FOOTNOTES:

"—When he him knew and had his tale herd,Asfersas a leon pulled out his swerd."

Chaucer, Knightes Tale 1600.

"The drought of March hathpercedto the rote."

Canterbury Tales.

"For they this queen attended; in whose steed,Oblivion laid him down on Laura's herse:Hereat the hardest stones were seen to bleed,And grones of buried ghosts the heavens did perse."

Verses to Edmond Spenser.

Pierceis also made to rhime withrehearse. Pope makes it rhime withuniverse.

"He, who thro vast immensity can pierce,See worlds on worlds compose one universe."

Essay on Man, 23.

The rhime in the last quotation, is not unequivocal proof of the pronunciation in Pope's time; but the orthography in Chaucer's and Spenser's writings, are to me satisfactory evidence thatein these words was short. The standard English pronunciation now isferce,perce,terce, and it is universal in New England. I have only to add, that the sharp abrupt sound ofein the two first words is most happily adapted to express the ideas.

The English pronounceleap,lep; and that in the present tense as well as the past. Some of our American horsemen have learnt the practice; but among other people, it is almost unknown. It is a breach of analogy, at least in the present tense; the American pronunciation,leep, is therefore the most correct and should not be relinquished.

In the fashionable world,heardis pronouncedherdorhurd. This was almost unknown in America till the commencement of the late war, and how long it hasbeen the practice in England, I cannot determine. By Chaucer's orthography, one would imagine that it had been handed down from remote antiquity; for he writesherd,herde, andherden.[58]In reading more modern poets, I have rarely found any instance of a verse's closing with this word; so that it is difficult to say what has been the general practice among the learned. But for centuries, the word has been uniformly speltheard; the verbhearis in analogy withfear,sear, and yetein the past time and participle has been omitted, asheard, notheared. Thatherdwas not formerly the pronunciation, is probable from this circumstance; the Americans were strangers to it when they came from England, and the body of the people are so to this day.[59]To most people in this country, the English pronunciation appears likeaffectation, and is adopted only in the capital towns, which are always the most ready to distinguish themselves by an implicit imitation of foreign customs. Analogy requires that we should retain our former practice; for we may as well changefeared,seared, intoferd,serd, as to changeheardintoherd.

Beardis sometimes, but erroneously, pronouncedbeerd. General practice, both in England and America, requires thateshould be pronounced as inwere, and I know of no rule opposed to the practice.

Deafis generally pronounceddeef. It is the universal practice in the eastern states; and it is general in the middle and southern; tho some have adopted the English pronunciation,def. The latter is evidently a corruption; for the word is in analogy withleafandsheaf, and has been from time immemorial. So in Sir William Temple's works, Virg. Ecl.

——"We sing not to the deaf,An answer comes from every trembling leaf."

Leafanddeaf, with a different orthography, are repeatedly made to rhime in Chaucer's works; as in the Wife of Bath's Prologue, L. 6217,

"For that I rent out of his book a lefe,That of the stroke myn ere wex aldefe."

So also line 6249.

This was the orthography of his time, and an almost conclusive evidence thatdeafwas pronounceddeef.[60]This pronunciation is generally retained in America, and analogy requires it.

This dissertation will be closed with one observation, which the reader may have made upon the foregoing criticisms: That in many instances the Americans still adhere to the analogies of the language, where the English have infringed them. So far therefore as the regularity of construction is concerned, we ought to retain our own practice and be our own standards. The English practice is an authority; but considering the force of custom and the caprice of fashion, their practice must be as liableto changes and to errors, as the practice of a well educated yeomanry, who are governed by habits and not easily led astray by novelty. In the instances where we have adhered to analogy, no consideration can warrant us in resigning our practice to the authority of a foreign court, which, thro mere affectation, may have embraced many obvious errors. In doubtful cases, to pay a suitable deference to the opinions of others, is wise and prudent; but to renounce an obvious principle of propriety because others have renounced it, is to carry our complaisance for the faults of the great, much farther than we can justify, and in anation, it is an act of servility that wants a name.

