Corol. In those instances, therefore, of divided use, which give scope for option, the authorities on the opposite sides, in order to assist us in assigning the preference, ought to be equal, or nearly so. When those on one side greatly preponderate, it is in vain to oppose the prevailing usage. Custom, when wavering, may be swayed; but when reluctant, she will not be forced.

90. CANON THE FIRST. When use is divided as to any particular word or phrase, and the expression used by one part hath been pre-occupied, or is in any instance susceptible of a different signification, and the expression employed by the other part never admits a different sense, both perspicuity and variety require, that the form of expression be preferred, which, in every instance, is strictly univocal.

Examples. By consequence, meaning consequently, is preferable to "of consequence," as this expression is often employed to denote that which is momentous or important. Besides and beside, serve both as prepositions and conjunctions. Custom assigns to each a separate province; and good writers humour her, by employing only the former as a conjunction, and the latter as a preposition.

Obs. The improper use of adverbs for adjectives, and vice versa, offends against precision, and the authority of present use. In those verbs, also, which have for the participle passive, both the preterite form, and one peculiar, the peculiar form ought to have the preference. For the same reason, some are inclined to prefer that use which makes ye, invariably the nominative plural of the personal pronoun thou, and you, the accusative, when applied to an actual plurality. When used for the singular number, custom hath determined that it shall be you in both cases.

91. CANON THE SECOND. In doubtful cases, regard ought to be had, in our decisions, to the analogy of the language.

Examples. By this canon, contemporary is preferable to "cotemporary;" because in words compounded with the inseparable preposition con, the n is retained before a consonant, but expunged before a vowel, or h mute; as, con-comilant, co-incide, co-heir. Co-partner is, probably, the only exception. But in dubious cases, we are guided by the rule, not by the exception. The principle of analogy prefers afterwards and homewards, to "afterward" and "homeward;" and would God, is preferable to "would to God," though both these last phrases plead the authority of custom.

92. CANON THE THIRD. When the terms or expressions are, in other respects, equal, that ought to be preferred, which is most agreeable to the ear.

Obs. This rule hath perhaps a greater chance of being observed than any other, it having been, since the days of Addison, the general aim of our public speakers and writers, to avoid harsh and unmusical periods. Nay, a regard to sound hath, in some instances, controuled the public choice, to the prejudice of both the former canons, which, one would think, ought to be regarded as of more importance.

Example. Thus the term ingenuity hath obtained, in preference to

"ingeniousness," though the former cannot be deduced, analogically, from ingenious; and had, besides, been pre-occupied, and consequently would be equivocal, being a regular derivative from the term ingenious, if the newer acceptation had not, before now, entirely supplanted the other.

93. CANON THE FOURTH. In cases wherein none of the foregoing rules gives either side a foundation of preference, a regard to simplicity, in which we include etymology, when manifest, ought to determine our choice.

Obs. Under the name simplicity, we comprehend also brevity; for that expression is always the simplest, which, with equal purity and perspicuity, is the briefest.

Illus. We have several active verbs, which are used indiscriminately, either with or without a preposition; as accept, or accept of; but the simple form is preferable.

94. CANON THE FIFTH In the few cases wherein neither perspicuity nor analogy, neither sound nor simplicity, assists us in fixing our choice, it is safest to prefer that manner, which is most conformable to ancient usage.

Obs. This rule is founded on a very plain maxim-that in language, as in several other things, change itself, unless when it is clearly advantageous, is ineligible. On this principle, some writers follow the authority of Milton, in preferring that usage, which distinguishes ye, as the nominative plural of thou. (Obs. Canon First.)

Quotations from Shakespeare, on the side of orthography, are not much to be minded, because his editors have shamefully abused his ancient orthography.

95. Every thing favoured by good use, is not on that account worthy to be retained, though no term, idiom, or application, that is totally unsupported by her, can be admitted to be good.

