The Grammar of English Grammars Part 128

"There is none justified, _but he_ that is in measure sanctified."--_Isaac Penington_. _Save_, as a conjunction, is nearly obsolete.

OBS. 14.--In Rev., ii, 17th, we read, "Which no man knoweth, _saving he_ that receiveth it;" and again, xiii, 17th, "That no man might buy or sell, _save he_ that had the mark." The following text is inaccurate, but not in the construction of the nominative _they_: "All men cannot receive this saying, _save they_ to whom it is given."--_Matt._, xix, 11. The version ought to have been, "_Not all_ men can receive this saying, _but they only_ to whom it is given:" i.e., "they only _can receive it_, to whom _there is given power to receive it_." Of _but_ with a nominative, examples may be multiplied indefinitely. The following are as good as any: "There is no G.o.d _but He_."--_Sale's Koran_, p. 27. "The former none _but He_ could execute."--_Maturin's Sermons_, p. 317. "There was n.o.body at home _but I_."--_Walker's Particles_, p. 95. "A fact, of which as none _but he_ could be conscious, [so] none _but he_ could be the publisher of it."--_Pope's Works_, Vol. iii, p. 117. "Few _but they_ who are involved in the vices, are involved in the irreligion of the times."--_Brown's Estimate_, i, 101.

"I claim my right. No Grecian prince but _I_ Has power this bow to grant, or to deny."

--_Pope, Odys._, B. xxi, l. 272.

"Thus she, and none _but she_, the insulting rage Of heretics oppos'd from age to age."

--_Dryden's Poems_, p. 98.

In opposition to all these authorities, and many more that might be added, we have, with now and then a text of false syntax, the absurd opinion of perhaps _a score or two_ of our grammarians; one of whom imagines he has found in the following couplet from Swift, an example to the purpose; but he forgets that the verb _let_ governs the _objective_ case:

"Let _none but him_ who rules the thunder, Attempt to part these twain asunder."

--_Perley's Gram._, p. 62.

OBS. 15.--It is truly a wonder, that so many professed critics should not see the absurdity of taking _but_ and _save_ for "_prepositions_," when this can be done only by condemning the current usage of nearly all good authors, as well as the common opinion of most grammarians; and the greater is the wonder, because they seem to do it innocently, or to teach it childishly, as not knowing that they cannot justify both sides, when the question lies between opposite and contradictory principles. By this sort of simplicity, which approves of errors, if much practised, and of opposites, or essential contraries, when authorities may be found for them, no work, perhaps, is more strikingly characterized, than the popular School Grammar of W. H. Wells. This author says, "The use of _but_ as a preposition is _approved_ by J. E. Worcester, John Walker, R. C. Smith, Picket, Hiley, Angus, Lynde, Hull, Powers, Spear, Farnum, Fowle, Goldsbury, Perley, Cobb, Badgley, Cooper, Jones, Davis, Beall, Hendrick, Hazen, and Goodenow."--_School Gram._, 1850, p. 178. But what if all these authors do prefer, "_but him_," and "_save him_," where ten times as many would say, "_but he_," "_save he_?" Is it therefore difficult to determine which party is right? Or is it proper for a grammarian to name sundry authorities on both sides, excite doubt in the mind of his reader, and leave the matter _unsettled_? "The use of _but_ as a preposition," he also states, "is _discountenanced_ by G. Brown, Sanborn, Murray, S. Oliver, and several other grammarians. (See also an able article in the Ma.s.s. Common School Journal, Vol. ii, p. 19.)"--_School Gram._, p. 178.

OBS. 16.--Wells pa.s.ses no censure on the use of nominatives after _but_ and _save_; does not intimate which case is fittest to follow these words; gives no false syntax under his rule for the regimen of prepositions; but inserts there the following brief remarks and examples:

"REM. 3.--The word _save_ is frequently used to perform the office of a preposition; as, 'And all desisted, all _save him_ alone.'--_Wordsworth_."