FOOTNOTES:[38]Dr. Sheridan has coined a word for these combinations; he calls themdigraphs, that is,double written.[39]Vocal and aspirate.[40]On the stage, it is sometimes pronounced withilong, either for the sake of rhime, or in order to be heard. Mr. Sheridan marks it both ways; yet in common discourse he pronounces it withishort, as do the nation in general.[41]The most significant words, and consequently the most important, are nouns and verbs; then follow adjectives, pronouns, auxiliary verbs and participles.—Particles are the least important.[42]I consider these terminations as single syllables.[43]Such is the tendency of people to uniformity, that thecommonalty, for the most part, form the word regularly, and pronounce itcommonality. Analogy requires that both these words should end inity; but custom has established them as exceptions.[44]From this remark we must except some derivatives from the Greek; as geography, philology, antithesis, hypothesis, &c. which have but one accent. Etymology requires these words to be accented on the first and third syllables; but the genius of the language, or the analogy of termination has prevailed over etymological reasons. Etymology however resumes her rights in the derivatives,geographical,philological, &c. where each radical syllable is distinguished by an accent.[45]To prove the utility of accent in marking the signification of words, it is only necessary to advert to the two wordsomissionandcommission. These words have the accent on the second syllable; but when we use them by way of contrast, we lay a strong accent on the first syllable of each, by which the opposition of sense is distinguished. "Sins of o'mission and com'mission." Thus when we use the wordregain, we often lay an accent onrealmost equal to that ongain; because the sense of the word depends much, or rather wholly, on the particle.[46]In the following passage, alliteration or the similarity of the weak syllables, has a very bad effect. "We tread, as within an enchanted circle, where nothing appears as it truly is."——Blair Serm. 9.A difficulty of pronunciation is obvious in the following sentence, "This caution while itadmirablyprotects the public liberty, can never bear hard upon individuals." Change the accent from the first to the second syllable ofadmirably, and the difficulty vanishes."And yet the labyrinth is moreadmirable than thePyramids."——Trans. of Herodotus, Euterpe.[47]Except compounds, asearthquake,bookcase.[48]The finalemust be considered as the cause of this vulgar dialect. It is wished that some bold genius would dare to be right, and spell this class of words withoute,motiv. By reason of an embarrassing orthography, one half the trouble of learning English, is bestowed in acquiring errors, and correcting them after they are formed into habits. To prevent the continuance of this erroneous practice, I have, in the first part of the Institute, distinguished the silente, by an Italic character.[49]To remedy the evil, in some degree, this letter is nameder, in the Institute. In a few instances this pronunciation is become general among polite speakers, as clerks, sergeant, &c.[50]Hence the surprising similarity between the idioms of the New England people and those of Chaucer, Shakespear, Congreve, &c. who wrote in the true English stile. It is remarked by a certain author, that the inhabitants of islands best preserve their native tongue. New England has been in the situation of an island; during 160 years, the people except in a few commercial towns, have not been exposed to any of the causes which effect great changes in language and manners.[51]I have once met with the word in Chaucer's Plowman's Tale 2014."The other side ben pore and pale,And peple yput out of prese,And semin caitiffs sore a cale,And er in one without encrease;Iclepid Lollers and Londlese;Whototethon 'hem thei ben untall;They ben arayid all for pece,But falshed foule mote it befall."[52]I am at a loss to determine, why this practice should prevail in Boston and not in Connecticut. The first and principal settlers in Hartford came from the vicinity of Boston. Vast numbers of people in Boston and the neighborhood usewforv; yet I never once heard this pronunciation in Connecticut.[53]By standard writers, I mean, Kenrick, Sheridan, Burn, Perry and Scott.[54]The distinction in the pronunciation ofainquality, when it signifies the property of some body, and when it is used for high rank, appears to me without foundation in rule or practice.[55]Hymeneanandhymenealare, by some writers, accented on the last syllable but one; but erroneously. Other authorities preserve the analogy.[56]This is the sound which the rhime requires in the following verses:"Give eare to me that ten years fought for Rome,Yet reapt all grace at my returning home."Rel. An. Poet. p. 204.[57]ParticularlyPerry. I am surprized that his pronunciation has found so many advocates in this country, as there is none more erroneous.I would just remark here that many writers useanbeforehaspirate, instead ofa; which practice seems not well founded. The rapid sound of the articleais indistinct, but opens the mouth to a proper position to pronounceh; whereasnplaces the end of the tongue under the upper teeth, and the mouth assumes a new position, before the aspiration can be formed.Ahundred,ahouse, &c. are therefore much more easily articulated, thananhundred,anhouse.Thusashould always be used beforeyconsonant, and consequently beforeuwhen it has the same sound, as inunion,universal, &c. Indeed I cannot account for the use ofanbeforey, on any other principle than this, that the persons who use it do not pronounceyat all. If they makeythe same asee, it is consistent to writeanbefore it; but this is an error.[58]See Canterbury Tales and Prologue. L. 221, 955, 1599, 15382.[59]To prove that the Americans have a corrupt pronunciation, we are often told that our ancestors came from the western counties of England. This is but partially true.The company that purchased New England, was indeed called thePlymouth Company, being composed principally of persons belonging to the county of Devon. But many of the principal settlers in these states came from London and its vicinity; some from the middle counties, the ancient kingdom of Mercia; and a few from the northern counties. To show the falsehood of the charge, with respect to the language, it may be asserted with truth, that there is not the least affinity between the language of the New England people and the specimens of the Devonshire dialect, given in the English Magazines.[60]The digrapheaseems not to have been much used in that age; forspeakauthors wrotespeke; fordear,dere; forleaf,lefe.

[38]Dr. Sheridan has coined a word for these combinations; he calls themdigraphs, that is,double written.

[39]Vocal and aspirate.

[40]On the stage, it is sometimes pronounced withilong, either for the sake of rhime, or in order to be heard. Mr. Sheridan marks it both ways; yet in common discourse he pronounces it withishort, as do the nation in general.

[41]The most significant words, and consequently the most important, are nouns and verbs; then follow adjectives, pronouns, auxiliary verbs and participles.—Particles are the least important.

[42]I consider these terminations as single syllables.

[43]Such is the tendency of people to uniformity, that thecommonalty, for the most part, form the word regularly, and pronounce itcommonality. Analogy requires that both these words should end inity; but custom has established them as exceptions.

[44]From this remark we must except some derivatives from the Greek; as geography, philology, antithesis, hypothesis, &c. which have but one accent. Etymology requires these words to be accented on the first and third syllables; but the genius of the language, or the analogy of termination has prevailed over etymological reasons. Etymology however resumes her rights in the derivatives,geographical,philological, &c. where each radical syllable is distinguished by an accent.

[45]To prove the utility of accent in marking the signification of words, it is only necessary to advert to the two wordsomissionandcommission. These words have the accent on the second syllable; but when we use them by way of contrast, we lay a strong accent on the first syllable of each, by which the opposition of sense is distinguished. "Sins of o'mission and com'mission." Thus when we use the wordregain, we often lay an accent onrealmost equal to that ongain; because the sense of the word depends much, or rather wholly, on the particle.

[46]In the following passage, alliteration or the similarity of the weak syllables, has a very bad effect. "We tread, as within an enchanted circle, where nothing appears as it truly is."——Blair Serm. 9.A difficulty of pronunciation is obvious in the following sentence, "This caution while itadmirablyprotects the public liberty, can never bear hard upon individuals." Change the accent from the first to the second syllable ofadmirably, and the difficulty vanishes."And yet the labyrinth is moreadmirable than thePyramids."——Trans. of Herodotus, Euterpe.

A difficulty of pronunciation is obvious in the following sentence, "This caution while itadmirablyprotects the public liberty, can never bear hard upon individuals." Change the accent from the first to the second syllable ofadmirably, and the difficulty vanishes.

"And yet the labyrinth is moreadmirable than thePyramids."——Trans. of Herodotus, Euterpe.

[47]Except compounds, asearthquake,bookcase.

[48]The finalemust be considered as the cause of this vulgar dialect. It is wished that some bold genius would dare to be right, and spell this class of words withoute,motiv. By reason of an embarrassing orthography, one half the trouble of learning English, is bestowed in acquiring errors, and correcting them after they are formed into habits. To prevent the continuance of this erroneous practice, I have, in the first part of the Institute, distinguished the silente, by an Italic character.

[49]To remedy the evil, in some degree, this letter is nameder, in the Institute. In a few instances this pronunciation is become general among polite speakers, as clerks, sergeant, &c.

[50]Hence the surprising similarity between the idioms of the New England people and those of Chaucer, Shakespear, Congreve, &c. who wrote in the true English stile. It is remarked by a certain author, that the inhabitants of islands best preserve their native tongue. New England has been in the situation of an island; during 160 years, the people except in a few commercial towns, have not been exposed to any of the causes which effect great changes in language and manners.

[51]I have once met with the word in Chaucer's Plowman's Tale 2014."The other side ben pore and pale,And peple yput out of prese,And semin caitiffs sore a cale,And er in one without encrease;Iclepid Lollers and Londlese;Whototethon 'hem thei ben untall;They ben arayid all for pece,But falshed foule mote it befall."

