Jacob Rees Mogg's Style Guide

Why do journalists refer to Jacob Rees-Mogg as the 'member of parliament for the 18th century'? In terms of fashion, beliefs and manner he is more of a Victorian, perhaps an Edwardian. And in other respects he is very much a man of the 20th century. Of course to most people old is old, and they mistakenly draw a straight line from the past to the present, which denotes for them a transition from rigid formality to liberation.

Anyone familiar with the 18th century knows that it was quite unlike the 19th century. Read Defoe or Smollett, whose fictions could not possibly have been created in the 19th century. In terms of language (which shall be the subject of this blog post) it was still a time in which words could have multiple spellings, where dialects varied considerably, where grammar was not yet standardised. Samuel Johnson's compiled his Dictionary not in order to prescribe but describe. When we read it now we do not use it as instruction necessarily, but as an insight into the linguistic customs of the time. It was really a journalist effort to document how language was used.

The overly prescriptive approach to the English language is primarily, as far as I can tell, a 20th century obsession. Grammar lessons are no doubt to blame. Jacob Rees-Mogg, whom I shall hereafter refer to as Esquire, is clearly continuing the obsession. Esquire has sent a list of rules to his staff, banning words and phrases such as 'very', 'due to', 'ongoing' and 'got', and requring them to double space after full stops and to use 'Esq.' after non-titled males names (which, you may have noticed, I find rather silly; and it too is, I believe, solely a 20th century custom).

I agree with Esquire on a few of his choices. He insists on the use of imperial measurements. Good! The imperial system is a far superior and more tangible system than the metric alternative. The EU's Napoleonic directives calling for all member states to use the metric system exemplifies why Britain should not be a member. And phrases like 'no longer fit for purpose' are indeed useless and, moreover, irritating. 

But, goodness, who cares if 'due to' is used instead of 'owing to' -- what loss of clarity is there? 'Due to' no longer has the exclusive meaning it once had, and I can think of no reasons why this is a bad thing. 'Very' provides a very useful emphasis. And what is wrong with 'got'? According to a quick search in Google books, it appears four times in Esquire's dull little book, The Victorians. A book which, might I add, showed about a much literary flair as a 50 Cent lyric. After publishing such a book I would be quite reticent to advise others on their use of language.