"REM. 4.--_But_ is sometimes employed as a preposition, in the sense of _except_; as, 'The boy stood on the burning deck, Whence all _but him_ had fled.'--_Hemans_."--_Ib._, p. 167.

Now, "BUT," says Worcester, as well as Tooke and others, was "originally _bot_, contracted from _be out_;" and, if this notion of its etymology is just, it must certainly be followed by the nominative case, rather than by the objective; for the imperative _be_ or _be out_ governs no case, admits no additional term but a nominative--an obvious and important fact, quite overlooked by those who call _but_ a preposition. According to Allen H.

Weld, _but_ and _save_ "are _commonly_ considered _prepositions_," but "are _more commonly_ termed _conjunctions_!" This author repeats Wells's examples of "_save him_," and "_but him_," as being _right_; and mixes them with opposite examples of "_save he_," "_but he_," "_save I_," which he thinks to be _more right_!--_Weld's Gram._, p. 187.

OBS. 17.--Professor Fowler, too, an other author remarkable for a facility of embracing incompatibles, contraries, or dubieties, not only condemns as "false syntax" the use of _save_ for an exceptive conjunction. (--587. --28,) but cites approvingly from Latham the following very strange absurdity: "One and the same word, in one and the same sentence, may be a Conjunction or [a] Preposition, as the case may be: [as] All fled _but_ John."--_Fowler's E. Gram._, 8vo, 1850, -- 555. This is equivalent to saying, that "one and the same sentence" _may be two different sentences_; may, without error, be understood in two different senses; may be rightly taken, resolved, and pa.r.s.ed in two different ways! Nay, it is equivalent to a denial of the old logical position, that "It is impossible for a thing _to be_ and _not be_ at the same time;" for it supposes "_but_," in the instance given, to be at once both a conjunction and _not_ a conjunction, both a preposition and _not_ a preposition, "_as the case may be_!" It is true, that "one and the same word" may sometimes be differently pa.r.s.ed _by different grammarians_, and possibly even an adept may doubt who or what is right. But what ambiguity of construction, or what diversity of interpretation, proceeding from the same hand, can these admissions be supposed to warrant? The foregoing citation is a boyish attempt to justify different modes of parsing the same expression, on the ground that the expression itself is equivocal. "All fled _but John_," is thought to mean equally well, "All fled _but he_," and, "All fled _but him_;" while these latter expressions are erroneously presumed to be alike good English, and to have a difference of meaning corresponding to their difference of construction. Now, what is equivocal, or ambiguous, being therefore erroneous, is to be _corrected_, rather than pa.r.s.ed in any way. But I deny both the ambiguity and the difference of meaning which these critics profess to find among the said phrases. "_John fled not, but all the rest fled_," is virtually what is told us in each of them; but, in the form, "All fled but _him_," it is told ungrammatically; in the other two, correctly.

OBS. 18.--In Latin, _c.u.m_ with an ablative, sometimes has, or is supposed to have, the force of the conjunction _et_ with a nominative; as, "Dux _c.u.m_ aliquot principibus capiuntur."--LIVY: _W. Allen's Gram._, p. 131. In imitation of this construction, some English writers have subst.i.tuted _with_ for _and_, and varied the verb accordingly; as, "A long course of time, _with_ a variety of accidents and circ.u.mstances, _are_ requisite to produce those revolutions."--HUME: _Allen's Gram._, p. 131; _Ware's_, 12; _Priestley's_, 186. This phraseology, though censured by Allen, was expressly approved by Priestley, who introduced the present example, as his proof text under the following observation: "It is not necessary that the two _subjects of an affirmation_ should stand in the very same construction, to require the verb to be in the plural number. If one of them be made to depend upon the other _by a connecting particle_, it may, _in some cases_, have the same force, as if it were independent of it."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 186. Lindley Murray, on the contrary, condemns this doctrine, and after citing the same example with others, says: "It is however, proper to observe that these modes of expression do not appear to be warranted by _the just principles_ of construction."-- _Octavo Gram._, p. 150. He then proceeds to prove his point, by alleging that the preposition governs the objective case in English, and the ablative in Latin, and that what is so governed, cannot be the nominative, or any part of it. All this is true enough, but still some men who know it perfectly well, will now and then write as if they did not believe it. And so it was with the writers of Latin and Greek. They sometimes wrote bad syntax; and the grammarians have not always seen and censured their errors as they ought. Since the preposition makes its object only an adjunct of the preceding noun, or of something else, I imagine that any construction which thus a.s.sumes two different cases as joint nominatives or joint antecedents, must needs be inherently faulty.

