66

"is conveyed in the word 'neither,'] and therefore he misuses it. Would it not be better to say: "alone among all nations ?"

Mr. S. is still blundering over the use of the preposition "of"; not knowing that "one of them " is "one among them". He says that the phrase "of all nations" is properly used only in denoting a comparison after a superlative, and that I have not used it in that way. Indeed! I have always thought that "alone" is a superlative. I suppose that they say at Trinity College;-" alone", "aloner", "alonest"! Mr. S. adds ;-" or it is "used after a numeral. Mr. Moon uses it in

66

66

Mr. S. does not

"neither of these two ways". seem to know the derivation of even the simple word "alone"; let me, then, tell him that "alone" is a contraction of "all one"; and if "one" is not a numeral, will Mr. S. tell me what it is? Very oddly, it happens that on the first page of the number of The Nation' containing these remarks of Mr. S.'s, there is the expression, "Kansas, alone of all the states".

The phrase "ancient or modern" next comes under Mr. S.'s condemnation. He says;

"The conjunction 'or' treacherously leads Mr. Moon

"into a singular error. He divides the nations

"into two classes, ancient nations and modern

66

66

nations, and asserts that, in either of these

classes, the English is the only nation which "has a bonâ fide article. The English is the only one of the ancient nations!"

66

There is a subtile fallacy here which must be exposed. The writer in The Athenæum' does not say that the English is one of the ancient nations. He says that the English is one "of "all nations". He then divides the "all nations" into two sections; the one, "ancient"; the other, "modern"; but that division does not make the writer place the English among the ancient nations to the exclusion of the modern, nor among the modern nations to the exclusion of the ancient. The English is still one " of all nations". It is one thing to say;-"We English alone of all ancient "nations or of all modern nations", and it is an other thing to say;-"We English alone of "all nations ancient or modern". The former expression divides the nations into two classes, and places the English nation, first in one class, and afterward in the other; whereas the latter expression places the English among "all nations", and then divides those nations into two classes; the one, "ancient"; the other,

66

"modern". that of substituting "and" for "or", I should much like to know how "all nations" can be said to be "ancient and modern". Some are ancient, and some are modern; therefore, they may "all" be classed under the designation 'ancient or modern"; and this the writer in 'The Athenæum' has done. But they are not all "ancient and modern ". So that instead of the conjunction "or" having treacherously led Mr. Moon into a singular error, it is the conjunction "and" which has treacherously led Mr. S. into a singular error.

As for Mr. S.'s emendation ;—

There are several other inaccuracies and misstatements in Mr. S.'s letter, but my patience fails me; so, after one more exposure of my opponent's errors, I will finish this criticism. He censures me for saying

"the using it",

and supports his opinion by the following quotation from Lindley Murray:-"The present "participle, with the definite article 'the' before "it, becomes a substantive, and must have the "preposition of' after it." Let us examine this. Supposing I were speaking of my having had the good fortune to meet two of my old school-fellows,

66

Edwin and Arthur; I should manifest very great ignorance of the proprieties of language if, following the rule quoted by Mr. S., I were to speak of the meeting as, "the meeting of Edwin and Arthur." That would be to describe their meeting each other, not my meeting them. The case may be very simply put thus: the act was, meeting Edwin and Arthur; the agent was, myself; the act, therefore, was my act; consequently, my act was "my meeting Edwin and Arthur"; and my meeting" was "the meeting which took place". Now, according to Lindley Murray's rule, as quoted by his devoted disciple, Mr. S., of Trinity College, I ought to say that it was "the meeting of which took place"! because “meeting" is the present participle of the verb "to meet"; and, being preceded by the definite article "the", becomes a substantive, and "must have the prepo"sition of' after it." Mr. S.'s conversation must be singularly puzzling. I can imagine him saying to his college friends;-"The prepar"ing of [for] my departure, the driving of [to] "the station, the entering of [upon] the railway "journey, and the arriving of [at] my destina❝tion, seem now like a dream.'

Finally, if I say of this rule;-" the making

"of it is a disgrace to Lindley Murray", my words refer to the manner in which it has been made; but if I say;-" the making it is a disgrace to Lindley Murray", my words very properly refer, not to the mode of the action, but to the action itself.

66

As Mr. S. has written to me "for the last "time", and has kindly bid me good-by, I return the valediction, and at the same time thank him for his courtesy. Although I differ with him on many points, I acknowledge that I have profited by his criticisms. "He who wrestles with us, "strengthens us: our antagonist is thus our "helper."-BURKE.