mistake. It is, "I was mistaken," not "I mistook;" "You are mistaken," not "You mistake." 66 At p. 2 of this book we came to grief; that is, we met with that slang expression, and were vexed and surprised by it. At p. 122, there is a defence of the paragraph which is disfigured by that vulgarism, but not a word of compunction for the offence committed. At p. 172, we were, at length, in some measure relieved. It is described as a colloquial expression," but also as "almost a slang phrase," (which therefore ought to have been avoided by a writer on the Queen's English); while further, "all slang words" are to be avoided (p. 254): Yes, we say, and thereupon we are ready to forgive the only blot of that kind which we have noticed on these pages. The Dean discusses (pp. 134-137) the correctness of the expressions first three, and three first. We confess that we had taken it for granted long ago, that the former is right, and the latter wrong. But our author has brought us into a state of unwelcome discontent towards both of them, as neither being strictly right, so that we are left to choose between two inaccuracies, or some different form of expression. We cannot deny that first three suggests a division of some greater number into so many threes, amongst which these have precedence. But equally the three first is objectionable because it assumes a thing impossible, namely, that three separate things may all be at the same moment first. In this state of embarrassment, we see a little glimmering of light in the consideration that, as "first" does not necessarily mean only a single unit, it may in both of these instances be equivalent to first coming, the first coming three, the three first coming. By this interpretation, if it will stand, the dispute is reduced to the best collocation of words which are identical in their signification; and the preference would then fall on the form which for many years has prevailed-the first three. But there is much force in the Dean's argument, and we regret to acknowledge it, because it disturbs what we supposed that general if not universal usage had settled. رو The paragraphs on "shall" and "will" (pp. 154, 164,) are amongst the most satisfactory in the volume. Our space forbids us to give them more than a very brief notice. In the first person, "will" is used where the thing spoken of is dependent on our own determination; "shall" when the event is beyond our power; as, "Next Tuesday I shall be twenty-one. But there is an exception to this rule, of which an example may be, "I shall write to the Times," not, "I will write." In this case, we mean to speak of an intention as taken out of the region of our own will, and fixed beyond recall. Thus the same principle rules here also. In the second person, "will" is used where the subject is out of the speaker's power,-" You will be twenty-one." "You shall," signifies that the speaker will enforce what follows. But there are exceptions, growing, however, out of the same principles. A master says, "You will go to such a place." Now here the command is not expressed, but it is assumed, and the servant is spoken to as one willing to obey it. We may say, " If you look through history, you shall find, &c." Will would serve as well, but "shall" expresses that the result is certain. In the third person the same general principle prevails,"will" is applied to events foreseen and beyond our control; "shall" comes in where our own choice has an influence; as, if we say, "Next Tuesday shall be the day." In some cases "shall" and "will" may be used indiscriminately; but we must content ourselves with what we have now transferred to our pages on a subject in respect of which the union of Scotland and Ireland with England is as yet far from being complete. It is good to have a rule as to the use of the indicative and subjunctive moods, after the particles "if" or "whether." Dean Alford accepts that of Dr. Latham, that the indicative is right when the thing is certain, and the subjunctive when it is doubtful. As a method of determining which shall be used, Dr. Latham suggests the insertion of (1) as is the case, or (2) as may or may not be the case. The operation may be thus exemplified: "If (as is the case) he is gone." "If (as may or may not be the case) he be gone." Paragraph 298 (p. 205) reminds us that there is no such person as a mutual friend." Two persons may have in a third person a common friend, but not a mutual friend; for the latter word only "describes that which passes from each to each of two persons." "The right man in the right place," (p. 220,) sounds like something proper, but in truth it is nonsense; so let not the phrase take root amongst us. "The word party, for a man, is especially offensive." (p. 227.) We agree to this, but we should not have made room to notice it, excepting from our wish to offer a remark on a use which may possibly be made of this word by some of our readers, where two persons are intended,-we mean in the publication of banns of marriage. The terms actually prescribed by the Prayer-book are only applicable to "two persons." Various expedients are resorted to when the banns of many are published at the same time. The thing to be avoided is the seeming to intend to join together some ten or twenty persons in one marriage. Hence we hear of "these parties (or these persons) severally;" but in such cases the difficulty remains, for they are still to be "joined together;" and if severally, then they are to be dealt with one by one, until they are all joined together. We venture to suggest that such obtrusive alterations, when they are at the same time incorrect, only provoke unfavourable criticism; and that the simplest treatment is the best. The publication of the names has been made by two and two. Let this be assumed to have accomplished what would be aimed at by "several" and "parties;" omit only the word "two" before "persons," and let the emphasis be on not; then be content that "together" should be interpreted by the form of the publication of the banns, which does not contemplate the union of all in one common marriage, but only that of the two and two and two "between" whom the banns were published. We began this article by thanking Dean Alford for his notes on the Queen's English. We may appear to have indulged the querulous spirit commonly attributed to critics, by expressing our disagreement with him on several points. But we are as grateful, as we then expressed ourselves to be, to him for making this a popular subject at the present time; and in spite of appearances, we accept nearly all of his notes in detail, believing that they are right. There are four valuable pages (253-256) of concluding advice, of which we must at least give some idea in their own language, backing their seasonable counsels with all our heart. 