie, ! J!!!!!; beGs ccdià aaiaad:t'ersiou!!!!!!!! leY. llock•Patriot Parson BHne, i.e., John B~e, âf'tervard. Home Toiktgl . tendon 1774. · ·.

Be1shaa, Th01U8 1 B1.. nts 2!,!!!! Philosephz.!!.!.!!, ~~ .!!! !! Moral PhilosoP!iî, !! 1dli.ch!! pretixed! Coapendiua!!, Lor;ie. London 16ôl. Benthaa, Jer-r, !!.! Works.!! Jerelll Bentba, edited by John Bowri.Dg, 11 yo1aes 1 ldira'bargh 181iJ. Blackstone, w., ieiJ!rtS ot Cases determined in the several Courts ot Westllin8ter-B&:l.ltroa 17li6 to 1779.-Tibn••• !?z Sir w. :e1a'ëkstone, 2 'f'Ol11111eS. 1"'7'8!'; L. OW\cJ.O-;:- -- --

Bl.akewaz, John Brickdale, An Att!I!Ptl to Ascertain the Author ot the Letters Pabl1shed uader tlii Sipa~ot Juniu, ]il lfhiêh tlii;rare ascribëd to JôhDBorBe--roôk4. -shrewsbüry 1813. The Sequel ot!! Atteapt to Ascerta.in!!!! J:athor ot the Letters --- Piiblishêd uider the Signaiüre of Jlûîiu. tondonl8K Boswell, Jaes, Boswell's Lite ot Johnson: inel!di.Dg their Tour to the Hebrides, ëdited b;y Joiiii' Wilson croker. Lon~--

Brougham, Henr;y, Historieal Sketches of Statesaen *o Flourished in the Tiae ,2! George .!!!• 3 'Yolaes, Loiidon l839-i84J. ---

Bruckner, John, Criticisu on the Di'Yersions ot Parlez, In a Lett.. to Horne Tooke Esq., !!z !• Cassander, [pseuëiOnya ot Joiiii' iruekïîëJtl.- London 1790. t Caapbell, John, I!!!, Lives ot the Chief Justices ot Bngland. Froa !!!_ Borun Conquest till the deathNot !Drd MaDstield, 3 volUiles. London 1849. --- --

---- !!!!_ LiYes .2!!!!!, Lord Chancellor&~ Keep_.s!! .!=!!!Great Seal .2!_ · !Dgland trca the Earliest' Tiaes Till the Reip ot !!!& George IV, lrToimaes.- LOiidon 18li5-18li7, ll:I09.' -- - Cassmder, I., peudon.Ja ot John Bruckner, q.v:}

Coleridge, Saauel Taylor1 the Werks ~ S811U8l i$ior. Coleridge, 7 volu.es, edited b;y Pl"otessor Shëdd. lev York •

___ Speciaens ot the Table Talk!?!, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, edited b;y H.N. Coleridge, Londœ 18"1i. 100,.

Coleridge, Samuel Tqlor 1 .!!!!, Coaplete Poetical Works !!f Saamel Taylor Coleri,e 1 edited by Ernest Hartley Coleridge 1 2 vol'WI&s 1 OXford 912.

--- Collected Letters of SQU.el 'l'&lor Coleridge, edited b7 Earl Leslle Griggs, 4 v'OilJllf!s1 Oxford 195l>:l959. ,

---- ,!!!! Notebooks 2,! Samuel T!Jg?r Coleridge, edited .bY Kathleen Coburn, vol'Wile 1, London • ·

---- Coleridge 2! !!!!, Seventeenth Century, edited by Robert& Florence Brinkley, Duke University Press 1955. ·

Conw~, Moncure Daniel, The Lite of Tholll&S Paine, to which is added a Sketch of Paine !!z: Wilïiiii Cobbett, thirdedition,2 volœnei, New York andLondon 1908 • . Cottle, Joseph, Reminiscences of Coleridge ,!:!!! Southey, New York 1847.

Curran, William Henry, The Life f4 the R~ht Honourable John Philpot Curran, late Kaster!!_ theToÏla~ Ire and, New York 1819.

nn•' !!! interesting address to ~ independent E!!:! ~ the people of England, · 2 Libels ~ the unconstitu.tiomal aodè. of ~osecution .· :& . Intorma.tion e:x:Cilficio•••• With a view ort case of I. Horne ... , subscribed n;; London 1777.--~-----

DarWin, Eras11118 1 Zoonomia; or the Laws of Organic Lite, 2 volumes, London 1794, 1796. . ---- -

