Page 306

of central concern for the ethnic, the authentic, the indigenously unique spirit and form. When Robert Gruffydd (1697) has the language of Cambria address the 'fond reader' with respect to the author's (that is his own) labors on her behalf she merely claims that 'he hath endeavoured to bestow upon me the privilege of Art ... without even a moment of time to adorn me as he would have wished' (W.R. Jones, 1966: 4). Even Salisbury (1547?), recognizing that a Welsh capable of handling only rustic experiences was doubly exposed to the danger of extinction, made no ethnic claims and provided no ethnic guidelines for the conscious language modernization that he favored. ('Do you suppose that ye need no better words and no greater variety of expression to set out learning and to treat of philosophy and the arts than you have in common use in daily conversation, when you buy and sell and eat and drink .. .? And take this as a warning from meunless you bestir yourself to cherish and mend the language, before the present generation is no more it will be too late' (cited by W. R. Jones, 1966: 43). On the other hand, early opponents of language planning are also predominantly nonnationalist in their views. A common view is that of de la Rame, predating the Academy itself and anticipating a recurring reaction to professors who meddle with the language: 'The people is the sovereign lord of its language and holds it as a fief free of all obligations, and is obligated to no lord for it. The school for this knowledge is not at all in the auditoriums of the Hebrew, Latin, and Greek professors in the University of Paris, as some of our fine etymologizers think; it is in the Louvre, in the Palais de Justice, in the Halles, on the Place de Greve, on the Place Maubert' (1572, cited by Guryceva, 1960: 30). Before he himself became a member thereof, Montesquieu admitted (1690) that he had 'heard of a kind of tribunal called the French Academy. There is none in the world less respected; for no sooner has it decided than the people annul its decrees and impose laws which it is obliged to follow. Some time ago, to fix its authority, it gave a code of its judgements. That child of so many fathers was almost old when it was born' (cited by Robertson, 1910: 209). A little over half a century later Samuel Johnson was similarly sarcastic, but again without a trace of the nationalist concern for authenticity. 'Academies have been instituted, to guard the avenues of their languages, to retain fugitives and repulse invaders; but their vigilance and activity have hitherto been in vain: sounds are too volatile and subtile for legal restraints; to enchain syllables and to lash the wind are equally undertaking of pride' (1755: v). Thus, we find here repeated vis--vis language planning the same predominantly different approaches that we previously encountered with respect to language per se. The prenationalist view (whether positive or negative) is primarily related to dimensions such as beauty, parsimony, efficiency,