[51]I have once met with the word in Chaucer's Plowman's Tale 2014.

"The other side ben pore and pale,And peple yput out of prese,And semin caitiffs sore a cale,And er in one without encrease;Iclepid Lollers and Londlese;Whototethon 'hem thei ben untall;They ben arayid all for pece,But falshed foule mote it befall."

[52]I am at a loss to determine, why this practice should prevail in Boston and not in Connecticut. The first and principal settlers in Hartford came from the vicinity of Boston. Vast numbers of people in Boston and the neighborhood usewforv; yet I never once heard this pronunciation in Connecticut.

[53]By standard writers, I mean, Kenrick, Sheridan, Burn, Perry and Scott.

[54]The distinction in the pronunciation ofainquality, when it signifies the property of some body, and when it is used for high rank, appears to me without foundation in rule or practice.

[55]Hymeneanandhymenealare, by some writers, accented on the last syllable but one; but erroneously. Other authorities preserve the analogy.

[56]This is the sound which the rhime requires in the following verses:"Give eare to me that ten years fought for Rome,Yet reapt all grace at my returning home."Rel. An. Poet. p. 204.

[56]This is the sound which the rhime requires in the following verses:

"Give eare to me that ten years fought for Rome,Yet reapt all grace at my returning home."

Rel. An. Poet. p. 204.

[57]ParticularlyPerry. I am surprized that his pronunciation has found so many advocates in this country, as there is none more erroneous.I would just remark here that many writers useanbeforehaspirate, instead ofa; which practice seems not well founded. The rapid sound of the articleais indistinct, but opens the mouth to a proper position to pronounceh; whereasnplaces the end of the tongue under the upper teeth, and the mouth assumes a new position, before the aspiration can be formed.Ahundred,ahouse, &c. are therefore much more easily articulated, thananhundred,anhouse.Thusashould always be used beforeyconsonant, and consequently beforeuwhen it has the same sound, as inunion,universal, &c. Indeed I cannot account for the use ofanbeforey, on any other principle than this, that the persons who use it do not pronounceyat all. If they makeythe same asee, it is consistent to writeanbefore it; but this is an error.

[57]ParticularlyPerry. I am surprized that his pronunciation has found so many advocates in this country, as there is none more erroneous.

I would just remark here that many writers useanbeforehaspirate, instead ofa; which practice seems not well founded. The rapid sound of the articleais indistinct, but opens the mouth to a proper position to pronounceh; whereasnplaces the end of the tongue under the upper teeth, and the mouth assumes a new position, before the aspiration can be formed.Ahundred,ahouse, &c. are therefore much more easily articulated, thananhundred,anhouse.

Thusashould always be used beforeyconsonant, and consequently beforeuwhen it has the same sound, as inunion,universal, &c. Indeed I cannot account for the use ofanbeforey, on any other principle than this, that the persons who use it do not pronounceyat all. If they makeythe same asee, it is consistent to writeanbefore it; but this is an error.

[58]See Canterbury Tales and Prologue. L. 221, 955, 1599, 15382.

[59]To prove that the Americans have a corrupt pronunciation, we are often told that our ancestors came from the western counties of England. This is but partially true.The company that purchased New England, was indeed called thePlymouth Company, being composed principally of persons belonging to the county of Devon. But many of the principal settlers in these states came from London and its vicinity; some from the middle counties, the ancient kingdom of Mercia; and a few from the northern counties. To show the falsehood of the charge, with respect to the language, it may be asserted with truth, that there is not the least affinity between the language of the New England people and the specimens of the Devonshire dialect, given in the English Magazines.

[59]To prove that the Americans have a corrupt pronunciation, we are often told that our ancestors came from the western counties of England. This is but partially true.

The company that purchased New England, was indeed called thePlymouth Company, being composed principally of persons belonging to the county of Devon. But many of the principal settlers in these states came from London and its vicinity; some from the middle counties, the ancient kingdom of Mercia; and a few from the northern counties. To show the falsehood of the charge, with respect to the language, it may be asserted with truth, that there is not the least affinity between the language of the New England people and the specimens of the Devonshire dialect, given in the English Magazines.

[60]The digrapheaseems not to have been much used in that age; forspeakauthors wrotespeke; fordear,dere; forleaf,lefe.

Examination of controverted Points, continued.—Of modern Corruptions in the English Pronunciation.

Inthe preceding dissertation I have endeavored to settle a number of controverted points and local differences in pronunciation, on the most satisfactory principles hitherto discovered. I now proceed to some other differences of consequence to the language, and particularly in America.

Goldis differently pronounced by good speakers, and differently marked by the standard writers. Two of them give usgoold, as the standard, and three,goldorgoold. But we may find better principles than the opinions or practice of individuals, to direct our judgement in this particular. The word indeed has the pronunciation,goold, in some of the collateral branches of the Teutonic, as in the Danish, where it is speltguld. But in the Saxon, it was writtengold, and has been uniformly written so in English. Besides, we have good reason to believe that it was, in early times, pronouncedgold, with the first sound ofo, for the poets invariably make it rhime withold,behold, and other words of similar sound. Thus in Chaucer:

"With nayles yelwe, and bright as anygold,He hadde a bere's skin, cole blake for old."

Knight's Tale, L. 2143.

InPope:

"Now Europe's laurels on their brows behold,But stain'd with blood, or ill exchang'd forgold."

Essay on Man, Book 4.

The rhime is here a presumptive proof that the poets pronounced this word with the first sound ofo, and it is a substantial reason why that pronunciation should be preferred. But analogy is a still stronger reason; for bold, told, fold, and I presumeevery similar word in the language, has the first sound ofo. These are good reasons whygoldshould have that sound; reasons which are permanent, and superior to any private opinions.

Similar reasons, and equally forceable, are opposed to the modern pronunciation ofwound. I saymodern; for in Americawoondis a recent innovation. It was perhaps an ancient dialect; for the old Saxon and modern Danish orthography warrant this conjecture.

But in English the spelling has uniformly corresponded withbound,sound, and if we may judge from the rhimes of our poets, the pronunciation has also been analogous. Thus in Skelton's Elegy on Henry, Earl of Northumberland, 1489, we have the following lines:

"Most noble erle! O foul mysurd[61]groundWhereon he gat his finall deadlywounde."

Rel. An. Eng. Poet. vol. 1. page 113.

So in a song which seems to have been written in the reign of Henry VIII.

"Where griping grefes the hart wouldwoundeAnd doleful dumps the mynde oppresse,There musicke with her silver sound,With speed is wont to send redresse."

