ous, if the newer acceptation had not before now fupplanted the other altogether.

Canon the fourth.

THE fourth canon is, In cafes wherein none of the foregoing rules gives either fide a ground of preference, a regard to fimplicity (in which I include etymology when manifeft) ought to determine our choice.

UNDER the name fimplicity I must be underfood to comprehend alfo brevity; for that expreffion is always the fimpleft which, with equal purity and perfpicuity, is the briefeft. We have, for instance, several active verbs, which are used either with or without a prepofition indifcriminately. Thus we fay either accept or accept of, admit or admit of, approve or approve of; in like manner addrefs or addrefs to, attain or attain to. In fuch inftances it will hold, I fuppofe, pretty generally, that the fimple form is preferable. This appears particularly in the paffive voice,

in which every one muft fee the difference.

prefent was accepted of by his friend.'

' excufe was admitted of by his master.'

His 'His

The

magiftrates were addressed to by the townfmen,' are evidently much worfe than, His prefent was

accepted

• His excufe was ad

⚫mitted by his mafter.' The magiftrates were addressed by the townfmen.' We have but too many of this awkward, disjointed fort of compounds, and therefore ought not to multiply them without neccffity. Now if once the prepofition fhould obtain in the active voice, the rules of fyntax will abfolutely require it in the paffive. Sometimes indeed the verb hath two regimens, and then the prepofition is neceffary to one of them, as I addrefs my felf to my judges." They addreffed their vows to Apollo.' But of fuch cases I ain not here speaking.

BоTH etymology and analogy, as well as euphony and fimplicity, determine us in preferring fubtract to fubftract, and confequently fubtraction to fubftraction*.

Canon

Subtract is regularly deduced from the supine subtra&um of the Latin verb fubtraho, in the fame way as a from actum, the fupine of ago, and tranflate from tranflatum, the fupine of transfero But it would be quite unexampled to derive the English verb from the French fouftraire. Befides, there is not another inftance in the language of a word beginning with the Latin preposition sub, where the fub is followed by an s, unless when the original word compounded with the prepofition, begins with an s. Thus we fay fubfcribe from fab and fcribo, fubfift from fub and fifto, fubfiitute from fub and statuo. But we cannot fay fubftract from fub and Arabe, there being no fuch

word.

Canon the fifth.

THE fifth and only other canon that occurs. to me on the fubject of divided ufe is, In the few cafes wherein neither perfpicuity nor analogy, neither found nor fimplicity, affists us in fixing our choice, it is fafeft to prefer that manner which is most conformable to ancient ufage.

THIS is founded on a very plain maxim, that in language, as in feveral other things, change itself, unless when it is clearly advantageous, is ineligible. This affords another reason for preferring that usage which diftinguishes ye as the nominative plural of thou, when more than one are addreffed, from you the accufative. For it may be remarked, that this distinction is very regularly obferved in our tranflation of the Bible, as well as in all our beft ancient authors. ton too is particularly attentive to it. The words caufey and causeway are at prefent used promifcuoufly, though I do not know whether there be any difference but in the spelling. The old way is caufey, which, as there appears no good reason for

Mil

word. There can be no doubt, therefore, that a mistaken etymology, arifing from an affinity to the French term, not in the verb, but in the verbal noun, has given rife to this harsh anomaly.

VOL. I.

Cc

altering

altering it, ought to be held the beft. The alteration, I fuppofe, hath fprung from fome miftaken notion about the etymology; but if the notion had been juft, the reason would not have been fufficient. It tends, befides, either to introduce a viciated pronunciation, or to add to the anomalies in orthography (by far too numerous already), with which the language is encumbered. Much the fame may be faid of jail and gaol, jailer and gaoler. That jail and jailer have been firft ufed is probable, from the vulgar tranflation of the Bible. The quotations. on the other fide from Shakespeare, are not much to be minded, as it is well known that his editors have taken a good deal of freedom with his orthography. The argument, from its derivation from the French geole, is very puerile. For the fame reafon we ought to write jarter, and not garter, and plead the spelling of the French primitive jartiere. Nor would it violate the laws of pronunciation in English, more to found the [ja] as though it were written [ga], than to found the [ga] as though it were written [ja].

SECTION II.

Every thing favoured by good use, not on that account worthy to be retained.

I COME now to the fecond queftion for afcertaining both the extent of the authority claimed by custom, and the rightful prerogatives of criticifm. As no term, idiom, or application that is totally unfupported by ufe, can be admitted. to be good, is every term, idiom, and application, that is countenanced by use, to be esteemed good, and therefore worthy to be retained? I anfwer, that though nothing in language can be good from which ufe withholds her approbation, there may be many things to which the gives it, that are not in all refpects good, or fuch as are worthy to be retained and imitated. In fome inftances cuftom may very properly be checked by criticism, which hath a fort of negative, and though not the cenforian power of instant degradation, the privilege of remonftrating, and by means of this, when used discreetly, of bringing what is bad into difrepute, and fo cancelling it gradually; but which hath no pofitive right to establish any thing. Her power too is like that of eloquence; the operates on us purely