Dudley, HeDrT 1 •Memoirs of the Public Li fe ot John Horne Tooke, Esq. • •• by w. Hamilton iëid.. , London ...l8ï2.~arter].z Review, VII (1812), 313·328 •. ~ttributed to Lord Dudley in the Quarterly Review LXVII~ The Eton College Resister. 1698-1752, edited by R.A. Austen Leigh, Eton --1927. ' --

Fearn, John, ~-Tooke; ~~ !!! Allalysis S?f ~ Einciples and structure of Lanf!ifie e:x:emplified ,!!! the lnglish Tongue, 2 volumes, London 182 -1 27. ,. . '

Fellows, J., The. posthWilOus works of Jùnius. To which is prefixed, an inquii7 respecting the auiiior; âlso, !sketch !!f ~.!!!!.~John ---Horne Tooke, New York 1~9. Fletcher, John William., .Am.erican Patriotiam. further contronted With Reason, Scripture, ~ ~ Constitution ••••London 1776. -- 101.

Foster, John, ContributiÇDs, Bios;ap!lieal;,_ Literarz,_ and Philosophieal ~ ·.!:!!! Eelectie Review, volumes 1 London lBlilh .

Gibbs, Viear.r, !!!!, Speech ~ Viea.ry Gibbs B! def'enee .2! i•!!• Tooke ... .. triedu_•!!! !. charge ,S[ ~ treaaon. Taken ~ shert hand. b7 J.H •. Blanchard, London 1'79.;. · pi,rtord.,, John} •A Histon- 9(_the Poli:t;iea]. Lite_ of' the Right Honourable William. Pitt_. ••BJ' John Qiff'ord, •••London 1809.• anonymous rertew, Quarterly Review IV (1810), 207-2.71.

Godwin, Williaa, cu.rsorz Strictures !!! the Charge DeliYered ~~Chief' . Justice !z!:! to the Grand !'.!!21 London 1794. - j: Graham, JoJm Andrew 1 Memoire ~ ~ Horne Tooke 1 together, vitb !':!! speeches and writings :· â!so, , containing Flij; identifz:i:!! him. !!. the auflior .2f the Letters 2!_ JlUlius, New York · 8.

Hard7, Thoaas' Two Letters: the f'irst· oonta:ining some remarks !!! ~ meeting ~5th NOY~ 1809~ celebrate ,2 aquittal !!!_Messrs. Hard{,,. John Ho~ 'fooke1 Thëiwall, and otblrs, in ifovember, 1794: with an ibs'tract or the tacts :p;rOYedoo thëir triil, and a1so-o:fthe-- · Contession2f i!• Watt, eueutëër tor h~gh treaSoii ~ Octobër; 1794 .... B7 a f'reeholder of' Cornwall, London 1 10. . _ .

• t i' ~aslam, John) "Obsenations on MadRees and Helanchol;.r, ilicluding practical Remarks ••••B;.r John Hasl•,••••London 1809", anonymous review, · Qu.arterlz Rsview II (1809), 15.S..l80. ' .. Hazlitt, Williaa, The Collected Works of' William Hazlitt, edited b;.r A.R. Wallter ana-Arnold Glover, 12 volumes, London 1902•1904• . , ,

---,! !!! and Iaproved Gramur of' ~ English Tongue, i.Ïllihieh.• • the diseoveries of' H. Tooke and o.ther 110dern writers on the f'or:ution ~ language are-for ~ fust .:!!!!. incorporated. !5!.lihiêh !!!. added ! !!!! guj,de .!2 the lng1ish Tongué !?z !• Baldwin. London 1810.

Hewlings, Abrahaa, .! Letter ~ !!!! 11ectors or... westminster, containing a refutation of' flle callDinies of J. Horne Tooke. London 18ô7 • - _....,..._ --·-- . Holcrof't, Thomas, The ~of Thomas Holcrort, written Èl himself' ~ continued to the time of'. his death !?z William Hazlitt, edited b7 Elbridge CO'ib;.r, 2 volüiis:- London 1925. .· · .

' . !!~orne Tooke, John; anonymous ·· reviews of' his Diversions 2! Pur1ey appeared in the f'o1lowing:) ~ Gent1emants Magasine LVI. (1786), $80; 1066-1067. !2! Monthly Review LXXVI {1787), 1·13. ~Scots M!gazine XLII (1787), 13~133, 175"178. 162.

(!forae ·Toeke; Jolm!\;! Latter to a Frienci·on- the Be-ported-Jiarriace et his 1.o781 Hi& as the Prince of Wal.es ••• ,• anon7Jiou reriew, .!!!! Scots Magasine IlJI (1787), 284-287. . .