Ibm. page 165.

Similar rhimes occur in almost every page of modern poetry.

"Warriors she fires with animated sounds,Pours balm into the bleeding lover'swounds."

Pope.

The fashionable pronunciation ofwounddestroys the rhime and infringes the rule of analogy; two objections to it which can be removed only by universal practice. Does this practice exist? By no means. One good authority[62]at least, directs to the analogous pronunciation; and another compiler directs to both—the regular and the fashionable. But werewoondthe universal practice in Great Britain, this should not induce us to lay aside our own practice for a foreign one. There is but a small part, even of the well bred people in this country, who have yet adopted the English mode; and the great body of the people uniformly pursue analogy. Theauthority of practice therefore, is, in this country, opposed to the innovation. Shall we then relinquish what every man must acknowlege to beright, to embrace the corruptions of a foreign court and stage? Will not the Atlantic ocean, the total separation of America from Great Britain, the pride of an independent nation, the rules of the language, the melody of English poetry, restrain our rage for imitating the errors of foreigners?

But it is said thatwoondis softer thanwound, and therefore more agreeable. Suppose the assertion to be true, will it follow that the softest pronunciation should be preferred?

It is acknowleged on all hands, that a correspondence between sound and sense is a beauty in language, and there are many words in our language, the sounds of which were borrowed from the sensible objects, the ideas of which they are designed to express. Such are thedashingof waters, thecracklingof burning faggots, thehissingof serpents, thelispingof infants, and thestutteringof astammerer. These are considered as beauties in a language. But there are other words, the sounds of which are notadopted in imitating audible noises, which are either soft or harsh, and by the help of association are particularly calculated to express ideas, which are either agreeable or disagreeable to the mind. Of this kind aresoftandharsh,sweetandsour, and a multitude of others. On the supposition therefore, thatwoondis the softer pronunciation, this is a good reason why it shouldnotbe adopted; for the idea it conveys is extremely disagreeable, and much better represented by a harsh word.[63]

Skepticforscepticis mere pedantry; a modern change that has no advantage for its object. The Greek derivation will be pleaded as an authority; but this will not warrant the innovation, without extendingit toscene,scepter, and many others. Will the advocates write and pronounce the latterskene,skepter? If not, they should be satisfied with analogy and former practice. It is remarkable however, that notwithstanding the authority of almost all the modern dictionaries is in favor of skeptic, no writer of reputation, whose works I have seen, has followed the spelling. The old orthography,sceptic, still maintains its ground.

Saucewith the fourth sound ofais accounted vulgar; yet this is the ancient, the correct, and the most general pronunciation. Theawof the North Britons is much affected of late;sawce,hawnt,vawnt; yet the true sound is that ofaunt,jaunt, and a change can produce no possible advantage.

The wordsadvertisementandchastisementare differently accented by the standard authors, and by people on both sides of the Atlantic. Let us find the analogy. The original words,advertiseandchastise, are verbs, accented uniformly on the last syllable. Let us search thro the language for verbs of this description, and I presume we shall not find another instance, where, innouns formed from such verbs, by the addition ofment, the seat of the accent is changed. We find amusement, refinement, refreshment, reconcilement, and many, perhaps all others, preserve the accent of their primitives; and in this analogy we find the reason whychastisementandadvertisementshould be accented on the last syllable but one. This analogy is a substantial and permanent rule, that will forever be superior to local customs.[64]

Similar remarks may be made respectingacceptable,admirable,disputable,comparable, which our polite speakers accent on the first syllable. The first is indeed accented on the second syllable, by most authors, except Sheridan, who still retains the accent on the first.

It was an old rule of grammarians, that the genius of our language requires the accent to be carried as far as possible towards the beginning of the word. This is seldom or never true; on the contrary, the rule is directly opposed to the melody, both of poetry and prose. Under the influence,however, of this rule, a long catalogue of words lost their true pronunciation, and among the rest, a great number of adjectives derived from verbs by an addition of the terminationable. Some of these are restored to their analogy; others retain the accent on the first syllable.

Notwithstanding the authority of Sheridan, I presume few people will contend for the privilege of accentingacceptableon the first syllable. How the organs of any man can be brought to articulate so many consonants in the weak syllables, or how the ear can relish such an unnatural pronunciation, is almost inconceiveable. In spite of the pedantry of scholars, the ease and melody of speaking, have almost wholly banished the absurd practice, by restoring the accent to the second syllable.

But with respect toadmirable,comparableanddisputable, the authors who are deemed authorities are divided; some are in favor of the accent on the first syllable, and others adhere to analogy.

Setting aside custom, every reason for accenting these words on the first syllable, will apply with equal force toadviseable,inclineable,requireable, and a hundred others. They are all formed from verbs accented on the last syllable, by annexing thesametermination to the verb, and they are all of thesamepart of speech. Let us examin them by the rules for accentuation, laid down in the preceding dissertation.

The primitive verbs of this class of words are usually compounded of a particle and principal part of speech; asad-mi-ro,com-paro,re-quæro, &c. The last syllable, derived from a verb, is the most important, and in the primitives, is invariably accented. This is agreeable to the first rule. In nine tenths of the derivatives, the same syllable retains the accent; as,perceiveable,available,deploreable. In these therefore both rules are observed. The third rule, or that which arises from the terminating syllable, is also preserved in most of this class of words. It is therefore much to be regretted, that a false rule should have introduced an irregularity into the language, by excepting a few words from an analogy, which unites in itself every principle of propriety.

But the practice, with respect to the three words under consideration, is by no means general. I have taken particularnotice of the pronunciation of people in every part of America, and can testify that, in point of numbers, the practice is in favor of analogy. The people at large sayadmi'reable,dispu'teable,compa'reable; and it would be difficult to lead them from this easy and natural pronunciation, to embrace that forced one ofad'mirable, &c. The people are right, and, in this particular, will ever have it to boast of, that among the unlearned is found the purity of English pronunciation.

Of this class of words, there are a few which seem to be corrupted in universal practice; asreputable. The reason why the accent in this word is more generally confirmed on the first syllable, may be this; there is but a single consonant between the first and second syllable, and another between the second and third; so that the pronunciation of the three weak syllables is by no means difficult. This word therefore, in which all authors, and as far as I know, all men, agree to lay the accent on the first syllable, and the orthography of which renders the pronunciation easy, must perhaps be admitted as an exception to the general rule.[65]

Accessaryoraccessory, are differently accented by the best writers and speakers. But the ease of speaking requires that they should follow the rule of derivation, and retain the accent of the primitive,access'ary.

