Canon the seventh.

The second canon on this subject is, When etymology plainly points to a signification different from that which the word commonly bears, propriety and simplicity both require its dismission.

I use the word plainly, because, when the etymology is from an ancient or foreign language, or from obsolete roots in our own language, or when it is obscure or doubtful, no regard should be had to it. The case is different, when the roots either are, or strongly appear to be, English, are in present use, and clearly suggest another meaning. Of this kind is the word beholden, for obliged or indebted. It should regularly be the passive participle of the verb to behold, which would convey a sense totally different. Not that I consider the term as equivocal, for in the last acceptation it hath long since been disused, having been supplanted by beheld. But the formation of the word is so analogical, as to make it have at least the appearance of impropriety, when used in a sense that seems naturally so foreign to it. The word beholding, to express the same thing, is still more exceptionable than the other, and includes a real impropriety, being an active form with a passive signification. To vouchsafe, as denoting to condescend, is liable to a similar exception, and for that reason, more than for its harshness, may be dispensed with. Coaction and coactive, as signifying com

mixture of long and short syllables, as prevents that difficulty of utterance which was remarked in some English words. Such are also in Latin, dixisses, spississimus, percrebrescebantque. The last of these words is very rough, and the two first have as much of the hissing letters as any English word whatever. The Italian is considered, and I believe justly, as the most musical of all languages, yet there are in it some sounds which even to us, accustomed to a dialect boisterous like our weather, appear harsh and jarring. Such are incrociccihiare, sdruccioloso, spregiatrice. There is a great difference between words that sound harshly, but are of easy pronunciation to the natives, and those words which even to natives occasion difficulty in the utterance, and consequently convey some idea of awkwardness to the hearer, which is prejudicial to the design. There are in the languages of all countries, many words which foreigners will find a difficulty in pronouncing, that the natives have no conception of. The Greeks could not easily articulate the Latin determinations in ans and ens. On the other hand, there were many sounds in Greek which appeared intolerable to the Latins, such as words beginning with μv, 40, 4, πT, KT, and many others. No people have so studiously avoided the collision of consonants as the Italians. To their delicate ears pt, ct, and es, or x, though belonging to different syllables, and interposed between vowels, are offensive, nor can they easily pronounce them. Instead of apto, and lecto, and Alexandro, they must say atto, and letto, and Allessandro. Yet these very people begin some of their words with the three consonants sdr, which to our ears are perfectly shocking. It is not therefore so much harshness of sound, as difficulty of utterance, that should make some words be rejected altogether. The latter tends to divert our attention, and consequently to obstruct the effect. The former hath not this tendency, unless they be obtruded on us too frequently.

pulsion and compulsive, though regularly deduced from the Latin coactum, have so much the appearance of being compounded of the English words action and active, with the inseparable preposition co, which would give them a meaning quite different, that one can scarcely hear them without some tendency to mistake the sense. The verb to unloose, should analogically signify to tie, in like manner as to untie signifies to loose. To what purpose is it then, to retain a term, without any necessity, in a signification the reverse of that which its etymology manifestly suggests? In the same way to annul and to disannul, ought by analogy to be contraries, though irregularly used as synonymous. The verb to unravel, commonly indeed, as well as analogically, signifies to disentangle, to extricate: sometimes, however, it is absurdly employed to denote the contrary, to disorder, to entangle, as in these lines in the address to the goddess of Dulness,

Or quite unravel all the reasoning thread,
And hand some curious cobweb in its steade.

All considerations of analogy, propriety, perspicuity, unite in persuading us to repudiate this preposterous application altogether.

Canon the eighth.

The third canon is, When any words become obsolete, or at least are never used, except as constituting part of particular phrases, it is better to dispense with their service entirely, and give up the phrases.

The reasons are; first, because the disuse in ordinary cases renders the term somewhat indefinite; and occasions a degree of obscurity: secondly, because the introduction of words which never appear but with the same attendants, gives the style an air of vulgarity and cant. Examples of this we have in the words lief, dint, whit, moot, pro and con, as, "I had as lief go myself," for "I should like as well to go myself." "He convinced his antagonist by dint of argument," that is, "by strength of argument.' "He made them yield by dint of arms,"-by force of arms."

"He is not a whit

better,-"no better." "The case you mention is a moot point,"-"a disputable point." "The question was strenuously debated pro and con,"-" on both sides."

Canon the ninth.

The fourth and last canon I propose, is, All those phrases, which, when analysed grammatically, include a solecism, and

e Dunciad, B. i.

all those to which use hath affixed a particular sense, but which, when explained by the general and established rules of the language, are susceptible either of a different sense or of no sense, ought to be discarded altogether.

It is this kind of phraseology which is distinguished by the epithet idiomatical, and hath been originally the spawn, partly of ignorance, and partly of affectation. Of the first sort, which includes a solecism, is the phrase, "I had rather do such a thing," for "I would rather do it." The auxiliary had, joined to the infinitive active do, is a gross violation of the rules of conjugation in our language, and though good use may be considered as protecting this expression from being branded with the name of a blunder, yet as it is both irregular and unnecessary, I can foresee no inconvenience that will arise from dropping it. I have seen this idiom criticised in some essay, whose name I cannot now remember, and its origin very naturally accounted for, by supposing it to have sprung from the contraction I'd, which supplies the place both of I had and of I would, and which hath been at first ignorantly resolved into I had, when it ought to have been I would. The phrase thus frequently mistaken, hath come at length to establish itself, and to stand on its own foot.

