of the people of a particular state or country, certain sounds come to be appropriated to certain things, as their signs; and certain ways of inflecting and combining those sounds comes to be established, as denoting the relations which subsist among the things signified.

It is not the business of grammar, as some critics seem preposterously to imagine, to give law to the fashions, which regulate our speech. On the contrary, from its conformity to these, and from that alone, it derives all its authority and value. For, what is the grammar of any language? It is no other than a collection of general observations methodically digested, and comprising all the modes previously and independently established, by which the significations, derivations, and combinations of words in that language, are ascertained. It is of no consequence here to what causes originally these modes or fashions owe their existence; whether to imitation, or reflection, to affectation, or to caprice: they no sooner obtain and become general, than they are laws of the language, and the grammarian's only business is, to note, collect, and methodise them.* Nor does this truth concern only those more comprehensive analogies or rules, which affect whole classes of words; such as nouns, verbs, and the other parts of speech; but it concerns every individual word, in the inflecting or the combining of which, a particular mode has prevailed. Every single anomaly, therefore, though departing from the rule assigned to the other words of the same class, and on that account called an exception, stands on the same basis, on which the rules of the tongue are founded, custom having prescribed for it a separate rule.-If use be here a matter of such consequence, it will be necessary, before advancing any farther, to ascertain precisely, what it is. We shall otherwise be in danger, though we agree about the name, of differing widely in the notion that we assign to it.

SECTION 1.

Of reputable use.

In what extent then must the term be understood? It is sometimes called general use; yet is it not manifest, that the generality of people speak and write very badly? Nay, is not this a truth that will be even generally acknowledged? It will be so; and this very acknowledgment shows, that many terms and idioms may be common, which, nevertheless, have

* It is scarcely necessary to observe, that, with the moral misapplication of words and phrases, this work has not any concern. No usage whatever can justify such perversions of language.

not the general sanction; no, nor even the suffrage of those that use them. The use here spoken of, implies not only currency but vogue. It is properly reputable custom.

This leads to a distinction between good use, and bad use in language, the former of which will be found to have the approbation of those who have not themselves attained it. The far greater part of mankind, perhaps ninety-nine of a hundred, are, by reason of poverty and other circumstances, deprived of the advantages of education, and obliged to toil for bread, almost incessantly, in some narrow occupation. They have neither the leisure nor the means of attaining scarcely any knowledge, except what lies within the contracted circle of their several professions. As the ideas which occupy their minds are few, the portion of the language known to them must be very scanty. It is impossible that our knowledge of words should outstrip our knowledge of things. It may, and often does, come short of it. Words may be remembered as sounds, but cannot be understood as signs, whilst we remain unacquainted with the things signified.

From the practice of those who are conversant in any art, elegant or mechanical, we may always take the sense of the terms and phrases belonging to that art: in like manner, from the practice of those who have had a liberal education, and are therefore presumed to be best acquainted with men and things, we judge of the general use in language. If, in this particular, there be any deference to the practice of the great and rich, it is not ultimately because they are greater and richer than others; but because, from their greatness and riches, they are imagined to be wiser and more knowing. The source, therefore, of that preference which distinguishes good use from bad in language, is a natural propension of the human mind to believe, that those are the best judges of the proper signs, 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 possessed of this character? This question is of the greatest moment for ascertaining that use, which is entitled to the epithets reputable and good. Vaugelas makes them in France to be, "the soundest part of the court, and the soundest part of the authors of the age."-With us Britons, the first part, at least, of this description, will not answer. Use in language requires firmer ground to stand upon. No doubt, the conversation of men of rank and eminence, whether of the court or not, will have its influence. And in what concerns merely the pro

nunciation, it is the only rule to which we can refer the matter, in every doubtful case: but in what concerns the words themselves, their construction and application, it is of importance to have some certain, steady, and well known standard to recur to, a standard which every one has access to canvass and examine. And this can be no other than authors of reputation. Accordingly we find that these are, by universal consent, in actual possession of this authority; as, to this tribunal, when any doubt arises, 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 strictly conformable to the truth of the case. It is solely the esteem of the public, and not their intrinsic merit, (though these two go generally together,) which raises them to this distinction, and stamps a value on their language. Secondly, this character is more definitive than the other, and therefore more extensively 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 may find persons of a taste so particular, as to prefer Parnel to Milton; but you will hardly find a person that will dispute the superiority of the latter in the article of fame. For this reason, I affirm, that Vaugelas's definition labours under an essential defect, in as much as it may be difficult to meet with two persons whose judgments entirely coincide, in determining who are the sounder part of the court, or of the authors of the age. I need scarcely add, that when I speak 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 supposed deficiency in respect of the second, are considered as of no authority in language.

