the language from which those words were taken. In order to answer this important purpose, several terms which have maintained their place in our tongue for many centuries, and which are known to every body, must be expelled, that room may be made for a set of uncouth and barbarous sounds, with which our ears are unacquainted, and to some of which it is impossible for us so 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 custom of the Grecians and the Romans, when they introduced a foreign name into their language, to make such 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 discover. No more can I divine what good reason can be alledged for proscribing the name Zoroaster, till of late universally adopted by English authors who had occasion to mention that eastern sage, and the same, except in termination, that is used in Greek and Latin classics. Is Zerdusht, which those people would substitute in its place, a more musical word? Or is it of any consequence to us, that it is nearer the Persian original? Will this sound give us a deeper insight than the other into the character, the philosophy, and the history of the man? On the same principles we are commanded by these refiners to banish Confucius for the sake of Confut-cee, and never again, on pain of the charge of gross ignorance, to mention Mahomet, Mahometan, Mahometism, since Mohamed, Mohamedan, Mohammedism, are ready to supply their room. Mussulmen must give place to moslem, hegira to heira, and alcoran to koran. The dervis too is turned a dervesh, 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 extensively useful? How much more edifying would holy writ prove to readers of every capacity, if

instead of those vulgar corruptions, Jacob and Judah, and Moses and Elijah, we had the satisfaction to find in our Bibles, as some assure us, that the words ought to be pronounced Yagnhakob, and Yehudah, and Moscheh, and Eliyahu? Nay, since it seems to be agreed amongst our oriental scholars, that the Hebrew jod sounds like the English y before a vowel, and that their vau, is the same with the German w, the word Jehovah ought also 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 centuries ago, by a kindred genius of those modern English critics, one Pagninus a Dominican friar. In a translation which this man made of the scriptures, into a sort of Monkish gibberish that he called Latin, he hath, in order to satisfy the world of the vast importance and utility of his work, instead of Eve, written Chauva, and for Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel -given us Jesahiahu, Irmeiahu, Jechezechel- But I know not how it hath happened, that in this he hath had few imitators among men of letters. Probably upon the trial, people have discovered that they were just as much edified by the old names as by the new.

Again, why this reformation should be confined almost entirely to proper names, for my part, I can discover no good reason. Appellatives are doubtless entitled to a share. Critics of this stamp ought, for example, boldly to resolve, 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; since whether we derive these words immediately from the French *, the Latin, or the Greek‡, still it appears that the o is but a base usurper of a place which rightfully belongs to the a. The reason assigned for saying koran and not alcoran, is truly curious. Al, say they, is the Arabic article, and signifies the; consequently, if we should say

the alcoran, we should fall into a gross perissology. It is just as if we said the the book. A plain illiterate man would think it sufficient to reply. What though al signifies the in Arabic, it hath no signification in English, and is only here the first syllable of a name which use hath appropriated, no matter how, to a particular book. But if ye who are such deep scholars, and wonderful improvers of your mother-tongue, are determined to exclude this harmless syllable from alcoran, act at least consistently, and dismiss it also from alchymy, alcove, alembic, algebra, almanac, and all the other words in the language that are derived in the same way, and from the same source. Indeed, it is not easy to say where ye will stop, for if ye will attend to it, ye will find many words of Latin or French origin, will stand equally in need of reformation.*

It is necessary to add, that if the Public give way to a humour of this kind, there will be no end of innovating. When some critics first thought of reforming the word bashaw, one would have it bassa, another pacha, and a third pasha; and how many more shapes it may yet be transformed into, it is impossible to say. A late historiographer hath adopted just the half of Sale's reformation of the name Mahomet. He restores the vowels to the places which they formerly held, but admits his alteration of the consonants, never writing either Mahomet or Mohammed, but Mahommed. In regard to such

