nature, are neither good nor bad, being of themselves nothing but mere sounds, but only as they are opportunely and properly, or otherwise applied. (Lib. X. 2.) But among whom must we look for that custom, which is, on this occasion, to be the judge? It might seem plausible to answer, that any word used by the majority of a nation, should be admitted as part of the national language. But to say nothing of the difficulty of ascertaining this point, should we be, in all cases, willing to abide the result? Are no words used by a majority of our own or any other nation, which no good writer would admit into composition, which he designed to make public? Manners are judged of, not by those of a clown, nor by those, which prevail among the majority; nor should we seek for the established rules of medical practice among empirics and charlatans. "As money, to be current, requires to be struck from the die of the state; so," says the Roman Rhetorician, "language, to be received, requires the consent of the learned." "I shall therefore, call the genuine custom of speaking," continues he, "the consent of the learned; as that of living, the approbation of honest men." The canon, which Dr. Campbell has adopted, though much more definite than that of Quinctilian, does not contradict it. The two lines are parallel, though one is more extensive; perhaps I ought rather to say, more broad and distinct, than the other. Use, in order to become the sole mistress of language, according to Dr. Campbell, must be reputable, national and present. Under national use he comprehends whatever modes of speech are authorized as good by the writings of many, if not the majority of celebrated authors." The word national, he uses, both in opposition to provincial and foreign. The meaning, which he attaches to the epithet present, may be judged of by this remark. "It is safest for an author to consider those words and idioms as obsolete, which have been disused by all good authors, for a longer period, than the age of man. (Vol. I. 315.) If in this rule, notwithstanding the author's labor to draw his lines distinctly, we find less precision, than might be desired, we ought to inquire, whether there be not as much, as the subject admits. The rule has, indeed, for another reason, been severely condemned by a distinguished rhetorician of our own. "It supposes," says he, "a long, settled, universal practice of usages, which never could commence." (Adams's Lectures.) May we not rather say, that it supposes, agreeably to well known fact, that men will sometimes, in their language, depart from common usage, and introduce terms, which have no such authority? But the author's censure proceeds further. "The principle of Dr. Campbell, continues he, holds up a purity to be compounded of impurities multiplied. The first time a word is used, by this rule it must be impure. The second, third, and fourth time, it is still impure, though still in a lessening degree. In proportion to the number of its repetitions it grows continually clearer, until by obtruding its pollution on the whole nation, and their best writers for a number of years, it clarifies into a chrystal." It will not, I hope, be considered disrespectful to the distinguished author of this animadversion, to inquire whether it contains as much of sound argument, as it does of rhetorical vivacity-and further to ask, whether, were it possible for a piece of bad gold to lose a portion of its alloy, or to acquire some degree of purity from every individual, through whose hands it passed, and in this way, eventually to become standard gold, its purity thus acquired, would be "compounded of impurities multiplied?" The rule does indeed imply that he, who first uses a new word, or an old word in a new sense, violates the purity of language; but he does it at his own risk; he is making an experiment. Terms thus introduced, to borrow the expression of Dr. Johnson, "stand as candidates or probationers, and must depend for their adoption, on the suffrages of futurity." The republic of letters many either admit or reject them. It is certainly a bold experiment, which a modest man would be cautious of making. To put the matter in another, and less favorable point of view, if good right to private property, or even a kingdom, may be acquired by prescription, or a long possession, though such possession commenced in usurpation, why may not a word, originally impure, lose its native contamination by long continued and general use? In fine, the thing implied in Dr. Campbell's rule is no more inconsistent or absurd than that what was once not customary, should by a series of acts become so. We come now to a question, which no European has occasion to answer; a question, which arises from the peculiar relation, which our country bears to Great Britain. Under reputable use, Campbell comprehends whatever modes of speech are authorized as good, by many, if not the majority of celebrated authors. These authors, for the present, will hardly be looked for in America; or if they should be, it will be in connexion with a much greater number in the land of our forefath ers. This must be deemed a just and reasonable way of proceeding, until our literature and literary men shall be able to hold an honorable competition with theirs. This would certainly imply, that no word, with the exceptions already made, of such as may be peculiar to our government, religion, etc. should be considered as in good use, which has never been so considered there. But are we to imitate them in their estimate of terms as obsolete? Must we relinquish a word, which having received from the best English authors, we have preserved for a century, because no man in England can recollect the time, when it was there in good use? The dilemma is this, if we retain what she discards, we, in this respect, break off our intercourse with the present literature of England. If we discard, in imitation of her, we equally break communication with her ancient literature. On this subject I do not presume to offer an opinion. END. GENERAL INDEX. A. Academies, their value; inquiry whether a moderate number, well Actions moral, essential difference in, ii. 324, 402. In general readily Agency free, not difficult, in most cases, to conceive how divine in- Alor, aiovios, their import, ii. 87, etc. Amusements, how far justifiable in students, ii. 378. Antoninus Marcus, his opinions on a divine Providence, i. 148. - 62 ence to right and wrong, 470; or varying the objection, every ac- B. Baptized children sustain a peculiar relation to the church, ii. 316. C. Character, harmony of, ii. 432. How best promoted, 433. Whether Christ. His character, i. 478. His sufferings the ground of justifica- 296. See below. Christianity, Evidences of, i. 274 et seq. Testimony from pagan |