“We cannot be careful enough in the use of our words. Strictly speaking, neither _history_ nor _growth_ is applicable to the changes of the shifting surface of the earth. _History_ applies to the actions of free agents, _growth_ to the natural unfolding of organic beings. We speak, however, of the growth of the crust of the earth,[1] and we know what we mean by it; and it is in this sense, but not in the sense of growth as applied to a tree, that we have a right to speak of the growth of language.” What do we find in Professor Whitney’s Second Lecture? He objects, like myself, to comparing the growth of language and the growth of a tree, and like myself, he admits of an excuse, viz., when the metaphor is employed for the sake of brevity or liveliness of delineation (p. 35). I had said:-- “Ever since Horace, it has been usual to compare the changes of language with the growth of trees. But comparisons are treacherous things; and though we cannot help using metaphorical expressions, we should always be on our guard,” etc. So far we are in perfect harmony. But immediately after, the wind begins to blow. One sentence is torn out from the context, where I had said:-- “That it is not in the power of man (not men) either to produce or to prevent change in language; that we might think as well of changing the laws which control the circulation of our blood, or of adding an inch to our height, as of altering the laws of speech, or inventing new words, _according to our pleasure_.” In order to guard against every possible apprehension as to what I meant by _according to our pleasure_, I quoted the well-known anecdotes of the Emperor Tiberius and of the Emperor Sigismund, and referred to the attempts of Protagoras, and other purists, as equally futile. Here the Republican indignation of the American writer is roused; I, at least, can find no other motive. He tells me that what I really wanted to say was this:-- “If so high and mighty a personage as an emperor could not do so small a thing as alter the gender and termination of a single word--much less can any one of inferior consideration hope to accomplish such a change.” . . . He then exclaims:-- “The utter futility of deriving such a doctrine from such a pair of incidents, or a thousand like them, is almost too obvious to be worth the trouble of pointing out. . . . High political station does not confer the right to make or unmake language,” etc.