The fashionable pronunciation of such words asimmediate,ministerial,commodious, is liable to particular exceptions. Thatihas a liquid sound, likey, in many words in our language, is not disputed; but the classes of words which will admit this sound, ought to be ascertained. It appears to me that common practice has determined this point. If we attend to the pronunciation of the body of people, who are led by their own ease rather than by a nice regard to fashion, we shall find that theymakeiliquid, or give it the sound ofyconsonant, after those consonants only, which admit that sound without any change of their own powers. These consonants arel,n,v, and the double consonantx; asvaliant,companion,behavior,flexion. Hereymight be substituted fori, without any change, or any tendency to a change, of the preceding consonant; except perhaps the change ofsiinflexionintosh, which is a general rule in the language, as it is to changetiandciinto the same sound.[66]

But wheniis preceded byd, change it intoy, and we cannot pronounce it with our usual rapidity, without blending the two letters into the sound ofj, which is a compound ofdzh; at least it cannot be effected without a violent exertion of the speaker.Immedyateis so difficult, that every person who attempts to pronounce it in that manner, will fall intoimmejate. Thuscommodious,comedian,tragedian, are very politely pronouncedcommojus,comejan,trajejan. Such a pronunciation, changing the true powers of the letters, and introducing a harsh union of consonants,dxh, in the place of the smooth sound ofdia, must be considered as a palpable corruption.

With respect to the terminationsial,ian, &c. afterr, I must believe it impossible to blend these letters in one syllable. In the wordministerial, for example, I cannot conceive howialcan be pronouncedyal, without a pause after the syllables,minister-. Sheridan's manner of pronouncing the lettersryan,ryal, in a syllable, appears to be a gross absurdity: Even allowingyto have the sound ofe, we must of necessity articulate two syllables.

But supposing the modern pronunciation ofimmediateto be liable to none of these exceptions, there is another objection to it, arising from the construction of our poetry. To the short syllables of such words asevery,glorious,different,bowery,commodious,harmonious,happier,ethereal,immediate,experience, our poetry is in a great measure indebted for theDactyl, theAmphibrach, and theAnapæst, feet which are necessary to give variety to versification, and the last of which is the most flowing, melodious and forceable foot in the language. By blending the two short syllablesinto one, we make the foot an Iambic; and as our poetry consists principally of iambics, we thus reduce our heroic verse to a dull uniformity. Take for example the following line of Pope.

"Thatsees immediate good by present sense"—

If we pronounce it thus:

Thatsees | imme|jate good | by pres|ent sense;

the line will be composed entirely of Iambics. But read it thus:

Thatsees | imme|di-ate good | by pres|ent sense;

and the third foot, becoming an anapæst, gives variety to the verse.

In the following line:

"Somehappier island in the watery waste:"

If we readhappierandwatry, as words of two syllables, the feet will all be Iambics, except the third, which is aPyrrhic. But if we readhappierandwatery,[67]in three syllables, as we ought, we introduce two anapæsts, and give variety and flowing melody to the verse.

These remarks will be more fully confirmed by attending to the last verse of the following distich:

"In martial pomp he clothes the angelic train,While warring myr|iads shake | the ethe|rial plain."

Philosophic Solitude.

On Sheridan's principles, and by an elision ofeinthe, the last line is composed of pure Iambics; whereas in fact, the three last feet are anapæsts; and to these the verse is, in some measure, indebted for its melody and the sublimity of the description.

These considerations are directly opposed to the fashionable pronunciation ofimmediate, and that whole analogy of words. In addition to this, I may remark, that it is not the practice of people in general. Whatever may be the character and rank of its advocates, in this country they compose but a small part, even of the literati.

I proceed now to examin a mode of pronouncing certain words, which prevails in England and some parts of America,and which, as it extends to a vast number of words, and creates a material difference between the orthography and pronunciation, is a matter of serious consequence.

To attack established customs is always hazardous; for mankind, even when they see and acknowlege their errors, are seldom obliged to the man who exposes them. The danger is encreased, when an opposition is made to the favorite opinions of the great; for men, whose rank and abilities entitle them to particular respect, will sooner dismiss their friends than their prejudices. Under this conviction, my present situation is delicate and embarrassing: But as some sacrifices must often be made to truth; and as I am conscious that a regard to truth only dictates what I write, I can sincerely declare, it is my wish to inform the understanding of every man, without wounding the feelings of an individual.

The practice to which I allude, is that of pronouncingd,t, andsprecedingu; which letter, it is said, contains the sound ofeoryandoo; and that of courseeducationmust be pronouncededyucation;nature,natyure; andsuperior,syuperior: From the difficulty of pronouncing which, we naturally fall into the sound ofdzh,tsh, andsh: Thus education becomesedzhucationorejucation; nature becomesnatshureornachure; and superior becomesshuperior.

How long this practice has prevailed in London, I cannot ascertain. There are a few words, in which it seems to have been universal from time immemorial; as,pleasure, and the other words of that analogy. But I find no reason to suppose the practice of pronouncingnature,duty,nachure,juty, prevailed before the period of Garrick's reputation on the stage.

On the other hand, the writers on the language have been silent upon this point, till within a few years; and Kenrick speaks of it as aMetropolitan pronunciation, supported bycertain mighty fine speakers,[68]which implies that the practice is modern, and proves it to be local, even in Great Britain. But the practice has prevailed at court and on the stage for several years, and the reputation of a Garrick, a Sheridanand a Siddons, has given it a very rapid and extensive diffusion in the polite world. As the innovation is great and extends to a multitude of words, it is necessary, before we embrace the practice in its utmost latitude, to examin into its propriety and consequences.

The only reasons offered in support of the practice, are, the English or Saxon sound ofu, which is said to beyu; andeuphony, or the agreeableness of the pronunciation.

But permit me to enquire, on what do the advocates of this practice ground their assertion, thatuhad in Saxon the sound ofeuoryu? Are there any testimonies to support it, among old writers of authority? In the course of my reading I have discovered none, nor have I ever seen one produced or referred to.

Will it be said, thatyuis the name of the letter? But where did this name originate? Certainly not in the old Saxon practice, for the Saxons expressed this sound byew, oreo: And I do not recollect a single word of Saxon origin, in which the warmest sticklers for the practice, giveuthis sound, even in the present age. Kenrick, who has investigated the powers of the English letters with much more accuracy than even Sheridan himself, observes, that we might with equal propriety, name the other vowels in the same manner, and say,ya,ye,yi,yo, as well asyu.[69]

Uinunion,use, &c. has the sound ofyu; but these are all ofLatinorigin, and can be no proof thatuhad, inSaxon, the sound ofeworyu.