Suppose one of these Aristarchs advancing in such ingenious refinements, and thus criticising on the word aversion: "This substantive is by divers authors diversely construed. Some say aversion to a change, others aversion from a "change: both, I affirm, from a blind attachment to vernacular idioms, have a"like deviated into the most ugly and deformed faults. This judgment, how severe soever, I am able to support by an irrefragable argument. Aversion, according to its etymology, denotes turning from. The first syllable'a is, in the original language, a preposition signifying from. It would therefore be ab*surd to conjoin in the same phrase with it, the preposition to, which hath a "contrary signification; and to use from after aversion, would render the ex"pression hideously pleonastic. In defiance therefore of a habitude, which, how. ever ancient and universal, is the offspring of ignorance, we must, if we would speak correctly, either say aversion a change, the first syllable a having the force "of the preposition, or, cutting off this prepositive, we must say aversion from a "change." If any should think this representation exaggerated, let him compare the reasoning with that which hath been seriously used for mutilating the word alcoran, and he will find it in all respects the same. It is, I acknowledge, of no consequence, whether we say alcoran, or koran; but it is of consequence, that such a silly argument shall not be held a sufficient ground for innovation.

་་

46

foreign names of persons, offices, eras, and rites, it would be obliging in writers of this stamp, to annex to their works a glossary, for the sake of the unlearned, who cannot divine whether their newfangled terms belong to things formerly unknown, or are no more than the old names of things familiar to them, newly vamped and dressed. Surely, if any thing deserves to be branded with the name of pedantry, it is an ostentation of erudition, to the reproach of learning, by affecting singularity in trifles.

I shall just mention another set of barbarisms, which also comes under this class, and arises from the abbreviation of polysyllables, by loping off all the syllables except the first, or the first and second. Instances of this are, hyp for hypochondriac, rep for reputation, ult for ultimate, penult for penultimate, incog for incognito, hyper for hypercritic, extra for extraordinary. Happily all these affected terms have been denied the public suffrage. I scarcely know any such that have established themselves, except mob for mobilé*. And this it hath effected at last, notwithstanding the unrelenting zeal with which it was persecuted by Dr Swift, wherever he met with it. But as the word in question hath gotten Use, the supreme arbitress of language, on its side, there would be as much obstinacy in rejecting it at present, as there was perhaps folly at first in ushering it upon the public stage.

As to the humour of abbreviating, we need say very little, as it seems hardly now to subsist amongst us. It only arose in this island about the end of the last century, and when, in the beginning of the present, it assumed to figure in conversation, and even sometimes to appear in print, it was so warmly attacked by Addison and Swift,

*As I am disposed to think that, in matters of this kind, the Public is rarely in the wrong, it would not be difficult to assign a plausible reason for this preference. First, the word mobile, from which it is contracted, can scarcely be called English, and, I suspect, never had the sanction of the public voice. Secondly, there is not another word in the language that expresseth precisely the same idea, a tumultuous and seditious rout: the word mobility, adopted by some writers, is a gross misapplication of the philosophical term, which means only susceptibility of motion; lastly, the word mob is fitter than either of those for giving rise, according to the analogy of our tongue, to such convenient derivatives as to mob, mobbed, mobbish, mobber.

and other writers of eminence, that since then it hath been in general disgrace, hardly daring to appear in good company, and never showing itself in books of any

name.

The two classes of barbarisms last mentioned, comprehending new words, and new formations from words still current, offend against use, considered both as reputable and as national. There are many other sorts of transgression which might be enumerated here, such as vulgarisms, provincial idioms, and the cant of particular professions. But these are more commonly ranked among the offences against elegance, than among the violations of grammatical purity, and will therefore be corsidered afterwards.

SECTION II.-The Solecism.

I now enter on the consideration of the second way by which the purity of the style is injured, the solecism. This is accounted by grammarians a much greater fault than the former, as it displays a greater ignorance of the fundamental rules of the language. The sole aim of grammar is to convey the knowledge of the language; consequently, the degree of grammatical demerit in every blunder, can only be ascertained by the degree of deficiency in this knowledge which it betrays. But the aim of eloquence is quite another thing. The speaker or the writer doth not purpose to display his knowledge in the language, but only to employ the language which he speaks or writes, in order to the attainment of some further end. This knowledge he useth solely as the instrument or means by which he intends to instruct, to please, to move, or to persuade. The degree of demerit therefore, which, by the orator's account, is to be found in every blunder, must be ascertained by a very different measure. Such offence is more or less heinous, precisely in proportion as it proves a greater or smaller obstruction to the speaker's or writer's aim. Hence it happens, that when solecisms are not very glaring, when they do not darken the sense or suggest some ridiculous idea, the rhetori