Of the second sort, which, when explained grammatically, leads to a different sense from what the words in conjunction commonly bear, is, "He sings a good song," for "he sings well." The plain meaning of the words as they stand connected is very different, for who sees not that a good song may be ill sung? Of the same stamp is, "He plays a good fiddle," for "he plays well on the fiddle." This seems also to involve a solecism. We speak indeed of playing a tune, but it is always on the instrument.

Nothing can be more common or less proper than to speak of a river's emptying itself. Dr. Johnson, in his dictionary, explains the verb to empty, as importing to evacuate to exhaust. Amongst his authorities we have this sentence from Arbuthnot. The Euxine sea is conveniently situated for trade, by the communication it has with Asia and Europe, and the great navigable rivers that empty themselves into it.”

f Whether with Johnson and Lowth we should consider the phrases by this means. by that means, it is a means, as liable to the same exception, is perhaps more doubtful. Priestley considers the word means as of both numbers, and of such nouns we have several examples in the language. But it may be objected, that as the singular form mean is still frequently to be met with, this must inevitably give to the above phrases an appearance of solecism, in the judgment of those who are accustomed to attend to the rules of syntax. But however this may induce such critics to avoid the expressions in question, no person of taste, I presume, will venture so far to violate the present usage, and consequently to shock the ears of the generality of readers as to say, "By this mean," or "By that mean.”

Passing the word rivers as a metonymy for their channels, are these ever evacuated or exhausted?" To say a river falls into the sea, or a ship falls down the river, is entirely proper, as the motion is no other than a fall down a real though gentle declivity.

Under the third sort, which can scarcely be considered as literally conveying any sense, may be ranked a number of vile, but common phrases, sometimes to be found in good authors, like shooting at rovers, having a month's mind, currying favour, dancing attendance, and many others. Of the same kind also, though not reprehensible in the same degree, is the idiomatical use that is sometimes made of certain verbs, as stand, for insist, "he stands upon security;" take for understand, in such phrases as these, “You take me," and "as I take it;" hold for continue, as "he does not hold long in one mind." But of all kinds, the worst is that wherein the words, when construed, are susceptible of no meaning at all. Such an expression is the following, "There were seven ladies in the company, every one prettier than another," by which it is intended, I suppose, to denote that they were all very pretty. One prettier, implies that there is another less pretty, but where every one is prettier, there can be none less, and consequently none more pretty. Such trash is the disgrace of any tongue. Ambitiously to display nonsensical phrases of this sort, as some writers have affected to do, under the ridiculous notion of a familiar and easy manner, is not to set off the riches of a language, but to expose its rags. As such idioms, therefore, err alike against purity, simplicity, perspicuity, and elegance, they are entitled to no quarter from the critic. A few of these in the writings of good authors, I shall have occasion to point out, when I come to speak of the solecism and the impropriety.

So much for the canons of verbal criticism, which properly succeed the characters of good use, proposed in the preceding chapter for the detection of the most flagrant errors in the choice, the construction, and the application of words. The first five of these canons are intended to suggest the principles by which our choice ought to be directed, in cases wherein use itself is wavering, and the four last to point out those further improvements which the critical art, without exceeding her legal powers, may assist in producing. There are, indeed, who seem disposed to extend her authority much further. But we ought always to remember, that as the principal mode of improving a language, which she is empowered to employ, is by condemning and exploding, there is a considerable danger, lest she carry her improvements this way too far. Our mother-tongue, by being too much impaired, may be impoverished, and so more injured in copious

ness and nerves, than all our refinements will ever be able to compensate. For this reason there ought, in support of every sentence of proscription, to be an evident plea from the principles of perspicuity, elegance, or harmony.

If so, the want of etymology, whatever be the opinion of some grammarians, cannot be reckoned a sufficient ground for the suppression of a significant term, which hath come into good use. For my part, I should think it as unreasonable to reject, on this account, the assistance of an expressive word, which opportunely offers its service, when perhaps no other could so exactly answer my purpose, as to refuse the needful aid of a proper person, because he could give no account of his family or pedigree. Though what is called cant is generally, not necessarily, nor always, without etymology, it is not this defect, but the baseness of the use which fixeth on it that disgraceful appellation. No absolute monarch hath it more in his power to nobilitate a person of obscure birth, than it is in the power of good use to ennoble words of low or dubious extraction; such, for instance, as have either arisen, nobody knows how, like fib, banter, bigot, fop, flippant, among the rabble, or like flimsy, sprung from the cant of manufacturers. It is never from an attention to etymology, which would frequently mislead us, but from custom, the only infallible guide in this matter, that the meanings of words in present use must be learnt. And, indeed, if the want in question were material, it would equally affect all those words, no inconsiderable part of our language, whose descent is doubtful or unknown. Besides, in no case can the line of derivation be traced backwards to infinity. We must always terminate in some words of whose genealogy no account can be given.

It ought, at the same time, to be observed, that what hath been said on this topic, relates only to such words as bear no distinguishable traces of the baseness of their source; the case is quite different in regard to those terms, which may be said to proclaim their vile and despicable origin, and that either by associating disagreeable and unsuitable ideas, as

8 Dr. Johnson, who notwithstanding his acknowledged learning, penetration, and ingenuity, appears sometimes, if I may adopt his own expression, lost in lexicography," hath declared the name punch, which signifies a certain mixt liquor very well known, a cant word, because, being to appearance without etymology, it hath probably arisen from some silly conceit among the people. The name sherbet, which signifies another known mixture, he allows to be good, because it is Arabic; though, for aught we know, its origin among the Arabs, hath been equally ignoble or uncertain. By this way of reckoning, if the word punch, in the sense wherein we use it, should by any accident be imported into Arabia, and come into use there, it would make good Arabic, though it be but cant English; as their sherbet, though in all likelihood but cant Arabic, makes good English. This, I own, appears to me very capricious.