[ 34 ] 



After declaring, with fom.e oftentation, that " he has laboured 

 " to refine our language to grammatical purity, and to clear it 

 " from colloquial barbarifms, licentious idioms, and irrce;ular 

 •' combinations ;" that " fomething perhaps he has added to 

 " the elegance of its conftru6lion, and fomething to the harmony 

 " of its cadence ;" he proceeds to fubjoin the following palTage : 

 " When common words were lefs pleafing to the ear, or lefs 

 " diflinfl in their fignification, I have familiarized the terms of 

 " philofophy by applying them to known objeds and popular 

 " ideas ; but have rarely admitted any word not authorized by 

 " former writers : for I believe that whoever knows the Englifh 

 " tongue in its prefent extent, will be able to exprefs his thoughts, 

 " without farther help from other nations." The firfl of thefe 

 reafons for fubftituting, in place of a received familiar Englifh 

 W'ord, a remote philofophical one, fuch as are moft of Johnfon's 

 Latin abftradl fubflantives, is its being more pleafing to the ear. 

 But this can only be deemed fufficient by thofe who would 

 fubmit fenfe to found, and for the fake of being admired by 

 feme, would be content not to be underflood by others. And 

 though, in fome inftances, for the fake of tempering the con- 

 ftitutional roughnefs of the Englifh language, this might be 

 admitted, yet it never can be contended for in fuch latitude, 

 as would juflify the pradice of our author. This he well knew, 

 and accordingly defending hard words in an effay in his Idler, he 

 infifts largely on the fecond plea, the greater diflindnefs of 

 fignification. " Difference of thoughts," he fays, " will produce 

 " difference of language : he that thinks with more extent than 

 " another, will want words of larger meaning; he that thinks 

 " with more fubtilty, will feek for terms of more nice difcrimi- 

 " nation." In this argument there is certainly fome degree of 



weight, 



