endeavouring to support his previous statement, have omitted, from his quotation of my remark, the words,-"this is the very opposite of elegant"; and have charged me with having said that he had "four times misused the word so",-misused it by using it in a sense not consistent with its meaning; see 'Round Table', vol. 6, page 89. My words are not, the misuse occurs four times in four consecutive lines;-but, "it [the little "word so] occurs four times in four consecutive "lines......This is the very opposite of elegant". Had I said, "the misuse of the little word 'so "is frequent in Mr. Gould's 'Good English'"; then the "it", might have applied to "the mis"use"; but the words are not,-" the misuse is "frequent"; the words are,-"the little word 'so' "is frequently misused"; the "it", therefore, must apply to the word "so".

Mr. Gould's charge, then, falls to the ground; or rather, it stands as an additional evidence of his superficial reading; for I attribute to that, and not to any intentional dishonesty on his part, his strange omission of the most important words in that portion of the paragraph which he pretended to quote from my criticism. I advise him, as he values his literary reputation, to be

more careful in future. The superficial reading of an opponent's remarks may be passed over ; even a false statement which is based upon that superficial reading may be pardoned; but a subsequent deliberate supporting of that false statement, by a garbled quotation of an opponent's words, is a course of action which is very likely to result in dishonour.

CRITICISM XX.

EDWARD S. GOULD.

To please Mr. Gould, who seems to be very anxious to prolong this controversy, I continue my criticisms on his language. I am delighted to serve him; he is not a hard task-master,one requiring me to "make bricks without straw”. He gives me plenty of the latter material; and, knowing that it has been only "superficially' thrashed, expects that I shall thrash it thoroughly. His expectations shall not be disappointed; nor shall any of his straw be wasted; for, what is not used for making bricks for a monument to be erected to his memory, shall be conscientiously made into chaff. In justification of my using such an expression as "chaff", I refer the reader to page 160.

Mr. Gould flatters himself that the errors which I have exposed are all which are to be found in his work; and that I close my criticisms because I am, as he elegantly says,

"hard pushed"- -“short of materials to work upon”. So far from that being the case, there are,

for

even now, in my note-book, more than forty errors of his upon which I have not yet commented. I have left them unnoticed merely on account of their being similar to those which I have previously criticised. The fact that Mr. Gould, in common with other writers, has committed those errors, does not seem to me to be of sufficient importance to warrant my asking space in 'The Round Table' to expose them. Errors abound in Mr. Gould's work. I had not intended to speak of any more, but his defiant mode of meeting criticism prevents my dealing with him as leniently as I otherwise would. I will take five consecutive pages, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24; and, by exposing the errors in them, will show how forbearingly I have hitherto criticised his work, in that I altogether passed over those errors. On page 20, he says of the word donate ;

"Webster, of course, records the word; and he "gravely gives its etymology from donare, 66 6 donatum', etc.,- as if the prig [!] who fabri"cated that bit [!] of literature ever saw a Latin dictionary, or ever heard of the Latin language!"

66

66

Are these suitable expressions to use when condemning the inelegancies of other writers?

On page 21, I read ;

"If Mr. Everett were about to deliver his oration on "Washington, at the Academy of Music."

"On Washington, at the Academy of Music"! Mr. Gould should have said;—" deliver, at the "Academy of Music, his oration on Washington".

Turn to the next page, 22; there we read;—

"That is, the addition of ess to those nouns which "indicate persons, in order to designate females”.

66

Nouns which indicate persons, in order to "designate females"! Why did not Mr. Gould arrange his words somewhat in this manner ?— "That is, the designating of women, by the

66

addition of ess to those nouns which indicate "persons generally."

On page 23, we are told of certain words.

"which have become as plenty as blackberries";

instead of "as plentiful as blackberries." Dr. Campbell, in his 'Philosophy of Rhetoric', says, Vol. 1, page 417;-" Plenty for plentiful appears "to me so gross a vulgarism that I should not

66

have thought it worthy a place here, if I had "not sometimes found it in works of considerable "merit." Johnson says;-"It is used barbarously