Sect. III.

Present use.

ers, of every denomination, for more than a hundred and fifty years *? But if present use is to be renounced for ancient, it will be necessary to determine at what precise period antiquity is to be regarded as a rule. One inclines to remove the standard to the distance of a century and a half; another may, with as good reason, fix it three centuries backwards, and another six. And if the language of any of these periods is to be judged by the use of any other, it will be found, no doubt, entirely barbarous. To me it is so evident, either that the present use must be the standard of the present language, or that the language admits no standard whatsoever, that I cannot conceive a clearer or more indisputable principle, from which to bring an argument to support it.

YET it is certain, that even some of our best critics and grammarians, talk occasionally, as if they had a

Introd. &c. In a note on the irregular verb sit, he says, "Dr Middleton hath, with great propriety, restored the true participle sitten." Would he not have acted with as great proprie. ty, had he restored the true participles pight for pitched, raught for reached, blent for blended, and shright for shricked, on full as good authority, the authority of Spenser, one of the sweetest of our ancient bards? And why might not Dr Lowth himself, have, with great propriety, restored the true participles bitten, casten, letten, putten, setten, shutten, slitten, splitten, founden, grounden, of the verbs bit, cast, let, put, set, shut. slit, split, find, grind; for it would not be impossible to produce antiquated authors in sup. port of all these. Besides, they are all used to this day in some provincial dialects.

66

66

The nature and characters of the use which gives law to language.

notion of some other standard, though they never give us a single hint to direct us where to search for it. Doctor Johnson, for example, in the preface to his very valuable Dictionary, acknowledges properly. the absolute dominion of custom over language, and yet, in the explanation of particular words, expresseth himself sometimes in a manner that is inconsistent with this doctrine," This word," says he in one place, though common, and used by the best writers, is perhaps barbarous *." I have always understood a barbarism in speech to be a term or expression totally unsupported by the present usage of good writers in the language. A meaning very different is suggested here, but what that meaning is, it will not be easy to conjecture. Nor has this celebrated writer given us, on the word barbarous, any definition of the term which will throw light on his application of it in the passage quoted. I entirely agree with Doctor Priestley, that it will never be the arbitrary rules of any man, or body of men whatever, that will ascertain the language †, there being no other dictator here but use.

Ir is indeed easier to discover the aim of our critics in their observations on this subject, than the meaning of the terms which they employ. These are often employed without precision; their aim, however, is generally good. It is, as much as possible, to give

* See the word Nowadays.

Preface to his Rudiments of English Grammar,

a check to innovation. use for this purpose, have sometimes even a contrary tendency. If you will replace what hath been long since expunged from the language, and extirpate what is firmly rooted, undoubtedly you yourself become an innovator. If you desert the present use, and by your example, at least, establish it as a maxim, that every critic may revive at pleasure old-fashioned terms, inflections, and combinations, and make such alterations on words as will bring them nearer to what he supposeth to be the etymon, there can be nothing fixed or stable on the subject. Possibly you prefer the usage that prevailed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth; another may, with as good reason, have a partiality for that which subsisted in the days of Chaucer. And with regard to etymology, about which grammarians make so much useless bustle; if every one hath a privilege of altering words, according to his own opinion of their origin, the opinions of the learned being on this subject so various, nothing but a general chaos can ensue.

But the means which they

66

On the other hand, it may be said, "Are we to "catch at every new-fashioned term and phrase which whim or affectation may invent, and folly circulate? "Can this ever tend to give either dignity to our style, or permanency to our language?" It cannot surely. This leads to a further explanation and limitation of the term present use, to prevent our be ing misled by a mere namè. It is possible, nay it is VOL. I.

U

The nature and characters of the use which gives law to language.

common, for men, in avoiding one error, to run into another and a worse. There is a mean in every thing. I have purposely avoided the expressions recent use and modern use, as these seem to stand in direct opposition to what is ancient. But I have used the word present, which, in respect of place, is always opposed to absent, and in respect of time, to past or future, that now have no existence. When, therefore, the word is used of language, its proper contrary is not ancient but obsolete. Besides, though I have acknowledged language to be a species of mode or fashion, as doubtless it is, yet, being much more permanent than articles of apparel, furniture, and the like, that, in regard to their form, are under the dominion of that inconstant power, I have avoided also using the words fashionable and modish, which but too generally convey the ideas of novelty and levity. Words, therefore, are by no means to be accounted the worse for being old, if they are not obsolete; neither is any word the better for being new. On the contrary, some time is absolutely necessary to constitute that custom or use, on which the establishment of words depends.

If we recur to the standard already assigned, namely, the writings of a plurality of celebrated authors, there will be no scope for the comprehension of words

*In vitium ducit culpæ fuga, si caret arte.

HOR. De Arte Poet.

and idioms, which can be denominated novel and upstart. It must be owned, that we often meet with such terms and phrases, in newspapers, periodical pieces, and political pamphlets. The writers to the times, rarely fail to have their performances studded with a competent number of these fantastic ornaments. A popular orator in the House of Commons, hath a sort of patent from the public, during the continuance of his popularity, for coining as many as he pleases. And they are no sooner issued, than they obtrude themselves upon us from every quarter, in all the daily papers, letters, essays, addresses, &c. But this is of no significancy. Such words and phrases are but the insects of a season at the most. The people, always fickle, are just as prompt to drop them, as they were to take them up, And not one of a hundred survives the particular occasion or party-struggle which gave it birth. We may justly apply to them what Johnson says of a great number of the terms of the laborious and mercantile part of the people, "This fugitive cant cannot be regarded as any part "of the durable materials of a language, and there"fore must be suffered to perish, with other things "unworthy of preservation *."

As use, therefore, implies duration, and as even a few years are not sufficient for ascertaining the characters of authors, I have, for the most part, in the

*Preface to his Dictionary.