English Dictionaries, with Remarks upon the English Language [pp. 168-173]

1856.] English Dictionaries, with Remarks upon the English Language.
the standard, and as to the employment
of words themselves, we must be guided
by usage, but limited to present usage in
opposition to obsolete, national, in opposition to foreign or provincial, and reputable, in opposition to common or general,
meaning by reputable, the use of authors
enjoying, whether justly or not, the
highest reputation.-( Vide Campbell's
Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 162, et seqq.)
The universal use of the Authorized
Version of the Scriptures and almost
equally of the Common Prayer, has had
the practical effect of restraining the tendency to change in our language, and
for this and many other reasons, a revision of the Bible, greatly changing its
present phraseology and style, would be
exceedingly unwise.
The necessity for a standard being acknowledged, Johnson, by general consent, at least in England, has been recognized as the legislator of orthography
and Walker of pronunciation. It is true
that neither is entirely consistent with
the principles laid down by himself; yet
it is better to follow their guidance, erratic though it sometimes be, than to be
left at sea, without chart or compass.
There are some few instances in both
branches, in which the language has actually changed since their day, as for example, I believe, it is now almost the
universal usage both in England and
America, to discard the final k, in such
words as music, public, skeptic, critic, and
also the u, at least in the United States,
in words terminating in o-u-r, as labor,
honor,favor. In England, however, the
u is still preserved in such words of the
latter class as are not derived from the
Latin, as for instance, armour, 7harbour,
iegqhbour, behaviour, and somne few dissyllables which are derived from the Latin. With these and some other trifling
exceptions, Johnson's Dictionary may
still be regarded as the rule and regulator of the language in the particula r department of orthography, and generally
of definition. So too, Walker as amended and remodelled by Smart, is the final
arbiter in pronunciation.
Without intending or desiring to detract from the reputation of the late
Itali an c an read wit hout m uch difficulty
t hese g reat classics of hi s oliterature.
Contempora ry with the se names w er e
Chauc er, Gowery Lydgate and the author of " Piers Plowman's Vision" in
English literature, yet how many, now
sp eaking our language, can read their
works without acqui r ing by previous
stud y and labor, the idiom of the period.
I do not pretend to say t hat it was desirable that the English language should
have been arrested i n its growth and as
it w ere, crysta lliz ed at that early day, but
I w ish merely to illustrate te effect of
an Academy in g ivi ng s tability to language. The Italia n r e ceived a much
more precociou s developmen t t han the
English, and in consequence, probably,
in miart, of possessing writers of grea t er
genius, it attained much earlier the
strength and vigor of maturity.
Two attempts have been made to establish an Academy of language in England: the first in t he reign of Ch arles I.
by the Earl of R oscommon, author of
the "Essay on T ranslated Verse," and
the second, in 1712, in the reign of
Queen Anne, by Swift, who addressed an
able paper, entitled " A Proposal for
Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining
the English Tongue," to Robert, Earl of
Oxford, at that time Lord High Treasurer of Great Britain. It is not necessary
to say that both attempts were signally
unsuccessful, and our language remains
to this day, without an Academy. The
difficulty of establishing such an Academy, or at least, the giving to its dicta the
authority of law over language would
be almost insurmountable in such a country as either England or America. As
obedience could not be compelled to authority of this kind, but too many would
make it a point of persontal independence
to resist it. Such is not altogether the
case with the Continental Nations; they
are more in the habit of yielding blind
obedience to civil or ecclesiastical power
and naturally would be inclined to yield
similar obedience to literary authority.
How then can the purity of our language be preserved? In the two important branches of orthography or orthoepy
very easily, by some Lexicographer as
171
ft