¹ Boswell's London Journal 1762–1763 (New York, 1950). Unless otherwise noted, page references after Boswell citations are to this work, quoted by permission of the publishers, McGraw-Hill. I should like to express here my appreciation to Professor Pottle for reading this article and offering valuable suggestions.

² Univ. of Wise. Stud, in Lang, and Lit., No. 25 (Madison, 1929). This book has been used throughout the paper for statements of grammarians on specific usages, although where Leonard's sources were available they have been checked again, though sometimes not in the same edition. Over half the grammarians cited have been so checked: Ash, Baker, Blair, Campbell, Karnes, Lowth, Mennye, Monboddo, Murray, Priestley, Ussher, Withers. Page references in my text are to Leonard, where the reader will find the relevant page numbers in 18th-century grammars if he wishes to investigate further.

³ The Bypochondriack, ed. Margery Bailey (Stanford Univ., 1928), ii, 151 (Feb. 1782).

⁴ Letters of James Boswell, ed. C. B. Tinker (Oxford, 1924), I, 32 (26 July, 1763).

⁵ Ibid., p. 44 (Dec. 1763).

⁶ Johann Christoph Gottsched (1700–66) was a German author and critic who wrote on rhetoric and the art of poetry as well as on German grammar. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, his Grundlegang einer deutschen Sprachkunst (1748) was important for the purification of the language.

⁷ Private Papers of James Boswell from Malahide Castle, ed. Geoffrey Scott (Mt. Vernon, N. Y.: Rudge, 1928–34), iii, 116, 120.

⁸ A similar disclaimer appears at the beginning of Boswell's Journal of my Jaunt, Harvest, 1762: “As it is written for Amusement and in a careless and dissipated way, it cannot fail to be very incorrect both in the Arrangement of the Subjects and in the Expression.” At the same time it must not disgrace “it's [sic] Writer” (Private Papers, i 56).

⁹ By “functional varieties” is meant acceptable variation depending upon social situation and purpose.

¹⁰ Leonard says: “Various writers in this period [Priestley and Fox], glimpsed dimly the notion that different styles are appropriate to different occasions … But this notion did not become part of the theory of criticism in the eighteenth century, or in the nineteenth for that matter” (pp. 177,180). Campbell's attitude toward informal writing, for example, is shown in this statement: “As to that which hath been denominated the vulgarism, its genuine source seems to be the affectation of an easy, familiar, and careless manner” (Philosophy of Rhethoric, i, 476). Elsewhere in this same work (p. 438), the “colloquial dialect” is rejected as a measure of “good use.”

¹¹ See also pp. 103, 110,167, 168, 169, 326. Italics in the quotations from the Journal are mine unless otherwise noted, and are used for the reader's easier comprehension.

¹² A Short Introduction to English Grammar, 1762. See p. 34 in 1775 ed.

¹³ Rudiments of English Grammar, 1761–62. See p. 194 in 1772 ed.

¹⁴ Aristarchus, 1788, pp. 38, 39. Grammars somew-hat later than the actual date of the London Journal have been used in this study, since it can be assumed that what an 18th-century grammarian objected to in 1770, or even in 1790, he would probably have objected to in 1762. The late 18th-century grammarians themselves often prove their obliviousness to time by citing “solecisms” from Swift, Addison, Milton, et al.

¹⁵ With collective nouns Boswell most often uses a plural verb, on quite justifiable grounds, although some of the passages sound strange to us today: “The company were all Scottish” (p. 262); “[Johnson speaking] Mankind have found from experience” (p. 314); “Whereas in truth the world are too busy about themselves to think of him” (p. 214). An interesting pair of examples occurs on the same page, where the collective battalion shifts from plural to singular within a few sentences: “However, a battalion of the Guards from Germany were this day to march into town … The Battalion was not drawn up on the Parade, as I expected, but was marched up to Lincoln's Inn Fields” (p. 205).

¹⁶ English Grammar (1795), p. 88.

¹⁷ Reflections on the English Language … (1770). See p. 51 in 1779 ed.

¹⁸ Hugh Blair, Lectures on Rhetoric, 1783, 1, 343.

¹⁹ Elements of Grammar, 1787. See p. 19 in 1796 ed.

²⁰ Some other examples of vague which and this can be found on pp. 40,42,80. Even in a formal letter to Lady Northumberland, we read: “Your Ladyship may remember that I observed to you that people often fell into a great mistake: because people of consequence liked them as acquaintances and showed them civility, they applied to them for substantial favours, which is quite a different sort of a thing” (p. 108). In one sentence, however, Bos-well painstakingly inserts the antecedent, ideas: “Variety of fine cheering ideas glanced athwart my blest imagination, ideas which gave me exquisite sensations at the time but which are so very nice that they elude endeavours to paint them” (p. 201).

²¹ Many examples of departures from both of these are to be found in the London Journal: e.g., “both to France and Spain (p. 119); ”a woman worthy of my love, and who thinks me worthy of hers (p. 84).

