so carefully observed by the poet. I shall add to this remark, that, as the words cherubim and seraphim are plural, the terms cherubims and seraphims, as expressing the plural, are quite improper. Yet these barbarisms occur sometimes in our translation of the Bible; which, nevertheless, doth not once adopt the plural form cherubim and seraphim, to express the singular; though one would naturally imagine, that this error must originally have given rise to the other. Inaccuracies are often found in the way wherein the degrees of comparison are applied and construed. Some of these, I suspect, have as yet escaped the animadversion of all our critics. Before I produce examples, it will be proper to observe, that the comparative degree implies commonly a comparison of one thing with one other thing: the superlative, on the contrary, always implies a comparison Colorin one thing with many others. The former, consequently, requires to be followed by the singular number, the latter by the plural. In our language, the conjunction than must be interposed between the things compared in the former case, the preposition of is always used in the latter. The following is an example of wrong construction in the comparative: "This noble nation hath of all others admitted fewer corruptions."* The word fewer is here construed precisely as if it were the superlative. Grammatically thus: "This noble nation hat'a admitted fewer corruptions than any other." Sometimes indeed ne comparative is rightly followed by a plural; as in these words, "He is wiser than we." But it cannot be construed with the preposition of, before that to which the subject is compared. There is one case, and but one, wherein the aforesaid preposition is proper after the comparative, and that is, when the words following the preposition comprehend both sides of the comparison; as, "He is the taller man of the two." In these words, the two, are included he and the person to whom he is compared. It deserves our notice, also, that, in such cases, and only in such, the comparative has the definite article the prefixed to it, and is construed precisely as the superlative; nay, both degrees are in such cases used indiscriminately. We say rightly, either "This is the weaker of the two," or- "the weakest of the two." If, however, we may form a judgement from the most general principles of analogy, the former is preferable, because there are only two things compared. inaceus in Comparis (ill) I shall subjoin to this an inaccuracy in a comparison of equality, where, though the positive degree only is used, the construction must pos be similar to that of the comparative, both being followed by conjunctions which govern no case. "Such notions would be avowed at this time by none but rosicrucians, and fanatics as mad as them." Grammatically they, the verb are being understood. That the particles, as after the positive, and than after the comparative, are conjunctions, and not prepositions, seems never to have been questioned by any grammarian or critic before Dr. Priestley. I readily acknowledge, that it is use which must decide the point; nor should I hesitate a moment in agreeing to the notion he suggests, if * Swift's Mechanical Operations. Bolinbroke's Ph. Fr. 24. it were supported by what could be justly denominated general and reputable use. But to me it is manifest, that both the most numerous and the most considerable authorities are on the opposite side; and therefore, that those instances which he produceth in favour of that hypothesis, ought to be regarded merely as negligences of style, into which (as I shall have occasion to observe more fully in the sequel) even the best writers will sometimes fall. That in the colloquial dialect, as Johnson calls it, such idioms frequently occur, is undeniable. In conversation you will perhaps ten times oftener hear people say, "There's the books you wanted,” than “There are the books -;” and “You was present," when a single person is addressed, than" you were present." Yet good use is always considered as declaring solely for the last mode of expression in both cases. The argument drawn from the French usage (which, by the way, hath no authority in our tongue) is not at all apposite.* But, supposing good use were divided on the present question, I acknowledge that the first and second canons proposed on this subject would determine me to prefer the opinion of those who consider the aforesaid particles as conjunctions. The first directs us in doubtful cases to incline to that side in which there is the least danger of ambiguity. In order to illustrate this point, it will be necessary to observe, that the doubt is not properly stated by saying, with Dr. Priestley, that the question is, whether the nominative or accusative ought to follow the particles than and as ; but, whether these particles are, in such particular cases, to be regarded as conjunctions or prepositions. For, on either supposition, it must be admitted, that in certain circumstances the accusative ought to follow, and not the nominative. But I insist that, as in such cases there is a difference in the sense, uniformly to consider those particles as conjunctions, is the only way of removing the ambiguity. Thus I say properly, "I esteem you more than they." I say properly also, I esteem you more than them," but in a sense quite different. If than is understood as a conjunction, there can be nothing ambiguous in either sentence. The case