of English undefiled; as the pure sources of genuine "diction. Our language, for almost a century, has

66

66

'by the concurrence of many causes, been gradually

departing from its ancient Teutonic character, and

deviating towards a Gallic structure and phraseo"logy; from which it ought to be our endeavour to "recal it; by making our ancient volumes the

66

'groundwork of our style, admitting among the "additions of later times, only such as may supply "real deficiencies; such as are readily adopted by the "genius of our tongue, and incorporate easily with our native idioms"

In his preface to the works of Shakespeare, we also find the following very applicable sentiments: "I believe there is in every nation, a style that

66

never becomes obsolete, a certain mode of phra

seology so consonant and congenial to the prin

ciples of its respective language, as to remain "settled and unaltered"

"The polite are always catching modish inno"vations, and the learned depart from established "forms of speech, in hopes of finding or making

"better; those who wish for distinction, forsake the

66

vulgar when the vulgar is right; but there is a "conversation above grossness and below refinement, "where propriety resides, and where Shakespeare

66

seems to have gathered his comic dialogue. He "is therefore more agreeable to the ears of the pre"sent age than any other author equally remote, and 66 among his other excellencies deserves to be studied "as one of the original masters of our language." These passages I have inserted, because such a testimony from this great man will at least be thought impartial by every person acquainted with the characteristics of his style.

The alterations in our language here mentioned, are certainly not for the better; they give the phraseology a disgusting air of study and formality; they have their source in affectation, not in taste; yet novelty has its attractions, and what Quintilian says of Seneca's works, may be fairly applied to our later English writers: "In eloquendo corrupta plera

66

que, et eo perniciosissima, quod abundabant dulci"bus vitiis." Though these exotic terms and phrases

are not really better than our home-bred English ; yet their newness gives them a spurious sort of beauty; though they do not really enrich the dress of our thoughts, yet they are a kind of tinsel ornaments, admired because they glitter and stare. The writers I allude to may perhaps have succeeded in giving our language a higher polish, but have they not also curtailed and impoverished it? Perhaps they may have cleared it of some cant terms, low phrases, and awkward constructions; but what they may have gained in accuracy have they not lost in variety? Have they not reduced all kinds of composition to an insipid uniformity? Is not the spirit of our language lowered, its freedom cramped, and its range of expression narrowed?

I shall not be required to prove this opinion by such of my readers as are acquainted with the works of Hooker, Taylor, Swift, Pope, Addison, and Dryden, with the prose of Cowley, and with Shakespeare's "immortal wit." However, the prevalence of fashion is so strong, that all resistance to this adulteration of our language may be ineffectual; and it is well

To

worthy of notice, that every polite nation, hitherto distinguished in literature, has, after a certain period, declined in taste and purity of composition. The later Greek writers are known by the diminutive term, "Græculi," and the Augustan age denotes an æra before the Latin tongue was vitiated and spoiled by vain refinements and affected innovations. prevent a similar decline of the French language, the French Academy has endeavoured to render it at once more pure and more durable; but the republic of letters is a true republic, in its disregard to the arbitrary decrees of usurped authority. Perhaps such an institution would do still less with us. Our critics are allowed to petition, but not to command; and why should their power be enlarged? The laws of our speech, like the laws of our country, should breathe a spirit of liberty; they should check licentiousness, without restraining freedom.

The most effectual method of preserving our language from decay, and preventing a total disregard to the Saxon part of it, is to change our present mode of education.

Children are generally taught the grammar of a foreign tongue before they understand that of their own; but if they chance to be instructed in the principles of their native tongue, they learn them from some system that does little more than fetter it with the rules of construction drawn from another language. Dr. Lowth, in his preface, has taken notice of this circumstance.

"A grammatical study of our own language "makes no part of the ordinary method of instruc"tion which we pass through in our childhood, and "it is very seldom that we apply ourselves to it "afterwards."

"Yet the want of it will never be effectually "supplied by any other advantages whatsoever."Much practice in the polite world, and a general

66

acquaintance with the best authors are good helps; “but alone will hardly be sufficient; we have writers "who have enjoyed these advantages in their full "extent, and yet cannot be recommended as models "of an accurate style-Much less then will, what is