~=-~ ___J! Letter . .!!_ ~. Hone Teoke, Bas.; occaaiolied !z ·his !!! !!,!!: !! l'ertraita, .Gd otl!ler ·!!!! p!blicati. OU 1 UlODJIIOU • London 1789. ' . ~---4 nrrial ot Horne Tooke•, ·ancmyacnil, .The Scots 'Maguine LVI (1794), 776-781. . .

~ anon,_ua reviev et second edition· e-r' Diversions ~-:Parler, Part lJ . The MonthJ.z B.eviev R.S. lXVII (1798), 42j:Ji)l.

~---l"Obituary• 1 Ulonymoua, . 'l'he Mornillg Chronic~e . ( 21. Karch .1812) • [ J•Heaoirs of the Late John Horne Tooke, Esq.," anoDJaous, The Gentl811Ul 1 s Magasine Lill!! (1812), 666-668. - [ JBooks. A .Catalogue ot the valuable Library·lat.e the·property of Johïi Borie Tooke, •••lJ".eiidon 1813~ . · -- -

Hunt, Leigh, Leigh Hunt•a Politieal and Occasiooal Essal!, edit.ed by Lawrence Huston Bout.ëhena ~Caroljn Washburn Houtchens, Rev York and London 1902.

--- The T01111 !ta .He110rable Charact.ers' and EYents, 2 volUIIes. London - ms:---1 · - ·

Jallie~on, John, Her.es Scythi.cu: !!:• The Radical Mfilli.t.ies !! ~ Greek !!!! Latin Lâ!îluaps ,2 the Gothic ....ldinburgh 1814. •Jeiu•, Junius: ineludiag Lattera !z !!!!_!!!! Writer uctler ot.her · ·' Si~atves: ,!! llhicl!l .!!:! added His Coatidential Cerreapomdence vi Mr. Wilkes, ad his Private Letters to Br-. H.S. Woocltall, ëditedby Johïî Wade. ~ol1UIIes •. Londeri. 1'88:- .-.-

Lador, Walter Savage, IaaciDarr èonveraat.ions; 3d and 4th series• . Bo~ton 1877. . . .

Mackintosh, Jaaes, 'l'he Miscella&eou Works of the Rig)lt. Honourable Sir Jaes Maeldiitosh, ëdlted by R.J. Mackintosh, sec011d ëdition:- London 1851. ·

Mill, Jaes, Aaall!is ot !!,! PalenoJiella ~ ~ Huaan !!!!!!!• .l New Edition vith notes, itrutratlve and crit.ieal by .llexmder Bain, Andrew Findlater, .and George Grote, edited vith additional notes by John Stuart. Mill, 2 volUIIBs. London 1869. 103.

Mill, Jaaea1 •Diversions ot Parle7"1 The Literarz JoVD8l.; A lleri.ew o! no-tatia .!!!!! J'oreip Literatirë', secoDd seriès, I Tl8ô6} 1 1=!6.

---- •Essq on the Tbeo17 r4 Mone;y ad Exchange, by Thaaas Saith •••• Lomion ...1807•, !!! Edi.Jlburgb. lleri.ew, XIII (1108), 35-68. Morgan, Villia, lleaoirs !!_the Li.fe !!!._.!!!!. !!!• Richard Priee;, London 1815.

Horle;y, ldith J., ,!!! ~,!!!!! Tilles !! Henry Crabb llobinaon, London 1935 • . brray, Alexander, Historz !! bropean Lanpagea; .!!:• Researcàea !!!!, !!!!_ .A..f.finitiea of tba Teutonic, Greek, Ce1tic, SClme ad Iadian lations. With aLi..fe o.f the A11thor1 edited by Dr. ScOtt, 2 vo1UMa 1 Edinbvgh 1823.

liehols 1 John, Ill1lstràtiona !!.. the Literary Historz 2!, ~ Bipteenth Centu.rr, 8 vollllle8 1 London 1817-1858.

----Liter~ Anecdotes o.f the lipteenth Centur;r, 9 volumes, London 1812-1815. --

1 0 Regan 1 Wi1liaa1 Meaoirs ·or the jigal, Literary and Political Lite ot the ~ Rigbt Honourible J !!• earran;l:on"'din 1817. ---

Paine, Tho11A8 1 The Coaplete Writinga o! Th-.aa Paine, edited by Philip s. · J'oner,2 volu.s, Jew terk [e7""191i:![l:

.Pal.e;y, Wi1liaa, Coœaentaries ~Illustrations !:!:, Pale71 [s. \.) 1835, 1838.

