days of our forefathers, are become as strange to our ears as many parts of their garb would be to our eyes; and if so, such words have no more title than foreign words to be introduced at present; for though they are not so totally unknown as to occasion obscurity, a fault which I shall consider afterward, their appearance is so unusual, and their form is so antiquated, that, if not perfectly ridiculous, they at least suggest the notion of stiffness and affectation. We ought, therefore, not only to avoid words that are no longer understood by any but critics and antiquaries, such as hight, cleped, uneath, erst, whilom; we must also, when writing in prose and on serious subjects, renounce the aid of those terms which, though not unintelligible, all writers of any name have now ceased to use. Such are behest, fantasy, tribulation, erewhile, whenas, peradventure, selfsame, anon. All these offend more or less against the third criterion of good use formerly given,* that it be such as obtains at present.

Some indulgence, however, on this, as well as on several other articles, as was hinted already, must be given to poets on many accounts, and particularly on account of the peculiar inconveniences to which the laws of versification subject them. Besides, in treating some topics, passages of ancient story for example, there may be found sometimes a suitableness in the introduction of old words. In certain kinds of style, when used sparingly and with judgment, they serve to add the venerable air of antiquity to the narrative. In burlesque, also, they often produce a good effect. But it is admitted on all sides, that this species of writing is not strictly subjected to the laws of purity.

PART II. By the Use of New Words.

Another tribe of barbarisms much more numerous is cor stituted by new words. Here, indeed, the hazard is more imminent, as the tendency to this extreme is more prevalent. Nay, our language is in greater danger of being overwhelmed by an inundation of foreign words than any other species of destruction. There is, doubtless, some excuse for borrowing the assistance of neighbours, when their assistance is really wanted-that is, when we cannot do our business without it; but there is certainly a meanness in choosing to be indebted to others for what we can easily be supplied with out of our own stock. When words are introduced by any writer from a sort of necessity, in order to avoid tedious and languid circumlocutions, there is reason to believe they will soon be adopted by others convinced of the necessity, and will at length be naturalized by the public. But it is to be wished that the public would ever reject those which are ob

* Book ii., chap. i., sect. iii.

truded on it merely through a licentious affectation of novelty. And of this kind certainly are most of the words and phrases which have, in this century, been imported from France. Are not pleasure, opinionative, and sally, as expressive as volupty, opiniatre, and sortie? Wherein is the expression last resort inferior to dernier resort; liberal arts to beaux arts; and polite literature to belles lettres? Yet some writers have arrived at such a pitch of futility as to imagine that if they can but make a few trifling changes, like aimable for amiable, politesse for politeness, delicatesse for delicacy, and hauteur for haughtiness, they have found so many gems which are capable of adding a wonderful lustre to their works. With such, indeed, it is in vain to argue; but to others, who are not quite so unreasonable, I beg leave to suggest the following remarks.

First, it ought to be remembered that the rules of pronun ciation and orthography in French are so different from those which obtain in English, that the far greater part of the French words lately introduced constitute so many anomalies with us, which, by loading the grammatical rules with exceptions, greatly corrupt the simplicity and regularity of our tongue.

Nor is this the only way in which they corrupt its simplicity; let it be observed farther, that one of the principal beauties of any language, and the most essential to simplicity, results from this: that a few plain and primitive words, called roots, have, by an analogy which hath insensibly established itself, given rise to an infinite number of derivative and compound words, between which and the primitive, and between the former and their conjugates, there is a resemblance in sense, corresponding to that which there is in sound. Hence it will happen that a word may be very emphatical in the language to which it owes its birth, arising from the light that is reflected on it by the other words of the same etymology, which, when it is transplanted into another language, loses its emphasis entirely. The French word eclaircissement, for instance, is regularly deduced thus: Eclaircissement, eclaircisse, eclaircir, eclair, clair, which is the etymon, whence are also descended clairement, clarté, clarifier, clarification, eclairer. The like may be observed in regard to connoisseur, reconnoitre, argrémens, and a thousand others; whereas such words with us look rather like strays than like any part of our own property. They are very much in the condition of exiles, who, having been driven from their families, relations, and friends, are compelled to take refuge in a country where there is not a single person with whom they can claim a connexion, either by blood or by alliance.

But the patrons of this practice will probably plead that, as the French is the finer language, ours must certainly be

improved by the mixture. Into the truth of the hypothesis from which they argue, I shall not now inquire. It sufficeth for my present purpose to observe, that the consequence is not logical, though the plea were just. A liquor produced by the mixture of two liquors of different qualities will often prove worse than either. The Greek is, doubtless, a language much superior in richness, harmony, and variety to the Latin; yet, by an affection in the Romans of Greek words and idioms (like the passion of the English for whatever is imported from France), as much, perhaps, as by anything, the Latin was not only vitiated, but lost almost entirely, in a few centuries, that beauty and majesty which we discover in the writings of the Augustan age. On the contrary, nothing contributed more to the preservation of the Greek tongue in its native purity for such an amazing number of centuries, unexampled in the history of any other language, than the contempt they had of this practice. It was in consequence of this contempt that they were the first who branded a foreign term in any of their writers with the odious name of barbarism.

