Bache.] J [May 15( 



he affirmed, lies in the fact that legislative laws are imposed by 

 authoritj^ under penalty, whereas the so-called laws of grammar, 

 being derived from language, and not it from them, are not of 

 any binding authority whatever. But, just as a general consen- 

 sus of opinion in a community is by legislative action reflected 

 in the concrete form of legal enactment, so a similar consensus 

 of opinion in a community as to language is reflected concretely 

 in the forms in accepted general usage in speech. Back of all 

 laws of language, as well as of all legislative laws, are mandate 

 and penalty, none the less in the first because they are not there 

 formally expressed. Human laws, whether legislative or other- 

 wise, are, in a word, the expression of the will of the community. 

 The laws of speech, as existing in a particular community, are 

 therefore in their sphere as mandatory as are those of a legisla- 

 ture ; nor is their infraction possible without incurring and suf- 

 fering penalty. Attached to their infraction is the penalty 

 resulting from less comprehensibility in written and oral speech, 

 less ability to secure the widest audience, less possibility of 

 communion with one's fellow-men, and at the lower depths, the 

 absolute impossibility of maintaining the best social status. 

 Because all peoples themselves make language, they cannot be 

 bound b} r that which they create, is an untenable proposition, 

 seeing that in the evolution of human affairs practice comes first, 

 and then custom, and then the formulation of custom in the un- 

 written law of precedent, if not in the shape of written law. It 

 is the individual that is bound by the law of grammar as well as 

 other law, not the community creative of correspondent lan- 

 guage, and failure to discriminate between the essentially differ- 

 ent agencies as, on the one hand, representing authority, and on 

 the other obedience, leads from specious view to specious state- 

 ment. It may be frankly admitted that Caliban has a right to a 

 grammar of his own, without at the same time admitting that 

 there is no law of grammar, when it is considered that we find 

 all men, up to their individual capacity, using speech with 

 recognition of law incorporate in every individual tongue. 



Another unfortunate statement made by Mr. Moulton in the 

 lecture referred to, was when he answered certain criticisms 

 upon Browning, that no matter how he varies his theme, he is 

 generally obscure and ever identifiable through his mask. Mr. 

 Moulton asserted as to these strictures, that every great author 



