One hardly expected to find philological acumen in the dry discussion of law-Latin, but when the _three_ words, "_secundum formam statuti_," require _seven_ in English, "according to the form of the statute," one easily comprehends the heavy weight of the _stamp-duty_ for _writing English_. The Saxons, who made no use of particles of speech, had more merit than we were aware of.
[15] By the Rev. JOHN LEWIS, 1731, fo., and republished by the Rev. H. H. BABER, 1810, 4to.
The censure of Fabricius deserves our notice. After mention of Wickliffe's version of the Bible, he adds, "Mirum est Anglos eam (versionem) tam diu neglexisse quum vel linguæ causa ipsis in pretio esse debeat."--"Bib. Lat.," v. 321.
It is provoking to be reminded of our neglected duties by a foreigner. We might assuredly be curious to learn how the sublimity and the colloquial and narrative parts of this vast treasure of our ancient language were produced under the primitive pen of Wickliffe. A fine copy of Wickliffe's Bible was in the library of Mr. Douce, and I have heard, with great satisfaction, that it will probably be edited by Sir Francis Madden.
[16] Herbert's "History of the City Companies."
[17] I derive this curious fact from Mr. Tyler's "History of Henry of Monmouth," ii. 245.
[18] These wills are preserved in Mr. Nichols' "Collection of Royal Wills."
[19] Le Comte de Neufchateau, "Essay on French Literature," prefixed to the late edition of Pascal's works.
[21] See "Quarterly Rev.," lix. 34.--The critic is deeply imbued with his delight of Saxon-English. "The first bursts in our literature (probably the noblest are meant) are in almost pure Saxon." The critic particularly appeals to Milton for two instances; yet surely the Greekised, the Latinised, and even the Italianised Milton will not serve to assert the pre-eminence of our venerable dialect. "A country congregation" is its more certain test; where the language of the people is the only language required. Cobbett's writings throughout are Saxon-English. Coleridge considered Asgill and De Foe the most idiomatic writers.
The vicissitudes of the English language are more evident than its origin. In the history of a language we are perpetually reminded, by the remonstrances of the critics, of the corruptions of its purity, the perils of innovation, and the obtrusion of neologisms, while we find these same critics fastidiously rejecting what they deem the antiquated and the obsolete; many causes are constantly operating these changes of language. The style of one age ceases to be that of another; new modifications of thought create new modes of expression; and as knowledge enlarges its sphere, and society changes its manners, novel objects imperiously demand adequate terms.