The whole argument is founded on a mistake.Uin pure English has not the sound ofew, but a sound that approaches it; which is defined with great accuracy by the learned Wallis, who was one of the first correct writers upon English Grammar, and whose treatise is the foundation of Lowth's Introduction and all the best subsequent compilations.[70]

This writer defines the English letteruin these words, "Hunc sonum Extranei sere assequenter, si dipthongumiuconenturpronunciare; nempeiexile literæu, velwpreponentes; (ut in Hispanorum ciudad, civitas.)Non tamen idem est omnino sonus, quamvis, ad illum proxime, accedat; est enimiusonus compositus, at Anglorum et Gallorumusonus simplex."[71]—— Gram. Ling. Angl. Sect. 2.

This is precisely the idea I have ever had of the Englishu; except that I cannot allow the sound to be perfectly simple. If we attend to the manner in which we begin the sound ofuinflute,abjure,truth, we shall observe that the tongue is not pressed to the mouth so closely as in pronouncinge; the aperture of the organs is not so small; and I presume that good speakers, and am confident that most people, do not pronounce these wordsfleute,abjeure,treuth. Neither do they pronounce themfloote,abjoore,trooth; but with a sound formed by an easy natural aperture of the mouth, betweeniuandoo; which is the true English sound. This sound, however obscured by affectation in the metropolis of Great Britain andthe capital towns in America, is still preserved by the body of the people in both countries. There are a million descendants of the Saxons in this country who retain the sound ofuin all cases, precisely according to Wallis's definition. Ask any plain countryman, whose pronunciation has not been exposed to corruption by mingling with foreigners, how he pronounces the letters,t,r,u,th, and he will not soundulikeeu, noroo, but will express the real primitive Englishu. Nay, if people wish to make an accurate trial, let them direct any child of seven years old, who has had no previous instruction respecting the matter, to pronounce the wordssuit,tumult,due, &c. and they will thus ascertain the true sound of the letter. Children pronounceuin the most natural manner; whereas the sound ofiurequires a considerable effort, and that ofoo, a forced position of the lips. Illiterate persons therefore pronounce the genuin Englishu, much better than those who have attempted to shape their pronunciation according to the polite modern practice. As singular as this assertion may appear, it is literally true. This circumstance alone would be sufficient to prove that the Saxons never pronouncedulikeyu; for the body of anation, removed from the reach of conquest and free from a mixture of foreigners, are the safest repositories of ancient customs and general practice in speaking.

But another strong argument against the modern practice is, that the pretended dipthong,iuoryu, is heard in scarcely a single word of Saxon origin. Almost all the words in whichd,tandsare converted into other letters, aseducation,due,virtue,rapture,superior,supreme, &c. are derived from the Latin or French; so that the practice itself is a proof that the principles on which it is built, are false. It is pretended that the English or Saxon sound ofurequires the pronunciation,edzhucation,natshure, and yet it is introduced almost solely into Latin and French words. Such an inconsistency refutes the reasoning and is a burlesque on its advocates.

This however is but a small part of the inconsistency. In two other particulars the absurdity is still more glaring.

1. The modern refiners of our language distinguish two sounds ofulong; that ofyuandoo; and use both without any regard to Latin or Saxon derivation. Thedistinction they make is founded on a certain principle; and yet I question whether one of a thousand of them ever attended to it. After most of the consonants, they giveuthe dipthongal sound ofeu; as inblue,cube,due,mute; but afterrthey almost invariably pronounce itoo; asrule,truth,rue,rude,fruit. Why this distinction? If they contend for the Saxon sound ofu, why do they not preserve that sound intrue,rue,truth, which are of Saxon original; and uniformly giveuits Roman sound, which is acknowleged on all hands to have beenoo, in all words of Latin original, asrule,mute,cube? The fact is, they mistake the principle on which the distinction is made; and which is merely accidental, or arises from the ease of speaking.

In order to frame many of the consonants, the organs are placed in such a position, that in passing from it to the aperture necessary to articulate the following vowel or dipthong, we insensibly fall into the sound ofee. This in particular is the case with those consonants which are formed near the seat ofe; viz.kandg. The closing of the organs forms these mutes; and a very small opening forms the vowele. In passing from that close compression occasionedbykandg, to the aperture necessary to form any vowel, the organs are necessarily placed in a situation to pronounceee. From this single circumstance, have originated the most barbarous dialects or singularities in speaking English, which offend the ear, either in Great Britain or America.

This is the origin of the New Englandkeow,keoward; and of the Englishkeube,ackeuse,keindandgeuide.

There is just the same propriety in one practice as the other, and both are equally harmonious.

For similar reasons, the labials,mandp, are followed bye: In New England, we hear it inmeow,peower, and in Great Britain, inmeute,peure. With this difference however, that in New England, this pronunciation is generally confined to the more illiterate part of the people, and in Great Britain it prevails among those of the first rank. But afterrwe never hear the sound ofe: It has been before observed, that the most awkward countryman in New England pronouncesround,ground,brown, as correctly as men of the first education; and our fashionable speakers pronounceuafterrlikeoo. The reason is the same in both cases: In pronouncingrthe mouth is necessarily opened (or rather the glottis) to a position for articulating a broad full sound. So that the vulgar singularities in this respect, and the polite refinements of speaking, both proceed from the same cause; both proceed from an accidental or careless narrow way of articulating certain combinations of letters; both are corruptions of pure English; equally disagreeable and indefensible. Both may be easily corrected by taking more pains to open the teeth, and form full bold sounds.

2. But another inconsistency in the modern practice, is the introducing ane[72]before the second sound ofuas intun; or rather changing the preceding consonant; for innature,rapture, and hundreds of other words,tis changed intotsh; and yet no person pretends thatu, in these words, has a dipthongal sound. On the other hand, Sheridan and his copier, Scott, havein these and similar words markedufor its short sound, which is universally acknowleged to be simple. I believe no person ever pretended, that this sound ofucontains the sound ofeory; why then should we be directed to pronouncenature,natyur? Or what is equally absurd,natshur? On what principle is thetchanged into a compound consonant? If there is any thing in this sound ofuto warrant this change, does it not extend to all words where this sound occurs? Why do not our standard writers direct us to saytshunfortun, andtshumblefortumble? I can conceive no reason which will warrant the pronunciation in one case, that will not apply with equal force in the other. And I challenge the advocates of the practice, to produce a reason for pronouncingnatshur,raptshur,captshur, which will not extend to authorize, not onlytshun,tshurn, fortun,turn, but alsofatshalforfatal, andimmortshalforimmortal.[73]Nay, the latter pronunciation is actually heard among some very respectable imitators of fashion; and is frequentamong the illiterate, in those states where thetshu'sare most fashionable. How can it be otherwise? People are led by imitation; and when those in high life embrace a singularity, the multitude, who are unacquainted with its principles or extent, will attempt to imitate the novelty, and probably carry it much farther than was ever intended.

