The nature and use of verbal criticism, with its principal canons.

like reason the phrase ever so, as when we say, though he were ever so good,' is preferable to never so. In both these decisions I subscribe to the judgment of Dr Johnson. Of the two phrases in no wise in three words, and nowise in one, the last only is conformable to the present genius of the tongue. The noun wise, signifying manner, is quite obsolete. It remains now only in composition, in which, along with an adjective or other substantive, it forms an adverb or conjunction. Such are sidewise, lengthwise, coastwise, contrariwise, likewise, otherwise. These always preserve the compound form, and never admit a preposition; consequently nowise, which is an adverb of the same order, ought analogically to be written in one word, and not to be preceded by in. In very ancient style all these words were uncompounded, and had the preposition. They said in like wise, and in other wise *.

* In proof of this I shall produce a passage taken from the Prologue of the English translation of the Legenda Aurea, which seems to have been made towards the end of the fifteenth century. "I haue submysed my selfe to translate into Engylshe the legende "of syntes whyche is called legenda aurea in Latyn; That is to

66

saye, the golden legende. For in lyke wyse as golde is moost "noble aboue all other metallys; in lyke wyse is thys legende "holden moost noble aboue all other werkes." About the time that our present version of the scriptures was made, the old usage was wearing out. The phrase in like wise occurs but once, (Matt. xxi. 24.) whereas the compound term likewise occurs frequently. We find in several places, on this wise, in any wise, and in nowise. The two first phrases are now obsolete, and the third seems to be in the state Dr Johnson calls obsolescent.

Sect. I. Good use not always uniform in her decisions.....Canon III.

And if custom at present were uniform, as it is divided, in admitting in before nowise, it ought to be followed, though anomalous. In these matters it is foolish to attempt to struggle against the stream. All that I here plead for is, that when custom varies, analogy should decide the question, In the determination of this particular instance I differ from Dr Priestley. Sometimes whether is followed by no, sometimes by not. For instance, some would say, ' Whether he will or no ;' others, Whether he will or not.' Of these it is the latter only that is analogical. There is an ellipsis of the verb in the last clause, which when you supply, you find it necessary to use the adverb not, 'Whether he will or will not.' I shall only add, that by both the preceding canons we ought always to say rend in the present of the indicative and of the infinitive, and never rent, as is sometimes done. The latter term hath been pre-occupied by the preterit and the participle passive, besides that it is only in this application that it can be said to be used analogically. For this reason, the active participle ought always to be rending, and not renting.

Canon the third.

THE third canon is, When the terms or expressions are in other respects equal, that ought to be preferred which is most agreeable to the ear.

THIS rule hath perhaps a greater chance of being
VOL. I.
X

The nature and use of verbal criticism, with its principal canons.

observed than any other, it having been the general bent for some time to avoid harsh sounds and unmusical periods. Of this we have many examples. Delicateness hath very properly given way to delicacy; and for a like reason authenticity will probably soon displace authenticalness, and vindictive disposses vindicative altogether. Nay, a regard to sound hath, in some instances, had an influence on the public choice, to the prejudice of both the former canons, which one would think ought to be regarded as of more importance. Thus the term ingenuity hath obtained, in preference to ingeniousness, though the former cannot be deduced analogically from ingenious, and had besides been pre-occupied, and consequently would be equivocal, being a regular derivative from the term ingenuous, if the newer acceptation had not - before now supplanted the other altogether.

Canon the fourth.

THE fourth canon is, In cases wherein none of the foregoing rules gives either side a ground of preference, a regard to simplicity (in which I include etymology when manifest) ought to determine our choice.

UNDER the name simplicity I must be understood to comprehend also brevity; for that expression is always the simplest which, with equal purity and per"spicuity, is the briefest. We have, for instance, seve

Sect. I.

Good use not always uniform in her decisions.... Canon IV.

ral active verbs, which are used either with or without a preposition indiscriminately. Thus we say either accept or accept of, admit or admit of, approve or of; in like manner address or address to, attain or attain to. In such instances it will hold, I suppose, pretty generally, that the simple form is preferable. This appears particularly in the passive voice, in which every one must see the difference. 'His present was

accepted of by his friend.' His excuse was admitted of by his master.' The magistrates were ad'dressed to by the townsmen,' are evidently much worse than, His present was accepted by his friend.' 'His excuse was admitted by his master.'

• The magistrates were addressed by the towsmen.' We have but too many of this awkward, disjointed sort of compounds, and therefore ought not to multiply them without necessity. Now if once the preposition should obtain in the active voice, the rules of syntax will absolutely require it in the passive. Sometimes indeed the verb hath two regimens, and then the preposition is necessary to one of them, as I address myself to my judges.' They addressed their vows to Apollo.' But of such cases I am not here speaking.

BOTH etymology and analogy, as well as euphony and simplicity, determine us in preferring subtract to substract, and consequently subtraction to substraction*.

*Subtract is regularly deduced from the supine subtractum of

The nature and use of verbal criticism, with its principal canons.

Canon the fifth.

THE fifth and only other canon that occurs to me on the subject of divided use, is, In the few cases wherein neither perspicuity nor analogy, neither sound nor simplicity, assists us in fixing our choice, it is safest to prefer that manner which is most conformable to ancient usage.

THIS is founded on a very plain maxim, that in language, as in several other things, change itself, unless when it is clearly advantageous, is ineligible. This affords another reason for preferring that usage which distinguishes ye as the nominal plural of thou, when more than one are addressed, from you the accusative. For it may be remarked, that this distinction is very

10.

the Latin verb subtraho, in the same way as act from actum, the supine of ago, and translate from translatum, the supine of transfeBut it would be quite unexampled to derive the English verb from the French soustraire. Besides, there is not another instance in the language of a word beginning with the Latin preposition sub, where the sub is followed by an s, unless when the original word compounded with the preposition, begins with an s. Thus we say subscribe from sub and scribo, subsist from sub, and sisto, substitute from sub and statuo. But we cannot say substract from sub and strabo, there being no such word. There can be no doubt, therefore, that a mistaken etymology, arising from an affinity to the French term, not in the verb, but in verbal noun, has given rise to this harsh anomaly.