plead the authority of Milton, or some standard contemporary poet, may be justly regarded as obsolete. But in prose (except in burlesque, or in treating of passages of ancient story, or when the subject is on some art or science), no word should be employed which has ceased to be used by good writers for the last half-century. This remark is applicable, not only to terms and phrases, but also to the declension, combination, and construction of words.

The usages of written, rather than of oral language, determine the rules of Grammar, because the former exhibit not only present, but national and reputable usage.

Another reason for forming the rules of Grammar on the usages of written rather than of oral language is, that oral language is not generally uttered with sufficient care to avoid mistakes, but written language requires greater caution in the choice and accuracy of expression, that the meaning of the writer may be distinctly conveyed.

CANONS OF CRITICISM.

As good usage is not always uniform in its decisions, unquestionable authorities being found for different modes of expression, the following canons of criticism, proposed by Dr. Campbell, in his Philosophy of Rhetoric, will enable the student to decide, to which mode of expression the preference is due.

1. Canons to determine the Choice of Words.

Canon 1. When usage is divided, as to any particular words or phrases, and when one of the expressions is susceptible of a different meaning, while the other admits only one signification, the expression, which is strictly univocal, should be preferred.

For this reason, aught, signifying "any thing," is better than ought; scarcely, as an adverb, is better than scarce; by consequence is preferable to of consequence, which signifies also "of importance." "To speak contemptuously of a person," is better than "to speak contemptibly;" the latter term meaning, generally, in a contemptible manner, or in a manner worthy of contempt, whereas, the former is univocal, and denotes disrespectfully, or "in a manner significant of contempt."

The term primitive, as equivalent to original, is preferable to primary. The latter is synonymous with principal, and is opposed to secondary; the former is equivalent to original, and is opposed to derivative or acquired.

Canon 2. In doubtful cases, analogy should be regarded.

For this reason, contemporary is better than cotemporary, con being used before a consonant, and co before a vowel; as, concomitant, coeval. For a similar reason, "it needs," "he dares, "whether he will or not," are preferable to "he need," "he dare," "whether he will or no."

Canon 3. When expressions are in other respects equal, that should be preferred, which is most agreeable to the ear.

Canon 4. When none of the preceding Rules takes place, regard should be had to simplicity. On this ground, accept, approve, admit, are preferable to accept of, approve of, admit of.

2. Canons to determine the Disuse or Rejection of Words and Phrases.

Though no expression or mode of speech, which is not sanctioned by usage, can be justified, we must not, hence, suppose that every phraseology sanctioned by usage, is to be retained. In such cases, custom may be properly checked by criticism, the province of which is, not only to remonstrate against the introduction of any word or phraseology, which may be either unnecessary or contrary to analogy, but also to exclude whatever is reprehensible, though in general use.

It is by the exercise of this prerogative of criticism, that languages are gradually refined and improved, which would otherwise either become stationary or hasten to decline. In exercising this authority, criticism cannot pretend instantly to degrade any phraseology, which she may deem objectionable; but she may, by repeated remonstrances, gradually cancel it. Her decisions, in such cases, may be properly regulated by the following canons, as delivered by the same author.

Canon 1. All words and phrases, particularly harsh, and not absolutely necessary, should be dismissed; as, shamefacedness, unsuccessfulness, wrongheadedness.

A word or phrase is considered necessary, when there are no synonymous words in the event of a dismission, to supply its place, or no way of conveying properly the same idea without the aid of circumlocution.

The following criteria will enable the student to determine what words are considered objectionable.

Criterion 1. Terms composed of words already compounded, the several parts of which are not easily united; such as shame-faced-ness, dis-interest-ed-ness.

Criterion 2. When a word is so formed and accented as to render it of difficult utterance; such as, questionless, primarily, peremptorily.

Criterion 3. A short or unaccented syllable repeated at the end of a word is always disagreeable, and should, therefore, be avoided; as in holily, sillily.

Canon 2. When the etymology plainly points to a different signification from what the word bears, propriety and simplicity require its dismission. Thus, the word beholden taken for obliged, and the verb to unloose for to loose or untie, should be rejected.

For the same reason, annul and disannul ought not to be considered synonymous.

Canon 3. When words become obsolete, or are never used except in particular phrases, they should be repudiated; as they give the style an air of vulgarity, while their general disuse renders them obscure.

Of these, lief, dint, whit, moot, pro and con, furnish examples; as, "I had as lief go;" "by dint of argument;" "a moot point;" "it was argued pro and con." These phraseologies are too vulgar to be admitted into good writing.

Canon 4. All words and phrases which, analysed grammatically, include a solecism, should be dismissed; as, "I had rather go," for "I would rather go," or, "I'd rather go."

Canon 5. All expressions which, according to the established Rules of the language, either have no meaning or involve a contradiction, or, according to the fair construction of the words, convey a meaning different from the intention of the speaker, should be dismissed.

1. Of expressions which have little or no meaning, the following are examples ;"Currying favour." "Having a month's mind for a thing." Such expressions ought always to be avoided.

2. Of expressions involving a contradiction, the following will serve as an example. "There were four ladies in the company, every one prettier than another." This is impossible.

3. The following expressions convey a meaning different from the intention of the speaker; "He sings a good song;" this phrase, as it is at present constructed, implies that the song is good; but the speaker meant to say, "He sings well." In the same manner, when it is said, "This is the best part he acts," the sentence, according to the strict interpretation of the words, expresses an opinion, not of the manner of his acting, but of the part or character which he acts. It should, therefore, be, "He acts this part better than any other." For a similar reason, the following sentence is incorrect; "Who is learning you geography?" instead of "Who is teaching you geography?"

