among themselves, it can never establish what is accounted use in language. Now, what children are to men, that precifely the ignorant are to the knowing,

FROM the practice of thofe who are converfant in any art, elegant or mechanical, we always take the fenfe of the terms and phrases belonging to that art; in like manner, from the practice of thofe who have had a liberal education, and are therefore prefumed to be beft acquainted with men and things, we judge of the general ufe in language. If in this particular there be any deference to the practice of the great and rich, it is not ultimately because they åre greater and richer than others, but because, from their greatnefs and riches, they are imagined to be wifer and more knowing. The fource, therefore, of that preference which diftinguisheth good ufe from bad in language, is a natural propenfion of the human mind to believe, that thofe are the best judges of the proper figns, and of the proper application of them, who understand best the things which they represent.

BUT who are they that in the public estimation are poffeffed of this character? This question

is of the greatest moment for ascertaining that ufe, which is entitled to the epithets reputable and good. Vaugelas makes them in France to be the foundeft part of the court, and the "foundest part of the authors of the age*." With us Britons, the first part at least of this defcription will not answer. In France, which is a pure monarchy, as the dependance of the inferior orders is much greater, their fubmiffion to their fuperiors, and the humble respect which in every inftance they fhow them, feem, in our way of judging, to border even upon adoration. With us, on the contrary, who in our spirit, as well as in the conftitution of our government, have more of the republican than of the monarchical, there is no remarkable partiality in favour of courtiers. At least their being fuch, rarely enhanceth our opinion, either of their abilities or of their virtues.

I WOULD not by this be understood to fignify, that the primary principle which gives rife to the diftinction between good ufe and bad in language, is different in different countries. It is

* "Voicy comme on definit le bon ufage. C'eft la façon "de parler de la plus faine partie de la cour, conformément a "la façon d'ecrire de la plus faine partie des auteurs du tems." Preface aux Remarques fur la Langue Françoife.

not

not originally, even in France, a deference to power, but to wisdom. Only it must be remarked, that the tendency of the imagination is to accumulate all great qualities into the fame character. Wherever we find one or two of these, we naturally prefume the reft. This is particularly true of those qualities, which, by their immediate confequences, ftrongly affect the exter. nal fenfes. We are in a manner dazzled by them: -Hence it happens, that it is difficult even for a man of difcernment, till he be better inftructed by experience, to reftrain a veneration for the judgment of a perfon of uncommon fplendour and magnificence; as if one who is more powerful and opulent than his neighbours, were of neceffity wifer too. Now this original bias of the mind fome political conftitutions serve to ftrengthen, others to correct.

BUT without refting the matter entirely on the difference in refpect of government between France and Britain, the British court is commonly too fluctuating an object. Ufe in language requires firmer ground to ftand upon. No doubt, the converfation of men of rank and eminence, whether of the court or not, will havė its influence. And in what concerns merely the pro

351 pronunciation, it is the only rule to which we can refer the matter in every doubtful cafe; but in what concerns the words themselves, their conftruction and application, it is of importance to have fome certain, fteady, and well-known ftandard to recur to, a ftandard which every one hath accefs to canvafs and examine. And this can be no other than authors of reputation. Accordingly we find that thefe are, by univerfal confent, in actual poffeffion of this authority, as to this tribunal, when any doubt arifes, the appeal is always made.

I CHOOSE to name them, authors of reputation, rather than good authors, for two reasons : first, because it is more ftrictly conformable to the truth of the cafe. It is folely the efteem of the public, and not their intrinfic merit (though these two go generally together), which raises them to this diftinction, and ftamps a value on their language. Secondly, this character is more definitive than the other, and therefore more extenfively intelligible. Between two or more authors, different readers will differ exceedingly, as to the preference in point of merit, who agree perfectly as to the respective places they hold in the favour of the public. You You may find persons of

a tafte

a tafte fo particular, as to prefer Parnel to Milton; but you will hardly find a person that will difpute the fuperiority of the latter in the article of fame. For this reafon, I affirm, that Vaugelas' definition labours under an effential defect; inafmuch as it may be difficult to meet with two perfons whofe judgments entirely coincide in determining who are the founder part of the court, or of the authors of the age. I need fcarcely add, that when I fpeak of reputation, I mean not only in regard to knowledge, but in regard to the talent of communicating knowledge. I could name writers, who, in respect of the first, have been justly valued by the public, but who, on account of a fuppofed deficiency in refpect of the second, are confidered as of no authority in language.

NOR is there the leaft ground to fear, that we fhould be cramped here within too narrow limits. In the English tongue there is a plentiful fupply of noted writings in all the various kinds of compofition, in profe and verfe, ferious and lu dicrous, grave and familiar. Agreeably then to this firft qualification of the term, we must underftand to be comprehended under general ufe, whatever modes of speech are authorised as good by

the