ear, nor the most conformable to analogy. And though we cannot say properly of any expression which has the sanction of good use, that it is barbarous, we must admit that, in other respects, it may be faulty.

It is therefore, I acknowledge, not without meaning, that Swift, in the proposal above quoted*, affirms, that, "there are many gross improprieties, which, though au"thorised by practice, ought to be discarded." Now, in order to discard them, nothing more is necessary than to disuse them. And to bring us to disuse them, both the example and the arguments of the critic will have their weight. A very little attention will satisfy every reasonable person of the difference there is between the bare omission, or rather the not employing of what is used and the introduction of what is unusual. The former, provided what you substitute in its stead be proper, and have the authority of custom, can never come under the observation, or at least the reprehension of a reader; whereas the latter shocks our ears immediately. Here, therefore, lies one principal province of criticism, to point out the characters of those words and idioms which deserve to be disfranchised, and consigned to perpetual oblivion. It is by carefully filing off all roughnesses and inequalities, that languages, like metals, must be polished. This indeed, is an effect of taste. And hence it happens, that the first rudiments of taste no sooner appear in any people, than the language begins, as it were of itself, to emerge out of that state of rudeness in which it will ever be found in uncivilised nations. As they improve in arts and sciences, their speech refines; it not only becomes richer and more comprehensive, but acquires greater precision, perspicuity, and harmony. This effect taste insensibly produces among the people long before the language becomes the object of their attention. But when criticism hath called forth their attention to this object, there is a probability that the effect will be accelerated.

It is, however, no less certain, on the other hand, that

* For ascertaining the English tongue; see the Letter to the Lord High Treasurer.

in the declension of taste and science, language will unavoidably degenerate, and though the critical art may retard a little, it will never be able to prevent this degeneracy. I shall therefore subjoin a few remarks under the form of canons, in relation to those words or expressions, which may be thought to merit degradation from the rank they have hitherto maintained, submitting these remarks entirely, as every thing of the kind must be submitted, to the final determination of the impartial public.

Canon the Sixth.

The first canon on this subject is, All words and phrases which are remarkably harsh and unharmonious, and not absolutely necessary, may justly be judged worthy of this fate.

I call a word or phrase absolutely necessary, when we have no synonymous words in the event of a dismission, to supply its place, or no way of conveying properly the same idea without the aid of circumlocution. The rule, with this limitation, will, I believe, be generally assented to. The only difficulty is, to fix the criteria by which we may discriminate the obnoxious words from all others.

It may well be reckoned that we have lighted on one criterion, when we have found a decompound or term composed of words already compounded, whereof the several parts are not easily, and therefore not closely united. Such are the words bare-faced-ness, shamefaced-ness, un-success-ful-ness, dis-interest-ed-ness, wrongheaded-ness, tender-hearted-ness. They are so heavy and drawling, and withal so ill compacted, that they have not more vivacity than a periphrasis, to compensate for the defect of harmony.

Another criterion is, when a word is so formed and accented as to render it of difficult utterance to the speaker, and consequently disagreeable in sound to the hearer. This happens in two cases; first, when the syllyables, which immediately followed the accented syllable, are so crowded with consonants, as of necessity

FF

to retard the pronunciation. The words questionless, chroniclers, convénticlers, concupiscence, remembrancer, are examples of this. The accent in all these is on the antepenultimate, for which reason the two last syllables ought to be pronounced quick; a thing scarcely practicable, on account of the number of consonants which occur in these syllables. The attempt to quicken the pronunciation, though familiar to Englishmen, exhibits to strangers the appearance of awkward hurry, instead of that easy fluency to be found in those words wherein the unaccented syllables are naturally short. Such are lévity, vánity, avidity, all accented in the like manner on the antepenultimate. The second case in which a similar dissonance is found, is when too many syllables follow the accented syllable. For though these be naturally short, their number, if they exceed two, makes a disagreeable pronunciation. Examples of this are the words primarily, cursorily, súmmarily, perémptorily, perémptoriness, vindicative; all of which are accented on the fourth syllable from the end. It is to be wished, that the use which now prevails in regard to the manner of accenting some words, would alter, as we cannot afford to part with every term that is liable to exception in this respect. Nor is a change here to be despaired of, since we find it hath happened to several words already, as the places which they occupy in ancient poetry sufficiently evince.