Pallll, Jaes, ;!; ia!w.tation of !!.!, Cal.mmies !! !.• HOrlle Tooke; illcl!ding .! glete ~nre Ol the reeeDt ecc\lrl'eDCes between Sir Fracis ett - kr. Paüü:in a letter' to tba llectors otWestai.uter J London 1'807.------

Phillips, Charles, lecollectiou o.f Cllrra .!!!!! !2!!, !! !!a:!, Conteaporaries, second édition,· LoD.don 1122. ·

A Political Ec1op.e, Citizen 1. TH*E1 Citizen TH:'Ili*Y• R.B. esq., London - 1797. - --

Reid, Williaa Haai1ton1 Haaoirs o! the .Pablic Li..fe ot John Borne Tooke ••• ~ !!!!. ~ celebrateTaFechea, • ••iitt.ri, :::-Leudon 18î2.

Richardson, Charles, OD. tba Stll.dz ot Lan~e; an !!pOSition ot 11 '!!!! fteroenta• if; the l'JiversiOns .i:Pûrlei')!z !.•!• i'ootë'l', London18S4. Rogers, Saa.el, Recollections, edited b7 Willia Sb.arpe, Boston 1859. 104.

Rogers, Saau.el, The C~ete Poetical. Vorks!! s-1 !!&ers and Thoaas C.pbeJ.I';-cltiÇ b7 Ipes Sargent, BOston 1859.· ·

SherieùiD, Betsy, ktal Sheridan'• Jwrnal.1 Lattera froa Sheridan'• Sistèr · 1784•1'1 an 178s=1790, ëdited by iUîiaà1l?u.u.; ·f'fAndon c. ~---- ....- Saart, .BeD.jain Huaphre;y, ! llanv.IÎL!!, Logic, London 18.49.

Stanhope, Charles, SUbstmce ~ ~ Stmbope1 a sr.:e.•u!!.! lleeti!g ... !! .!!!!. 4th !! Jl'ebnar.z!! Celebr.ate !!!!,· &pPliYat:.,!! !!!!_ ~ 'trials !!!: S.pp!!ed !!è. Treuoa. ••T!Jeth.. ilth .!!. :.a.~ !l !!:'!:! Stahope reapctiJ!S .l:!!,! Trial !l i.!!:z, London {.1 9

Stephen&, Alexander, lleaoirs !! ~ Horne Tooke, 2 Toluaes, London 1813.

Stewart, Du.gald, The Collected Worka of ~ ~tewart, . edited b;y Sir Willia Haai.ltan, li wl'U118s;-~ .185&-1800. k~:--~-J •Philosophical Essays. By Dagald Stewart ••••Edinburgll •••1810.• Qu.arterq Rev.lev VI (1817), 1·37. Stoddart, John, •Gr-.r•, lnC)'Clopaedia Metrepol1tan.a, Toluae 1, fourth edition, edited b;y ld.WardSîîiedlq, Lonê1ën 1818.

Tqlor, Richard f!,ee Horne Tooke 1 John]. Thiclœ.esse, Philip, Juniv.s DiscoTered, London [1789).

Veritas 1 {!.ee aboYe, Section 2-ij. Warton, Thoaaa, The Histoq!!, 1!!111sh Poet.ry., edited b7 Richard Priee, London 'l'B!Ji.

Webster, Joab, Dissertatâou !! the Jyliah Langa.age, illtroduced b:y Harry R. Werfel, repriated, rior1da 19Sl. . Wb.atel;y, Richard.,· Eleaents !! toec, coaprising !!!!, substance of the article_!!!~ Enczclep!!d1& Ketropolitaaa, •••London ïB'20.

Wilson, George, Reports ot Cases !!J!ed md &dj!dged 1n the ling'a Courts at Weatld.nster-1i in Bii!ri 'fera iD the"'lOth Z!!!: ot••• iëorse g, atd e liiter 'l'ara, !! ihe llith Jhf .!!• ;; Geoge III.]Tile th M'edition, vith ad.ditiœa. ee 'VOlu.es, Lon n ffi9. 105.

Withera 1 Pb1li,p1 .Al.f'red; !!: a larratiTe of. the daring !!!!!_ illegal .•ans to n;ep:eaa ! p!i!jjh!et, illtituleël,--sirietves • theCleelaraiion il Horne Tooke respecti!g '!!! L~ ÎÎiglmeas ilia Priaceas!! Wil.es", ~-· . eiiledHra. ritshërbëî'C Witir'eaarb on a · !senez,. ~-thât !Certain lïl•st.ri.u-J!!I:soD&ge !! 'Dot illsible !!. _,.! important trut, London 118,. ·

Wordsworth·, Williaa, Lattera ,!!~ Word.no.rt.h ~!!:!!! 1787!!. 18SS, collected and edi ted b7· Williaa hight;-J"'i'QlU1118s, Boston md London 1907.

