ent day, are esteemed by those speaking the language, writers of reputation. It must be obvious, that in this way we do receive an answer to the proposed inquiry; for the fact, that a writer is esteemed by the public a good author, is evidence, that he uses words correctly, or as those speaking the language have agreed to use them. I would say then, that the standard to which we must appeal in all cases of Verbal criticism, is Good Usage.

Nature and design of a Dictionary.

From this view of the standard in verbal criticism, may be well learnt the nature and design of a Dictionary. When wishing to shew my opponent, that the word improve is used by authors of reputation, in a different sense from that which he defends, instead of seeking for passages, in which the word is used by different authors, I should have turned to the word in my Dictionary, and there have found the result, to which the compiler of the Dictionary had been led from an examination, such as I proposed. Hence it may be seen, why Johnson's Dictionary is sometimes called the standard of the English language. He has carefully investigated the meaning of words, as used by authors of reputation, and has given us the results, to which from these investigations, he has been led; and confiding in his fidelity and good judgment, we appeal to him as to a standard.

Manner in which changes in a language are effected.

From this view also, may be learnt the manner, in which old and long established words become obsolete, and new ones are introduced. When a word, from the harshness of its sound, from any indefiniteness in its

meaning, from its being no longer needed, or from any other cause, ceases to be in use by writers of reputation, for a considerable time, it is said to become obsolete, and is no longer considered a part of the langauge.

On the other hand, every new word that is introduced into a language, must be first proposed by some author of reputation. If it is thought necessary-if it expresses the meaning attached to it better than any other word, or is more harmonious than another word before used in the same sense, it is adopted by other writers of reputation, and thus becomes a part of the language. If it is thought unnecessary, it is not adopted, and the attempt to introduce it, fails. While then inconvenience is experienced from the changes of language, in that it renders the authors of one period unintelligible at another, this evil is balanced by the introduction of more significant and harmonious words. No new word however should ever be admitted, which is not decidedly an improvement. On the other hand, a word which is unharmonious in its sound, or which from any newly assɔciated idea, becomes unfit for the use formerly made of it, though its use be supported by the authority of good writers, should be objected to by critics, and-be suffered by writers to become obsolete. These remarks hold true, whether the word in question be entirely of new formation, whether it be made up of two or more words compounded together, or be introduced with or without modification from some other language.

Greater liberty however is given to poetical writers in the use of ancient words, and to scientific writers in the invention of new terms, than to those who are authors in other kinds of writing. The same word, which in a prose writer would be objected to as an obsolete term, might in poetry be received as supported by good

authority. This indulgence is granted to poetry, in consideration of the embarrassments of rhyme and of measure, which require a copiousness of language. On the other hand, science is progressive. New terms must be found to express new discoveries and inventions. The use of old words in new significations, would obviously create obscurity and mistake, and it is thought better, that new words should be introduced when new objects are to be represented. It is also common for writers on scientific subjects, to define the most important words in their works, especially those which are new or peculiar to the science. This liberty is given them, and it is expected in return, that they be uniform in the use of the word in the sense defined.

In connexion with these remarks, the influence of criticism on language, may be mentioned. Its object is the improvement of the language-the avoiding of all harsh, unharmonious words, those also which from their etymology, or any other cause are peculiarly liable to be misunderstood. This object is effected, not by the exercise of any authority, but by pointing out the of fensive word to the notice of the public, and dissuading from its use.

Good use not always uniform in her decisions; rules which should guide us where these decisions are at variance with each other.

Suppose that I should meet with the following sentence, "Beside he was a cotemporary writer of great delicateness of expression, and highly approved of." I might object to it, and say that besides would be better than beside-contemporary than cotemporary-delicacy than delicateness, and approved than approved of. Should I in support of my criticisms, appeal to good

usage, and mention several authors of reputation, in whose writings the forms of these words which I prefer, are uniformly used, it might be said in reply, that those forms which I condemn, are also as frequently found in the writings of authors of equally good reputation; and this could not be denied. In these instances then good use is not uniform in her decisions; and it is necessary that some other principles should be referred to, in determining which of these forms of words. is preferable. I might say then, that the word beside is used often as a preposition, and that where there are two forms of a word, each of which is supported by the authority of good authors, but one of these forms is sometimes differently used, it should be restricted to this particular use, and the other form alone used in that sense which has hitherto been common to both. Both perspicuity and variety evidently require this.

In preferring contemporary to cotemporary, I might plead the analogy of the language. Whenever the inseparable preposition con precedes a consonant in composition, the n is retained; we say conglomerate, conglutinate, concomitant. To this copartner is the only exception. But if this particle in composition, precedes a vowel, we use the form co; as coequal, coeternal. Hence in the present case, the analogy of the language requires that we say contemporary.

For preferring delicacy to delicateness, supposing the authorities on either side equal, I can give no other reason, than that it is more agreeable to the ear. Here then harmony of sound is the ground of choice.

In the other instance of criticism, where I prefer approved to approved of, simplicity of expression is the ground of choice. It is well known, that the use of numerous particles is a defect of our language. It weak

ens the strength of expression. The more simple and brief the form which is used, the better.

In instances then where good use is not uniform in her decisions, perspicuity and variety as leading to appropriate words to one uniform signification,-the analogy of the language, harmony of sound, and simplicity of expression, are the principles to which we should refer.

These principles are stated in the following rules, which may be applied to the examination of the examples referred to at the close of the chapter.

Rule 1. When two forms of a word have been used with the same signification, but one of them is sometimes found used in a different sense, the latter form should be restricted in its use to this latter meaning, and the other form used in that sense which has hitherto been common to both.

Rule 2. Of two forms of a word which are each supported by good use, we should prefer that which is agreeable to the analogy of the language.

Rule 3. If two forms of a word are supported by equal authority, and in other respects equal, the sound may determine us in our choice.

Rule 4. In doubtful cases, when no one of the preceding rules will apply, simplicity should be the ground of preference.

Cautions against the most frequent violations of the principles of Verbal Criticism.

From the statements that have now been made, we learn, that to use words with propriety, is to use them in that manner which is authorised by writers of reputation. The most important of those rules, by which we are to be governed in cases where authorities are divided, have