part never admits a different sense, both perspicuity and variety require, that the form of expression which is in every instance strictly universal, be preferred." Under this canon he would confine toward, forward, backward to employment as adjectives, using only towards as the preposition and only forwards and backwards as adverbs. He would also "prefer that use, which makes ye invariably the nominative plural of the personal pronoun thou, and you the accusative, when applied to actual plurality. When used for the singular number, custom hath determined that it shall be you in both cases.'

The second canon (I, 378) was: "In doubtful cases, regard ought to be had in our decision to the analogy of the language." By this canon he would reject both afterward and homeward as adverbs in favor of afterwards and homewards. He would also insist upon dares, needs (with the ending -s) in the third person singular in such phrases as "he need (s) not go," "he dare (s) not do it"; and this on the ground that as the usage without -s is exceedingly irregular, hardly anything less than uniform practice could authorize it." Webster (p. 70) recognized the distinction between dare and need as transitive verbs and as auxiliaries. In the former use "they have the regular personal termination; as he needs a guide; he dares me to enter the list. But when they are immediately followed by another verb in the infinitive, the personal termination is dropped, and these verbs are to be considered as auxiliaries. Thus, he need not go; he dare not stay; where need and dare stand exactly upon the footing of may and can. This difference in the use of these words has not before been observed, yet it is as well established as any peculiarity in the language, and insensibly made in practice from the best writers to the humblest cottagers." Webster fell foul of Campbell upon another point under the latter's second canon, though on this point usage has followed Campbell. Campbell preferred contemporary to cotemporary because the general practice in compounds with con- "is to retain the [n] before a consonant, and to expunge it before a vowel or an [h] mute." Webster declared (p. 73) that "the ease of pronunciation, which is the guide in this case, always requires cotemporary."

Under this second canon, too, Campbell would "subscribe to the judgment of Dr. Johnson" in preferring ever so to never so in

such a phrase as "though he were ever so good." In this he agreed with Lowth, who quoted (p. 161, note 7) with approval Johnson's condemnation of never so in "charm he never so wisely" as a solecism. Webster (p. 73) insisted that never so was preferable: "This phrase was used by all good writers, till since the days of Addison and Swift; when it became offensive to some superficial critics, who rejected, without understanding it." Usage today apparently approves of both, though some shade of difference in use appears to have developed between them. Another phrase condemned by Campbell under this canon was in no wise, which he wished to displace by the compound nowise, as only the latter was "conformable to the present genius of the tongue. The noun wise, signifying manner, is quite obsolete. It remains now only in composition, in which, along with an adjective or other substantive, it forms an adverb or conjunction. Such are sidewise, lengthwise, coastwise, contrariwise, likewise, otherwise. These always preserve the compound form, and never admit a preposition; consequently nowise, which is an adverb of the same order, ought analogically to be written in one word, and not to be preceded by in." Uncompounded wise is in good use today not only as forming a part of the phrase in no wise, but in other phrases as well-in some wise, in any wise, on this wise.2

Campbell's second group of canons were prefaced (I, 387-90) by an insistence that despite the final weight of the authority of use, use sometimes countenances forms "that are not in all respects good, or such as are worthy to be retained and imitated. In some instances custom may very properly be checked by criticism. Here, therefore, lies one principal province of criticism, to point out the characters of these words and idioms which deserve to be disfranchised, and consigned to perpetual oblivion. It is by carefully filing off all roughnesses and inequalities, that language, like metals, must be polished."

His first canon of the second group is (I, 391): "All words and phrases which are remarkably harsh and unharmonious, and not absolutely necessary, may justly be judged worthy of this

The Century Dictionary records the use of in some wise by Swift. An examination of eighteenth century literature would probably disclose a number of instances of uncompounded wise in other phrases than in in no wise.

fate "i. e. "to be disfranchised and consigned to perpetual oblivion." He continued: "I call a word or phrase absolutely necessary, when we have no synonymous words, in the event of a dismission, to supply its place, or no way of conveying properly the same idea without the aid of circumlocution. . . . The only difficulty is, to fix the criteria by which we may discriminate the obnoxious words from all others. It may well be reckoned that we have lighted on one criterion, when we have found a decompound or term composed of words already compounded, whereof the several parts are not easily, and therefore not closely united. Such are the words bare-faced-ness, shame-faced-ness, un-successful-ness, dis-interested-ness, wrong-headed-ness, tender-heartedness." However objectionably clumsy these words may be, not one of them—not even unsuccessfulness-has actually been "consigned to oblivion."

