LONDON,April 5,1754
MY DEAR FRIEND:I received yesterday your letter of the 20th March,from Manheim,with the inclosed for Mr.Eliot;it was a very proper one,and Ihave forwarded it to him by Mr.Harte,who sets out for Cornwall tomorrow morning.
I am very glad that you use yourself to translations;and I do not care of what,provided you study the correctness and elegance of your style.
The "Life of Sextus Quintus"is the best book of the innumerable books written by Gregorio Leti,whom the Italians,very justly,call 'Leti caca libro'.But I would rather that you chose some pieces of oratory for your translations,whether ancient or modern,Latin or French,which would give you a more oratorical train of thoughts and turn of expression.In your letter to me you make use of two words,which though true and correct English,are,however,from long disuse,become inelegant,and seem now to be stiff,formal,and in some degree scriptural;the first is the word NAMELY,which you introduce thus,YOUINFORM ME OF A VERY AGREEABLE PIECE OF NEWS,namely,THAT MY ELECTIONIS
SECURED.Instead of NAMELY,I would always use WHICH IS,or THAT IS,that my-election is secured.The other word is,MINE OWN INCLINATIONS:
this is certainly correct before a subsequent word that begins with a vowel;but it is too correct,and is now disused as too formal,notwithstanding the hiatus occasioned by MY OWN.Every language has its peculiarities;they are established by usage,and whether right or wrong,they must be complied with.I could instance many very absurd ones in different languages;but so authorized by the 'jus et norma loquendi',that they must be submitted to.NAMELY,and TO WIT,are very good words in themselves,and contribute to clearness more than the relatives which we now substitute in their room;but,however,they cannot be used,except in a sermon or some very grave and formal compositions.It is with language as with manners they are both established by the usage of people of fashion;it must be imitated,it must be complied with.
Singularity is only pardonable in old age and retirement;I may now be as singular as I please,but you may not.We will,when we meet,discuss these and many other points,provided you will give me attention and credit;without both which it is to no purpose to advise either you or anybody else.
I want to know your determination,where you intend to (if I may use that expression)WHILE away your time till the last week in ,June,when we are to meet at Spa;I continue rather in the opinion which I mentioned to you formerly,in favor of The Hague;but however,I have not the least objection to Dresden,or to any other place that you may like better.
If you prefer the Dutch scheme,you take Treves and Coblentz in your way,as also Dusseldorp:all which places I think you have not yet seen.At Manheim you may certainly get good letters of recommendation to the courts of the two Electors of Treves and Cologne,whom you are yet unacquainted with;and I should wish you to know them all;for,as I have often told you,'olim haec meminisse juvabit'.There is an utility in having seen what other people have seen,and there is a justifiable pride in having seen what others have not seen.In the former case,you are equal to others;in the latter,superior.As your stay abroad will not now be very long,pray,while it lasts,see everything and everybody you can,and see them well,with care and attention.It is not to be conceived of what advantage it is to anybody to have seen more things,people,and countries,than other people in general have;it gives them a credit,makes them referred to,and they become the objects of the attention of the company.They are not out in any part of polite conversation;they are acquainted with all the places,customs,courts,and families that are likely to be mentioned;they are,as Monsieur de Maupertuis justly observes,'de tous les pays,comme les savans,sont de tous les tems'.You have,fortunately,both those advantages:the only remaining point is 'de savoir les faire valoir',for without that one may as well not have them.Remember that very true maxim of La Bruyere's,'Qu'on ne vaut dans se monde que ce qu'on veut valoir'.The knowledge of the world will teach you to what degree you ought to show 'que vous valez'.One must by no means,on one hand,be indifferent about it;as,on the other,one must not display it with affectation,and in an overbearing manner,but,of the two,it is better to show too much than too little.Adieu.