___ !!!. ~ Lettere .2! WUliaa and l)!rothy Worda.,rth (1717•180.$), arrmg and èdited b7 lrnest-.; Sefincoart, Oxtôri lffl:' 106.

3 CRI'l'ICAL B.BFBfiENŒS .AllD APPJW:SALS OF THE POST-HORNE TOOD MIOD

illeu, •nr. Reid. and. Lord Broaghaa Y~ Bishop Berkele7 and. Horne Tooke•, Jotas.~ Queries, first series, I (1654)~ ~52•153• Bain, Alexander, J••• Mill, .! Biographr,· London 1882. Barclay, John, ! Sequel t0 the DiTersiona ·.!!.·Parlez: contaf~,!!! ;::z on laglishVirbs, Wi th Reaarks on Mr. 'Tooke • a Work, '""iiil on Teriïâiïîplol!d !:2, Dë'iiOte Soul o'r-Sj)Irit, Lond0ili8'26:- --

{jsenthaa, Jereao3, •Pla ot Parliaentar,y aetora, in the tora ot a catechia, wit.h reaaona tor eaeh Article, vith m Introd:rlction, ah@Wing the necessity f/1 radical, ai'ld the inadequac7 at .od.erate 'lefOI'II, by Jerfdl7 Benthaa•••• London 1617.' .AnOD.11JlOU reTiew, QurterJ.z Rev.Lev, lVIII (1817), 128-1.35. b~-~J•Plm of Parliaaent&ey" Refora, in the Fora of a Catechi&aJ vith Reaaons tor each Article: With an Introduction, abewing the Jeceasity ot Radical, and the Inadequacy of Moderate btora, by Jere:tq Bentbaa•••• Londen •••l817 .• ,AD.OJl1M0118 review, !he ldiDburgh Review, rm (1618), 1.65-203. -

Birkett, Lord, •Greatest ot Th-. ru• {Great AC!h'ocates: Tboaas EskiDe) 1 Listener, LtV (1961}, 1128-ll)O. Bleakley, Horace, ---Lite ot John Wilkes, London 1917. lover, George Spencer, Hartley.!!.!! Ja.s !:!:,g, London 1881.

Brai1sford, H.l., Shelley, Godwin, md. Their Circle, London 1913.

BroWD1 Ford 1., The .!:!!.!, ot ~V;;;.;il;;;.;l;;;;i;;.;;a;;;;. Godwin, Loadon md Toronto 1926. [Ja.ckinghaa, J .sJ, •Truels acmg tbe Arab Tribes illhabiting the cœntries East or Syria md. Paleat1ne, •••by J.S. Bucld.nghaa, Lond.on.• Anonyaous review, WestJainster .Review 1 IV {1825), 495.. 520. {Ç•pbell, JobJÎ}, "The LiTea ot the Chief Justices of England, from the Jloraan Conquest till the Deatb ot Lord Tea.terden ••••By John Lord. Capbell.... Tol1D18 III, London 1857 •••• • .AnoJ!l711.0US reTiew, !!.!. Edinburp Review, CVI (1857), 432-467.

Christie, Ia R., Wilkes, ~and Retorm The Parliaaen.. Ref'ora Mo'Yement -iii BritiiJiï:iiïitica --ïm>:1'1!>, London 1 • C1ayd.en, Peter Williu, .!!!! lar1z Lite !!. Salluel Rogers, tendon 1887. Clqàe, Peter William., Sanel Rogers.,!'!!!!!. Cctn!:!!porariea, Londœ 1889.

Cl'Oss, Wilbur L., The Lite au! Tilles fi. Laurence Stene, third edition, . Yale Universii71'rëss 1§29. -

Dal.71 John Bow1es, The ,!!!!:! !!!Rad.... _di...... ca.... li ...... a_., London 1892.

___ Radical Pioneers 2! tb8 11èteenth Cent11171 Lcmdœ 1886. l!>avaon, Willia] •!n Inqu117 iDto tlle Cav.ses of the General .Pevert;y mtl Dependence of Mallkind.; including a full Investigation of the Corn Laws. B7 Willia DaWBOn., ldinbvgh., 181.4 •••• • .._,_,.. reYiev1 Qaarterg Revin, XVI (1816), 22$•278. '

De Vere, M. Schele, Outlines ot Coaparat.iYe Philolo , wi.th. a Sketeb. of lurotlê' arraced llp!ttphiliïôiie nei ..J hd ! lriet ltiatorz !! __!A:!:!:, ~ 'lf:riti.Dg, lev York l 1. ~bdin, T.F.) •The Libr&rT Coapanion; or, the Ycnmg Man 1 s Guide &Dd the Old M&D's Colltort., in the Choiee fi. a Libr81'7. B.r the Rev. T.F. Dibdin •••• • Anoi:tyJRous reviev, Westminster lle'ri.ew, III (182$)., 88•llS.