II.-STYLE.

Style is the peculiar manner of expression which we adopt to convey our ideas to others.

The principal qualities of a good Style, are Perspicuity and Energy; and, next in importance, Elegance.

PERSPICUITY OF STYLE.

as shall

Perspicuity of Style implies the use of such words and phrases, and such an arrangement of them, our ideas with clearness, accuracy, and precision.

convey

1. An author's meaning must be easily perceived without the least uncertainty or conjecture, even by the most careless and inattentive reader.

2. Though Perspicuity is an essential, yet it is a relative quality, and, consequently, cannot properly be asserted of any work, without a tacit reference to the class of readers or hearers for which it is designed. The style which is adapted to the learned, may be quite unsuitable to the illiterate. We must, therefore, take into consideration the degree and kind of attention, which the individuals whom we are addressing, have been accustomed, or are likely to bestow. Some hearers or readers, for instance, will be found slow of apprehension indeed, but capable of understanding what is very copiously and gradually explained to them; while others, on the contrary, who are much quicker in perceiving the sense of what is expressed in a short compass, are incapable of long attention, and are not only wearied, but absolutely bewildered, by a diffuse Style.

It is not, however, to be understood, because extreme conciseness is ill-suited to hearers or readers, whose intellectual powers and cultivation are but small, that a prolix style is therefore the best adapted to such minds. Both extremes are, in general, improper. Most of those who could comprehend the meaning, when briefly expressed, and many of those who could not do so, are likely to be bewildered by too great an expansion; and, being unable to maintain a steady attention to what is said, they forget part of what they have heard or read before the sense is complete. To avoid the disadvantages both of conciseness and prolixity, it will frequently be necessary to employ Repetition; that is, to repeat the same sentiment and argument in many different forms of expression, each in itself brief, but all together, affording such an expansion of the sense to be conveyed, and so detaining the mind upon it, as the case may require. Care must, of course, be taken that the repetition be not too glaringly apparent; the variaton must not consist in the mere use of synonymous words; but what has been expressed in appropriate terms may be repeated in metaphorical; the antecedent and consequent of an argument, or the parts of an antithesis, may be transposed; or the several different points that have been enumerated, may be presented in a varied order, &c.

Perspicuity of Style depends,-1st, upon the right use of Words and Phrases; and, 2ndly, on the Structure of Sen

tences.

Perspicuity in the use of Words and Phrases, requires 1. Purity;-2. Propriety;-3. Precision.

Perspicuity in the Structure of Sentences, requires Clearness and Unity.

WORDS AND PHRASES.

Purity.

Purity of Style consists in the use of such words and constructions only, as belong to the idiom of the language which we speak, in opposition to words and phrases that are taken from other languages, or that are ungrammatical, obsolete, new-coined, or used without proper authority.

1. All foreign and learned words, except when used as descriptive of some invention or discovery, or to prevent a tedious and languid circumlocution, must be carefully avoided.

1. Such are, opiniatre for positive, sortie for sally, dernier resort for last resort, beaur arts for liberal arts, politesse, delicatesse, hauteur, for politeness, delicacy, haughtiness. 2. Nothing can be a greater violation of correct taste, than the introduction of French words and phrases into our compositions; for, it is the height of absurdity, to suppose that we render ourselves intelligible in proportion to the difficulty and peculiarity of our expressions. There are occasions, indeed, when the use of foreign and learned words may become necessary; for instance, when foreign inventions and discoveries are introduced, it is proper that the name should accompany the thing. Even evils of a foreign growth, if we have not, in our language, words precisely corresponding to them, may be suffered to retain their original designation. But, as a general Rule, in other cases, it must be observed, that whenever we have, in our own language, a word or phrase equally expressive and striking, a writer cannot be justified in supplanting it by the use of one that is foreign.

3. The following considerations ought to influence authors from wantonly admitting foreign words into their productions.-First; It ought to be remembered, that the Rules of pronunciation and orthography in other languages are, in general, so different from those which prevail in English, that by far the greater part of such words constitute so many anomalies with us, which, by loading the grammatical Rules with exceptions, greatly corrupt the simplicity and regularity of our language. -Secondly; 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?-Thirdly; If an author should not be followed by the public in the use of those foreign words which he has endeavoured to introduce into the language, such words will ever appear as so many permanent blemishes in his work. Besides, as borrowing naturally exposes to the suspicion of poverty, this poverty will be much more readily, and more justly imputed to the writer than to the language. As a general Rule, therefore, it may be stated, that, with only the exceptions previously mentioned, when a writer is addressing the lower classes of society, words of a Saxon origin ought to be employed. Indeed, a plain native style is by far the most intelligible to all readers, and by a proper management of words, it can be made as strong and expressive as that which is formed by the introduction of foreign words.

2. All ungrammatical expressions must be avoided. violation of any grammatical rule is called a Solecism.

3. Obsolete words must be avoided.

Such as, behoof, behest, peradventure, quoth he, I wist not, erewhile, self-same, and prevent, in the sense of go before; as, "Prevent us, O Lord, in all our actions,' which should be, "Precede, or Go before us," &c.-Obsolete constructions, or those not sanctioned by good usage, must also be avoided; thus, "It grieveth me that I have neglected this opportunity," should be, "I am grieved that I have," &c.-See Present Usage, p. 144, and Canon 3, p. 146.