similar error is pointed out in Mr. Gould's 'Good 'English', (see Criticism xv,) Oh! that is quite an other thing. It is clearly right to condemn the expression "only different", in a sentence of Archbishop Trench's; but it is not at all right to condemn the expression "only takes", in a sentence of Mr. Gould's. The simple reason for which is, that it is Mr. Gould's:-an admirable illustration of the old saying,-"Orthodoxy means my doxy, heterodoxy means an other man's doxy."

66

It really is very delightful to be a critic, and to be thus privileged in one's use of expressions; and I am deeply indebted to Mr. Gould for opening my eyes to the riches of my inheritance; and, in his compassion for my ignorance, kindly multiplying examples of the way in which my wealth may be advantageously employed. If I condemn an author for writing so ambiguously 66 as to leave the reader in doubt whether certain "words relate to what immediately precedes, or "to what follows them", (see 'Good English', p. 110,) and am afterward caught in the commission of the same error, (see Criticism xvi,) and the public are challenged to come to any definite conclusion as to which of two meanings I intended to convey, I perceive that the proper

course to adopt is, to act on the old showman's principle, and tell my critics to "take their "choice ".

This is indeed politic; and, in these days of plagiarism, when distinctions between meum and tuum are often utterly ignored, we cannot value too highly the example which Mr. Gould sets us, in drawing, as he does, a very broad line between what is his own, and what is an other's. For example, in The Queen's English', the Dean of Canterbury uses the expression, "more decisive"; Mr. Gould objects to it, and asks;-" Does the "Dean hold that decisive' is an adjective that "admits of comparison?" But when a similar question is put to Mr. Gould respecting his use of the expressions, "so universally" and "so “totally”, and he is reminded that a decision, in a court of law, for instance, may be confirmed by a higher tribunal, and thereby be made "more "decisive"; but that "universality" and "to"tality" cannot possibly be otherwise than perfect or complete; he very wisely abstains from entering upon any defence of the condemned expressions, and says, with amusing brevity, that he does not assent to his critic's objection.

In a former criticism I stated that Mr. Gould

speaks of a word under the similitude of a counterfeit coin, and afterward of its being "purified" by an "endorsement". Mr. Gould, in refutation of the charge, says;

"I beg leave to assure Mr. Moon that I do not speak of a word as a coin'. The word 'coin' is not

66

66

"in that part of my book. I speak of the making, passing, and circulating of currency (which, if "I must again for Mr. Moon's benefit refer to a dictionary, means 'paper passing for money")."

66

Mr. Gould seems to be determined to lay me under obligation to him. He not only searches out the word "currency" for me, in "a diction"ary, (it is to be regretted that he did not give the title of the dictionary,) but he very considerately selects for me the one special meaning which he considers applicable. This is the more kind, inasmuch as I have been unable to find that particular, exclusive meaning in any of our principal modern dictionaries. I have searched Worcester, Webster, Richardson, Ogilvie, Craig, and Chambers, but all in vain. I judge, therefore, that so far from its being the meaning of currency", it is only a secondary meaning of the word; probably an Americanism. From Johnson and Walker, it is true, I learn that the

66

word " currency" was formerly used for paper "passing for money in the colonies". But unless Mr. Gould is prepared to show that this is its exclusive meaning; i.e., that it does not mean coin likewise, he cannot justly censure me for saying that he spoke of coin when he used the word currency. "Currency" is a term which is applicable to anything which passes current as money. "Abraham weighed to Ephron four hundred "shekels of silver, current money with the "merchant": Gen. xxiii, 16. When, therefore, I stated that Mr. Gould speaks of a word under the similitude of a coin, while, as he says, he really speaks of a word under the similitude of

66

paper passing for money", the cause of the error must, in justice; be attributed to him for his having used, in a conventional and restricted sense, the word "currency", which is a general term for "the aggregate of coin, notes, bills, etc., "in circulation in a country". If I have been misled as to Mr. Gould's meaning, it is his language which has misled me; for he not only speaks of spurious currency, but of its being unconsciously accepted as genuine, and mixed up and paid out with "standard currency". Surely this language is more applicable to coin, than to

paper, seeing that, according to the 'Encyclopædia 'Britannica', 8th edition, Vol xv, p. 430, "by the "standard of money is meant the degree of "purity or fineness of the metal of which coins “are made, and the quantity or weight of such "metal in them". But Mr. Gould's use of the word "currency" is objectionable for an other reason: he uses the word as if it were synonymous with promissory note; whereas, the word is descriptive not of a part, merely, but of the whole-" the "aggregate of coin, notes, bills, etc., in circula"tion in a country". A promissory note may be current, as legal tender; but it is not "currency"; and the calling it that, is a technical use of the word which a writer on the proprieties of language ought not to adopt. But granting, for the sake of argument, that "currency" means a promissory note, I have still to learn how a promissory note can be purified by an endorsement.