No. XVI.

OF THE

MICROCOSM.

MONDAY, March 5, 1787.

Ufus

Quem penes arbitrium eft et jus et norma loquendi.

Ufe is the judge, the law, and rule of speech.

T is a favourite amufement with me, and one of which in the prefent paper I shall invite my readers to participate, to adopt a maxim established in any fingle inftance, to trace its influence where it has operated undifcovered; to examine the fecret fprings by which it has worked; and the causes which have contributed to their concealment. In the course of this purfuit, I may boast, that there is scarce one of these miniatures of experience and obfervation, from the moral maxims of Grecian Philosophy,

to

to the prudential apothegms of Poor Robin, which has not been fucceffively the object of my observation and difcuffion. I am however aware, that in the opinion of their importance, I may perhaps be fingular.

That "life is fhort," that "the generality of "mankind are vicious," feem ideas that might have fuggefted themselves to a mind undistinguished for peculiar fagacity, or an uncommon fhare of experience. But to carry further the former of these maxims, and to confider that life is fhort, when compared with the multiplicity of its busi nefs, and the variety of its purfuits; that it is too much fo for the purposes of honor and ambition; that to draw a conclufion from the attempts of men, we should imagine it longer; is an obfervation not fo entirely unworthy of a philofopher. And by pursuing the latter of thefe thoughts, though on the firft view it may not appear the refult of any extraordinary obfervation, it may be found on a narrower infpection, to convey a ftrong argument of the impropriety of popular go

vernment.

The scrap of Latin, which, in conformity to established precedent, is prefixed to my paper, ex

hibits an example of the influence of Fashion beyond thofe limits, which are usually affigned to its prerogative. For were we to accept the definition of it, the most usually accepted, we should confider it only as the director of diverfion and drefs; of unmeaning compliment, and unfocial intimacy. And however evidently mistaken fuch an opinion might appear, we must look for its fource in one of the most prevailing principles of the human mind; a principle, (the excess of which we ftigmatize by the name of Pedantry) of deducing the illuftrations of every fubject of enquiry from the more immediate objects of our own purfuits, and circumfcribing its bounds within the limits of our own obfervation. On the contrary, we fhall find, that all our attempts to prefcribe bounds to the activity of this fo powerful agent, will end only in surprise at the extent of its authority; in astonishment at the univerfality of its influence. Its claim to an undifputed empire over language, is afferted by the author from whom I have taken the motto of this paper; with what juftice, the teftimony of a fucceeding age may declare; when a Cæfar, who made and unmade the Jaws of the world at his pleasure, found the smalleft innovation in language beyond the utmost limits of arbitrary power. Nothing indeed but the

highest

higheft vanity, nourished by the groffeft adulation, an idea of the infinitude of fovereign authority, and fervile obedience, could have given birth to fuch an attempt.

However paradoxical it may feem, that, in a matter of judgment and taste, the vague arbitration of individuals fhould be preferable to the abfolute decifion of a learned body; yet the imbecillity fo evident in the language of a neighbouring nation, and fo undoubtedly the effect of establishing fuch a court of criticism, leaves us little reafon to regret, that language with us, is fo entirely the child of chance and cuftom.-The firft prize of Rhetorick given to a woman, was a bad omen to the future endeavours of the French Academy..

To omit the innumerable inconveniencies attending on every attempt to regulate language; to judge of the poffible fuccefs of fuch an attempt, from the abftracted probability alone, were to declare it impoffible. A multitude of circumstances, equally unforeseen and unavoidable, muft concur to the formation of a language. An improvement, or corruption of manners; the reduction of a foreign enemy; or an invafion from abroad, are circumstances

that

that ultimately, or immediately, tend to produce fome change in the language of a people. And even of thefe, the moft feeble agents have been found more efficacious, than the joint operations of power and policy.

The conquests of this nation on the continent, contributed more perhaps to the naturalization of the French language amongst us, than the Norman invafion, and its attendant confequences, the neceffity laid on every individual, to acquire the use of that tongue in which all cafes of property were to be determined; and the numberJefs difadvantages and restrictions impofed on the study of the native language.

At a time when measures so seemingly decisive proved ineffectual, it may be curious to obferve the agency of others, apparently foreign from any connection with the improvement or alteration of our language. The refidence of our nobility in the conquered provinces of France, the continual wars maintained against that nation, making the ftudy of their language an indifpenfible qualification in all who afpired to civil or military dignities, unavoidably brought on a change in our own. The accufation, therefore,

of