A third criterion is, when a short or unaccented syllable is repeated, or followed by another short or unaccented syllable very much resembling. This always gives the appearance of stammering to the pronunciation. Such are the words, holily, farriering, sillily. We have not many words chargeable with this fault: nay, so early have the people been sensible of the disagreeable sound occasioned by such recurrences, that it would appear they have added the adverbial termination to very few of our adjectives ending in ly. I believe there are no examples extant of heavenlily, godlily, timelily, dailily. Johnson hath given us in his Dictionary, the word lowlily, which is as bad as any of them, but without quoting

authorities. In these and such like, the simple forms, as heavenly, godly, timely, daily, homely, courtly, comely, seem always to have served both for adjective and adverb; though this too hath its inconvenience. It deserves our notice, that the repetition of a syllable is never offensive, when either one or both are long, as in papa, mamma, murmur, tartar, barbarous, lily.

Besides the cases aforesaid, I know of none that ought to dispose us to the total disuse of words really significant. A little harshness by the collision of consonants, which, nevertheless, our organs find no difficulty in articulating, and which do not suggest to the hearer the disagreeable idea either of precipitation or of stammering, are by no means a sufficient reason for the suppression of an useful term. The monosyllables judg'd, drudg'd, grudg'd, which some have thought very offensive, appear not in the least exceptionable, compared with the words abovementioned. It would not do well to introduce such hard and strong sounds too frequently; but when they are used sparingly and properly, they have even a good effect. Variety in sound is advantageous to a language: and it is convenient that we should have some sounds that are rough and masculine, as well as some that are liquid and feminine.

I observe this the rather, because I think there is at present a geater risk of going too far in refining than of not going far enough. The ears of some critics are immoderately delicate. A late essayist*, one who seems to possess a considerable share of ingenuity and taste, proposes the utter extirpation of encroach, encroachment, inculcate, purport, methinks, and some others, the precise meaning of which, we have no single words in English that perfectly express. An ear so nice as to be hurt by these, appears to me in the same light as a stomach so squeamish as to nauseate our beef and beer, the ordinary food of the country. Such ears, I should say, are not adapted to our speech, nor such stomachs to our

Sketches by Launcelot Temple, Esq.-of late republished and owned by Dr Armstrong.

climate. This humour, were it to become general, would have a very unfavourable aspect to the language; and it might admit a question, whether, on such principles, if an expurgation of the vocabulary were attempted, there would remain one third of the whole stock, that would not be deemed worthy of excision. This would be particularly inconvenient, if every body were as much an enemy as this gentleman seems to be, to all new-fashioned terms and phrases. We should hardly have words enow left for necessary purposes*.

Canon the seventh.

The second canon on this subject is, When etymology plainly points to a signification different from that which the word commonly bears, propriety and simplicity both require its dismission.

I use the word plainly, because, when the etymology is from an ancient or foreign language, or from obsolete

I shall only observe here by the way, that those languages which are allowed to be the most susceptible of all the graces of harmony, have admitted many ill-sounding words. Such are in Greek σπλαγχνίζεσθαι, προσφθεγξασθαι, εγκριμφθείς, mixaxona, perpípnusvov. In the two last, one finds a dissonant recurrence of the same letter to a degree quite unexampled with us. There is, however, such a mixture of long and short syllables, as prevents that difficulty of utterance which was re marked in some English words. Such are also in Latin, dixisses, spississimus, percrebrescebantque. The last of these words is very rough, and the two first have as much of the hissing letters as any English word whatever. The Italian is considered, and I believe justly, as the most musical of all languages, yet there are in it some sounds which even to us, accustomed to a dialect boisterous like our weather, appear harsh and jarring. Such are incrocicchiare, sdruccioloso, spregiatrice. There is a great difference between words which sound harshly, but are of easy pronunciation to the natives, and those words which even to natives occasion difficulty in the utterance, and consequently convey some idea of awkwardness to the hearer, which is prejudicial to the design. There are in the languages of all countries, many words which foreigners will find a difficulty in pronouncing, that the natives have no conception of. The Greeks could not easily articulate the Latin determinations in ans and ens. On the other hand, there were many sounds in Greek which appeared intolerable to the Latins, such as words beginning with us, 49, 4, xr, and many others. No people have so studiously avoided the collision of consonants as the Italians. To their delicate ears pi, ct, and cs, or r, though belonging to different syllables, and interposed between vowels, are offensive, nor can they easily pronounce them. Instead of upto, and lecto, and Alexandro, they must say atto, and letto, and Allessandro. Yet these very people begin some of their words with the three consonants sdr, which to our ears are perfectly shocking. It is not therefore so much harshness of sound, as difficulty of utterance, that should make some words be rejected altogether. The latter tends to divert our attention, and consequently to obstruct the effect. The former hath not this tendency, unless they be obtruded on us too frequently.