Page images

English Grammars', page 303] he tells me “that demonstrative young ladies use it. Here “is a sentence that contains a pair of them.”

What! a pair of demonstrative young ladies? Certainly; there is no other plural noun, in Mr. Gould's sentence, that can be referred to by his plural pronoun them". Gould



"I was [am, vide seq.] agreeably surprised to find

“that the microscopic investigation of Mr. Moon "has, thus far, detected so few errors in 'Good

English'-I mean so few real errors”! It is a pity to disturb Mr. Gould's complaisant satisfaction in his own work; but I must remark that in the foregoing sentence there is one of the drollest errors which a writer could possibly commit. Mr. Gould says, in effect, that he is surprised to find that a microscopic investigation of me has, thus far, detected so few errors in 'Good English'! I really was not aware that I had been made the subject of microscopic investigation; and, even if I had, I should still be at a loss to comprehend how such an investigation of me, could result in a detection of Mr. Gould's errors. Does he imagine that my perusal of his book has resulted in its errors

being photographed on the retina of my eye, and that they are discoverable by means of the microscope ? A "microscopic investigation of 6. Mr. Moon! What next? The foregoing nonsense is not the result of a printer's error, but is an example of what is one of Mr. Gould's usual modes of expression. I recommend him carefully to consider the difference that there is between the two following phrases :-"A portrait

of Mr. Gould, and "a portrait of Mr. Gould's. The former expression means a portrait of my worthy antagonist; the latter may mean a portrait of an old woman; and were I, in speaking of it, to follow Mr. Gould's example, and, dropping the possessive 's, call the portrait of the old woman ;—"A portrait of Mr. Gould, I fancy that he would instantly awake to a consciousness of the absurdity of his own form of speech.

Yet, one word more. Mr. Gould, writing to The Round Table' respecting those errors in his book which he purposes correcting in future editions, says;


“I send you a list of the corrections, which you may

publish if you think the game is worth the candle”.

I must pause to express my admiration of the beauty, the appositeness, and the classic elegance of this expression; one suitable enough in colloquial French-“Le jeu ne raut pas la chandellebut quite out of place in a philological discussion. Mr. Gould says, after enumerating his errors ;“The foregoing list includes all the errors that I am

"thus far :ware of. Many things have been “ specified by my critics which I do not admit to “ be errors; and many notices of my book hare

“ been published which I have not seen". Mr. Gould has, undoubtedly, seen the notices of his book which have been published in 'The 'Round Table'; for he quotes from them. How is it, then that he altogether ignores the exposure of that which has been there described as the climar" of his errors ? Is it really to be left unaltered in future editions ? Speaking of the omission of the final 's at the end of proper names in the possessive case, Mr. Gould says, 'Good English', page 79;



[ocr errors]

“Byron made short work of that, when he wrote,

". And ere the faithless truce was broke
“Which freed her from the unchristian yoke,
"With him his gentle daughter came;

Nor there since Menelaus's dame
“Forsook,' etc.

[ocr errors]

“In that case”, says Mr. Gould, “the printer may do

"what he pleases with the final s,-use it or omit 'it; but the reader will take care to pronounce “it-if he knows how to read”.


If he knows how to pronounce”, says the learned critic in 'The Round Table', “the reader "will take care to read the line in this manner:

6°Nor there since Men-e-la-us' dame'

“in which we look in vain for Mr. Gould's possessive s'".

Happily, Mr. Gould's ignorance of Greek pronunciation is counterbalanced by the beautifully modest diffidence which he manifests in delivering his valuable opinion upon it.

Respecting "the list of corrections”, from which Mr. Gould has omitted the above-mentioned gem, he says, with amusing conceit, in a subsequens letter ;

"I regard my list of corrections, as a damaging replj

(in anticipation) to Mr. Moon's present essay."


Little does Mr. Gould seem to know, that when a man thus speaks in his own praise, his doing so is accepted by all, as indisputable evidence that he considers it necessary!




So tautology" does not mean a repetition of the same word ? Certainly not! Mr. Gould has affirmed it; and how can we be in doubt concerning any matter upon which he has spoken authoritatively ? Do not remember his learned disquisition on the proper pronunciation of the name of the Greek hero Men-e--us ! Have we forgotten-can we ever forget-can we ever cease to fear—the threatened outpouring of that merciless scorn which Mr. Gould gives us to understand shall descend on our heads if we dare to pronounce that name otherwise than Men-e-laus ! His acquaintance with Greek is profound; and I tremble while I venture to speak to him concerning the derivation of the word “tautology.

He accuses me of ignorance :-I hang down my head, and blush as I acknowledge the justice of the accusation. He assumes the possession of superior learning :-—I look up; and, timidly

« PreviousContinue »