One more example under this head. During the low state of learning in the dark ages, even kings were often too illiterate to write their names. Hence charters and other public papers were ratified by making the sign of the cross. In this way, the verb to sign acquired the same meaning as, to subscribe ; a meaning, you know, to which there was no allusion in its Latin root.*

2. A still more powerful cause of mutation in the sense of words, is that the primary and literal sense, is supplanted by one that is figurative. This principle is so inwrought into the very structure of language, that by far the greater part of words, in all languages, acquire a metaphorical meaning. The consequence is obvious: this metaphorical meaning of a word, is of ten dropped, of necessity, when it passes into another language. Or a word may acquire a figurative meaning, instead of the literal. Our adjective acute, comes from the Latin acus. This originally signified a sharp-pointed, piercing instrument. Thence it was easily extended in sense to denote also a sharpedged, cutting instrument. Thence by figure, it came to denote certain bodily affections, as keenness of pain; also intellectual qualities, as wit, shrewdness, keenness of perception. But in common use, we never think of a needle's point, when we speak of an acute accent, an acute reasoner, an acute disease.

Our word line, comes from the Greek hívov, flax, of which a cord was made. Hence we have by the amplifying power of metaphor,—a line of ancestors,-line of business, line of poetry; the sailor crossing the line; the general, breaking the line of an opposing army. Hence too, linen; and by a metonymy of the substance composing the inner part of a garment, lining; and hence again, the word lining comes to signify the inner part of many things composed of wood or metals.

* Could an old Roman come back upon the stage, and be told that our words virtue and humility are derived from virtus and humilis, in his language; what sense would he attach to the Christian phrase,— "the virtue of humility?”—Much the same as we should attach to the phrase," the fortitude of pusillanimity.”

er.

This exchange of a literal for a figurative sense, is not limited to the transmigration of words from one language to anothIt occurs constantly in the same language. We think of no incongruity, when we hear of a golden candlestick, the head of a river, the head of an army, the head of a cane, or the head of a discourse.

3. Words lose their original sense by composition.

Though this remark is by no means peculiar to our language; (as might be shown by innumerable examples ;) my meaning may be illustrated, by instances familiar to a mere English scholar. Take the case of a preposition compounded with a verb. How often does such a word acquire a sense, altogether new and arbitrary. Thus, there is no affinity in meaning, betwixt— to withdraw, and to draw with; to understand, and to stand under. So with undertake, overtake, outshine. No analysis of the component parts, is any guide to the sense of the whole. The common import of our inseparable preposition re, is again; but to remark is not to mark again; to reprove, is not to prove again.

That etymology cannot be the standard of language, I think must be evident, if we consider the three sources of change in the sense of words, to which I have alluded; viz.-the fluctuation of human customs, the influence of metaphor, and of composition. I am happy to confirm these remarks by an extract from Dugald Stewart. "For my own part," says he, "I am strongly inclined to think that the instances are few indeed, (if, in truth, there are any instances,) in which etymolgy furnishes effectual aids to guide us, either in writing with propriety the dialect of our own times; or in fixing the exact signification of ambiguous terms; or in drawing the line between expressions, which seem to be nearly equivalent." "One thing I can state as a fact, concerning these etymological studies, when pushed to an excess, that I have hardly met with an individual, habitually addicted to them, who wrote his own language with ease and elegance." "My opinion is, that this pedantry has, for many years past, been carried farther than the genius

of the English tongue will justify; and has had a sensible influence in abridging the variety of its native stores of expression; but it is only of late, that, in separating the primitive from the metaphorical meaning of words, it has become customary for critics to carry their refinements farther than the mere English scholar is able to accompany them; or to appeal from the authority of Addison and Swift, to the woods of Germany."

The inquiry then, still remains, "What is the law of language?

To this inquiry Horace has given the summary answer;

"" usus,

Quem penes arbitrium est, et jus, et norma loquendi," That good use must be regarded as the standard of propriety in speaking and writing, seems to be manifest, from the very design of language. With the exception, perhaps, of a few sounds denoting surprise or distress, there is no original connexion betwixt words, and the thoughts which they represent, This is evident from the fact that men of different nations, though they have essentially the same passions, emotions, relations, and necessities, express their thoughts in different languages. Words are public property. They are merely arbitrary signs, adopted by a sort of tacit compact, as a medium of intercourse among men that speak the same tongue. "The great Augustus himself, in the possession of that power which ruled the world, acknowledged he could not make a new Latin word; which was as much as to say, that he could not arbitrarily appoint what idea any sound should be the sign of, in the common language of his subjects."

LECTURE III.

WHAT CONSTITUTES GOOD USE?-AMERICANISMS.

Having considered, in my last Lecture, the principles of grammatical purity, and the authority of good use in determining the present meaning of words; I proceed to inquire

II. What constitutes good use?

On this point, we may rest satisfied, I think, with the broad course of Quinctilian, 'the standard of language is not to be taken from the barbarous dialect of the theatre, and the circus; but the custom of speaking is the consent of the learned.'

I know it may be said, "this rule, after all, leaves us in uncertainty, because it is at variance with itself. Spenser, Shakspeare and Barrow were learned men ; are all the words which they used, to be accounted good English in our times? The rule does not imply this. Though greater license is to be given in poetry and works of science; in ordinary style, we must confine our authorities to good writers of modern times. This principle was admitted by the Greeks and Romans. To the question, "at what distance backwards from this moment, are authors still to be accounted as possessing legislative voice in language ?"—the ablest of modern critics answers; "It is safest 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 extends

to."

Whatever intrinsic difficulty attends the fixing of precise limits, in this case, some such standard must be resorted to, or we are without standard. Let us apply here the obvious principle, that the primary purpose of speaking is to be understood.

Our English adjective painful, now signifies, full of pain, or causing pain. Very rarely is it used in either of its ancient acceptations, for difficult, or laborious. The sense which the translators of the Psalms affixed to it in this passage," When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me," (that is, too difficult,) is seldom affixed to it, probably, by common readers. And I presume no one would think himself complimented now, by the high commendation of his fidelity, with which Archbishop Usher was introduced to Charles the First," this is a most painful preacher."

The verb to prevent, according to established present use, signifies to hinder. But its etymological sense was to come before; and its ancient English sense, to anticipate. If this sense is not entirely lost among common people, it is to be ascribed to the fact that it must be recalled occasionally, to give any meaning to a few passages of the English Bible; as, "I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried." "Mine eyes prevent the night watches." But in defiance of this respectable authority, the ancient use of this word is becoming obsolete; and a man now would hardly be thought to speak good English, or good sense, who should say as Bishop Beveridge did: "We can do all things through divine grace preventing and assiting us."

As the canon we have adopted does not imply that all words which once were in reputable use, are now to be accounted good English, so it does not imply, that no new words are to be admitted into our language. This might as well have been assumed in the time of Chaucer, to the exclusion of all the improvements of modern days.

66

"Licuit semperque licebit Signatum praesente nota, producere nomen." New words may be introduced, provided they are in conformity with the laws of analogy, and of present idiom.-' As the forests change their foliage with the revolving year, so antiquated words must be succeeded by others of more recent origin. It is in vain to hope that language only shall be immutable, amidst