want of it alone that conftitutes both the barba

rifm and the folecifm.

Canon the fecond.

THE fecond canon is, In doubtful cafes regard ought to be had in our decifions to the analogy of the language.

For this reafon I prefer contemporary to cotemporary. The general ufe in words compounded with the infeparable prepofition con, is to retain the [n] before a confonant, and to expunge it be fore a vowel or an [h] mute. Thus we fay condifciple, conjuncture, concomitant; but co-equal, coeternal, co incide, co-heir. I know but one exception, which is co-partner. But in dubious cafes we ought to follow the rule, and not the exception. If by the former canon the adverbs backwards and forwards are preferable to backward and forward; by this canon, from the principle of analogy, afterwards and homewards should be preferred to afterward and homeward. Of the two adverbs thereabout and thereabouts, compounded of the particle there and the prepofition, the former alone is analogical, there being no fuch word in the language as abouts. The fame holds

of

of hereabout and whereabout. In the verbs to dare and to need, many fay, in the third perfon present fingular, dare and need, as he need not go; he dare not do it.' Others fay, dares and needs, As the first usage is exceedingly irregular, hardly any thing less than uniform practice could authorise it. This rule fupplies us with another reafon for preferring fcarcely and exceedingly as adverbs, to scarce and exceeding. The phrases Would to God, and Would God, can both plead the au thority of custom; but the latter is strictly analogical, the former is not. It is an established idiom in the English tongue, that any of the auxiliaries might, could, would, fhould, did, and had, with the nominative fubjoined, should exprefs fometimes a fuppofition, fometimes a wifh: which of the two it expreffes in any inftance, is cafily discovered from the context. Thus the expreffion Would he but afk it of me,' denotes either If he would, or I wish that he would but afk it of me.' Would God then, is properly, I wish that God would, or O that God would. The other expreffion it is impoffible to reconcile to analogy in any way. For a like reason the

What has given rife to it is evidently the French Plût à Dieu, of the fame import. But it has not been adverted to (fo fervile commonly are imitators), that the verb plaire is imperfonal, and regularly conftrued with the prepofition a; neither of which is the cafe with the English will and would.

phrafe

phrafe ever fo, as when we fay, though he were ever fo good,' is preferable to never fo. In both these decisions I fubfcribe to the judgment of Dr. Johnson. Of the two phrafes in no wife in three words, and nowife in one, the laft only is conformable to the prefent genius of the tongue. The noun wife, fignifying manner, is quite obfolete. It remains now only in compofition, in which, along with an adjective or other fubftantive, it forms an adverb or conjunction. Such are fidevife, lengthwise, coaftwife, contrariwise, likewife, otherwife. These always preferve the compound form, and never admit a prepofition; confequently nowife, which is an adverb of the fame order, ought analogically to be written in one word, and not to be preceded by in. In very ancient ftyle all thefe words were uncompounded, and had the prepofition. They said in like wife, and in other wife. And even if custom at prefent

In proof of this I fhall produce a paffage taken from the Prologue of the English translation of the Legenda Aurea, which feems to have been made towards the end of the fifteenth century. "I haue fubmyfed my felfe to tranflate into Engylfshe the legende of fayntes whyche is called legenda aurea in latyn; That is to faye, the golden legende. For in lyke wyfe r as golde is mooft noble aboue all other metallys; in lyke wyfe is thys legende holden mooft noble aboue all other werkes." About the time that our prefent verfion of the

fcriptures

prefent were uniform, as it is divided, in admiting in before nowife, it ought to be followed, though anomalous. In these matters it is foolish to attempt to ftruggle against the ftream. All that I here plead for is, that when custom varies, analogy should decide the queftion. In the determination of this particular inftance I differ from Dr. Priestley. Sometimes whether is followed by no, fometimes by not. For inftance, fome would fay, 'Whether he will or no;' others, • Whether he will or not.' Of thefe it is the latter only that is analogical. There is an ellipfis of the verb in the laft claufe, which when you fupply, you find it neceffary to use the adverb not, Whether

he will or will not.' I fhall only add, that by both the preceding canons we ought always to fay rend in the prefent of the indicative and of the infinitive, and never rent, as is fometimes done. The latter term hath been pre-occupied by the preterit and the participle paffive, befides that it is only in this application that it can be faid to be used analogically. For this reason,

fcriptures was made, the old ufage was wearing out. The phrase in like wife occurs but once, (Matt. xxi. 24.) whereas the compound term likewife occurs frequently. We find in feveral places, on this wife, in any wife, and in no wife. The two first phrafes are now obfolete, and the third feems to be in the ftate which Dr. Johnfon calls obfolefcent.

the

the active participle ought always to be rending,

and not renting.

Canon the third.

THE third canon is, When the terms or expreffions are in other refpects equal, that ought to be preferred which is moft agreeable to the

ear.

THIS rule hath perhaps a greater chance of being obferved than any other, it having been the general bent for fome time to avoid harsh founds and unmufical periods. Of this we have many examples. Delicatenefs hath very properly given way to delicacy; and for a like reafon duthenticity will probably foon difplace authenticalnefs, and vindictive difpoffefs vindicative altogether. Nay, a regard to found hath, in fome inftances, had an influence on the public choice, to the prejudice of both the former canons, which one would think ought to be regarded as of more importance. Thus the term ingenuity hath obtained, in preference to ingenicufness, though the former cannot be deduced analogically from ingenious, and had besides been preoccupied, and confequently would be equivocal, being a regular derivative from the term ingenu

ous,