Under this same canon Campbell continued (I, 392-93): "Another criterion is, when a word is so formed and accented as to render it of difficult utterance to the speaker, and consequently disagreeable in sound to the hearer. This happens in two cases; first, when the syllables which immediately follow the accented syllable are so crowded with consonants, as of necessity to retard the pronunciation. The words questionless, chróniclers, convénticlers, concupiscence, remembrancer, are examples of this. The second case . . . is when too many syllables follow the accented syllable. For though these be naturally short, their number, if they exceed two, makes a disagreeable pronunciation. Examples of this are the words primarily, cúrsorily, súmmarily, perémptorily, peremptoriness, vindicative; all of which are accented on the fourth syllable from the end. It were to be wished, that the use which now prevails in regard to the manner of accenting some words would alter, as we cannot afford to part with every term that is liable to exception in this respect. Nor is a change here to be despaired of, since we find it hath happened to several words already, as the places which they occupy in ancient poetry sufficiently evince." 3

As the words of the second group above are all more or less learned terms, little used in familiar speech, they are not completely subject to the normal accentual tendencies of English. In peremptorily, peremptoriness the dictionaries indicate the accent on the first syllable, that is,

Campbell's second canon of this group is (I, 397): "When etymology plainly points to a signification different from that which the word commonly bears, propriety and simplicity both require its dismission." This statement is carefully qualified: "I use the word plainly, because, when the etymology is from an ancient or foreign language, no regard should be had to it. The case is different, when the roots either are, or strongly appear to be, English, are in present use, and clearly suggest another meaning.” Under this canon he objected to beholden, "obliged, indebted to," because "it should regularly be the past participle of the verb to behold," and "the formation of the word is so analogical, as to make it have at least the appearance of impropriety, when used in a sense that seems naturally so foreign to it." Beholding in the same sense-now obsolete he objected to even more strongly. To vouchsafe in the sense of "to condescend" he regarded as an offender against this canon and "for that reason, more than for its harshness, it may be dispensed with. The word to unloose should analogically signify to tie, in like manner as to untie signifies to loose. To what purpose is it then, to retain a term, without any necessity, in a signification the reverse of that which its etymology manifestly suggests."

The third canon in this group is (I, 399): "When any words become obsolete, or at least are never used, except as constituting part of particular phrases, it is better to dispense with their service entirely, and give up the phrases." On the basis of this principle, Campbell would have had the language give up the following turns of expression which today maintain a vigorous life: lief-"I had as lief go myself"; dint-" by dint of argument, of arms"; whit

on the fifth syllable from the end; in the other words the indicated accentuation is that objected to by Campbell. Yet when these words are used in actual speech, I have observed a tendency toward a modification such as that urged by him. This may take the form of a slurring or even elision of a syllable, or a shift of stress. For example, much the most usual pronunciation of peremptorily with which I am familiar, even among cultivated speakers-the word is hardly used by any others-is perémptrily. In the case of primarily when I have heard it pronounced with stress on the first syllable the second has been elided; but by far the most usual pronunciation is with level stress on the first two syllables, or with appreciably greater stress on the second syllable.

"He is not a whit better"; moot-" The case you mention is a moot point"; and pro and con.*

The fourth and last canon is (I, 400): "All those phrases, which, when analysed grammatically, include a solecism, and all those to which use hath affixed a particular sense, but which, when explained by the general and established rules of language, are susceptible either of a different sense or of no sense, ought to be discarded altogether." He continued: "It is this kind of phraseology which is distinguished by the epithet idiomatical, and hath been originally the spawn, partly of ignorance, and partly of affectation." Had rather (instead of would rather) he considered "a gross violation of the rules of conjugation in our language, and though good use may be considered as protecting this expression from being branded with the name of a blunder, yet as it is both irregular and unnecessary, I can foresee no inconvenience that will arise from dropping it altogether." Though Webster (p. 70) regarded had rather, had as lief as peculiar idioms, he nevertheless supported them: "These expressions, I had rather, you had better, I had as lief, seem not grammatical. Whether had is, in these phrases, a corruption of would, or an old peculiarity, its general use, both in books and speech, undoubtedly entitle [sic] it to an establishment in grammar." As " vile but common phrases, sometimes to be found in good authors . . . which can scarcely be considered as literally conveying any sense" (I, 402) Campbell cited shooting at rovers, currying favour, dancing attendance all in good use today-together with having a month's mind, which apparently has passed out of currency. "Of the same kind also, though not reprehensible in the same degree, is the idiomatical use that is sometimes made of certain verbs, as stand for insist, 'he stands upon security'; take for understand, in such phrases as these, You take me,' and 'as I take it'; hold for continue, as 'he does not hold long in one mind.""

...

I can readily understand that Campbell should object to this last phrase, but I cannot understand his placing it in this group of phrases composed of obsolete terms.

See Hall, op. cit., pp. 116-121 for a full account of the attacks on had rather and its later rehabilitation. Hall noted Webster's objection to this locution in his dictionary, but did not observe the defense of it in his grammar-apparently the only defense of it in the later eighteenth century.