\Pwüop, John) •History ot Roaan. Literature, troa the eal"liest Period to the Augustan Age, in 2 vola •••a.d during the Augustaa .&ge, 1m. 1· vol•••• B;y John Danlop, ••• • Aaoll1JIOU renev, Qu.rterg Review., LII (l83h), S7-9S.

D7ce 1 AJ.exà.nder 1 Recollections of the Table Talk of S•uel Rogers to which

...... _.ie ad.cled PoraôD!ana, Iii York. 1856.- - ..... · -- ___ (the vork cited aboreJ an0J17aous review, !!! ldinbvè :aniew, CIV (18$6) 1 73·122.

llObituar;y. The Barl ot lldon" anoiQ'IlOus, !!!!, Gentl8118D.'s Maga.SiDe 1 IX N. S. (1838), 313-320. ·

Fitzgerald, Percy., Thel!!!,!'!! fiEs !!f ~·Wilkes, London 1888.

Fleisher, David., Williaa Godwin. ! Stud;y!!!, Liberalisa, London 19$1.

~francis, Philip] •Sir Philip PJ"ancis•s L1br&J'7" anonym.aus, The Oentleaan•s Magasine, IX N. S. (1831)., 2'9•300• - Fraser, llexarder Caapbell, {iobn Locke•s] An ~.. ••ti CoD,cernig HUII8D t:Jnderstandinc, 2 YolUIIU, Oxtorè 1'8';4.. ee Fraser• a Notes} 108.

otto, :I!:liache. ~acH!)uose•!! ·;J~n 18. Jabl":hmdert, Funte, l;ont a •selulib ograp cal notes , m-r9.34.

Gordon, J .v., nThe J!:Dglish Dietionar7•, Qaarter1y Rniew, CCXL (1923) 1 164-182. [Granville, A.B.) •st.. Petersburg. A Joa.rnal. Gt Travels to ad troa that C&pital•••• By J..B. Gr8D'ri.lle, •••LoDCI.cm, 1828.• AD.OJVW.01l&l review, 'Qv.arterq Iterl.ev, mtt (1829) ' l.;.u.

Gr7lls1 Rosalie GJ.yrm., Willia Goàill &Di !!!!, World, Lond.on 19$3. 1 . - Jlal.ny, .llie, The Growth of Philoao:phie IMi.caliaa, Beaeon Paptrbaek edition 1955. - •BQme Tooke, Jphn•, Biogr:aplde UDinrselie, hcieDne et Moderne, ... · {;dited by Louis ·Gabriel iicbaad), Paris lBll-!8'62.

[ilorne Tooke's DiTersions of Parlez anonyaously re'riewed in the following~ The Tûaes S tfovaber 1829. Fiisii=i'SMyazine, I (1830) 1 360-366. !!!.!, Gentlaan1s Magazine, IX (1838), 129-.133, k66-.469. b~--) •ne Life at a Deaocrat • A Sketeh ot Horne Tooke. • AnonJMOU 1 BlaclnloQd 1s Edinburgh Kyasine, Iniii (1833), 206-231. ljlorne Teok:e 1a Di:versiœ.s at Parlez, editeci by Richard Taylor, London 184oJ 1 au~s rertew;-slaetwod s Edinb!l]h Magazine 1 XLVII (1840) 1 k84-496. Jackson, Joaepb. s., The Pllblic Career of Sir Francia Ba:rdett. The l!ars -of Radicalisa --1796.. 1815, Philadeijihia 1932. - Jesse, John H., M-.oirs -of Celebrated BtoDiana, 2 volumes, London 187$. (;Jobnson, s.] •.a. Diction&r1 or the Bngl1sh Language. B7 s. Johnson, ••• Witb nU11181'ous corrections md additions, by the ReY. B.J. Todd •• •• London, 1818 ....• Anonyaous review, Quarterl.y Review1 LIV (1835), 29$-330. '

~ilmaird 1 Charles] •.1 Letter addresaed to the Peera ot Scotland.1 B7 Charles Lord Kinnaird, Lomdon, 1826.• .lnonyao•a review, The Bdinburgh Review 1 XLIV (1826), 397-413 • - (_Landor, Walter S&Tagej •~mary CoDTersations of Literar, Men and Stateaaen. By Walter Savage Landor ••••Londom, 1824." .&.non,.o•s . reYiew, Qurterlz Reriew, m (182h), So8-Sl9. 109 •.