OBS. 19.--Dr. Adam simply remarks, "The plural is sometimes used after the preposition _c.u.m_ put for _et_; as, _Remo c.u.m fratre Quirinus jura dabunt_.

Virg."--_Latin and English Gram._, p. 207; _Gould's Adam's Latin Gram._, p.

204; _W. Allen's English Gram._, 131. This example is not fairly cited; though many have adopted the perversion, as if they knew no better.

Alexander has it in a worse form still: "Quirinus, c.u.m fratre, jura dabunt."--_Latin Gram._, p. 47. Virgil's words are, "_Cana_ FIDES, _et_ VESTA, _Remo c.u.m fratre Quirinus, Jura dabunt_."--_aeneid_, B. i, l. 296.

Nor is _c.u.m_ here "put for _et_," unless we suppose also an antiptosis of _Remo fratre_ for _Remus frater_; and then what shall the literal meaning be, and how shall the rules of syntax be accommodated to such changes? Fair examples, that bear upon the point, may, however, be adduced from good authors, and in various languages; but the question is, are they _correct_ in syntax? Thus Dr. Robertson: "The palace of Pizarro, _together with_ the houses of several of his adherents, _were_ pillaged by the soldiers."-- _Hist. of Amer._, Vol. ii, p. 133. To me, this appears plainly ungrammatical; and, certainly, there are ways enough in which it may be corrected. First, with the present connective retained, "_were_" ought to be _was_. Secondly, if _were_ be retained, "_together with_" ought to be changed to _and_, or _and also_. Thirdly, we may well change both, and say, "The palace of Pizarro, _as well as_ the houses of several of his adherents, _was_ pillaged by the soldiers." Again, in Mark, ix, 4th, we read: "And there appeared _unto them_ Elias, _with_ Moses; and _they_ were talking with Jesus." If this text meant that _the three disciples_ were talking with Jesus, it would be right as it stands; but St. Matthew has it, "And, behold, there appeared unto them _Moses and Elias, talking_ with him;" and our version in Luke is, "And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias."--Chap. ix, 30. By these corresponding texts, then, we learn, that the p.r.o.noun _they_, which our translators inserted, was meant for "_Elias with Moses_;" but the Greek verb for "_appeared_," as used by Mark, is _singular_, and agrees only with Elias.

"[Greek: _Kai ophthae autois Aelias sun Mosei, kai haesan syllalountes to Iaesoy_.]"--"Et _apparuit_ illis Elias c.u.m Mose, et erant colloquentes Jesu."--_Monta.n.u.s_. "Et _visus est_ eis Elias c.u.m Mose, qui colloquebantur c.u.m Jesu."--_Beza_. This is as discrepant as our version, though not so ambiguous. The French Bible avoids the incongruity: "Et iis virent paroitre _Moyse et Elie_, qui s'entretenoient avec Jesus." That is, "And there appeared to them _Moses and Elias_, who were talking with Jesus." Perhaps the closest and best version of the Greek would be, "And there appeared to them Elias, with Moses;[397] and _these two_ were talking with Jesus."

