and rapidity in the dialects of savage tribes, although, in the absence of a written literature, it is extremely difficult to obtain trustworthy information. But in the few instances where careful observations have been made on this interesting subject, it has been found that among the wild and illiterate tribes of Siberia, Africa, and Siam, two or three generations are sufficient to change the whole aspect of their dialects. The languages of highly civilised nations, on the contrary, become more and more stationary, and sometimes seem almost to lose their power of change. Where there is a classical literature, and where its language has spread to every town and village, it seems almost impossible that any further changes should take place. Nevertheless, the language of Rome, for so many centuries the queen of the whole civilised world, was deposed by the modern Romance dialects, and the ancient Greek was supplanted in the end by the modern Romaic. And though the art of printing and the wide diffusion of Bibles and Prayer-books and newspapers have acted as still more powerful barriers to arrest the constant flow of human speech, we may see that the language of the authorised version of the Bible, though perfectly intelligible, is no longer the spoken language of England. In Booker's Scripture and Prayerbook Glossary the number of words or senses of words which have become obsolete since 1611,

A Scripture and Prayer-book Glossary: being an explanation of obsolete words and phrases in the English Bible, Apocrypha, and Book of Common Prayer, by the Rev. J. Booker: Dublin, 1862. The Bible Word-book, a glossary of Old English Bible words by J. Eastwood and W. Aldis Wright: Cambridge, 1866.

9

amount to 388, or nearly one fifteenth part of the whole number of words used in the Bible. Smaller changes, changes of accent and meaning, the reception of new, and the dropping of old words, we may watch as taking place under our own eyes. Rogers said that 'contemplate is bad enough, but balcony makes me sick,' whereas at present no one is startled by cóntemplate instead of contémplate, and balcony has become more usual than balcóny. Thus Roome and chaney, layloc and goold, have but lately been driven from the stage by Rome, china, lilac, and gold; and some courteous gentlemen of the old school still continue to be obleeged instead of being obliged. Force", in the sense of a waterfall, and gill, in the sense of a rocky ravine, were not used in classical English before Wordsworth. Handbook 12, though an old Anglo-Saxon word, has but lately taken the place of manual; and a number of words such as cab for cabriolet, buss for omnibus, and even a verb such as to shunt 13 tremble still on the boundary line between the vulgar and the literary idioms.

8 Lectures on the English Language, by G. P. Marsh: New York, 1860, pp. 263 and 630. These lectures embody the result of much careful research, and are full of valuable observations. They have lately been published in England, with useful omissions and additions by Dr. Smith, under the title of Handbook of the English Language.

9 Marsh, p. 532, note.

10 Trench, English Past and Present, p. 210, mentions great, which was pronounced greet in Johnson's time, and tea, which Pope rhymes with obey.

a

11 Marsh, p. 589.

12 Sir J. Stoddart, Glossology, p. 60.

13 In Halliwell's Dictionary of Archaisms 'to shunte' is given in

the sense of to delay, to put off:—

Though the grammatical changes that have taken place since the publication of the authorised version are yet fewer in number, still we may point out some. The termination of the third person singular in th is now entirely replaced by s. No one now says he liveth, but only he lives. Several of the irregular imperfects and participles have assumed a new form. No one now uses he spake, and he drave, instead of he spoke, and he drove; holpen is replaced by helped; holden by held; shapen by shaped. The distinction between ye and you, the former being reserved for the nominative, the latter for all the other cases, is given up in modern English; and what is apparently a new grammatical form, the possessive pronoun its, has sprung into life since the beginning of the seventeenth century. It never occurs in the Bible; and though it is used three or four times by Shakespeare, Ben Jonson does not recognise it as yet in his English Grammar 11.

It is argued, therefore, that as language, differing thereby from all other productions of nature, is liable

'Schape us an ansuere, and schunte yow no lengere.'

Morte Arthure, MS. Lincoln, £. 67. Also in the sense of to shun, to move from, (North) :

:

'Then I drew me down into a dale, whereas the dumb deer Did shiver for a shower; but I shunted from a freyke.' Little John Nobody, c. 1550.

In Sir Gawayne and the Green Knight, ed. R. Morris, Sir Gawayne is said to have shunt, i.e. to have shrunk from a blow (v. 2280; see also 2268, 1902). In the Early English Alliterative Poems, ed. R. Morris, Abraham is said to sit schunt, i. e. a-skant or a-slant (B. 605, p. 56). See Mr. R. Morris' remarks in the glossary, p. 190. 14 Foure Possessives: My, or Myne; Plurall, Our, ours. Thy, thine; Plurall, Your, yours. His, Hers, both in the plurall making, Their, theirs.' See The English Grammar made by Ben Johnson, 1640, chap. xv.

to historical alterations, it is not fit to be treated in the same manner as the subject-matter of all the other physical sciences.

There is something very plausible in this objection, but if we examine it more carefully, we shall find that it rests entirely on a confusion of terms. We must distinguish between historical change and natural growth. Art, science, philosophy, and religion all have a history; language, or any other production of nature, admits only of growth.

Let us consider, first, that although there is a continuous change in language, it is not in the power of any man either to produce or to prevent it. We might think as well of changing the laws which control the circulation of our blood, or of adding an inch to our height, as of altering the laws of speech, or inventing new words according to our own pleasure. As man is the lord of nature only if he knows her laws and submits to them, the poet and the philosopher become the lords of language only if they know its laws and obey them.

•

When the Emperor Tiberius had made a mistake and was reproved for it by Marcellus, another grammarian of the name of Capito, who happened to be present, remarked that what the emperor said was good Latin, or, if it were not, it would soon be so. Marcellus, more of a grammarian than a courtier, replied, Capito is a liar; for, Cæsar, thou canst give the Roman citizenship to men, but not to words.' A similar anecdote is told of the German Emperor Sigismund. When presiding at the Council of Constance, he addressed the assembly in a Latin speech, exhorting them to eradicate the schism of the Hussites. Videte Patres,' he said, ut eradi

cetis schismam Hussitarum.' He was very unceremoniously called to order by a monk, who called out, Serenissime Rex, schisma est generis neutri15.' The emperor, however, without losing his presence of mind, asked the impertinent monk, How do you know it?' The old Bohemian schoolmaster replied, Alexander Gallus says so.' And who is Alexander Gallus?' the emperor rejoined. The monk replied, He was a monk.' 'Well,' said the emperor, and I am emperor of Rome; and my word, I trust, will be as good as the word of any monk.' No doubt the laughers were with the emperor; but for all that, schisma remained a neuter, and not even an emperor could change its gender or termination.

The idea that language can be changed and improved by man is by no means a new one. We know that Protagoras, an ancient Greek philosopher, after laying down some laws on gender, actually began to find fault with the text of Homer, because it did not agree with his rules. But here, as in every other instance, the attempt proved unavailing. Try to alter the smallest rule of English, and you will find that it is physically impossible. There is apparently a very small difference between much and very, but you can hardly ever put one in the place of the other. You can say I am very happy,' but not 'I am much happy,' though you may say I am most happy.' On the contrary, you can say 'I am much misunderstood,' but not 'I am very misun

6

15 As several of my reviewers have found fault with the monk for using the genitive neutri, instead of neutrius, I beg to refer to Priscianus, lib. vi. cap. i. and cap. vii. The expression generis neutrius, though frequently used by modern editors, has no authority, I believe, in ancient Latin.