~dor, Walter Sa:Yage) Jnether anon,.aa.s reri.e~ Westldrister Review, I (1824), 431-453. .

~---lllThe Co11ected Writings of Walter S&Tage Landor ••••London 1846.• Anonymous review, !,!!! EdinburS;b Review 1 LII.IIII (1846), 486-511.

~tham, R.G.} "The Engli.sh Language. By R.G. Latham, .••• second edition ••• London .... • A:nonym.ous review, The Edinburgh Review, XCII (1850), 293-338. . - ;

Lecky, W.I.H., A Histor,y of !ngland in the Eighteenth Century, volume 3, New York 1878. - -- ·

Lewis, William Greatheed, ! Graœn.ar of the ~lish Language ....To Which!! Added, A Brief View ot the DiscQVer es Qf Mr. Horne ToOte, LondonÏ821. --- · .. -- · ·

Lounsbuey', Thomas R., The Standard C)f Usage in lnglish, New York and London 1908. - ----

~ackintosh, James) "Meaoirs of the Lite of the Right Honourable Sir James · Mackintosh, edited b;r his son, Robert James Maclci.n,tosh, • •• London 1835.• A:nonymous review, The Edinburgh Review, LXII (1835), 205-255. -

Massey, Williaa, A Histoil or Eng1and durP. the Reisn 2! Geo~e The Third, 4 volumes, secon ëdition revise andcorrected:; Lon n I805. Mathias, Thomas Jaaes, Th• Parsuits 2!, Literature, .2!: what l!?.!! !!!!_: ! . satirical ,i!!!1 !!!_ dialogue. Part 1, 1794. ·

McCu11dJ;h, John Murray, ! Manlâl. !?! !Jlglish Gra:mmar, Edinburgh 1834. Mauthner, Fritz, ~rterbuch !!!'!: Philosophie. N'eue Beitr~e.!! liner Kritik . der SJ?!&ehe 1 j VOl'WileS 1 Mtblchen and Le{psig l§l~

Melville, Lewis, pseud. ~·•• Lewis S. Benj~ , The Life and Letters ot William Cobbett in England and America,.::2' volumes, London 1913. -- -

(M:Uer, Max) "Lectures on the Science ôt Language •. By Max ~1er •••• London, 1864 ... •" .Anonym.ous review, Quarter1z Review, CIII (1866), 394-435.

(New England Society] Memorial ,!! ~ Horne Tooke unve11ed ~ ~ !!!! lngland Society!!!, Brookll!l, !•!•• in !!.• Mary's Church, laling, lngland, ,!!!!! y, 1919... •lrr"ookl1Jl, New York 192{1. llO.

Ogden., C.. K. and I·.A.• Richar_ds$!!!!. Hean!J of Mean*jf• '! Study of~ Influence of. Lalguage u~ Tho _t !!ll! !! _!. Science ~ Spibolis•, New York @. . •Parliamentar,y Histor,y an4 Review •••• London, 18~7 •••• • Anonymous review, .!!!!, Edinburgh Review, XLIV (1826), · 4.58-490.

. .:. "" Patterson, M.W. 1 .Sir Francis Burdett ~!!!Times, 2 volume~, London 193+• Paul, c. Kegan, William Godwin: His Friends and Contemporaries, 2 volumes, Boston 1876. - -

~nn, Granville) • An Éxamination of the Pr:i.lllary Argum.ent of the Iliad1 with the Viev tq vindicate the Pcem, Fame, and Per~QI1.4lit;r of Homer • B;r GranVille Penn, Esq., Londonj. 1821." Anon1Jious review1 Quarter1z RQView, XXVII (1822), 39·70.

Postgate, Raymond, tt~ Devil Wilkes" 1 London 1930.

{!»richard, James Covlea!} 11The Eastern. Origin of the Celtic Nations proved by' a can.parison of their Dialecte with the Sanscrit, Greek, Latin, and Teut-onic I.Mlguages 41 B;r James Cowles Prich~4u •• Oxfol,"d ...1831.• Anon1JD01JS reviev, Quarterg review LVII (~836) ao-uo. 1 1 •Q•, w, Denton, .&n4 J.O.B., •Lord Brœgham and Home Tooke,• Notes and. Queries, :f,irst series, II (18.54), 398; .57.5; X (~8$4), 74-7~

Quine, l/illard Van Ormm, From! Logical Point of !!!!• second edition revised, Harvm;d- ï961. · · . · ,

Quinton, Anthon;r, •IJ.nguistic .Anal;rsis•, Philosçi!!,in _!!!! ~...centp! Survey, edited by Rayliond nibimsk;r, vo Ullle2, Firenze 195 •

R.C., •Tooke, Junius, Lord lidon, and Sir P. Francis. A M.emoir", The Gentleman1 s Magazine, XIII N .S. (1840) 1 596·597 • - . . "Richardson, Charles, Illustrations of English PhilQlQgz •••• • Anonymous revi~w, ~Monthly Beview LIXIII N.S. (1817}, 81-91.