of the pronoun determines at once the words to 66 *The oblique cases of their personal pronouns, answering to our me, thee, and him, are, me, te, and le, not moi, toi, and lui. In these last we have the indefinite form, which serves indifferently, as occasion requires, for either nominative or accusative, and to which there is nothing in our language that exactly corresponds. Thus, to express in French, "He and I are relations," we must say, "Lui et moi, nous sommes parens." But in English, "Him and me, we are relations." would be insufferable. The nominative je, tu, il, are never used by them, but when immediately adjoined to the verb, prefixed in affirming, or affixing in interrogating. In every other situation the indefinite form must supply their place. Le Clerc thus renders a passage of Scripture, (Rev. i. 18,) "Moi qui vis présentement, j'ai été mort." But who that understands English would say, "Me who live at present, I have been dead." Let this serve also as an answer to the plea for these vulgar, but unauthorized idioms, It is me, it is him, from the C'est moi, c'est lui, of the French. I shall observe, in passing, that one of Priestley's quotations in support of these phrases is defensible on a different principle, and therefore not to his purpose. "It is not me you are in love with." The me is here governed by the preposition with. "It is not with me you are in love." Such transpositions are frequent in our language. † Book II. Chap. ii. Sect. 1. be supplied. The first is, "I esteem you more than they esteem you." The second is, "I esteem you more than I esteem them." But this distinction is confounded, if you make than a preposition, which, as in every instance it will require the oblique case, will by consequence render the expression equivocal. For this reason, I consider that quotation from Smollet, (who is, by the bye, the only authority alleged on this question,)" Tell the cardinal, that I understand poetry better than him," as chargeable not so much with inaccuracy, as with impropriety. The sense it expresseth is clearly, "I understand poetry better than I understand him." But this is not the sense of the author. The second canon leads directly to the same decision, as it teacheth us to prefer what is most agreeable to analogy. Now that is always most repugnant to analogy, which tends most to multiply exceptions. Consequently, to consider the particles employed in this manner, of stating a comparison as conjunctions, (which they are universally admitted to be in every other case,) is more analogical, than to consider them as changing their usual denomination and character, in such instances. But to proceed: incorrectness in using the superlative degree appears in the subsequent quotation: "The vice of covetousness is what enters deepest into the soul of any other."* An instance of the same fault I shall give from a writer of no small merit for harmony and elegance. "We have a profession set apart for the purposes of persuasion, wherein a talent of this kind would prove the likeliest perhaps of any other." I do not here criticise on the word other in those examples, which, in my opinion, is likewise faulty, after the superlative; but this fault comes under another category. The error I mean at present to point out is, the superlative followed by the singular number, "the deepest of any other," "the likeliest of any other." We should not say, "the best of any man," or "the best of any other man," for "the best of men." We may indeed say," He is the oldest of the family." But the word family is a collective noun, and equivalent to all in the house. In like manner it may be said, "The eyes are the worst of his face." But this expression is evidently deficient. The face is not the thing with which the eyes are compared, but contains the things with which they are compared. The sentence, when the ellipsis is supplied, stands thus, " Of all the features of his face, the eyes are the worst." Both the expressions above censured may be corrected by substituting the comparative in room of the superlative. "The vice of covetuousness is what enters deeper into the soul than any other ;" and "We have a profession set apart for the purposes of persuasion, wherein a talent of this kind would prove likelier perhaps than any other." It is also possible to retain the superlative, and render the expression grammatical. "Covetousness is what of all vices enters the deepest into the soul;" - and, "wherein a talent of this kind would perhaps of all talents prove the likeliest.” In the following example we have a numeral adjective, which doth not belong to any entire word in the sentence as its substantive, but 'Guardian, No. 19. † Fitz-Osborn's Letters, B. i. L. 24. to a part of a word. "The first project was to shorten discourse by cutting polysyllables into one."* The term one relates to syllable, a part of the word polysyllables. This is quite ungrammatical. The expression is likewise exceptionable on the score of propriety, but of this afterwards. There is an error of the same kind in the following passage from Addison," My christian and surname begin and end with the same letters." The word christian is here an adjective, which hath for its substantive the last syllable of the word surname. The expres sion is also exceptionable on the score of perspicuity, of which afterwards. Sometimes the possessive pronoun does not suit the antecedent. "Each of the sexes," says Addison, "should keep within its particular bounds, and content themselves to exult within their respective districts." Themselves and their cannot grammatically refer to each, singular. Besides the trespass here is the more glaring, that these pronouns are coupled with its referring to the same noun. In no part of speech do good writers more frequently fall into mistakes than in the verbs. Of these I shall give some specimens out of a much greater number which might be collected. The first shall be of a wrong tense, "Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life."