There is, in our Bible, an other instance of the construction now in question; but it has no support from the Septuagint, the Vulgate, or the French: to wit, "The second [lot came forth] to Gedaliah, _who with_ his brethren and sons _were_ twelve."--_1 Chron._, xxv, 9. Better: "_and he_, his brethren, and _his_ sons, were twelve."

OBS. 20.--Cobbett, who, though he wrote several grammars, was but a very superficial grammarian, seems never to have doubted the propriety of putting _with_ for _and_; and yet he was confessedly not a little puzzled to find out when to use a singular, and when a plural verb, after a nominative with such "a sort of addition made to it." The 246th paragraph of his English Grammar is a long and fruitless attempt to fix a rule for the guidance of the learner in this matter. After das.h.i.+ng off a culpable example, "Sidmouth, _with_ Oliver the _spye_, have brought Brandreth to the block;" or, as his late editions have it, "The _Tyrant, with_ the _Spy, have_ brought _Peter_ to the block." He adds: "We hesitate which to employ, the singular or the plural verb; that is to say, _has_ or _have_. The meaning must be our guide. If we mean, that the act has been done by the Tyrant himself, and that the spy has been a mere involuntary agent, then we ought to use the singular; but if we believe that the spy has been a co-operator, an a.s.sociate, an accomplice, then we must use the plural verb." Ay, truly; but must we not also, in the latter case, use _and_, and not _with_? After some further ill.u.s.trations, he says: "When _with_ means _along with, together with, in Company with_, and the like, it is nearly the same as _and_; and then the plural verb must be used: [as,] 'He, with his brothers, _are_ able to do much.' Not, '_is_ able to do much.' If the p.r.o.noun be used instead of _brothers_, it will be in the objective case: 'He, _with_ them, _are_ able to do much.' But this is _no impediment_ to the including of the noun (represented by _them_) in the nominative." I wonder what would be an impediment to the absurdities of such a dogmatist!

The following is his last example: "'Zeal, with discretion, _do_ much;' and not '_does_ much;' for we mean, on the contrary, that it _does nothing_. It is the meaning that must determine which of the numbers we ought to employ." This author's examples are all fictions of his own, and such of them as here have a plural verb, are wrong. His rule is also wrong, and contrary to the best authority. St. Paul says to Timothy, "G.o.dliness _with_ contentment _is_ great gain:"--_1 Tim._, vi, 6. This text is right; but Cobbett's principle would go to prove it erroneous. Is he the only man who has ever had a right notion of its _meaning_? or is he not rather at fault in his interpretations?

OBS. 21.--There is one other apparent exception to Rule 16th, (or perhaps a real one,) in which there is either an ellipsis of the preposition _with_, or else the verb is made singular because the first noun only is its true subject, and the others are explanatory nominatives to which the same verb must be understood in the plural number; as, "_A torch_, snuff and all, _goes out_ in a moment, when dipped in the vapour."--ADDISON: _in Johnson's Dict., w. All_. "Down _comes_ the _tree_, nest, eagles, and all."--See _All, ibidem_. Here _goes_ and _comes_ are necessarily made singular, the former agreeing with _torch_ and the latter with _tree_; and, if the other nouns, which are like an explanatory parenthesis, are nominatives, as they appear to me to be, they must be subjects of _go_ and _come_ understood.

Cobbett teaches us to say, "The bag, _with_ the guineas and dollars in it, _were_ stolen," and not, _was_ stolen. "For," says he, "if we say _was_ stolen, it is possible for us to mean, that the _bag only_ was stolen,"--_English Gram._, -- 246. And I suppose he would say, "The bag, guineas, dollars, and all, _were_ stolen," and not, "_was_ stolen;" for here a rule of syntax might be urged, in addition to his false argument from the sense. But the meaning of the former sentence is, "The bag was stolen, with the guineas and dollars in it;" and the meaning of the latter is, "The bag was stolen, guineas, dollars, and all." Nor can there be any doubt about the meaning, place the words which way you will; and whatever, in either case, may be the true construction of the words in the parenthetical or explanatory phrase, they should not, I think, prevent the verb from agreeing with the first noun only. But if the other nouns intervene without affecting this concord, and without a preposition to govern them, it may be well to distinguish them in the punctuation; as, "The bag, (guineas, dollars, and all,) was stolen."

