Edwin and Arthur; I should manifest very great ignorance of the proprieties of language if, following the rule quoted by Mr. S., I were to speak of the meeting as, "the meeting of Edwin and Arthur." That would be to describe their meeting each other, not my meeting them. The case may be very simply put thus: the act was, meeting Edwin and Arthur; the agent was, myself; the act, therefore, was my act; consequently, my act was "my meeting Edwin and Arthur"; and my meeting" was "the meeting which took place". Now, according to Lindley Murray's rule, as quoted by his devoted disciple, Mr. S., of Trinity College, I ought to say that it was "the meeting of which took place"! because "meeting" is the present participle of the verb "to meet"; and, being preceded by the definite article "the", becomes a substantive, and "must have the prepo"sition of' after it." Mr. S.'s conversation must be singularly puzzling. I can imagine him saying to his college friends;-"The prepar"ing of [for] my departure, the driving of [to] "the station, the entering of [upon] the railway "journey, and the arriving of [at] my destina❝tion, seem now like a dream." Finally, if I say of this rule;—“ the making 66 of it is a disgrace to Lindley Murray", my words refer to the manner in which it has been made; but if I say;-" the making it is a "disgrace to Lindley Murray", my words very properly refer, not to the mode of the action, but to the action itself. As Mr. S. has written to me "for the last "time", and has kindly bid me good-by, I return the valediction, and at the same time thank him for his courtesy. Although I differ with him on many points, I acknowledge that I have profited by his criticisms. "He who wrestles with us, strengthens us; our antagonist is thus our "helper."-BURKE. Criticisms written for the New York Round Table. CRITICISM XIV. EDWARD S. GOULD. IN Mr. Gould's 'Good English' there is much to be commended; much for which we owe him our thanks. His reprobation of errors, common to the current literature of the day, is timely and valuable; but far more so is the evidence which he brings forward, that even our most careful writers are sometimes off their guard-himself among the number. I at first shrank from exposing Mr. Gould's errors; and that, partly for my own sake and partly for his: for my own sake, because I feared that it would be considered discourteous to do so, after his laudatory remarks on The Dean's 'English'; and for his sake, because adverse criticism might injuriously affect his reputation as an author; and he really has done good service |