²² Appears as make in the 1779 ed.

²³ Plain and Complete Grammar, 1772.

²⁴ An English Grammar, 1785, pp. 88–89.

²⁵ Elements of Criticism, 1762, ii, 302.

²⁶ A Regular English Syntax, 1767.

²⁷ Even though some of the following illustrative words which look like adjectives are historically adverbs, known to the linguist as flat adverbs because they lack the characteristic adverbial ending, the term “adjective” has been kept, since 18th-century grammarians thought of them as adjectives.

^27a Origin and Progress of Language, 1773. Vol. iv, p. 122 in 1787 ed. See also Leonard, p. 200 ff.

²⁸ Easiest Introduction to Dr. Lowth's English Grammar, 1763. See p. 76 in 1775 ed.

²⁹ Observations on the English Language, 1752.

³⁰ For example, have beat, pp. 301, 302 (both in direct quotations from Johnson). Have broke: was broke, pp. 42, 43, 72, 92; had broke, pp. 110, 169 (the latter in Eglinton's conversation); to be broke, pp. 219, 239 (the first in conversation with Eglinton). Have got: pp. 65, 205 (see also page 1081 of this article); had got, pp. 52,53; having got, p. 99;could not be got, p. 103, other examples passim. Have spoke: p. 169 (Boswell to Eglinton); was spoke, p. 177; were spoke, p. 57; had spoke, p. 143; Have wrote: had wrote, pp. 107, 111, 151; is wrote, p. 179.

³¹ Short English Grammar (1793).

³² Royal English Grammar (1737).

³³ Sketches or Essays on Various Subjects (1758).

³⁴ Works of Dr. Parr (see Leonard, p. 84).

³⁵ Two most apparent are: “I am troubled with no dirty streets nor no jostling chairmen” (p. 184) and “I could not but laugh” (p. 258). Both are cases not specifically covered by 18th-century grammarians as Leonard reports them.

³⁶ Whether, by “correctness,” Boswell meant what we automatically assume the word to mean—grammatical correctness—is a question to be considered shortly.

³⁷ Private Papers, ix (6 April, 1772). This remark is particularly interesting to students of 18th-century pronunciation, showing as it does that the earlier syllabic pronunciation of the -ed ending was still preserved in solemn speech—probably especially in prayers and scripture readings. Otherwise, as we know, it had syncopated, a fact shown by BoswelFs spelling, receiv'd.

³⁸ That it meant this same thing to some of Boswell's literary contemporaries is supported by discussions in the Life of Samuel Johnson. Johnson, talking of “the best English sermons for style,” says: “All the latter preachers have a good style. Indeed, nobody now talks much of style: every body composes pretty well. There are no such inharmonious periods [italics mine] as there were a hundred years ago” (7 April, 1778). And elsewhere the elements of harmony are more specifically spelled out when Johnson says: “Sir William Temple was the first writer who gave cadence to English prose. Before this time they were careless of arrangement, and did not mind whether a sentence ended with an important word or an insignificant word, or with what part of speech it was concluded.” Of Clarendon he remarks, “He is objected to for his parentheses, his involved clauses, and his want of harmony” (9 April, 1778).

³⁹ There is proof, however, that 14 years later he was more conscious: writing briefs in Edinburgh in 1776, Boswell and Henry Erskine agree to exchange papers for criticism in order to acquire “correctness in writing.” According to the bargain, for “every ungrammatical expression and every Scotticism except technical phrases, a shilling was to be incurred; and for every error in punctuation which hurt the sense of a passage and every errour of the press, sixpence was to be incurred.” At the first exchange, Erskine's many criticisms provoked Boswell into the complaint that Erskine was being too nice, “for it was not inelegance but incorrectness that was liable to a fine. The former was very arbitrary. The latter, Johnson and Lowth could determine” (Private Papers, ix, 86, 2 Feb. 1776). Here it is clear that “correctness” means grammatical correctness, and that Johnson and Lowth are the criteria. Johnson's Grammar (prefixed to his Dictionary) could hardly have been very helpful here; only 13 pages long, it deals with basic structure—sounds, formation of parts of speech, methods of word derivation, etc.,—rather than with details of grammatical usage. Lowth, more prescriptive in matters of usage with his 60-odd pages on sentence problems—-case, agreement, etc.—, would provide much more dogma on “correctness.” It will be remembered that Boswell met Lowth in 1772, and may have acquainted himself with his work at the same time. How long Boswell's bargain with Erskine continued we do not know since this is the only mention of it. If Boswell had become aware of the grammarians' rules in these 14 years, it would be interesting to see how much more “grammatical correctness” is. apparent in his later style. A comparison of later work with the London Journal would be desirable here.

⁴⁰ As we have seen in the preceding footnote, even Boswell's bargain with Erskine seemed half-hearted and was probably soon abandoned.