a language could be fixed in permanent form was the rock on which the hope for an
academy seems first to have split. Oldmixon, in his attack on Swift’s
Proposal
referred to
above, vigorously opposes the notion. “The Doctor,” he says, “may as well set up a
Society to find out the
Grand Elixir,
the
Perpetual Motion,
the
Longitude,
and other such
Discoveries, as to fix our Language beyond their own Times…This would be doing what
was never done before, what neither
Roman
nor
Greek,
which lasted
the longest of any in
its Purity, could pretend to.” A much more authoritative utterance was that of Dr.
Johnson in the Preface to his
Dictionary
(1755): “Those who have been persuaded to
think well of my design, require that it should fix our language, and put a stop to those
alterations which time and chance have hitherto been suffered to make in it without
opposition. With this consequence I will confess that I flattered myself for a while; but
now begin to fear that I have indulged expectation which neither reason nor experience
can justify. When we see men grow old and die at a
certain time one after another, from
century to century, we laugh at the elixir that promises to prolong life to a thousand
years; and with equal justice may the lexicographer be derided, who being able to
produce no example of a nation that has preserved their words and phrases from
mutability, shall imagine that his dictionary can embalm his language, and secure it from
corruption and decay, that it is in his power to change sublunary nature,
or clear the world
at once from folly, vanity, and affectation. “With this hope, however, academies have
been instituted, to guard the avenues of their languages, to retain fugitives, and repulse
intruders; but their vigilance and activity have hitherto been vain;
sounds are too volatile
and subtile for legal restraints; to enchain syllables, and to lash the wind, are equally the
undertakings of pride, unwilling to measure its desires by its strength. The French
language has visibly changed under the inspection of the academy…and no Italian will
maintain, that the diction of any modern writer is not perceptibly different from that of
Boccace, Machiavel, or Caro.”
Other grounds for objecting to an academy were not wanting. When in the same
preface
Johnson said, “If an academy should be established…which I, who can never
wish to see dependence multiplied, hope the spirit of English liberty will hinder or
destroy,” he was voicing a prevailing English attitude. The English have always been
moved by a spirit of personal liberty in the use of their language. A policy of
noninterference appeals to them much more than one of arbitrary regulation. As Johnson
late in life again remarked of Swift’s
Proposal,
“The certainty and stability which,
contrary to all experience, he thinks attainable, he proposes to secure by instituting an
academy; the decrees of which every
man would have been willing, and many would
have been proud to disobey.”
Johnson’s views apparently had a decided influence. After the publication of his
Dictionary,
advocacy of an academy becomes less frequent. Instead we find his views
reflected in the opinions expressed by other writers. Thomas Sheridan in his
British
Education,
published a year later, says: “The only scheme hitherto proposed for
correcting, improving, and ascertaining our language, has been the institution of a society
for that purpose. But this is liable to innumerable objections; nor would it be a difftcult
19
Cf. H.M.Flasdieck,
Der Gedanke einer englischen Sprachakademie
(Jena, Germany,
1928), p.95.
A history of the english language 254
point to prove, that such a method could never effectually answer the end.” He then
repeats Johnson’s objections. At least some people realized that language has a way of
taking care of itself, and that features which appear objectionable to one age are either
accepted by the next or have been eliminated by time. Joseph Priestley, who, as we shall
see, was remarkably liberal in his views upon language, anticipating the attitude of later
times, inserts a passage in his
Grammar
(1761) that may be
taken as indicating the
direction that opinion on the subject of an academy was taking in the latter half of the
eighteenth century: “As to a public Academy, invested with authority to ascertain the use
of words, which is a project that some persons are very sanguine in their expectations
from, I think it not only unsuitable to the genius of a free nation, but in itself ill calculated
to reform and fix a language. We need make no doubt but that the best forms of speech
will, in time, establish themselves by their own superior excellence: and, in all
controversies, it is better to wait the decisions of time, which are slow and sure, than to
take those of synods, which are often hasty and injudicious.”
20
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