NOTES TO RULE XVI.

NOTE I.--When the conjunction _and_ between two nominatives appears to require a plural verb, but such form of the verb is not agreeable, it is better to reject or change the connective, that the verb may stand correctly in the singular number; as, "There _is_ a peculiar force _and_ beauty in this figure."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 224. Better: "There is a peculiar force, _as well as a peculiar_ beauty, in this figure." "What _means_ this restless stir and commotion of mind?"--_Murray's Key_, 8vo, p.

242. Better: "What means this restless stir, _this_ commotion of mind?"

NOTE II.--When two subjects or antecedents are connected, one of which is taken affirmatively, and the other negatively, they belong to different propositions; and the verb or p.r.o.noun must agree with the affirmative subject, and be understood to the other: as "Diligent _industry_, and not mean savings, _produces_ honourable competence."--"Not a loud _voice_ but strong _proofs bring_ conviction."--"My _poverty_, but not my will, _consents_."--_Shakespeare_.

NOTE III.--When two subjects or antecedents are connected by _as well as, but_, or _save_, they belong to different propositions; and, (unless one of them is preceded by the adverb _not_,) the verb and p.r.o.noun must agree with the former and be understood to the latter: as, "_Veracity_, as well as justice, _is_ to be our rule of life."--_Butler's a.n.a.logy_, p. 283. "The lowest _mechanic_, as well as the richest citizen, _may boast_ that thousands of _his_ fellow-creatures are employed for _him_."--_Percival's Tales_, ii, 177. "These _principles_, as well as every just rule of criticism, _are founded_ upon the sensitive part of our nature."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, Vol. i, p. xxvi. "_Nothing_ but wailings _was_ heard."--"_None_ but thou _can aid_ us."--"No mortal _man_, save he," &c., "_had e'er survived_ to say _he_ saw."--_Sir W. Scott_.

NOTE IV.--When two or more subjects or antecedents are preceded by the adjective _each, every_, or _no_, they are taken separately; and, (except _no_ be followed by a plural noun,) they require the verb and p.r.o.noun to be in the singular number: as, "No rank, no honour, no fortune, no condition in life, _makes_ the guilty mind happy."--"Every phrase and every figure _which_ he uses, _tends_ to render the picture more lively and complete."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 179.

"And every sense, and every heart, _is_ joy."--_Thomson_.

"Each beast, each insect, happy in _its_ own."--_Pope_.

NOTE V.--When any words or terms are to be taken conjointly as subjects or antecedents, the conjunction _and_, (in preference to _with, or, nor_, or any thing else,) must connect them. The following sentence is therefore inaccurate; _with_ should be _and_; or else _were_ should be _was_: "One of them, [the] wife of Thomas Cole, _with_ her husband, _were_ shot down, the others escaped."--_Hutchinson's Hist._, Vol. ii, p. 86. So, in the following couplet, _or_ should be _and_, or else _engines_ should be _engine_:

"What if the head, the eye, _or_ ear repined, To serve mere _engines_ to the ruling mind?"--_Pope_.

NOTE VI.--Improper omissions must be supplied; but when there occurs a true ellipsis in the construction of joint nominatives or joint antecedents, the verb or p.r.o.noun must agree with them in the plural, just as if all the words were expressed: as, "The _second_ and the _third Epistle_ of John _are_ each but one short chapter."--"The metaphorical and the literal meaning _are_ improperly mixed."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 339. "The Doctrine of Words, separately consider'd, and in a Sentence, _are_ Things distinct enough."--_Brightland's Gram._, Pref., p. iv. Better perhaps: "The doctrine of words separately considered, and _that of words_ in a sentence, _are_ things distinct enough."

