66

666

Mr. Gould meant to say; -"will not, in answering this second enquiry, plead ‘care'lessness'." Now, however, Mr. Gould feels obliged to acknowledge that my sentence is perfectly correct, and that his "question" (as he foolishly calls it, for it is merely the expression of a desire, and contains nothing interrogatory,) was a blunder, "a careless blunder".

I do not like to contradict any man; but I must protest against Mr. Gould's calling this " a "careless blunder ”. There was no carelessness in it; it was a direct, deliberate charge of error preferred against me; and was, moreover, accompanied by an expression of trust that I should not plead carelessness as an excuse, in my answering the charge. He believed that in my sentence, which he quoted, the adverb “strangely” ought to have been employed, and not the adjective "strange"; this, even a child may see.

Mr. Gould rather astonished me by saying, when he accounted for the errors found in his 'Good English', that he had "read the proof"sheets superficially". But for his own assertion, I should never have believed that he, as an author writing to expose the errors of others, had acted in so silly a manner. However, I gave

him credit for the carelessness behind which he sought shelter. Again, when he thought that it would answer his purpose to condemn 'The 'Dean's English', upon which he had previously lavished his praise, and he felt that some apology would be expected for a change in his views which he foresaw would be regarded with suspicion, superficial reading was again the plea which he put forth. This, too, astonished me; but, once more I gave him credit for the carelessness behind which he sought shelter.

There is, however, a limit to every man's credulity, and now that Mr. Gould pleads carelessness a third time, and as an excuse for a very different kind of error, I feel bound to tell him that I think he has used a wrong word. A man may plead carelessness as a reader, and carelessness as a writer, and, consequently, be utterly unworthy of confidence as a professor of literature; but when he pleads carelessness as an excuse, not for the form of his sentences, but, for his deliberate statements themselves, he employs a term, of which the most polite thing that can be said, even in parliamentary language, is, that it is not justified by the facts of the case.

Like one groping his way in the dark, and

feeling about for something by which he may guide his steps, Mr. Gould repeatedly asks for authorities. But, surely, that which exists as a rule in grammar merely in virtue of its having been laid down by some once-celebrated grammarian, is valueless. Far better than all such authorities are the dictates of common sense, and a knowledge of the usages of the best society. I condemned Mr. Gould's use of "would" for "should" in the sentence, "I would like". He attempts a defence of his expsession, by saying;

66

66

66

"I mean that, as a matter of choice, option, will, I "would like, and therefore my 'would' is pure "English, Mr. Moon to the contrary, notwith"standing".

Mr. Gould then says, that if "I would" is incorrect, he really does not see "how Mr. Moon can escape the consequence of his criticism— namely, that in the thirty-seventh verse of the 'twenty-third chapter of St. Matthew, how “often would I', ought to be changed to 'how """often should I'." This is another instance of Mr. Gould's "superficial" reading. My objection was not to the words, "I would"; but to the words, "I would like". Mr. G. W. Eveleth, of

Shall

Fort Fairfield, attempts a metaphysical defence of the expression, "I would like "; and says;-"I "would like to discover either Dr. Cragin or Mr. "Moon at attempting to demonstrate the con"trary"; i.e., that the expression is wrong. I might reply to Mr. Eveleth, in the words of Buttmann, as quoted by the late Sir Edmund W. Head, Bart., in his excellent little work, 'and Will', page 7: "Man frage nicht warum— "der Sprachgebrauch lässt sich nur beobachten". "The idiom of language admits only of being "observed; let no man ask 'Why?'" But the impropriety of the expression, "I would like", admits of demonstration. Mr. Gould informs us that he intended to express "choice, option, "will"; but, liking is not under the control of will. To do a thing, is certainly a matter of "choice, option, will"; but to like to do it, is a matter which is not in the power of the will to determine. Hence, the absurdity of the expression.

CRITICISM XXII.

EDWARD S. GOULD.

MR. GOULD tells us that he has re-read The 'Dean's English'; and he says;

"That re-reading has enlightened me on one point. "I find that I, at first, read the book very super"ficially".

Superficialness appears to be a characteristic feature of Mr. Gould's reading. We have seen evidences of it in much that he has written; and we have now a second confession of it from himself. However, consciousness of a bad habit in one's self, is, when expressed, a very hopeful sign of ultimate emancipation from its thraldom ; and therefore Mr. Gould must, on this point, have our congratulations. In the meantime, the frequent occurrence of evidences of his superficialness is not calculated to give us a very exalted idea of his qualifications for the office of public instructor. Besides, what dependence can be placed on the judgment of a man who at one