until we come to the following expression: 66 "The Queen "is of course no more the proprietor of the English language than you or I"-(see 'Good Words'), but in the volume we have "than any one of us." Why this change? On page 152 of the book we read: "What are we to think "of the question, whether 'than' does or does not govern an accusative case? 'than I': 'than me': which is "right? My readers will probably answer without hesita"tion, the former. But is the latter so certainly wrong? "We are accustomed to hear it stigmatized as being so; “but, I think, erroneously. Milton writes, 'Paradise Lost,' "ii, 299, "Which when Beelzebub perceived, than whom, "And thus every one of us would speak: 'than who', "would be intolerable. And this seems to settle the question." So the Dean thinks. We, however, do not. Poetry is not often considered a high authority on matters of grammatical construction, although the Dean seems to think it should be, since this is the only instance of "than" governing the accusative that he deigns to cite: besides, it is evident that in many cases, the employment of the accusative instead of the nominative, gives to the sentence another meaning, thus: 1 He likes you better than me. 2 He likes you better than I. Surely it is manifest to everybody that the first form means that he likes you better than [he likes] me, and that the latter means, he likes you better than I [like you]; and yet our Dean in an authoritative manner says, that you may say either "than I", or "than me", but that the former should be used only when solemnity is required, as "My Father is greater than I." Is solemnity required when mention is made of the Queen in regard to her proprietorship of the English language? We trow not. Why, then, does our Dean lay down a rule, and break it on the first page of his Essays? This reflection seems to have occurred to the mind of the author, who probably in his reprint weighed with care every expression he made use of. This at any rate seems the only reason why he should alter “than you or I” to "than any one of us,” and thus screen himself under an expression which fits either rule. Let us pause for a short time and note what some authorities write about this conjunction. Lowth is of opinion that such forms as "thou art wiser than me” are bad grammar. Mr. E. F. Graham, in his excellent book on English style, quotes the objective case after "than" as a downright grammatical error, whilst our old friend Lindley Murray devotes a page and a half to the discussion of this question, and, after citing the lines of Milton just quoted, concludes his notice by saying, "The "phrase than whom, is, however, avoided by the best "modern writers". The crowning point of all, however, is that the very author whom Dean Alford quotes in support of his theory, says in the first book of 'Paradise 'Lost': "What matter where, if I be still the same. And what I should be, all but less than he?" Near the end of a paragraph in the first Essay occurs the following sentence, which is omitted in the book:"And I really don't wish to be dull; so please, dear "reader, to try and not think me so.” It was wise, indeed, on the Dean's part, to omit this sentence in his book, for probably it contains the worst mistake he has made. Try and think, indeed! Try to think, we can understand. Fancy saying "the dear "reader tries and thinks me so"; for, mind, a conjunction is used only to connect words, and can govern no case at all. However, as the Dean has not allowed this to appear in his book, we refrain from alluding further to it. As the Dean admits that his notes are for the most part insulated and unconnected, we presume that we need make no apology if our critical remarks happen to partake of the same character; for, the reader will easily understand that criticism on unconnected topics must itself also be unconnected. Who does not recollect with pleasure those dear old ladies, Sairah Gamp and Betsey Prig? "Which, altering "the name to Sairah Gamp, I drink," said Mrs. Prig. 66 As I write these lines, which I do while waiting in a "refreshment room at Reading between a Great Western "and a South Eastern train," says the Dean. It is always interesting to know the time when, and the place where, great men have written their books; and we thank Dean Alford for telling us where he wrote this elegant sentence; but fancy, what a very small refreshment room there must be at Reading, if it stands between two trains. May we venture to suggest that the sentence would have been improved if "which I do", and the words from "between " to "train", had been altogether omitted. "Which you are right, my dear", says Mrs. Harris. On page 67 the Dean comes to that which he says must form a principal part of his little work. The principal part means, we believe, more than half of anything, but as in the present work there are evidently two principal parts (at least), it appears that the volume contains more than the two halves. Perhaps the Dean was waiting between two trains in Ireland when he penned this sentence. With regard to the demonstrative pronouns, “this "refers to the nearest person or thing, and that to the "most distant", says Murray. This, however, is not Dean Alford's view of the matter. After mentioning the name Sophonetus (and no other) he writes, "Every clergyman is, or ought to be, familiar "with his Greek Testament; two minutes' reference to "that will show him how every one of these names ought "to be pronounced." Who is right here-Lindley Murray or the Dean of Canterbury? Stop! stop! Not ro fast. In theory, the Dean agrees with our grammarian; for, eleven pages further on, he says, "this' and 'these' refer to persons "and things present, or under immediate considera"tion; that' and 'those' to persons and things not pre.. "sent, nor under immediate consideration." He then mentions a Scottish friend, who always designates the book which he has in hand as "that book." Surely this Scotchman and the Dean belong to one family. We now come with much pleasure to the last fault which we have to find with Dr. Alford's book. We have purposely deferred any mention of this particular subject until now, on the same principle as that which actu ated the schoolboy who always kept the best till the last. On page 280 we read the following excellent remarks:"Avoid, likewise, all slang words. There is no greater "nuisance in society than a talker of slang. It is only fit "(when innocent, which it seldom is) for raw schoolboys "and one-term freshmen, to astonish their sisters with." Of course, after expressing himself so strongly on this point, it is not to be expected that, in a work on the Queen's English, Den Alford will make use of slang terms. Let us see. On page 2, he tells us, "He bowls along it with ease in "a vehicle, which a few centuries ago would have been broken to pieces in a deep rut, or [would have] come to grief in a bottomless swamp." 66 66 In the original notes the words "would have were omitted. One of his censors then suggested that the sentence was or would have been come to grief". On page 132 of his book, the Dean defends his elliptical mode of spelling: but, on page 2, by altering it, he tacitly admits that he is wrong. On page 41 he tells us about some persons who had been detained by a tipple. On page 178 we are told that the Dean and his family took a trap from the inn. 66 And, on page 154, he writes to Mr. Moon, "If you see an old party in a shovel that will be me". Whereas, on page 245, in sneering at our journals he says, a man in them is a party. Now we are persuaded that no newspaper writes of a man in such vulgar language. This style seems to have been left to a Dean when writing on controversial subjects. THE QUEEN'S ENGLISH. A CRITICISM FROM THE PATRIOT.' DEAN ALFORD has collected into a book his papers contributed to Good Words' and, of course, has subjected them to a fresh and final revision. He tells us, indeed, that "now, in a considerably altered form, they are pre"sented to the public"; so that we may fairly regard both the canons and the composition of this volume as the deliberate and final setting forth of the Dean's notions of the proprieties of the English language. No |