When a man of little education hears a respectable gentleman changetintotshin nature, he will naturally be led to change the same letter, not only in that word, but wherever it occurs. This is already done in a multitude of instances, and the practice if continued and extended, might eventually changet, in all cases, intotsh.

I am sensible that some writers of novels and plays have ridiculed the common pronunciation ofcreaturandnutur, by introducing these and similar words into low characters, spelling themcreater,nater: And the supporters of the court pronunciation allege, that in the vulgar practice of speaking, the lettereis sounded and notu: So extremely ignorant are they of the nature of sounds and the true powers of the English letters. The fact is, we are so farfrom pronouncing e in the common pronunciation ofnatur,creatur, &c. thateis always sounded like shortu, in the unaccented syllables ofover,sober,banter, and other similar words. Nay, most of the vowels, in such syllables, sound likeiorushort.[74]Liar, elder, factor, are pronouncedliur,eldur,factur, and this is the true sound ofuincreatur,nature,rapture,legislature, &c.

I would just observe further, that this pretended dipthongiuwas formerly expressed byewandeu, or perhaps byeo, and was considered as different from the sound ofu. In modern times, we have, in many words, blended the sound ofuwith that ofew, or rather use them promiscuously. It is indifferent, as to the pronunciation, whether we writefuelorfewel. And yet in this word, as also innew,brew, &c. we do not hear the sound ofe, except among the Virginians, who affect to pronounce it distinctly,ne-ew,ne-oo,fe-oo. This affectation is not of modern date, for Wallismentions it in his time and reprobates it. "Eu, ew, eau, sonanter pereclarum etw; ut inneuter,few,beauty. Quidem tamen accutius efferunt, acsi scriberenturniew ter,fiew,bieuty. At prior pronunciatio rectior est."——Gram. Ling. Ang.

Here this author allows these combinations to have the sound ofyuoriu; but disapproves of that refinement which some affect, in giving theeorishort its distinct sound.

The true sound of the Englishu, is neitherew, with the distinct sounds ofeandoo; nor is itoo; but it is that sound which every unlettered person utters in pronouncingsolitude,rude,threw, and which cannot easily be mistaken. So difficult is it to avoid the true sound ofu, that I have never found a man, even among the ardent admirers of the stage pronunciation, who does not retain the vulgar sound, in more than half the words of this class which he uses. There is such a propensity in men to be regular in the construction and use of language, that they are often obliged, by the customs of the age, to struggle against their inclination, in order to be wrong, and still find it impossible to be uniform in their errors.

The other reason given to vindicate the polite pronunciation, iseuphony. But I must say with Kenrick,[75]I cannot discover the euphony; on the contrary, the pronunciation is to me both disagreeable and difficult. It is certainly more difficult to pronounce two consonants than one.Ch, or, which is the same thing,tsh, is a more difficult sound thant; anddzh, orj, more difficult thand. Any accurate ear may perceive the difference in a single word, as innatur,nachur. But when two or three words meet, in which we have either of these compound sounds, the difficulty becomes very obvious; as thenachural feachurs of indivijuals. The difficulty is increased, when two of thesechursandjursoccur in the same word. Who can pronouncethese words, "at thisjunctshurit wasconjectshured"—or "the act passed in atshumultshuous legislatshur," without a pause, or an extreme exertion of the lungs? If this is euphony to an English ear, I know not what sounds in language can be disagreeable. To me it is barbarously harsh and unharmonious.

But supposing the pronunciation to be relished by ears accustomed to it (for custom will familiarize any thing) will the pleasure which individuals experience, balance the ill effects of creating a multitude of irregularities? Is not the number of anomalies in our language already sufficient, without an arbitrary addition of many hundreds? Is not the difference between our written and spoken language already sufficiently wide, without changing the sounds of a number of consonants?

If we attend to the irregularities which have been long established in our language, we shall find most of them in the Saxon branch. The Roman tongue was almost perfectly regular, and perhaps its orthography and pronunciation were perfectly correspondent. But it is the peculiar misfortune of the fashionable practice of pronouncingd,t, ands, beforeu, that it destroys the analogy and regularity of theRomanbranch of our language; for those consonants are not changed in many words of Saxon original. Before this affectation prevailed, we could boast of a regular orthography in a large branch of our language; but now the only class of words, which had preserved a regular construction, are attacked, and the correspondence between the spelling and pronunciation, destroyed, by those who ought to have been the first to oppose the innovation.[76]

Should this practice be extended to all words, whered,tandsprecedeu, as it must before it can be consistent or defensible, it would introduce more anomalies into our tongue, than were before established,both in the orthography and construction. What a perverted taste, and what a singular ambition must those men possess, who, in the day light of civilization and science, and in the short period of an age, can go farther in demolishing the analogies of an elegant language, than their unlettered ancestors proceeded in centuries, amidst the accidents of a savage life, and the shocks of numerous invasions!

But it will be replied,Custom is the legislator of language, and custom authorizes the practice I am reprobating. A man can hardly offer a reason, drawn from the principles of analogy and harmony in a language, but he is instantly silenced with the decisive,jus et norma loquendi.[77]

What then is custom? Some writer has already answered this question; "Custom is the plague of wise men and the idol of fools." This was probably said of those customs and fashions which are capricious and varying; for there are many customs, founded on propriety, which are permanent and constitute laws.

But what kind of custom did Horace design to lay down as the standard of speaking? Was it a local custom? Then thekeowof New England; theoncetandtwicetof Pennsylvania and Maryland; and thekeindandskeyof the London theaters, form rules of speaking. Is it the practice of a court, or a few eminent scholars and orators, that he designed to constitute a standard? But who shall determine what body of men forms this uncontrollable legislature? Or who shall reconcile the differences at court? For these eminent orators often disagree. There are numbers of words in which the most eminent men differ: Can all be right? Or what, in this case, is thecustomwhich is to be our guide?

Besides these difficulties, what right have a few men, however elevated their station, to change a national practice? Theymay say, that they consult their own ears, and endeavor to please themselves. This is their only apology, unless they can prove that the changes they make are real improvements. But what improvement is there in changing the sounds of three or four letters into others, and thus multiplying anomalies, and encreasing the difficulty of learning a language? Will not the great body of the people claim the privilege of adhering to their ancient usages, and believing their practice to be the most correct? They most undoubtedly will.

