cian regards them as much more excusable than barbarisms. The reason is, the former is accounted solely the effect of negligence, the latter of affectation. Negligence in expression, often the consequence of a noble ardour in regard to the sentiments, is at the worst a venial trespass, sometimes it is even not without energy; affectation is always a deadly sin against the laws of rhetoric.

It ought also to be observed, that in the article of solecisms, much greater indulgence is given to the speaker than to the writer; and to the writer who proposeth to persuade or move, greater allowances are made, than to him who proposeth barely to instruct or please. The more vehemence is required by the nature of the subject, the less correctness is exacted in the manner of treating it. Nay, a remarkable deficiency in this respect is not near so prejudicial to the scope of the orator, as a scrupulous accuracy, which bears in it the symptoms of study and art. Eschines is said to have remarked, that the orations of his rival and antagonist Demosthenes, smelled of the lamp; thereby intimating, that their style and composition were too elaborate. If the remark is just, it contains the greatest censure that ever was passed on that eminent orator. But, as the intermediate degrees between the two extremes are innumerable, both doubtless ought to be avoided.

Grammatical inaccuracies ought to be avoided by a writer, for two reasons. One is, that a reader will much sooner discover them than a hearer, however attentive he be. The other is, as writing implies more leisure and greater coolness than is implied in speaking, defects of this kind, when discovered in the former, will be less excused, than they would be in the latter.

To enumerate all the kinds of solecism into which it is possible to fall, would be both a useless and an endless task. The transgression of any of the syntactic rules is a solecism; and almost every rule may be transgressed in various ways. But as novices only are capable of falling into the most flagrant solecisms, such, I mean, as betray ignorance in the rudiments of the tongue, I shall

leave it to grammarians to exemplify, and class the various blunders of this sort which may be committed by the learner All I propose to do at present, is to take notice of a few less observable, which writers of great name, and even of critical skill in the language, have slidden into through inattention; and which, though of the nature of solecism, ought perhaps to be distinguished by the softer name inaccuracy*.

The first of this kind I shall observe is a mistake of the plural number for the singular, "The zeal of the seraphim breaks forth in a becoming warmth of senti"ments and expressions, as the character which is given "us of him denotes that generous scorn and intrepidity "which attends heroic virtuet." Cherub and seraph are two nouns in the singular number transplanted into our language, directly from the Hebrew. In the plural we are authorised, both by use and by analogy, to say either cherubs and seraphs, according to the English idiom, or cherubim and seraphim, according to the oriental. The former suits better the familiar, the latter the solemn style. It is surprising that an author of Mr Addison's discernment, did not, in criticising Milton, take notice of a distinction which is every where 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

I am sensible, that in what concerns the subject of this section, I have been în a great measure prevented by the remarks of Lowth and Priestley, and some other critics and grammarians, who have lately favoured the world with their observations. Since reading their publications, I have curtailed considerably what I prepared on this article; for though I have rarely hit upon the same examples, there was often a coincidence in the matter, inasmuch as the species of fault animadverted on, was frequently the same. I have now almost entirely confined myself to such slips as have been overlooked by others, I say almost entirely; for when any error begins to prevail, even a single additional remonstrance may be of consequence; and in points on which critics are divided, I thought it not unreasonable to offer my opinion.

+ Spectator, No. 327.

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 of 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 hath admitted fewer corruptions than any other." Sometimes indeed the 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 judgment from the most general principles of analogy, the former is preferable, because there are only two things compared.

• Swift's Mechanical Operations.

I shall subjoin to this an inaccuracy in a comparison of equality, where, though the positive degree only is used, the construction must be similar to that of the comparative, both being followed by conjunctions which "Such notions would be avowed at this govern no case "time by none but rosicrucians, and fanatics as mad as "them*." Grammatically they, the verb are being understood.

That the participles, 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 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 appositet.

Bolingbroke's Ph. Fr. 24.

+ 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 nominatives je, tu, il, are never used by them, but when immediately adjoined to the verb, prefixed in affirming, or affixed 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 presente"ment, ja'ai ete mort." But who that understands English would say, "Me

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 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." But this is not the sense of the author.

"who live at present, I have been dead." Let this serve also as an answer to the plea for these vulgar, but unauthorised 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.