"in the usual way". So, in my sentence, the nominatives to the participle "being", are not, as Mr. Gould affirms, "breadth" and "depth"; but are "the-breadth-of-a-man's-sympathies" and "the"depth-of-a-woman's-affections"; and "any phrase "or sentence which is made the subject of a finite "verb, must be taken in the sense of one thing, "and be spoken of as a whole":- Grammar of English Grammars', page 573; and, of course, the sign of the possessive case must be, at the end, as Lindley Murray says; "a phrase in "which the words are so connected and depen"dent, as to admit of no pause before the conclusion, necessarily requires the genitive sign "at or near the end of the phrase ".- English Grammar', 8vo. edition, Vol. 1, page 263.

Let it be noticed that the matter in dispute here, between Mr. Gould and me, is not the apparently unresolvable problem as to whether participles, as such, can or cannot govern the possessive case. Mr. Gould requires the nouns preceding present participles to be in the possessive case; and in my sentence they are so. Nor is it a question between us, which word should have been in the possessive case, had my sentence been differently constructed; for, Mr. Gould,

himself, says of that very sentence;-" the gram"matical construction of a sentence depends on the "words that a man uses, and not on those that "he might have used." Mr. Gould's remarks, therefore, apply to my sentence, as it stands ; and of it he says, that the sign of the possessive case is therein applied "to the wrong nouns ".

On the highest authority, then, namely that of Goold Brown, and also on the authority of Lindley Murray, I deny the justice of Mr. E. S. Gould's strictures on my sentence; and I affirm that the ignorance which they betray, of the commonest rules governing the possessive case, is such as would disgrace the merest tyro in composition.

Mr. Gould has again reverted to my condemnation of his too frequent use of the little word "so". He is evidently not at ease respecting it; or he would, after what has been said on the subject, have let the matter rest. As, however, he has not done so, but has resorted to desperate means to improve his position, I cannot but conclude that he considered it to be critical.

Now, of the many desperate means to which men in critical positions resort, none is more fraught with danger, than is dishonesty; and

though I should be sorry to make any condemnatory charge reflecting on Mr. Gould's character as a controvertist; still, I must say that his conduct, in the matter under consideration, so much resembles literary dishonesty, that I hope he will, in justice to himself, give us a satisfactory explanation of the following singular circumstances.

Respecting certain remarks of mine on the word "so", he first makes a statement which is not in accordance with the facts of the case, and he endeavours to support that statement by a fictitious quotation of words nowhere to be found in my criticism; and then, feeling, I suppose, that he has done a very foolish thing, he is constrained to write again upon the subject, and correct his quotation of the passage; but, as if his evil genius would not forsake him, he is tempted to omit from the middle of the dozen lines which he quotes, the very words which are opposed to his assertion, and which convict him of having unjustly charged me with incorrectness!

In speaking of Mr. Gould's expressions, "so "totally", and "so universally", I had said; "To use language implying that anything can be universal, and yet only partly universal; or

66

N

"total, and yet only partly total, is to speak "nonsensically; yet such is the import of Mr. "Gould's expressions, 'so universally', 'so "totally'." I might have added that Mr. Gould, not content with this murdering of the Queen's English, “out-Herods Herod” and says, "Good English', page 100;

"So absolutely universal” !

Of all the outrageously extravagant examples of this kind of error that I ever met with, none equals this of Mr. Gould's. I wonder whether he will object to my condemnation of it. He said of my remarks on his similar expressions;-"Neither do I assent to his objection "to so universally and so totally". As Mr. Gould is frequently asking me for my authorities, I will tell him what they say on this matter. I have not always brought forward my authorities; because I gave Mr. Gould credit for being sufficiently well read in grammar to render that course unnecessary.

Dr. Crombie says;-" Universal is an ad"jective, whose signification cannot be height"ened or lessened; it therefore rejects all "intensive and diminutive words, as, so, more,

"less, least, most".-Treatise on Etymology and Syntax, page 359.

Lindley Murray says;-"Adjectives that have "in themselves a superlative signification, do "not properly admit of the superlative or com"parative form superadded. The phrases, so "perfect, so right, so extreme, so universal, etc., "are incorrect".-English Grammar', 8vo. edition, Vol. 1, page 250.

66

Goold Brown says;-"Comparative termi"nations, and adverbs of degree, should not be applied to adjectives that are not susceptible "of comparison; as, 'So universal a complaint'.' -Grammar of English Grammars', page 543.

After condemning Mr. Gould's expressions, "so "universally", and "so totally", I said;-"The "little word 'so' is often misused in Mr. Gould's "Good English'. It occurs four times in four "consecutive lines on page 213". I then quoted the passage, and added, "This is the very opposite "of elegant". It must, therefore have been obvious to every reader, except "superficial” Mr. Gould, that my condemnation of the passage was for its want of elegance-its tautology. Indeed, there is strong presumptive evidence that this was obvious to him also, or he would not, in