If Horace's maxim is ever just, it is only when custom is national; when the practice of a nation is uniform or general. In this case it becomes the common law of the land, and no one will dispute its propriety. But has any man a right to deviate from this practice, and attempt to establish a singular mode of his own? Have two or three eminent stage players authority to make changes at pleasure, and palm their novelties upon a nation under the idea ofcustom? The reader will pardon me for transcribing here the opinion of the celebrated Michaelis, one of the most learned philologers of the present century. "Itis not," says he, "for a scholar to give laws nor proscribe established expressions: If he takes so much on himself he is ridiculed, and deservedly; it is no more than a just mortification to his ambition, and the penalty of his usurping on the rights of the people. Language is a democratical state, where all the learning in the world does not warrant a citizen to supersede a received custom, till he has convinced the whole nation that this custom is a mistake. Scholars are not so infallible that every thing is to be referred to them. Were they allowed a decisory power, the errors of language, I am sure, instead of diminishing, would be continually increasing. Learned heads teem with them no less than the vulgar; and the former are much more imperious, that we should be compelled to defer to their innovations and implicitly to receive every false opinion of theirs."[78]

Yet this right is often assumed by individuals, who dictate to a nation the rules of speaking, with the same imperiousness as a tyrant gives laws to his vassals: And,strange as it may appear, even well bred people and scholars, often surrender their right of private judgement to these literary governors. Theipse dixitof a Johnson, a Garrick, or a Sheridan, has the force of law; and to contradict it, is rebellion. Ask the most of our learned men, how they would pronounce a word or compose a sentence, and they will immediately appeal to some favorite author whose decision is final. Thus distinguished eminence in a writer often becomes a passport for innumerable errors.

The whole evil originates in a fallacy. It is often supposed that certain great men are infallible, or that their practice constitutes custom and the rule of propriety. But on the contrary, any man, however learned, is liable to mistake; the most learned, as Michaelis observes, often teem with errors, and not unfrequently become attached to particular systems, and imperious in forcing them upon the world.[79]It is not the particular whim of such men, that constitutescustom; but the commonpractice of a nation, which is conformed to theirgeneralideas of propriety. The pronunciation ofkeow,keind,drap,juty,natshur, &c. are neither right nor wrong, because they are approved or censured by particular men; nor because one is local in New England, another in the middle states, and the others are supported by the court and stage in London. They are wrong, because they are opposed to national practice; they are wrong, because they are arbitrary or careless changes of the true sounds of our letters; they are wrong, because they break in upon the regular construction of the language; they are wrong, because they render the pronunciation difficult both for natives and foreigners; they are wrong, because they make an invidious distinction between the polite and common pronunciation, or else oblige anationto change their general customs, without presenting to their view onenationaladvantage. These are important, they are permanent considerations; they are superior to the caprices of courts and theaters; they are reasons that are interwoven in the very structure of the language, or founded on the common law of the nation; and they are a living satire upon the licentiousness of modernspeakers, who dare to slight their authority.

But let us examin whether the practice I am censuring is general or not; for if not, it cannot come within Horace's rule. If we may believe well informed gentlemen, it is not general even in Great Britain. I have been personally informed, and by gentlemen of education and abilities, one of whom was particular in his observation, that it is not general, even among the most eminent literary characters in London. It is less frequent in the interior counties, where the inhabitants still speak as the common people do in this country. And Kenrick speaks of it as an affectation in the metropolis which ought to be discountenanced.

But whatever may be the practice in England or Ireland, there are few in America who have embraced it, as it is explained in Sheridan's Dictionary. In the middle and southern states, there are a few, and those well bred people, who have gone far in attempting to imitate the fashion of the day.[80]Yet the body of the people, evenin these states, remain as unfashionable as ever; and the eastern states generally adhere to their ancient custom of speaking, however vulgar it may be thought by their neighbors.[81]Suppose custom therefore to be thejus et norma, the rule of correct speaking, and in this country, it is directly opposed to the plan now under consideration.

As a nation, we have a very great interest in opposing the introduction of any plan of uniformity with the British language, even were the plan proposed perfectly unexceptionable. This point will be afterwards discussed more particularly; but I would observe here, that the author who has the most admirers and imitators in this country, has been censured in London, where his character is highly esteemed, and that too by men who are confessedly partial to his general plan. In the critical review of Sheridan's Dictionary,1781, there are the following exceptions to his standard.

"Nevertheless our author must not be surprized if, in a matter, in its nature so delicate and difficult, as that concerning which he treats, a doubt should here and there arise, in the minds of the most candid critics, with regard to the propriety of his determinations. For instance, we would wish him to reconsider, whether, in the words which begin withsuper, such assuperstition,supersede, he is right in directing them to be pronouncedshooper. Whatever might be the case in Queen Anne's time, it doth not occur to us, that any one at present, above the lower ranks, speaks these words with the sound ofsh; or that a good reason can be given, for their being thus sounded. Nay their being thus spoken is contrary to Mr. Sheridan's own rule; for he says that the lettersalways preserves its own proper sound at the beginning of words."

Here we are informed by this gentleman's admirers, that, in some instances, he has imposed upon the world, as the standard of purity, a pronunciation which is not heard, except among thelower ranks of people, and directly opposed to his own rule. The reviewers might have extended their remarks to many other instances, in which he has deviated from general practice and from every rule of the language. Yet at the voice of this gentleman, many of the Americans are quitting their former practice, and running into errors with an eagerness bordering on infatuation.

Customs of the court and stage, it is confessed, rule without resistance in monarchies. But what have we to do with the customs of a foreign nation? Detached as we are from all the world, is it not possible to circumscribe the power ofcustom, and lay it, in some degree, under the influence of propriety? We are sensible that in foreign courts, a man's reputation may depend on a genteel bow, and his fortune may be lost by wearing an unfashionable coat. But have we advanced to that stage of corruption, that our highest ambition is to be as particular in fashions as other nations? In matters merely indifferent, like modes of dress, some degree of conformity to local custom is necessary;[82]butwhen this conformity requires a sacrifice of any principle of propriety or moral rectitude, singularity becomes an honorable testimony of an independent mind. A man of a great soul would sooner imitate the virtues of a cottage, than the vices of a court; and would deem it more honorable to gain one useful idea from the humble laborer, than to copy the vicious pronunciation of a splendid court, or become an adept in the licentious principles of a Rochester and a Littleton.

Back to Index Next