"light," " current," "fugitive." It was always so, and will continue so to the end of time. It is so in the same department of literature in other countries, and there is no reason why ours should be an exception to the common lot. But that the grossest solecisms and the most palpable blunders should be of frequent occurrence in those who claim to occupy the highest place in the republic of letters, is what few may be prepared to admit. mar." Much has been written in our day on the "English Language;" on the "Rise, Progress, and Present Structure of the English Language;" on "English Past and Present;" on the "Study of Language;" on the "Study of Words;" on English Synonymes;" and on "English GramBut of what avail are all those writings, if, when we come to put our words together, to combine them for the main purpose for which they are designed, we show ourselves deficient in artistic skill? What would be thought of the painter who could expatiate on the properties of colours, yet should be incapable of making a judicious disposition of them on canvass ? What of the architect who could explain the origin and use of his building materials, yet in practice should exhibit ignorance of the laws of symmetry? In recommending for imitation the example of the French, so far as relates to grammatical propriety, I do not wish to be understood as recommending that we should sacrifice any of the advantages of our own mother-tongue to the attainment of that object. French is one of the poorest of modern languages; but its poverty does not arise from its method and propriety. This indeed is so little the case, that, if it were written with no greater attention to grammar than English commonly is, it would soon be reduced to an intolerable jargon. English, on the other hand, is one of the richest of living languages; but its copiousness and vigour would suffer no diminution by being combined with a higher degree of method and propriety. That these qualities are not unattainable is sufficiently shown by the examples of such writers as Hazlitt, Southey, and Landor. That they are attainable in an eminent degree, is proved by the fact that the greatest prose writer of the age is indebted for much of his fame to the correctness and brilliancy of his diction. Correctness, however, like other merits In some, in a writer, has its relative value. it is the chief recommendation; in others, its absence is the principal defect. Correctness is not necessary to constitute a great writer; inaccuracy is sufficient to disparage the greatest. 15th July, 1856. |