Obs. This position is necessary in order to establish rules for ascertaining both, the extent of the authority claimed by custom, and the rightful prerogatives of criticism.

Illus. 1. Though nothing can be good in language from which use withholds her approbation, there may be many things to which she gives it, that are not in all respects good, or such as are worthy to be retained and imitated. In some instances, custom may very properly be checked by criticism.

2. The latter enjoys a sort of negative, though not a censorian power of instant degradation. She hath the privilege of remonstrating, and, by means of this, when used discreetly, of bringing what is bad into disrepute, and so cancelling it gradually: but she hath no positive right to establish any thing.

3. Her power too is like that of eloquence; she operates on us purely by persuasion, depending for success on the solidity, or, at least, the speciousness of her arguments; whereas custom hath an unac countable and irresistible influence over us-an influence which is

prior to persuasion, and independent of it, nay, sometimes even in contradiction to it.

96. Of different modes of expression, that which comes to be favoured by general practice, may be denominated best, because established; but it cannot always be said with truth, that it is established, because best.

Illus. 1. Time and chance have an influence on all things human, and on nothing more remarkably than on language; and the best forms of speech do not always establish themselves by their own superior excellence; for we often see, that of various forms, those will recommend themselves, and come into general use, which, if abstractedly considered, are neither the simplest, nor the most agreeable to the ear, nor the most conformable to analogy.

2. Though of any expression, which has obtained the sanction of good use, we cannot properly say that it is barbarous, we must admit, that in other respects, it may be faulty. To get rid of those gross improprieties, which, though unauthorised by practice, ought to be discarded, nothing more is necessary than to disuse them. And to bring us to disuse them, both the example and the arguments of the critic have their weight.

3. The difference is obvious between the bare omission, or rather the not employing of what is used, and the introduction of what is unusual. The former, provided what you substitute in its stead be proper, and have the authority of custom, can never come under the observation, or at least the reprehension of the reader; whereas the latter shocks our ears immediately.

Corol. 1. Here, therefore, lies one principal province of criticism, to point out the characters of those words and idioms which deserve to be disfranchised and consigned to perpetual oblivion. It is by carefully filing off all roughnesses and inequalities, that languages, like metals, must be polished. This indeed is an effect of Taste. But when criticism hath called forth to this object the attention of a people improving in arts and sciences, there is a probability that the effect will be accelerated, and that their speech will not only become richer and more comprehensive, but that it will become highly refined, by acquiring greater precision, perspicuity, and harmony. (Art. 31. and 32.)

2. It is, however, no less certain, on the other hand, that in the declension of taste and science, language will unavoidably degenerate; and though the critical art may retard a little, it will never be able ultimately to prevent this degeneracy.

Obs. As no term, idiom, or application that is totally unsupported by use, can be admitted to be good, the following Canons, in relation to those words or expressions, which may be thought to merit degradation from the rank which they have hitherto maintained, will enable us to ascertain whether every term, idiom, and application, that is countenanced by use, is to be esteemed good, and therefore worthy to be retained.

97. CANON THE SIXTH. All words and phrases which are remarkably harsh and unharmonious, and not absolutely necessary, may justly be judged to merit degradation.

Definition. We call a word or phrase absolutely necessary, when, in the event of a dismission, we have none synonymous to supply its place, or in any way to convey properly the same idea, without the aid of circumlocution.

Obs. There are, however, criteria, by which we may discriminate the objectionable words from all others.

98. Criterion first. A term composed of words already compounded, of which the several parts are not easily, and therefore not closely united, is always heavy and drawling, and withal so ill compacted, that it has not more vivacity than a periphrasis, to compensate for the defect of harmony. Example. Such are the words bare-faced-ness, shame-faced-ness, unsuccess-ful-ness, dis-interest-ed-ness, wrong-headed-ness.

99. Criterion second. When a word is so formed and accented, as to render it of difficult utterance to the speaker, and consequently disagreeable in sound to the hearer, it may be judged worthy of the fate prescribed by the canon. (Art. 97.)