1. "Be simple, be unaffected, be honest in your speaking and writing. Never use a long word where a short one will do. Call a spade a spade, not a well known oblong instrument of manual industry.... Elegance of language may not be in the power of all of us, but simplicity and straightforwardness are." 2. "Avoid all oddity of expression. No one was ever a gainer by irregularity in words, or in pronunciation.” 3. "Avoid likewise all slang words. There is no greater nuisance in society than a talker of slang. It is only fit (when innocent, which it seldom is) for raw school-boys, and oneterm freshmen to astonish their sisters with." [Alas, we whisper, if it gets hold of the school-boy, it does not leave him for many a year after his freshman's term in the university.] 4. "Avoid in conversation all singularity of accuracy.' وو 5. "Talk to please, not yourself, but your neighbour, to his edification. What a real pleasure it is to sit by a cheerful unassuming sensible talker;" [we punctuate by the Dean's principles, not by those of his printer,]"one who gives you an even share in the conversation and in his attention; one who leaves on your memory his facts and his opinions, not himself who uttered them, not the words in which they were uttered." Since the foregoing article was written, we have read The Dean's English, by G. Washington Moon. It is a critique on the Dean's own language, with some censures on his criticisms. We believe, with Mr. Moon, that the Dean's English is singularly incorrect, and that the style of his reproofs is utterly indefensible. But Mr. Moon knows how to resent injuries with cutting severity. We cannot class these disputations amongst the amenities of literature. MASSY'S HISTORY OF THE ROMANS. A History of the Romans under the Emperors. By Dawson Massy, M.A., Rector of Killeshin. Second Edition. Hamilton, Adams, and Co. 1861. WE were most of us familiar, in our school days, with the history of regal and republican Rome, and are unwilling to obey Niebuhr, who would have us reject, as idle legend, much of that which Livy has related of Romulus and his successors. We have here to thank Mr. Massy for a volume on Imperial Rome. His history reaches downward to the reign of Charlemagne. It is divided into twelve chapters, to each of which is prefixed a convenient summary of contents, while at the end is a concise but useful general index. To each chapter are added the names of those writers who have been consulted in its preparation. Reference is very frequently made to Gibbon; but recourse has been had to more recent authorities, to Milman and Merivale, to Neander and Giesler. Nor has he neglected to consult Elliott's Hora Apocalypticæ, Lord Mahon's Belisarius, and Canon Wordsworth's Rome the Babylon of the Apocalypse. The author appears to have declined no trouble in his researches, and the result of his labours is a book of much varied and useful information, which treats of worthless and worthy Roman emperors, Christian and unchristian bishops, of Neo-Platonism and Arianism; of the Italian triumphs of Goths, Vandals, and Huns; of luxury and profligate wickedness, not often equalled, and perhaps never surpassed; and, though last, not least important, of the origin of Modern Romanism, with its corruptions of Christian doctrine, idolatrous saintworship, spiritual despotism, and temporal sovereignty. It is not altogether unusual with reviewers to prefix the title of a book to their paper, and then, almost ignoring the work and its writer, to advance their own speculations. We believe that we shall best consult the wishes of our readers by bringing Mr. Massy before them, and keeping ourselves in the background. The motto which he has prefixed to the first chapter is taken from the series of not ungraceful poetical sketches to which its author, Samuel Rogers, gave the title of Italy. As we read its few lines, we wonder not, that not only the men of this world who are unwilling to look beyond man's sublunary interests, but also the devout believer in Holy Writ, should alike feel deeply interested in the record of the history of the mightiest of republics, and the mightiest of empires. "Thou art in Rome! the city that so long The mighty vision that the Prophet saw, And trembled; that from nothing, from the least, A reed-roofed cabin by a river's side?) Daniel foretold the destruction of the persecuting Romish apostasy; and another prophet, St. John the Evangelist, in the days of Domitian, announced the ruin that yet awaits Papal Rome, when he predicted the fiery desolation of the Babylon of the Apocalypse. We find in the work before us, as we should expect in a writer who has taken pains to become familiar with his subject in its numerous bearings, that, while emperors with their wars, political administration, architectural embellishments, and court intrigues, are graphically set before us, illustrious Christian bishops, as Ignatius and Polycarp, Athanasius, Ambrose and Chrysostom, are not overlooked. Mr. Massy quotes the parting advice of Ignatius to Polycarp,-" Stand firm and immovable as an anvil when it is beaten upon. It is the part of a brave combatant to be wounded and yet to overcome." (p. 137.) The well-known Protestant, Theodore Beza, may perhaps have had in his mind these words of the martyr-bishop of Antioch, when he said, "The Church of Christ is an anvil that has worn out many hammers." How much of the history of the long struggle between Popery and the Redeemer's true and invisible Church is represented by the fierce smiting of the relentless hammer, and the patient endurance of the smitten anvil. Nor does our author neglect duly to notice that subtle but false philosophy which some, who call themselves Christian ministers, are even now seeking to introduce among us, and which, in too many instances, corrupted, where it could not uproot, the religion of Jesus. We proceed to give an extract which may be accepted as a specimen of the sober and not unskilful controversial use which Mr. Massy makes, from time to time, of certain topics upon which the history requires him to touch. "It is also highly noteworthy, that, accustomed as were the New Platonists, the philosophers of the day, to accuse Christianity as destructive of the Empire, by creating a State within a State, yet that not one of them ever alludes to St. Peter, or any of his selfstyled successors, as supreme Head of the Church throughout the Roman world. If such were the case, and if he reigned in Rome as 'Prince of the Apostles,' as modern Romanists pretend, these adversaries of Christianity would have quickly discovered, and gladly paraded the fact, as their best possible proof, and as that best adapted to irritate the Emperors, whose jealousy against such as should act independently of their despotic government was so great, that they |