IV

PREFACE.

The last writer on this subject is Mr. Nares, who, in his Elements of Orthoepy,has shown a clearness of method and an extent of observation which deserve thehighest encomiums. His Preface alone proves him an elegant writer, as well as aphilosophical observer of Language; and his Alphabetical Index, referring near fivethousand words to the rules for pronouncing them, is a new and useful method oftreating the subject; but he seems, on many occasions, to have mistaken the bestusage, and to have paid too little attention to the first principles of pronunciation.

Thus I have ventured to give my opinion of my rivals and competitors, and I hopewithout envy or self-conceit. Perhaps it would have been policy in me to havebeen silent on this head, for fear of putting the publick in mind that others have writ-ten on the subject as well as myself: but this is a narrow policy, which, under thecolour of tenderness to others, is calculated to raise ourselves at their expense. A writerwho is conscious he deserves the attention of the publick (and, unless he is thusconscious, he ought not to write) must not only wish to be compared with those whohave gone before him, but will promote the comparison by informing his readerswhat others have done, and on what he founds his pretensions to a preference; andif this be done with fairness, and without acrimony, it can be no more inconsistentwith modesty than it is with honesty and plain dealing.

The Work I have to offer on the subject has, I hope, added something to the pub-lick stock: it not only exhibits the principles of pronunciation on a more extensiveplan than others have done, divides the words into syllables, and marks the soundsof the vowels like Dr. Kenrick, spells the words as they are pronounced like Mr.Sheridan, and directs the inspector to the rule by the word like Mr. Nares; but,where words are subject to different pronunciations, it shows the reasons from analogyfor each, produces authorities for one side and the other, and points out the pro-nunciation which is preferable. In short, I have endeavoured to unite the science otMr. Elphinston, the method of Mr. Nares, and the general utility of Mr. Sheridan;and, to add to these advantages, have given critical observations on such words asare subject to a diversity of pronunciation, and have invited the inspector to decideaccording to analogy and the best usage.

But to all works of this kind there lies a formidable objection; which is, that thepronunciation of a Language is necessarily indefinite and fugitive, and that all en-deavours to delineate or settle it are in vain. Dr. Johnson, in his Grammar prefixedto his Dictionary , says, “ Most of the writers on English Grammar have given longtables of words pronounced otherwise than they are written; and seem not sufficientlyto have considered, that, of English , as of all living tongues, there is a double pro-nunciation ; one cursory and colloquial, the other regular and solemn. The cursorypronunciation is always vague and uncertain, being made different, in different mouths,by negligence, unskilfulness, or affectation. The solemn pronunciation, though by nomeans immutable and permanent, is yet always less remote from the orthography, andless liable to capricious innovation. They have, however, generally formed theirtables according to the cursory speech of those with whom they happened to con-verse ; and, concluding that the whole nation combines to vitiate language in onemanner, have often established the jargon of the lowest of the people as the model ofspeech. For pronunciation the best general rule is, to consider those as the mostelegant speakers who deviate least from the written words.”

Without any derogation from the character of Dr. Johnson, it may be asserted thatin these observations we do not perceive that justness and accuracy of thinking forwhich he is so remarkable. It would be doing great injustice to him to supposethat he meant to exclude all possibility of conveying the actual pronunciation ofmany words that depart manifestly from their orthography, or of those that arewritten alike, and pronounced differently and inversely. He has marked these dif-ferences with great propriety himself in many places of his Dictionary ; and it is tobe regretted that he did not extend these remarks further. It is impossible, there-fore, he could suppose, that, because the almost imperceptible glances of colloquial