Lectures on Language | Page 4

a great measure, the knowledge of God, and the
hopes of immortality, can be either unworthy of study, or, if rightly
explained, uninteresting in the acquisition. In fact, on the principles I
am about to advocate, I have seen the deepest interest manifested, from
the small child to the grey-headed sire, from the mere novice to the
statesman and philosopher, and all alike seemed to be edified and
improved by the attention bestowed upon the subject.
I confess, however, that with the mention of grammar, an association
of ideas are called up by no means agreeable. The mind involuntarily
reverts to the days of childhood, when we were compelled, at the risk
of our bodily safety, to commit to memory a set of arbitrary rules,
which we could neither understand nor apply in the correct use of
language. Formerly it was never dreamed that grammar depended on
any higher authority than the books put into our hands. And learners
were not only dissuaded, but strictly forbidden to go beyond the limits
set them in the etymological and syntactical rules of the authors to
whom they were referred. If a query ever arose in their minds, and they
modestly proposed a plain question as to the why and wherefore things
were thus, instead of giving an answer according to common sense, in a
way to be understood, the authorities were pondered over, till some rule
or remark could be found which would apply, and this settled the
matter with "proof as strong as holy writ." In this way an end may be
put to the inquiry; but the thinking mind will hardly be satisfied with
the mere opinion of another, who has no evidence to afford, save the
undisputed dignity of his station, or the authority of books. This course
is easily accounted for. Rather than expose his own ignorance, the

teacher quotes the printed ignorance of others, thinking, no doubt, that
folly and nonsense will appear better second-handed, than fresh from
his own responsibility. Or else on the more common score, that "misery
loves company."
Teachers have not unfrequently found themselves placed in an
unenviable position by the honest inquiries of some thinking urchin,
who has demanded why "one noun governs another in the possessive
case," as "master's slave;" why there are more tenses than three; what is
meant by a neuter verb, which "signifies neither action nor passion;" or
an "intransitive verb," which expresses the highest possible action, but
terminates on no object; a cause without an effect; why that is
sometimes a pronoun, sometimes an adjective, and not unfrequently a
conjunction, &c. &c. They may have succeeded, by dint of official
authority, in silencing such inquiries, but they have failed to give a
satisfactory answer to the questions proposed.
Long received opinions may, in some cases, become law, pleading no
other reason than antiquity. But this is an age of investigation, which
demands the most lucid and unequivocal proof of the point assumed.
The dogmatism of the schoolmen will no longer satisfy. The dark ages
of mental servility are passing away. The day light of science has long
since dawned upon the world, and the noon day of truth, reason, and
virtue, will ere long be established on a firm and immutable basis. The
human mind, left free to investigate, will gradually advance onward in
the course of knowledge and goodness marked out by the Creator, till it
attains to that perfection which shall constitute its highest glory, its
truest bliss.
You will perceive, at once, that our inquiries thro out these lectures will
not be bounded by what has been said or written on the subject. We
take a wider range. We adopt no sentiment because it is ancient or
popular. We refer to no authority but what proves itself to be correct.
And we ask no one to adopt our opinions any farther than they agree
with the fixed laws of nature in the regulation of matter and thought,
and apply in common practice among men.
Have we not a right to expect, in return, that you will be equally honest

to yourselves and the subject before us? So far as the errors of existing
systems shall be exposed, will you not reject them, and adopt whatever
appears conclusively true and practically useful? Will you, can you, be
satisfied to adopt for yourselves and teach to others, systems of
grammar, for no other reason than because they are old, and claim the
support of the learned and honorable?
Such a course, generally adopted, would give the ever-lasting quietus to
all improvement. It would be a practical adoption of the philosophy of
the Dutchman, who was content to carry his grist in one end of the sack
and a stone to balance it in the other, assigning for a