~gers, Sa:am.e~ •Recollections of the Table Talk çf Samuel Rogersn 111 • London 1856." 4nonYJIOUS review, The Edinburgh Review, CIV (18.56) 1 73-122. .

Rogers, Jaes Edwin Thorold, Historical Gleanings: ! Series ~ Sketches. Wiklit, Laud, Wilkes,- Horne TOQke- Secol)d series, LondÇn 1870. - - 1 . . • . - • Rude, George, Wilkes and Liberty. A Social Study of 1763 to 1774, Oxford 1962. ------

[Russell, John] "The Lite and Times of èharles James Fox. B;r Lord John Russell. Voluae 11 1859.... • An.onYJlOUS review, Quarterg review, cv (18)9), 463-504. lll.

~epp~s, }lobert} .•on a new ,Principle cL cœstructinjt His Hajesty• s Ships ot War. ~ ••By" Robel"t Seppings •••• London· l8lk. • · .A.nOQ1110UJ re'f'iev, Quarterly Rev.lew-' XII .(18;1.5), ia.biJ-466. ~arpe, Richard]. •Letters and r.s.s_aP.J, .in ~se ~~ .Yerse ....IMldon, _l83h .... • .Anonymous re~ev, Qua:rterlz Reviev,_ LI (1834), 285-304.

~bore] 11The Case ar Mr. Shore, London: l8lt.8 •••• • .&non,.Ous reviev, The ·Edinburgh Rniev, rmn (1849), 148-lSl." · - . . Stanton, Beney B. Retm-JIS md Retor.ers ot Great· Britain and Ireland, second edition revised, New York:185o. -

Stephen, Leslie, Historz ot f:Slish Thought 1! .!:!!, Eighteenth . Centur,r; 2 vollllii;8S, London IB'7 • . . . · ·

Ta;rlor, John, Record.s !!!._ !z ~~ London 11b2; &a;rlor, wJ "English Synoi1Jil88 discriainated ••••Bj W. T&7lOr; .. London, 1813 ....• JnODJilœS reri.ev, Qaarterg Reviev, ·XIIl' (1827), 403-41.9...... Timbs, John, English Eccentrics .!!,! Bècentricities; London 1875. ·

'l'ownsend, Willi'aa c., The Lives of Tvelve fairlent J6dges ot the Lata and or ..!:!!,~Present Century, 2 ,;lUEs, London l • . -----

Trench, Richard ·Chenevix, On the Study" !!. Words, !!!!. Lectv.rès, LOndon 1851.

TreveJ.7an, George Otto, The Early Histo!:l ar Charles Jaes Fox, new edition, London 1884. ---- - ·

Tuckel"llan, Henri T., Characteristics or Literatve, ·second serle~t, Philadelphia 1851. -- "

(!rias, Horac.J •The Public cd 'Private Lite or Lori_ Chancellor E1don. With Selections troa his "Correspônd:ence, bi Horace Tviss, ••• London 1844.• Anonymou.s Rertev, The Edinburgh Reviev, LXIII (1845), 131-180. . - ...... Urba;Jl, Sylvanus, •Historical Sketches ot Stateaaen llbo !1ourished. in. the Tille or George tlle fhird., •••By" Henr.y Lord Broughaa, 1839 ...... 11 1 !!! Géntleàan s Magasiae, XIII B.S. (1840) 1 227·243 •. rtan J{enneq] •Reeearchea i:Dto tll.e Origin and J..ttinit;y or the Principal Languages ar Asia at'ld lurope• B;r Lieutenant Colonel· Van·lermeq ....LOndon, 1828.• lnOJVaQus review, The ldinbv'gh Reviev, LI (1830), 529-564. - 112.

Watson, John Steven, .The B.eip ot George III 1760-!!!.2, Oxford 196o.

Winslow, John, !!!! Batt.le of Lexington !! looked !:!:, in London before Chief-Justice ManBtield and a ~ in the trial of Jobn Horne, esq., for libel .!!! the Billi'il goverm.ë'iit•••• levYork 169?. Yarborough, Minnie Clare, ~ Horne Tooke, fi,ncludes BibliograJiliJ, New York 1926. ___ "John Horne Tooke: Champion of the Alllerican Colonists•, The South Atlantic Quarterlz, UIV (19.36), 374-392. -