§ In two clauses thus connected, when the first verb is in the present or the future, the second, which is dependent on it, cannot be in the past. The words, therefore, ought to have been translated, "that ye may bave life." On the contrary, had the first verb been in the preterit, the second ought to have been so too. Thus, "Ye would not come to me," or, "Ye did not come to me, that ye might have life," is entirely grammatical. In either of these instances, to use the present tense would be erroneous. When the first verb is in the preterperfect, or the present perfect, as some call it, because it hath a reference both to the past and to the present, the second, I imagine, may be in either tense. Thus, "Ye have not come to me that ye might," — or, that ye may. have life," seem equally unexceptionable. Let it be observed, that in expressing abstract or universal truths, the present tense of the verb ought, according to the idiom of our language, and perhaps of every language, always to be employed. In such cases, the verb in that form has no relation to time, but serves merely as a copula to the two terms of the proposition. The case is different with the past and the future, in which the notion of time is always comprehended. Yet this peculiarity in the present hath sometimes been overlooked, even by good authors, who, when speaking of a past event which occasions the mention of some general truth, are led to use the same tense in enunciating the general truth, with that which had been employed in the preceding part of the sentence. Of this we have the following example from Swift, which shall serve for the second instance of inaccuracy in the verbs. "It is confidently reported, that two young gentlemen of real hopes, *Voyage to Laputa, t Freeholder, No. 38. † Spectator, No. 505. O. John v. 40. bright wit, and profound judgement, who, upon a thorough examination of causes and effects, and by the mere force of natural abilities, without the least tincture of learning, have made a discovery, that there was no God, and generously communicating their thoughts for the good of the public, were some time ago, by an unparalleled severity, and upon I know not what obsolete law, broke for blasphemy."* Properly – "have made a discovery that there is no God." The third example shall be of a wrong mood. "If thou bring and thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee."+ -The construction of the two verbs bring and rememberest ought to be the same, as they are both under the regimen of the same conjunction if. Yet the one is in the subjunctive mood, and the other in the indicative. e. The fourth instance shall be the omission of an essential part of one of the complex tenses, the writer apparently referring to a part of the verb occurring in a former clause of the sentence, although the part referred to will not supply the defect, but some other part not produced. Of this the following is an example: "I shall do all I can to persuade others to take the same measures for their cure which I have." Here we have a reference in the end to the preceding verb take. Yet, it is not the word take which will supply the sense, but taken. This participle, therefore, ought to have been added. The fifth specimen in the verbs shall be of a faulty reference to a part to be mentioned. "This dedication may serve for almost any book, that has, is, or shall be published." Has in this place being merely a part of a complex tense, means nothing without the rest of the tense; yet the rest of the tense is not to be found in the sentence. We cannot say, 66 any book that has published," no more can we say, "that has be published." Corrected it would run thus, "that has been, or shall be published." The word is ought to be expunged, as adding nothing to the sense. I shall next produce a few instances of inaccuracy, which result from coupling words together, and assigning to them a common regimen, when use will not admit that they be construed in the same manner. The following is an example in the construction of adjectives : "Will it be urged, that the four gospels are as old, or even older than tradition? "§ The words as old and older cannot have a common regimen; the one requires to be followed by the conjunction as, the other by than. If he had said, "as old as tradition, and even older," there would have been no orror. The comparative, in this case, is not construed with the preceding words, but with words which, being ascertained by the preceding, are properly enough understood. I shall exemplify the same inaccuracy in the construction of verbs. "It requireth few talents to which most men are not born, or at least may not acquire."|| Admitting that the words to which are rightly construed with the passive participle born, they cannot be construed An Argument against abolishing Christianity. t Matt. v. 23. § Bolingb. Phil. Es. iv. S. 19. Guardian, No. 1. |