prefent? How far may we fafely range in

queft of authorities? or, at what distance "backwards from this moment are authors ftill "to be accounted as poffeffing a legislative voice "in language?" To this, I own, it is difficult to give an answer with all the precifion that might be defired. Yet it is certain, that when we are in fearch of precedents for any word or idiom, there are certain mounds which we cannot overleap with fafety. For inftance, the authority of Hooker or of Raleigh, however great their merit and their fame be, will not now be admitted in fupport of a term or expreffion, not to be found in any good writer of a later date.

In truth, the boundary must not be fixed at the fame distance in every fubject. Poetry hath ever been allowed a wider range than profe; and it is but just that, by an indulgence of this kind, fome compenfation fhould be made for the peculiar restraints she is laid under by the measure. Nor is this only a matter of convenience to the poet, it is also a matter of gratification to the reader. Diverfity in the ftyle relieves the ear, and prevents its being tired with the too frequent recurrence of the rhymes, or famenefs of the metre. But ftill there are limits to this diverfity,

7

The

The authority of Milton and of Waller, on this article, remains as yet unquestioned. I thould not think it prudent often to introduce words or phrafes, of which no example could be produced fince the days of Spenfer and of Shakefpeare.

AND even in profe, the bounds are not the fame for every kind of compofition. In matters of science, for inftance, whofe terms, from the nature of the thing, are not capable of fuch a currency as thofe which belong to ordinary fubjects, and are within the reach of ordinary readers, there is no neceffity of confining an author within a very narrow circle. But in compofing pieces which come under this laft denomination, as hiftory, romance, travels, moral effays, familiar letters, and the like, it is fafeft for an author to confider those words and idioms as obfolete, which have been difused by all good authors, for a longer period than the age of man extends to. It is not by ancient, but by prefent ufe, that our ftyle must be regulated. And that use can never be denominated prefent, which hath been laid afide time immemorial, or, which amounts to the fame thing, falls not within the knowledge or remembrance of any now living.

- THIS remark not only affects terms and phrases, but also the declenfion, combination, and conftruction of words. Is it not then fur prifing to find, that one of Lowth's penetration fhould think a fingle perfon entitled to revive a form of inflection in a particular word, which had been rejected by all good writers, of every denomination, for more than a hundred and fifty years *? But if present ufe is to be renounced for ancient, it will be neceffary 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 fix. 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 bar

་།

• Introd. &c. In a note on the irregular verb fit, he says, "Dr. Middleton hath, with great propriety, reftored the true "participle fitten." Would he not have acted with as great propriety, had he reftored the true participles pight for pitched, raught for reached, blent for blended, and shright for shrieked, on full as good authority, the authority of Spenfer, one of the sweetest of our ancient bards? And why might not Dr. Lowth himself, have, with great propriety, reftored the true participles hitten, caften, letten, putten, fetten, fhutten, flitten, Splitten, founden, grounden, of the verbs bit, caft, let, put, fet, fhut, dit, Split, find, grind; for it would not be impoffible to produce antiquated authors in fupport of all thefe. Besides, they are all ufed to this day in fome provincial dialects.

barous,

barous. To me it is fo evident, either that the prefent use must be the ftandard of the prefent language, or that the language admits no ftandard whatsoever, that I cannot conceive a clearer or more indifputable principle, from which to bring an argument to fupport it.

YET it is certain, that even fome of our beft critics and grammarians, talk occafionally, as if they had a notion of fome other standard, though they never give us a fingle hint to direct us where to fearch for it. Doctor Johnfon, for example, in the preface to his very valuable Dictionary, acknowledges properly the abfolute dominion of cuftom over language, and yet, in the explanation of particular words, expreffeth himself fometimes in a manner that is inconfiftent with this doctrine, "This word," fays he in one place, "though common, and used by the best writers,

is perhaps barbarous *.' I have always underftood a barbarifm in fpeech to be a term or expreffion totally unfupported by the prefent ufage of good writers in the language. A meaning very different is fuggefted here, but what that meaning is, it will not be easy to conjecture. Nor has this celebrated writer given us on the

* See the word Nowadays.

word

word barbarous, any definition of the term which will throw light on his application of it in the paffage 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 afcertain the language, there being no other dictator here but use.

Ir is indeed eafier to difcover the aim of our critics in their obfervations on this fubject, than the meaning of the terms which they employ. Thefe are often employed without precifion; their aim, however, is generally good. It is, as much as poffible, to give a check to innovation. But the means which they ufe for this purpose, have fometimes even a contrary tendency. If you will replace what hath been long fince expunged from the language, and extirpate what is firmly rooted, undoubtedly you yourself become an innovator. If you defert the prefent ufe, and by your example at least, eftablish it as a maxim, that every critic may revive at pleasure oldfashioned terms, inflections, and combinations, and make fuch alterations on words as will bring them nearer to what he fuppofeth to be the etymon, there can be nothing fixed or ftable on Preface to his Rudiments of English Grammar.

the