on the Englifh Alphabet. 162 
too fevere upon all, who would attempt the com- 
plete examination of what he, neverthelefs, 
confeffes to have taken ‘‘ from other Gramma- 
‘* rians, perhaps with more reverence than 
** judgment.” 
It is but fair, inthis place, to ftate Dr. Johnfon’s 
words, which, however, do not argue againft an 
inveftigation of this fubject; for the long eftablifh- 
ment of perverfe habits in forming words, prove 
nothing againft the preexiftence of an immutable 
effence, in refpect to their elements: 
‘** ‘There have been many fchemes offered for the 
emendation and fettlement of our orthography, 
which, like that of other nations, being formed 
‘* by chance, or according to the fancy* of the 
earlieft writers in rude ages, was at firft very 
various and uncertain, and is yet futhciently 
“« irregular. Of thefe reformers fome have endea- 
‘* voured to accommodate orthography better to 
** the pronunciation, without confidering that this 
‘** is to meafure by a fhadow, to take that for a 
“ model or ftandard which is changing while they 
X 2 Ss apply 
* Chance and Fancy may very properly form fymbols 
of founds at any period of the world; but it is moft 
certain, that neither Chance nor Fancy ought to be con- 
cerned in their application and ufes, which fhould be 
fixed by Reafon, and, when fo fixed, fhould be permanent, 
The form of alphabetical charaéters is of the leat import- 
ance, though the varieties and neatnefs in this refpec _ 
contribute to our pleafures: the form of a letter is not 
its eflence, any more than bedy is fpirit, 