"The _Curii's_ and the _Camilli's_ little _field_, To vast extended territories _yield_."--_Rowe's Lucan_, B. i, l. 320.

NOTE VII.--Two or more distinct subject phrases connected by _and_, require a plural verb, and generally a plural noun too, if a nominative follow the verb; as, "_To be wise in our own eyes, to be wise in the opinion of the world_, and _to be wise in the sight of our Creator_, are three things so very different, as rarely to coincide."--_Blair_. "'_This picture of my friend_,' and '_This picture of my friend's_,' suggest very different ideas."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 71; _Murray's_, i, 178.

"Read of this burgess--on the stone _appear_, How worthy he! how virtuous! and how dear!"--_Crabbe_.

IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.

FALSE SYNTAX UNDER RULE XVI.

UNDER THE RULE ITSELF.--THE VERB AFTER JOINT NOMINATIVES.

"So much ability and merit is seldom found."--_Murray's Key_, 12mo, p. 18; _Merchant's School Gram._, p. 190.

[FORMULE.--Not proper, because the verb _is_ is in the singular number, and does not correctly agree with its two nominatives, _ability_ and _merit_, which are connected by _and_, and taken conjointly. But, according to Rule 16th, "When a verb has two or more nominatives connected by _and_, it must agree with them jointly in the plural, because they are taken together."

Therefore, _is_ should be _are_; thus, "So much ability and merit _are_ seldom found." Or: "So much ability and _so much_ merit _are_ seldom found."]

"The syntax and etymology of the language is thus spread before the learner."--_Bullions's English Gram._, 2d Edition, Rec., p. iii. "Dr.

Johnson tells us, that in English poetry the accent and the quant.i.ty of syllables is the same thing."--_J. Q. Adams's Rhet._, ii, 213. "Their general scope and tendency, having never been clearly apprehended, is not remembered at all."--_Murray's Gram._, i, p. 126. "The soil and sovereignty was not purchased of the natives."--_Knapp's Lect. on Amer. Lit._, p. 55.

"The boldness, freedom, and variety of our blank verse, is infinitely more favourable than rhyme, to all kinds of sublime poetry."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 40. "The vivacity and sensibility of the Greeks seems to have been much greater than ours."--_Ib._, p. 253. "For sometimes the Mood and Tense is signified by the Verb, sometimes they are signified of the Verb by something else.'"--_Johnson's Gram. Com._, p. 254. "The Verb and the Noun making a complete Sense, which the Participle and the Noun does not."--_Ib._, p. 255. "The growth and decay of pa.s.sions and emotions, traced through all their mazes, is a subject too extensive for an undertaking like the present."--_Kames El. of Crit._, i, 108. "The true meaning and etymology of some of his words was lost."--_Knight, on the Greek Alph._, p. 37. "When the force and direction of personal satire is no longer understood."--_Junius_, p. 5. "The frame and condition of man admits of no other principle."--_Brown's Estimate_, ii, 54. "Some considerable time and care was necessary."--_Ib._, ii 150. "In consequence of this idea, much ridicule and censure has been thrown upon Milton."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 428. "With rational beings, nature and reason is the same thing."--_Collier's Antoninus_, p. 111. "And the flax and the barley was smitten."--_Exod._, ix, 31. "The colon, and semicolon, divides a period, this with, and that without a connective."--_J. Ware's Gram._, p. 27.

"Consequently wherever s.p.a.ce and time is found, there G.o.d must also be."--_Sir Isaac Newton_. "As the past tense and perfect participle of _love_ ends in _ed_, it is regular."--_Chandler's Gram._, p. 40; New Edition, p. 66. "But the usual arrangement and nomenclature prevents this from being readily seen."--_Butler's Practical Gram._, p. 3. "_Do_ and _did_ simply implies opposition or emphasis."--_Alex. Murray's Gram._, p.

