deficient in these virtues is not treated as criminal; but to be eminent for the practice of them is accounted meritorious. As, therefore, in what regards the laws of purity, the violation is much more conspicuous than the observance, I am under the disagreeable necessity of taking my illustrations on this article solely from the former.

Purity, it was said, implies three things. Accordingly, in three different ways it may be injured. First, the words used may not be English. This fault hath received from grammarians the denomination of barbarism. Secondly, the construction of the sentence may not be in the English idiom. This hath gotten the name of solecism. Thirdly, the words and phrases may not be employed to express the precise meaning which custom hath affixed to them. This is termed impropriety.*

SECTION I.

THE BARBARISM.

THE reproach of barbarism may be incurred by three different ways; by the use of words entirely obsolete, by the use of words entirely new, or by new formations and compositions from simple and primitive words in present use.

OBSOLETE words, though they once were English, are not so now; though they were both proper and expressive in the 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 afterwards, 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.

* Quintillian hath suggested this distribution. Instit. lib. i. cap. 5. Deprehendat quæ barbara, quæ impropria, quæ contra legem loquendi composita. † Botk II. Chap. i. Sect. iii.

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 judgement, 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.

ANOTHER tribe of barbarisms much more numerous is constituted 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 obtruded 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 pronunciation 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 simpliciy; let it be observed further, 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 ows 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, clairifier, clarification, eclairer. The like may be observed in regard to connoisseur, reconnoitre, agrémens, 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 riches, 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 any thing, 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 amongst 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 Johnsons'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 opiniatrety, have at present in the writings of some ingenious men. Whether, therefore, he be, or be not, imitated, he will himself prove a looser at last. I might add to these, that as borrowing naturally exposeth to the suspicion of poverty, this poverty will much more readily, and more justly, too, be imputed to the writer than to the language.

Inventors in the arts, and discoveries 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 amongst 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 tri'd,
Nor yet the last to lay the old aside.†

PART III. By the use of good words new-moddled.

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 warted 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

* Preface to the Dictionary.
† Pope's Essays on Criticism.

4

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, incumberment,† portic,† martyrised, 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, sloic, platonist, peripatetic, pythagorean, fictitious, majestic, acceptation. And if any regard is due to the ear, what shall we say ofI 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 mistake. 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 sense 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 selflove is the love of one's self. In the same way are resolved, selfhate, selfmurder, selfpreservation. When we say of a man that he is selfcondemned, we mean, that he is condemned by himself. A selfconsuming fire, is a fire consuming itself.

Now to apply this observation, what is the meaning of the end of one's self, 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 selfwilled, signifying perverse, and now little

*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, criminality, capability, to originate, to figure, to adduce, and perhaps a few others.

† Bolingbroke.
§ Spectator, No. 580.
Shaftesbury.

† Prior.
Hammond.