scope for choice; and it belongs, without question, to the critical art, to lay down the principles, by which, in all doubtful cases, our choice should be directed. (Art. 76. Corol.)

Illus. 1. There are, indeed, some differences in single words, as isle, for "island," mount, for "mountain," which ought still to be retained. They are a kind of synomies, and afford a little variety, without occasioning any inconvenience.

2. In our arrangement too, it certainly holds, that various manners suit various styles, as various styles suit various subjects, and various sorts of composition. For this reason, unless when some obscurity, ambiguity, or inelegance, is created, no disposition of words which hath obtained the public approbation, ought to be altogether rejected.

3. In construction, the case is somewhat different. Purity, perspicuity, and elegance, generally require, that in this there be the strictest uniformity. Yet differences here are not only allowable, but even convenient, when attended with correspondent differences in the application.

Corol. In those instances, therefore, of divided use, which gives 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.

In

Obs. The improper use of adverbs for adjectives, and vice verså, offends against precision, and the authority of present use. 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 inseperable preposition con, the n is retained before a consonant, but expunged before a vowel, or mute; as, con-comitant, 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 Adison, 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.

Illies. 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 dis-. tinguishes ye, as the nominative plural of thou. (Obs. Canon First.) Quotations from Shakspeare, on the side of authography, 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 remon strating, 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 unaccountable and irresistable 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 demoninated 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 remarkable 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, these

will recommend themselves, and come into general use, which, if abstractly 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 authorised by practice, aught 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 roughness and inequaleties, 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 accellerated, 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 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 synonimous 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-facedness, shame-faced-ness, un-success-full-ness, dis-interest-ed-ness, wrong-head-ed-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 questionless, remembrancer ;-secondly, when too many syllables follow the accented syllable, a similar dissonance is found; as, primarily, peremptorily.

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 stammer

ing.

Example. This happens when we add the adverbial termination to words ending in ly; as hólily; or when the participial termination ing, is added to a noun ending in er; as, fárriering, sóldiering.

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 uasculine, 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

F