But there are two considerations which ought especially to weigh with authors, and hinder them from wantonly admitting such extraneous productions into their performances. One is, if these foreigners be allowed to settle among us, they will infallibly supplant the old inhabitants. Whatever ground is given to the one, is so much taken from the other. Is it, then, prudent in a writer to foment a humour of innovation which tends to make the language of his country still more changeable, and, consequently, to render the style of his own writings the sooner obsolete? Nor let it be imagined that this is not a necessary consequence. Nothing can be juster than Johnson's manner of arguing on this subject, in regard to what Swift a little chimerically proposeth, that though new words be introduced, none should be permitted to become obsolete.* For what makes a word obsolete but a general, though tacit, agreement to forbear it? and what so readily produces this agreement as another term which hath gotten a vogue and currency, and is always at hand to supply its place? And if thus, for some time, a word is overlooked or neglected, how shall it be recalled when it hath once, by disuse, become unfamiliar, and, by unfamiliarity, unpleasing?

The other consideration is, that if he should not be followed in the use of those foreign words which he hath endeavoured to usher into the language, if they meet not with a favourable reception from the public, they will ever appear as spots in his work. Such is the appearance which the terms opine, ignore, fraicheur, adroitness, opiniatry, and opinialrety, have at present in the writings of some ingenious men * Preface to the Dictionary.

Whetner, therefore, he be or be not imitated, he will himself prove a loser at last. I might add to these, that as borrowing naturally exposeth to the suspicion of poverty, this pov erty will much more readily, and more justly too, be imputed to the writer than to the language.

Inventors in the arts and discoverers in science have an indisputable title to give names to their own inventions and discoveries. When foreign inventions and discoveries are imported into this island, it is both natural and reasonable that the name should accompany the thing. Nay, in regard even to evils of foreign growth, I should not object to the observance of the same rule. Were any one to insist that we have not in our language words precisely corresponding to the French galimatias, phebus, verbiage, gasconade, rhodomontade, I should not contend with him about it; nor should I, perhaps, dislike that the very name served to show that these plants are natives of a ranker soil, and did not originally belong to us. But if the introduction of exotic words were never admitted except in such cases, or in order to supply an evident want among ourselves, we should not at present have one such term where we have fifty. The advice of the poet with regard to both the before-mentioned sorts of barbarism is extremely good.

"In words, as fashions, the same rule will hold-
Alike fantastic if too new or old :

Be not the first by whom the new are tried,
Nor yet the last to lay the old aside."*

PART III. By the Use of Good Words new-modelled.

The third species of barbarism is that produced by new formations and compositions from primitives in present use. I acknowledge, that when the English analogy is observed in the derivation or composition, and when the new-coined word is wanted in the language, greater liberty ought to be given on this article than on the former. The reason of the difference will appear from what hath been said already. But still, this is a liberty which needs an excuse from necessity, and is in no case pardonable, unless the words be at least not disagreeable to the ear, and be so analogically formed that a reader, without the help of the context, may easily discover the meaning.†

Now, if the plea of necessity be requisite, what quarter is due to such frivolous innovations as these: incumverment,

Pope's Essays on Criticism.

†There are some words of recent introduction which come so much under this description, that it might be accounted too fastidious in the critic entirely to reject them. Such are continental, sentimental, originality, crimi nality, capability, to originate, to figure, to adduce, and, perhaps, a few others + Bolingbroke.

*

portic, martyrized,* eucharisty,* analyze,* connexity,* Stoician,* Platonician, Peripatetician,* Pythagorician,* fictious,† majestatic,‡ acception, which were intended solely to express what had always been at least as well expressed by encumberance, portico, martyr'd, eucharist, analysis, connexion, Stoic, Platonist, Peripatetic, Pythagorean, fictitious, majestic, acceptation. And if any regard is due to the ear, what shall we say of-I cannot call it the composition, but-the collision of words which are naturally the most unfit for coalescing, like saintauthors, saintprotectrices, architectcapacity, commentatorcapacity, authorcharacter, and many others forged in the same taste, to be found in the pages of a late right-honourable author?|| And, lastly, if the analogy of the language must be preserved in composition, to what kind of reception are the following entitled, all fabricated in the same shop: selfend, selfpassion, selfaffections, selfpractice, homedialect, bellysense, mirrourwriting?

It may, indeed, be urged, that the pronoun self is used in composition with such latitude, that one can scarcely err in forming new words with its assistance. But this is a mis take. New words may be formed by it, but they must be formed analogically. And the analogy of these formations may be understood from observing that, when analyzed thus, they ought regularly to exhibit the same meaning. Make one's self, himself, herself, itself, or themselves, as the case requires, follow the last word in the compound, with the preposition intervening, with which the word, whether noun or participle, is usually construed. If the word be a substantive, the preposition is commonly of; if the passive participle, by; and if the active participle, no preposition is requisite. Thus self-love is the love of one's self. In the same way are resolved self-hate, self-murder, self-preservation. When we say of a man that he is self-condemned, we mean that he is condemned by himself. A self-consuming fire is a fire consuming itself.

Now to apply this observation, what is the meaning of the end of one's seif, the passion of one's self, the affections of one's self, and the practice of one's self? And if some meaning may be affixed to any of these expressions, it is easy to perceive that it is not the meaning of the author. Yet I can remember but two compounds that have obtained in English which are not formed according to the analogy above explained. The one is self-willed, signifying perverse, and now little used; the other is self-existence, a favourite word of some metaphysicians, which, if it signify anything more than what is properly and clearly expressed by independency and eternity, signifies I know not what. In new formations, however, the rule ought to be followed, and not the exceptions. But what shall be said of such monsters as selfpractice, bellysense, and Spectator, No 580.

* Bolingbroke.
Hammond.

+ Prior.
|| Shaftesbury.