41. "_I_ and _another_ make _we_, plural: _Thou_ and _another_ is as much as _ye_: _He, she_, or _it_ and _another_ make _they_"--_Ib._, p. 124. "I and another, is as much as (we) the first Person Plural; Thou and another, is as much as (ye) the second Person Plural; He, she, or it, and another, is as much as (they) the third Person Plural."--_British Gram._, p. 193; _Buchanan's Syntax_, p. 76. "G.o.d and thou art two, and thou and thy neighbour are two."--_The Love Conquest_, p. 25. "Just as _an_ and _a_ has arisen out of the numeral _one_."--_Fowler's E. Gram._, 8vo. 1850, --200.

"The tone and style of each of them, particularly the first and the last, is very different."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 246. "Even as the roebuck and the hart is eaten."--_Deut._, xiii, 22. "Then I may conclude that two and three makes not five."--_Barclay's Works_, iii, 354. "Which at sundry times thou and thy brethren hast received from us."--_Ib._, i, 165. "Two and two is four, and one is five."--POPE: _Lives of the Poets_, p. 490. "Humility and knowledge with poor apparel, excels pride and ignorance under costly array."--_Day's Gram., Parsing Lesson_, p. 100. "A page and a half has been added to the section on composition."--_Bullions's E. Gram._, 5th Ed., Pref., p. vii. "Accuracy and expertness in this exercise is an important acquisition."--_Ib._, p. 71.

"Woods and groves are of thy dressing, Hill and dale doth boast thy blessing."--_Milton's Poems_, p. 139.

UNDER THE RULE ITSELF.--THE VERB BEFORE JOINT NOMINATIVES.

"There is a good and a bad, a right and a wrong in taste, as in other things."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 21. "Whence has arisen much stiffness and affectation."--_Ib._, p. 133. "To this error is owing, in a great measure, that intricacy and harshness, in his figurative language, which I before remarked."--_Ib._, p. 150; _Jamieson's Rhet._, 157. "Hence, in his Night Thoughts, there prevails an obscurity and hardness in his style."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 150. "There is, however, in that work much good sense, and excellent criticism."--_Ib._, p. 401. "There is too much low wit and scurrility in Plautus."--_Ib._, p. 481. "There is too much reasoning and refinement; too much pomp and studied beauty in them."--_Ib._, p. 468.

"Hence arises the structure and characteristic expression of exclamation."--_Rush on the Voice_, p. 229. "And such pilots is he and his brethren, according to their own confession."--_Barclay's Works_, iii, 314.

"Of whom is Hymeneus and Philetus: who concerning the truth have erred."--_2 Tim._, ii, 17. "Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan."--_1 Tim._, i, 20. "And so was James and John, the sons of Zebedee."--_Luke_, v, 10. "Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing."--_James_, iii, 10. "Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good."--_Lam._, iii, 38. "In which there is most plainly a right and a wrong."--_Butler's a.n.a.logy_, p. 215. "In this sentence there is both an actor and an object."--_Smith's Inductive Gram._, p. 14. "In the breast-plate was placed the mysterious Urim and Thummim."--_Milman's Jews_, i, 88. "What is the gender, number, and person of those in the first?"--_Smith's Productive Gram._, p. 19. "There seems to be a familiarity and want of dignity in it."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 150.

"It has been often asked, what is Latin and Greek?"--_Literary Convention_, p. 209. "For where does beauty and high wit But in your constellation meet?"--_Hudibras_, p. 134. "Thence to the land where flows Ganges and Indus."--_Paradise Lost_, B. ix, l. 81. "On these foundations seems to rest the midnight riot and dissipation of modern a.s.semblies."--_Brown's Estimate_, ii, 46. "But what has disease, deformity, and filth, upon which the thoughts can be allured to dwell?"--_Johnson's Life of Swift_, p. 492.