for us fo to adapt our organs, accustomed-only

to English, as rightly to articulate them.

. IT hath been the invariable custom of all nations, as far as I know; it was particularly the cuftom of the Grecians and the Romans, when they introduced a foreign name into their language, to make fuch alterations on it, as would facilitate the pronunciation to their own people, and render it more analogous to the other words, of their tongue. There is an evident convenience in this practice; but where the harm of it is, I am not able to difcover. No more can I divine what good reason can be alleged for profcribing the name Zoroafter, till of late univer fally adopted by English authors who had occas fion to mention that eaftern fage, and the fame, except in termination, that is used in Greek and Latin claffics. Is Zerdusht, which those people would fubftitute in its place, a more mufical word? Or is it of any confequence to us, that it is nearer the Perfian original? Will this found give us a deeper infight than the other into the character, the philofophy, and the hiftory of the man? On the fame principles we are commanded by these refiners to banish Confucius for the fake of Con-fut-cee, and never again, on pain

of the charge of grofs ignorance, to mention Mahomet, Mahometan, Mahometism, fince Moham→ : med, Mohammedan, Mohammedism, are ready to fupply their room. Muffulman muft give place to molem, hegira to hejra, and alcoran to koran. The dervis too is turned a dirvesh, and the baShaw is transformed into a pacha.

•

But why do our modern reformers stop here? Ought not this reformation, if good for any thing, to be rendered more extenfively useful? How much more edifying would holy writ prove to readers of every capacity, if, instead of those vulgar corruptions, Jacob and Judah, and Mofes and Elijah, we had the fatisfaction to find in our Bibles, as fome affure us that the words ought to be pronounced, Yagnhakob, and Yehudahı, and Mofcheh, and Eliyahu? Nay, fince it seems to be agreed amongst our oriental fcholars, that the Hebrew jod founds like the Englith y before a vowel, and that their vau, is the fame with the German w, the word Jehovah ought alfo to be exploded, that we may henceforth speak of the Deity more reverently and intelligibly by the only authentic name Yehowah. A reform of this kind was indeed, for the benefit of the learned, attempted abroad more than two centi ries ago,

by a kindred genius of thofe modern English critics, one Pagninus a Dominican friar. In a tranflation which this man made of the fcriptures, into a fort of Monkish gibberish that he called Latin, he hath, in order to fatisfy the world of the vast importance and utility of his work, inftead of Eve, written Chauva, and for Ifaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel given us Jefahiahu, Irmeiahu, But I know not how it hath happened, that in this he hath had no imitators among men of letters. Probably upon the trial, people have difcovered that they were just as much edified by the old names as by the new.

Fechezechel.

AGAIN, why this reformation fhould be confined almost entirely to proper names, for my part, I can discover no good reafon. Appellatives are doubtlefs entitled to a fhare. Critics of this ftamp ought, for example, boldly to refolve, in spite of inveterate abuses and plebeian prejudices, never, whilst they breathe, either to write or to pronounce the words pope, popery, and popedom, but instead of them, pape, papery, and papedom; fince, whether we derive thefe words immediately from the French*, the Latin †, or the Greek, ftill it appears that the o is but a • Pape. + Papa. † παππας.

bafe

*

base ufurper of a place which rightfully belongs, to the a. The reason affigned for faying koran, and not alcoran, is truly curious. Al, fay they, is the Arabic article, and fignifies the; confequently, if we should, fay the alcoran, we should fall into a grofs pariffology. It is just as if we faid the the book. A plain illiterate man would think it fufficient to reply, What though al fignifies the in Arabic, it hath no fignification in English, and is only here the firft fyllable of a name which use hath appropriated, no matter how, to a particular book. But if ye who are fuch deep fcholars, and wonderful improvers of your mother-tongue, are determined to exclude this harmless fyllable from alcoran, act at leaft confiftently, and difmifs it also from alchymy, alcove, alembic, algebra, almanac, and all the other words in the language that are derived in the fame way, and from the fame fource. Indeed, it is not easy to fay where ye will ftop; for if ye attend to it, ye will find many words of Latin or French origin, which ftand equally

reformation *.

need of

IT

Suppofe one of these. Ariftarchs advancing in fuch ingenious refinements, and thus criticifing on the word averfion: This fubftantive is by divers authors diverfely conftrued. • Some fay averfion to a change, others averfion from a change: 'both,

Ir is neceffary to add, that if the Public give way to a humour of this kind, there will be no end of innovating. When fome critics first thought of reforming the word bafhaw, one would have it baffa, another pacha, and a third pasha; and how many more fhapes it may yet be transformed into, it is impoffible to fay. A tate hiftoriographer hath adopted juft the half of Sale's reformation of the name Mahomet. He reftores the vowels to the places which they for

both, I affirm, from a blind attachment to vernacular idioms, ⚫ have alike deviated into the most ugly and deformed faults. This judgment, how fevere foever, I am able to fupport by an irrefragable argument. Averfion, according to its etymology, denotes turning from. The first fyllable a is, in the original language, a prepofition fignifying from. It would therefore be abfurd to conjoin in the fame phrafe with it, the prepofition to, which hath a contrary fignification and to ufe from after averfion, would render the expreffion hideoully pleonastic. In defiance therefore of a habitude, which, however ancient and univerfal, is the offspring of ignorance, we muft, if we would fpeak correctly, either fay averfion a change, the first fyllable a having the force of the preposition, or, cutting off this prepofitive, we muft fay verfion from a change. If any should think this reprefentation exaggerated, let him compare the reasoning with that which hath been ferionfly used for mutilating the word alcoran, and he will find it in all respects the fame. It is, I acknowledge, of no confequence, whether we fay alcoran, or koran; but it is of confequence that fuch a filly argument fhall not be held a fufficient ground for innovation.

merly.