Nor is there the least ground to fear, that we should be cramped here within too narrow limits. In the English tongue, there is a plentiful supply of noted writings, in all the various kinds of composition, in prose and verse, serious and ludicrous, grave and familiar. Agreeably then to this first qualification of the term, we must understand to be comprehended under general use, whatever modes of speech are authorized as good, by the writings of a great number, if not the majority, of celebrated authors.

SECTION 2.

Of national use.

ANOTHER qualification of the term use, which deserves our attention, is, that it must be national. This I consider in a two-fold view, as it stands opposed both to provincial and to foreign.

In every province there are peculiarities of dialect, which affect not only the pronunciation and the accent, but even the inflection and the combination of words, whereby their idiom is distinguished both from that of the nation, and from that of every other province. The narrowness of the circle to which the currency of the words and phrases of such dialects is confined, sufficiently discriminates them from that which is properly styled the language, and which commands a circulation incomparably wider. This is one reason, I imagine, why the term use, on this subject, is commonly accompanied with the epithet general. In the use of provincial idioms, there is, it must be acknowledged, a pretty considerable concurrence both of the middle and of the lower ranks. But still this use is bounded by the province, county, or district, which gives name to the dialect, and beyond which its peculiarities are sometimes unintelligible, and often ridiculous. But the language, properly so called, is found current, especially in the upper and the middle ranks, over the whole British empire. Thus, though in every province, they frequently ridicule the idioms of every other province, they all vail to the English idiom, and scruple not to acknowledge its superiority over their own.

What has now been said of provincial dialects, may, with very little variation, be applied to professional dialects, or the cant which is sometimes observed to prevail among those of the same profession or way of life. The currency of the latter cannot be so exactly circumscribed as that of the former, whose distinction is purely local; but their use is not on that account either more extensive or more reputable.

It was remarked, that national might also be opposed to foreign. I imagine it is too evident to need illustration, that the introduction of extraneous words and idioms, from other languages and foreign nations, cannot be a smaller transgression against the established custom of the English tongue, than the introduction of words and idioms peculiar to some precincts of England, or at least somewhere current within the VOL. I.

Z z

British pale. The only material difference between them is, that the one is more commonly the error of the learned, the other of the vulgar. But if, in this view, the former is entitled to greater indulgence, from the respect paid to learning; in another view, it is entitled to less, as it is much more commonly the result of affectation. Thus two essential qualities of usage, in regard to language, have been settled, that it be both reputable and national.

SECTION 3.

Of present use.

BUT there will naturally arise here another question; "Is not use, even good and national use, in the same country, different in different periods? and if so, to the usage of what period shall we attach ourselves, as the proper rule? If you say, the present, as it may reasonably be expected that you will, the difficulty is not entirely removed. In what extent of signification must we understand the word present? How far may we safely range in quest of authorities? or, at what distance backwards from this moment are authors still to be accounted as possessing a legislative voice in language?" To this, I own, it is difficult to give an answer with all the precision that might be desired. Yet it is certain, that when we are in search of precedents for any word or idiom, there are certain mounds which we cannot overleap with safety. For instance, the authority of Hooper or Raleigh, however great their merit and their fame be, will not be admitted in support of a term or expression, not to be found in any good writer of a later date.

In truth, the boundary must not be fixed at the same distance, in every subject. Poetry has ever been allowed a wider range than prose; and it is but just that, by an indulgence of this kind, some compensation should 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 source of gratification to the reader. Diversity in the style relieves the ear, and prevents its being tired with the too frequent recurrence of the rhymes, or sameness of the metre. But still there are limits to this diversity. The authority of Milton and of Waller, on this article, remains as yet unquestioned. I should not think it prudent often to introduce words or phrases, of which no example could be produced since the days of Spencer.

And even in prose, the bounds are not the same for every