1802.} 
or adfcititious idiom. We wifhes to prove 
that language is daring, expreflive, eccen- 
tric; that the tongue, or /mgua, is feeble 
and timid ; that, like our wants, it is con- 
trouled by no limits; that the firft prefides 
overall our arts and occupations ; that it is 
asrich as our dictionaries are indigent ; that 
it is the true friend of order and of focial 
life, and that {trong in its powers and its 
ulefulnefs, it may difdain the. dialect or 
lingua of academies. } 
He obferves that at firft language has its 
proper accent, inherent to the climate ; 
that this aceent adds to its richnefs, and 
gives it a particular grace and variety ; 
moreover, that gefture accompanies lan- 
guage ; whilft he fees only in the kxgua 
an object of perpetual contention, a focus 
of chicanery, an ocean of caprices, an are- 
na open to pride, toobftinacy, and to pe- 
dantry. 
Language, fays he, is the foul of {peech; 
the grammatical tongue is only its body. 
* What is {peech ? an afiemblage of all the 
diftiné&t and articulated founds, to which 
we attach thoughts. How can we impofe 
laws on figns fo rapid ? If our diétionaries 
could regifter our geftures and our looks, 
they would foon difenable the latter from 
having fuch and fuch fignifications. 
It is from this yoke of dictionaries 
and of academical decifions that Citizen 
Mercier wifhes te emancipate language al- 
together: according to him the lingua, or 
tongue, can alone fubmit toit ; and it was 
not with a defign thus to fubjugate it to 
little ftops and little preventions, that we 
have received the admirable faculty of fix- 
ing the pa{t, and of affimilating the fu- 
ture; of calling to ourfelves the fpectacle 
of nature, and the picture of the univerfe ; 
and to concenter it, fo to {peak, in a fingle 
point.. Genius would be natural to man, 
without the deteftable methods of pedants; 
they have fueceeded to the place of our 
quondam theologians. To afpire, as they 
do, to the conduét, dire&tion, and order- 
ing of every, thing, is to know but imper- 
fectly the language and the charaéter of 
Frenchmen. ; 
Citizen Mercier thinks he has difcover- 
ed that language is the only and true 
tongue amongft men; that it is not fub- 
mitted to chance, nor to the fatalities to 
which tongues are fubject ; and laftly, 
that it is its own legiflator, and becomes 
untranflatable, which, {ays he, proves 
its dignity. But, on {the othe: hand, 
ufe is the fupreme arbiter of tongues; 
words are, almoft all, the offspring of 
chance and fancy, and, befides, very in- 
different to grammar. Ufe, or want, may 
Proceedings of Learned Societies. 
245 
eftablith, proferibe, renew, or changetheny 
as it pleafes. “The author concludes that 
it is the province of language alone to en-_ 
rich our tongue, to embellifh it, and to 
render it mere fimple and eafy. 
_Intongues, the tyranny of fafhion ex- 
tends even to words; they grow old,aad then 
are made young again. According to Ci- 
tizen Mercier, language is moft invariable; 
‘¢a faithful witneis of the genius of a peo- 
ple, it uniformly accommodates itfelf to 
the fame: it caufes the ideas familiar to 
each nation to circulate without con- 
ftraint.”” 
The perfection of tongues is only a cu- 
rious, and almoft chimerical {peculation, 
for the greater part of men ; it can only 
fuit thofe that have muth leifure: all, 
however, have need of language. This 
latter ought to have precedence over the 
dead languages, and even over the labour 
of Jiving tongues, when this labour con- 
duces only to the luxury of {pectacles, and 
the vain harmony of words. ; 
We have in our ancient language ex-_ 
preflions which touch the heart and the 
underfianding-—polite and gallant turns 
which are become obfelete. Language has, 
therefore, the right of changing the living 
tongues. Itisan impetuous wind, which 
makes every thing give way to it. | 
It is to language alone that CitizenMer- 
cier at'ributes the influence of inftin@ in 
the different tongues of the univerfe; it is 
that which fafhions the ftatue, and which 
gives an active life to inanimate phrafes. 
Language foon drives away whatever is 
oh{cure or equivocal ; it always requires 
aclear fenfe. The pomp which {wells the 
mouth, and which fills the ears with vat 
and refounding terms, to defignate little 
objects, has no place in language. . Sim- 
plicity, nature, vivacity, &c. fuch are its 
characters. We may fay the langue (lia- 
gua) of Fenelon, and the language of La 
Fontaine ; the dingwa of Racine, and the 
language of Corneille, and it is eafy to 
perceive on which fide is the creative ge- 
nius. \ The language of La Fontaine can- 
not be taught ; at the twelfth line you 
may difcover whether the writer. is born 
with a ftyle of his own, or whether he 
wiites from memory. Idiom does not 
make the fiyle—it is the ftyle which makes 
the idiom. The idiom of fayaves, fimplé 
and confined, receives a great force from 
the ftyle; whilft a rich tongue degenerates 
from the feeblenefs and timidity of the 
writer, &e. &e. — - . 
The art of printing, no lefs than that 
of {peech, deferyes to occupy-a place in 
the meditations of philofophers. It is 
their 