Illus. This happens in two cases; first, when the syllables which immediately follow the accented syllable, are so crowded with consonants, as of necessity to retard the pronunciation; as que'stionless, remembrancer-secondly, when too many syllables follow the accented syllable, a similar dissonance is found; as, pri'marily, per' emptorily.

100. Criterion third. When a short or unaccented syllable is repeated, or followed by another short or unaccented syllable very much resembling it, the pronunciation partakes the appearance of stammering.

Example. This happens when we add the adverbial termination to words ending in ly; as ho'li'ly; or when the participial termination ing, is added to a noun ending in er; as, fa'rriering, so'ldiering.

Scholium. Beside the cases which come under the foregoing criterion, we know of none that ought to dispose us to the total disuse of words really significant. A little harshness by the collision of consonants, which, nevertheless, our organs find no difficulty in articulating, and which do not suggest to the hearer the disagreeable idea either of precipitation or of stammering, is by no means a sufficient reason for the suppression of an useful term. It does not do well to introduce hard and strong sounds too frequently; but when they are used sparingly and properly, they have even a good effect. Variety of sound is advantageous to a language; and it is convenient that we should have some sounds that are rough and masculine, as well as some that are liquid and feminine.*

*Those languages which are allowed to be the most susceptible of all the graces of harmony, have admitted many ill sounding words: such are in Greek TM×7video dai, jeusunusvov; such are also in Latin spississimus, percrebrescebantque; and in Italian, incrocicchiare, spregiatrice. The first Greek word hisses worse than any

When etymology plainly

101. CANON THE SEVENTH. points to a signification different from that which the word commonly bears, propriety and simplicity both require the dismission of every such word.

Illus. The word plainly is used in this canon, because no regard should be had to the etymology, when it is from an ancient or foreign language, or from obsolete roots in our own language, or when it is obscure or doubtful. The case is different, when the roots either are, or strongly appear to be, English, and, in present use, clearly suggest another meaning.

Example 1. Beholden implies "obliged," or "indebted." As the passive participle of the verb to behold, which it is analogically, it conveys a sense totally different. Not that we consider the term as equivocal; for in the last acceptation, it hath long since been disused, having been supplanted by beheld.

Corol. Every word, therefore, whose formation is as analogical as this, has, at least, the appearance of impropriety, when used in a sense that seems naturally foreign to its radical signification.

Example 2. The verb to unloose should analogically signify “to tie,”in like manner as to untie signifies "to loose."

Corol. All considerations of analogy, propriety and perspicuity, unite in persuading us to repudiate the preposterous application of every term which includes the impropriety of conveying a sense, the reverse of that which its etyinology naturally suggests.

102. CANON THE EIGHTH. When any words become obsolete, or at least are never used, except as constituting parts of particular phrases, it is better to dispense with their service entirely, and give up the phrases.

Illus. First, because the disuse, in ordinary cases, renders the term somewhat indefinite, and occasions a degree of obscurity; secondly, because the introduction of words, which never appear but with the same attendants, gives an air of vulgarity and cant, to a style which might otherwise be wholly unexceptionable.

Example. Dint of argument, for "strength of argument ;"-not a whit better, for "no better ;"-pro and con, for "on both sides ;"with many similar phrases, will never be used by those who observe the eighth canon.

103. CANON THE NINTH. All those phrases which, when analysed grammatically, include a solecism, (Art. 111.) and all those to which use hath affixed a particular sense, but which, when explained by the general and established rules

English word; the last presents a dissonant recurrence of the same letter, to a de-.. gree unexampled with us, though the mixture of long and short syllables prevents that difficulty of utterance, pointed out in the example of Criterion third. The first Latin word hisses in pronunciation like an adder roused from its slumbers; the second is as rough as any of those in the example of Criterion first. And the two Italian words, from the most musical of all languages, sound harsh and jarring even to us who are accustomed to a dialect boisterous like our weather: