Moc
Dear
English
08
402
A 1,041,130
2 21.
UNIV..
11


ARTES
1837
SCIENTIA
LIBRARY
VERITAS
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
E-PLURIBUS-UNUM
TUZBOR
SIQUAERIS PENINSULAM AMOENAM
CIRCUMSPICE
•λ
3
808
M82d
1865

1

{
1

LIBRARY
OF THE
مرشدة
WVERSITY OF MICHIG
s
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH,

Presented by the Author.


London
June, 1865
"He who cannot express his thoughts correctly in
his own language, is not likely to obtain credit for
much knowledge of any other; nor will an ill-spelt,
ungrammatical letter impress anyone with the idea
that the writer of it is an 'educated' man; while,
on the other hand, the Englishman whose linguistic
acquirements do not extend beyond the language of
Shakspeare, but who knows that thoroughly and
can wield it well, possesses an instrument with which
he may fight his way to almost any position he may
choose to aspire to, whether he turn his thoughts to
poetry or to politics, to literature or to commerce.".
THE READER, January 28, 1865.
A
•

The
University of Michigan.
THE
DEAN'S ENGLISH:
Criticism on the Dean of Canterbury's Essays
ON THE
QUEEN'S ENGLISH.
жда
BY
G? WASHINGTON MOON
FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LITERATURE,
Fourth Edition.
LONDON:
HATCHARD AND CO. 187, PICCADILLY,
Booksellers to H.R.H. the Princess of Wales.
1865.
Ret.
808
M82d
1865
"Literature, if it is to flourish, must have a
standard of taste built up, which shall expand to
meet new forms of excellence, but which shall pre-
serve that which is excellent in old forms, and shall
serve as a guide to the rejection of whatever is bad,
pretentious, and artificial; and it is the business of
critics to see that this standard is built up and main-
tained."-SATURDAY REVIEW.
recotia 12-14 a 8 jo? J
PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION.
I HAVE been asked not to publish another
edition of this work; but I do not think
I should be benefiting the cause of lite-
rature by complying with that request.
The care of the national language," says
Schlegel, “is at all times a sacred trust.
<<
<<
((
Every man of education should make it
"the object of his unceasing concern to pre-
serve his language pure"; and I consider
that I am doing only my duty in that
respect, when I re-issue this work, which,
by exposing the errors of one of exalted
position and reputed learning, makes a
vi
PREFACE.
"light in the church" serve as a beacon
to all around.
I wish it to be distinctly understood that
in publishing these criticisms I have not
been actuated by any feeling of ill-will
towards the Dean of Canterbury. I object
not to the man, but to the man's language;
it is faulty in the extreme; and since the
faults of teachers, if suffered to pass un-
reproved, soon become the teachers of
faults, it was necessary that some one
should take upon himself the task of
"demonstrating", as 'The Edinburgh Re-
'view' said, "that while the Dean undertook
"to instruct others, he was himself but a
((
castaway in matters of grammar". As
a Fellow of the Royal Society of Litera-
ture, one of the objects of which is "to
(C
preserve the purity of the English lan-
“guage”, I took upon myself the demon-
stration. How far I have succeeded, each
PREFACE.
vii
individual reader will determine for him-
self; but the rapid sale of three editions.
of 'The Dean's English', and the demand
for a fourth, give very flattering evidence
that, by the public generally, the work
has been favourably received.
Since the publication of the last edition
of 'The Dean's English', the Dean has
brought out the second edition of The
'Queen's English'. One circumstance, in
connexion with that, is worthy of remark.
In Good Words' the Dean said to his
readers," The less you turn your words
<<
right or left to observe Mr. Moon's rules,
“the better". It will provoke a smile on
the face of the reader of these pages to
be told, that the Dean himself, although
he gives this advice to others, has altered
and struck out, altogether not fewer than
eight-and-twenty passages which I had
condemned as faulty. For the entertain-
viii
PREFACE.
ment of the curious in such matters, I
have given, in parallel columns in this
edition, the sentences as originally pub-
lished in 'Good Words', and condemned
in The Dean's English'; and the altered
sentences as they now appear in the
Dean's second edition of his
'English'.
Queen's
The Dean's book contains much valu-
able information, collected from various
sources; but it is blended with so very
much that would be really injurious to
the student of literature, that the work
can never safely be recommended for his
guidance. The style, too, in which it is
written, is so hopelessly bad, that no
amount of alteration could obtain for it
the praise of being a model for chasteness.
and elegance of expression. We still read
in it, of persons making " a precious mess”
of their work! and expletives, we are
PREFACE.
ix
informed, serve to
grease the wheels of
"talk"! Improvements, it is true, have
been made in some of the paragraphs; a
man is no longer spoken of by the slang
phrase "an individual"; but the Dean is
so strangely forgetful of the courtesy due
to women, that he uses, respecting them,
the most debasing of all slang phrases.
He speaks of "some of the European
"rulers"; [there are but two to whom the
Dean's words can refer;-our own Sove-
reign Lady, and the Queen of Spain ;] and
he describes these by an epithet which is
equally applicable to dogs!-they are
“females"!
Surely, after this, it will be only modest
of the Dean to retire from the office of
lecturer on the Queen's English; and, if
his good sense has not utterly left him,
he will wisely reflect on the folly of at-
tracting attention to a style of writing
X
PREFACEЕ.
which", as Junius said of the character
of Sir William Draper, "will only pass
“without censure when it passes without
"observation”.
London, March, 1865.
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.
THE issue of a second edition of these
letters afforded me an opportunity for
noticing certain explanations of my oppo-
nent, the Dean of Canterbury, and for
extending my criticisms to his 'Plea for
'the Queen's English, No. III'.
I resumed the subject in perfect con-
fidence that he, who in the recent edition.
of his essays on the Queen's English had
honoured me with his expressions of
friendship, and had thought it quite con-
sistent with friendship that he should
combat my objections, and maintain and
xii
PREFACE.
defend his own opinions, would not refuse
me a right which he claimed for him-
self.
I did not extend my criticisms to his
C
recently published volume The Queen's
'English'; but, taking up the subject where
I had left off, I continued my strictures
on the essays as they originally appeared
in' Good Words'.
The reader is doubtless aware that, "in
"a considerably altered form", the said
essays were subsequently "presented to
"the public". In that volume some of
the passages which I had criticised
were defended; others were, very pru-
dently, omitted; and many more were
"considerably altered"; but sentences
"altered" by my opponent are not always
improved. The following one has gone
through the process;-"I used the word
"in an unusual sense, but at the same
PREFACEЕ.
xiii
"time one fully sanctioned by usage."
This needs no comment. The Dean
changed the structure of that passage
also, where, between the pronoun "it"
and the noun "habit" to which it refers,
eight-and-twenty substantives intervene.
But", it has been remarked, “in alter-
"ing this passage he opened his armour
"in such a way as to give the critic a
"most tempting opportunity for inflicting
"another gash on his somewhat careless
opponent." In 'Good Words' the Dean
wrote,—“You perhaps have heard of the
“barber who, while operating on a gentle-
man, expressed his opinion, that, after all,
"the cholera was in the hair." As "altered",
the sentence runs thus,-"We remember in
"Punch the barber who, while operating",
&c. This, of course, suggests the idea
that Punch, besides being a wit, and a
satirist, is also a barber, and that he not
xiv
PREFACE.
only operates upon human consciences but
also upon human chins! The Dean will
very likely put in his irresistible plea,-
"We do not write for idiots"; but, seeing
he is always trying to make us believe
that the style he advocates is one pre-
eminent for its direct and simple clearness,
he should so write that it would be almost
impossible to misunderstand him. Had
he made but the most trifling alteration
in his sentence, no other meaning, than
that which he wished to express, would
have been suggested. Why, for example,
did he not write,-"We remember read-
ing in Punch, of the barber who," &c.?
This would have been much more per-
spicuous.
The Dean thought it advisable to
change the name also of his work. It was
no longer‘A Plea for the Queen's English',
but The Queen's English'. This alter-
PREFACE.
XV
ation compelled me to give up the
title under which the first of these letters
appeared, namely, A Defence of the
Queen's English'; lest, by still retaining
that title, it should seem, to those persons
who are unacquainted with the controversy,
to imply that I had actually written a
defence of my opponent's book—a defence
of The Queen's English'!
It is with sincere pleasure that I record
my acceptance of Dr. Alford's explanation
respecting the objectionable epithets con-
tained in his reply to my first letter,-
they were not intended for me, but for
some hypothetical person.-I request the
reader will receive my remarks on the
said epithets as intended for some hy-
pothetical Dean.
Since those remarks were published I
have had the honour of becoming person-
ally acquainted with my opponent; and
Z
b
xvi
PREFACE.
those who enjoy the privilege of his society
will have no difficulty in believing, that
I sincerely respect him as a man, al-
though I cannot think very highly of
him as an English scholar.
London, October, 1864.
:
CONTENTS.
ADJECTIVES.
"A decided weak point", or "A decidedly
weak point"
"Not a strict neuter-substantive," or "Not
strictly a neuter-substantive"
"Speak no coarser than usual”, or Speak
PAGE
53
56, 132
55, 92
"The words nearest connected", or
“The
55
150
•
not more coarsely than usual”
words most nearly connected"
The rule respecting "first and last" and
66
'former and latter"
ADVERBS.
Dr. Blair on adverbs
15
CC
Hath the Lord only spoken by Moses ?"
or "Hath the Lord spoken only by
Moses ?"
81
"His own use so frequently of it", or "His
own so frequent use of it"
96
"How nicely she looks", or "How nice she
looks"
95
"It appears still more plainly", or "It
appears still more plain"
95
•
"I only bring forward some things", or "I
bring forward some things only" 14, 127
"They may be correctly classified", or "They
may correctly be classified"
"We merely speak of numbers", or "We
113, 138
speak of numbers merely"
14
b 2
xviii
CONTENTS.
AMBIGUITY.
•
PAGE
23
10
·
61
19
•
13, 127
Dr. Campbell on constructive ambiguity
Lord Kames on constructive ambiguity
A back-wood planted with thoughts
A cow that tossed about a street
A man losing his mother in the papers
A paragraph of less than ten lines, yet so am-
biguously worded that it admits of 10,240
different readings
A strange sentence from Dean Swift's writings
A witness "intoxicated by the motion of an
honourable member"
"Compositors without any mercy"
'Compositors without the slightest compunc-
tion"
68, 135
18
18
12
11, 126
64
64
35
36
13, 67, 127
Expressing a sentence, or expressing the mean-
ing .
Expressing a woman
Human kidneys in dogs
Intellectual qualities of raiment
Incongruous association of ideas
"I will introduce the body of my essay" 13, 127
Obscure writing
Professors walking off with dictionaries.
"Sometimes the editors fall, from their ig-
103
•
60, 134
norance"
9
"The beaux painted their faces, as well as
the women"
19
"The Greeks wheeled about and halted, with
the river on their backs"
"The one rule of all others”
CONJUNCTIONS.
Does "than" govern an accusative case? 94, 146, 167
As well as", and "So well as"
21
54, 131
"This [as well as that] fix it"
"Try and think”
98
116, 139
168
CONTENTS.
xix
CRITICISM.
An extract from 'The Saturday Review'
ELLIPSIS.
Brevity should be subordinate to perspicuity.
"Quack, Quack?" "Bow,
'Bow, wow"!
Unallowable ellipsis
PAGE
176
108
109
28
58, 133
"We call a cup-board a cubbard, and so of
many other compound words"
EMPHASIS.
The use of emphasis
The misuse of emphasis-"And they did eat"
EXPLETIVES.
26
2288
"At all"
NOUNS.
Relatives without any nouns to which they
refer
Singular or plural
"The press".
-a collective noun
OBSCURITY. [See Ambiguity].
PERSPICUITY.
What is perspicuity?
The most essential quality in all writings
[See also Ambiguity].
PREPOSITIONS.
110
35
163
163
23
26
"Different to", or "Different from"
53
Errors in the use of the preposition "from" 10, 96
"In respect of", or "With respect to".
64
Not "five outs and one in", but five ins and
one out
118
"The cat jumped on [to] the chair"
44
Treating an exception", or
Treating of an
exception"
65, 108
XX
CONTENTS.
PRONOUNS.
Dr. Campbell on pronouns
A difficulty of him.
A paragraph with twenty-eight nouns inter-
vening between the pronoun and its
"As tall as him", "As tall as me
PAGE
33
62
noun
36, 68, 131
me”
148
53, 143, 156, 158
34
"It is I", or "It is me.
Misuse of pronouns
"More than I", or
More than me" 94, 146, 147
"Such as me", or "Such as I”
158
"Than who", or "Than whom"
The management of pronouns is the test of a
scholar's mastery over the language
The possessive pronoun "its" occurs only
147, 168
32
once in the Bible
37, 131
The date of the introduction of "its" into
the Bible
78, 137
"The nations not so blest as thee"
The relation between nouns and pronouns, the
great stumbling-block to most writers
"This" and "that"
"Thou" and "thee", when used
148
35
170
6, 126
William Cobbett on
it"
"Which I do"
36
169
PRONUNCIATION.
The pronunciation of Greek proper names 30, 74, 130
Should the "h" in "humble" be aspirated?
PUNCTUATION.
30, 150, 160
An error in the sense occasioned by the inser-
tion of a comma
An error in the sense occasioned by the mis-
placing of a comma
An error in the sense occasioned by the omis-
sion of a comma
112
•
115
11, 21, 106, 126
CONTENTS.
xxl
SENTENCES.
Dr. Blair on the construction of sentences
Dr. Campbell on the construction of sentences
Lord Kames on the construction of sentences
Other authorities on the construction of sen-
tences
•
"Constructing" a sentence and "construing"
a sentence
Examples of the violation of the law respect-
ing the position of words in a sentence
PAGE
17
17
17
18
67
18, 19, 20, 128, 134
Objectionable construction of sentences .
"Squinting construction"
The natural order of constructing a sentence
SLANG.
"A female"
"An individual"
A party"
"A tipple”
"A trap"
"Come to grief"
SPELLING.
"
Honor", or "Honour"
66 Odor", or "Odour "
"Tenor", or "Tenour"
TAUTOLOGY AND TAUTOPHONY.
65
21, 112
66
114, 138
65, 135
172
172
•
172
28, 129, 171
46,90
90
49
"Abated the nuisance by enacting that the
debatable syllable", &c.
118, 139
118
"Account for specimens, for which the author
must not be accounted responsible"
"A counter-roll or check on the accounts.
From this account of the word it ap-
pears", &c.
118
Five ins and one out
118
Three ins following each other," in in in "
26
Other, other, others
118
xxii
CONTENTS.
VERBS.
"He flew upon me," and "He fell upon me
"I ain't certain", "I ain't going"
"I need not have troubled myself"
"Stick no bills"
PAGE
170
107
59
•
174
62
57, 132
148
"The next point which I notice shall be", &c.
"There are three first and [there are] one
last"
The verb "to leave"
The verb "to progress
"To the former belong three, to the latter
[belong] one
""
62
57, 132
"Twice one is two", or "twice one are two 163
"Would have been broken to pieces or [would
have been] come to grief"
MISCELLANEOUS.
The power of example
28, 129, 171
Y
Dr. Campbell on the formation of languages
The office of the grammarian and of the critic
The influence of popular writers
Throwing stones
Persuasive teaching
3
4
5
7
8
∞ ∞ ∞ CT A CO
Mending their ways—“highways",
'by-
roads", and "private-roads"
12, 126
Great things which hang up framed at railway
stations.
20, 128
"Individuals in social intercourse
20, 129
The source of mistakes
29, 130
Odious and odorous
31
Be courteous
39
"We do not write for idiots'
"A most abnormal elongation of the auricular
appendages
Call a spade, a spade
Falling up into a depth.
41
42, 84
42
42
CONTENTS.
xxiii
PAGE
"No case, abuse the plaintiff"
Open up
:
A language that grew up by being brought down
Neglect of the study of English at our public
schools
"An individual occurring in Shakspeare
A fact "stated into prominence"
Dean's English
A literary curiosity
The play of Hamlet with the Ghost left out
Misquotation of an opponent's words
Misrepresentations
"Seeing" is not always "believing'
Misquotation of Scripture
"Why do you call me an ass?"
A letter to the Editor of The Patriot'
Explanation respecting the charge of dis-
courtesy
•
Withdrawal of the charge of discourtesy
43
50
51
53
""
65, 135
66
68
71, 135
71
73
74
80, 136
81, 137
84
86
86
89
90
91
•
94
98
99
100
•
103
•
·
104
107
•
111
•
116
•
•
117
119
122
141
•
151
•
162
A teacher is always amenable to criticism
What is a nucleus ?
The importance of trifles
"Right to a t"
A groundless fear
John Milton on rules and maxims
An anecdote of Douglas Jerrold
'The Edinburgh Review' on 'Sordello'
Educated persons
•
Irishisms," and the like"
"The final 'u' in tenour" and "the final's
in months"
•
Variety not always charming.
No special training in English at our Colleges
The English language compared to a temple.
The injurious effects of Dean Alford's essays
Hypercriticism
Irresistible progress of language
xxiv
CONTENTS.
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
PAGE
'The Edinburgh Review'
XXV
'The Westminster Review'
'The Dublin Review'
XXV
xxvi
"The London Review'
xxvi
6
The London Quarterly Review'
xxvii
'The British and Foreign Evangelical Review' xxvii
The Weekly Review'
xxviii
'The Social Science Review'.
xxviii
'The Journal of Sacred Literature'
xxix
The Phonetic Journal'
XXX
'The Record'
"The Churchman'
xxxiv
XXXV
The Church Review'
'The Church Standard'
'The Christian Observer'
xxxvi
xxxvi
xxxvii
The Christian News'
xxxvii
•
The London Christian Times'
xxxviii
The Nonconformist'
'The Patriot'
xxxix
xl
The English Journal of Education'
xli
The Educational Times'
xliii
The Daily News'
xliv
The Newsman'
xlv
'The Cambridge Independent Press'
xlv
'The Sunday Times'
xlv
The Morning Advertiser'
xlvi
The Court Circular'
xlvi
'Public Opinion'
xlvi
The Controversy on the Queen's English.
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
THE EDINBURGH REVIEW.
MR. WASHINGTON MOON amused himself by
demonstrating that while the Dean undertook
to instruct others, the author was himself but
a castaway in matters of grammar. The Dean's
style is neither particularly elegant nor correct,
and his adversary sometimes hits him hard;
besides in one or two cases successfully dis-
puting his judgments.
THE WESTMINSTER REVIEW.
THE DEAN has laid himself open to criticism
as much for bad taste as for questionable syn-
tax. His style of writing is awkward and
slovenly, that of his antagonist remarkably
terse and clear, and bearing witness to a sensi-
tiveness of ear and taste which are glaringly
deficient in his opponent.
xxvi
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
THE DUBLIN REVIEW.
C
EVERY reader of Dean Alford's Queen's Eng-
lish' should make himself acquainted with 'The
Dean's English', by Mr. G. Washington Moon.
He has exposed certain literary trips on the part
of his antagonist, in an amusing and telling way,
and has put together a smart little volume
which is well worth the reading. We think
that even practised writers may learn a lesson
or two in the art of expressing themselves in
their mother tongue clearly and correctly, by a
perusal, both of the Dean's 'Stray Notes' and
of Mr. Moon's rejoinder.
THE LONDON REVIEW.
t
BOTH Dean Alford's book on 'The Queen's
'English', and Mr. G. Washington Moon's slash-
ing commentary on the same, entitled 'The
'Dean's English', in which he certainly makes
mincemeat of a good deal of his opponent's
composition, are calculated to render consider-
able service to loose thinkers, speakers, and
writers; and certainly both are very enter-
taining. Mr. Moon's volume points out some
serious errors of style; it diminishes the pre-
tensions of a censor who, though himself ren-
dering good service to the purity of our tongue,
is certainly not entitled to be so loftily severe
on others; and it has the relish and zest of a
sharp passage of arms.
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
xxvii
THE LONDON QUARTERLY REVIEW.
THE books which come next are those of Dean
Alford and Mr. Moon. Last year the former
contributed some interesting papers to 'Good
'Words' on the Queen's English'. Like a
liege subject, he entered the lists against the foes
of his sovereign lady, and had already un-
horsed some pretenders, when, lo! another
knight-and no carpet knight-appeared upon
the arena, and charged the Dean; accusing
him of having been guilty of the very viola-
tions of law and good taste which he had con-
demned in others. These doughty champions
ended their feud in peace. But Mr. Moon may
say, "What I have written, I have written"
•
Mr. Moon knows the secrets of both the
strength and the grace of his own tongue; and
should, we think, follow up the good impression
he has produced, by publishing something that
might help young writers to the acquisition of
a pure and nervous style.
THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN EVANGELICAL REVIEW.
READERS will remember Dean Alford's papers
on 'The Queen's English' in' Good Words', and
the correspondence they provoked. Mr. Moon
was one of the Dean's adversaries, and fired off
a pamphlet against him, which called forth a
rejoinder from the warlike Dean. But the
critic laid himself open to a cross fire, and got
criticised to his heart's content. Many thought
Mr. Moon had by no means the worst of it in
the war of words and strife of tongues.
xxviii
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
THE WEEKLY REVIEW.
Dr. Alford, Dean of Canterbury, is known as
a devout and accomplished minister-as an ex-
cellent preacher—as the author of a critical and
expository edition of the Greek Testament, which
is an evidence of his industry and research, if
not of profound scholarship--and as the writer
of one or two fair specimens of poetical compo-
sition. In addition to the claims which any or
all of the foregoing may give him on public
confidence and regard, the Dean has been de-
sirous to assert for himself the reputation of a
philologist and grammarian, and to place him-
self in the position of arbiter and oracle on the
subject of the "Queen's English". Mr. Moon
is not disposed to bow to Dean Alford in this
matter, and in reply to the Anglican clergy-
man's 'Queen's English' has come forth with
'The Dean's English'. It is a pretty generally
received opinion that the ecclesiastic has got
the worst of it.
Mr. Moon not only shows (in several instances
at least) that Dr. Alford is wrong in the ex ca-
thedrâ judgments he pronounces as to certain
popular forms of speech, but demonstrates that
the Dean's whole papers are specimens of slip-
shod writing, and abound with inelegancies, if
not inaccuracies, of composition.
THE SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW.
IN calmly reviewing the whole matter, we can-
not but feel that Mr. Moon has come off the
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
xxix
victor; and if there are some few remarks of
a strictly personal character, that we would
rather have seen omitted from this second edi-
tion of his work, we must admit that it is a
smart piece of verbal prose criticism, and is of
more than passing interest. Mr. Moon well
performs his self-imposed task: he evinces a
fine sense of discernment in the niceties of lan-
guage; and, while severely criticising the sen-
tences of his opponent, shows that he himself
knows how to write in a remarkably clear,
terse, and vigorous style.
We have only to add, that we have read
'The Dean's English' with pleasure, and we
can recommend this carefully prepared work—
which does credit alike to author and publisher
—to all who are interested in the study of lan-
guage, or desire to sharpen their wits by the
pérusal of a little Cobbett-like criticism.
THE JOURNAL OF SACRED LITERATURE.
THE critic's calling is exceedingly difficult, and
requires for its successful prosecution an aggre-
gate of moral and intellectual excellencies which
few men possess. Again, it is a very difficult
thing to speak and to write good English; yet
everybody thinks he can both speak and write
it, and most men fancy they can criticize it too.
But the difficulty of producing unexceptionable
English, lays open to censure almost all writers
and speakers. Dean Alford is an example: we
XXX
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
know him to be a popular writer, and we believe
him to be a good one; but he is not faultless,
and, having been tempted in an evil hour to
turn critic, he has brought upon himself a
deluge of criticism. Mr. Moon in particular
overwhelms him with accusations, to some of
which we fear he must plead guilty. We read
Dean Alford's book on the Queen's English,
with considerable pleasure, and gathered out of
it some useful hints, but we felt, at the same
time, that he employed constructions which
were doubtful, and that his opinions did not
always agree with what we had been led to
regard as good usage.
Mr. Moon has raised a far larger number of
objections than occurred to us, and the volume
in which he embodies them is one of the smart-
est pieces of criticism we ever read. It is not
only admirable as a specimen of critical style,
but it abounds in suggestions which no man
in his senses can undervalue: more than this,
it is a delightful example of good writing. The
vigour of the critic is sometimes almost like
severity, but we doubt whether it is ever mali-
cious, and so we enjoy the book and learn from
it at one and the same time.
THE PHONETIC JOURNAL.
Ir, as some good people hold, everybody and
everything is created, not merely for a general,
but moreover for some specific, purpose, then we
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
xxxl
{
might infer that the particular use to which
Nature destined the Dean of Canterbury was to
set himself up to lecture upon the Queen's
English, and so to offer himself as a conspicuous
mark, and a defenceless victim, to the scathing
criticism and merciless exposure of Mr. George
Washington Moon. Not for many years, have
we seen such a brilliant and effective passage of
arms, as is contained in the little book under
notice, which consists principally of three letters
addressed to Dr. Alford. To say, that the poor
Dean is worsted in the encounter, is to say very
little. His defeat is almost too complete. Like
an untrained youth, in the grasp of an athlete,
he never has even a chance. At every round,
he is quickly thrown; and the blows, given
with a will, and planted with a precision and
vigour, which no feint can elude, fall fast and
beavily on his defenceless head.
At every
point, the Dean is confronted by his pertinacious
and inexorable assailant, who leaves him no
possibility of escape; or, if he does occasion-
ally attempt a feeble defence, it only serves to
bring down upon himself still severer punish-
ment, until, exhausted by the encounter, he
does that, which, for his own sake, he had
better have done at first-makes peace with his
adversary while yet he is in the way with him.
To set one's self up for a teacher of English,
pure and undefiled; jaurtily to ascend the
rostrum, as one gifted with authority to lay
down the whole law; and then to be met with
such a withering exposure of incompetence,
C
xxxii
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
with such inevitable inferences of imbecility,
as constitute the staple of Mr. Moon's book ;
for the physician, who gratuitously obtrudes
his advice upon us, and vaunts his ability to
cure our disorder,-for him to be convicted of
labouring under a virulent form of the same
disease, certainly this is not a pleasant position
for a man to occupy, and we heartily commiser-
ate the unfortunate Dean.
Even in the fair field of criticism he is quite
unable to cope with his skilful and alert adver-
sary. Never was there a more conspicuous
instance of going out to shear, and coming
home shorn. For our own part, we would
rather have submitted to a month's stone-
breaking than have called down upon ourselves
such withering sarcasms and incisive irony as
Dr. Alford's language has so justly provoked.
To those who are interested in speaking and
writing good English,-and what educated per-
son is not?-this book is full of instruction;
and to those who enjoy a controversy, conducted
with consummate skill, and in excellent taste
by a strong man, well armed, it is such a treat
as does not fall in one's way often during a life-
time. Regarded in itself, and without any
immediate reference to its object, this book
affords a model of correct and elegant English ;
such as it is a perfect treat to meet with, in
these days of slip-shod writing. Perspicuous,
compact and nervous in its construction, it is
by no means deficient in some of the higher and
more brilliant qualities of style; while, for re-
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
xxxiii
fined sarcasm and covert irony, it has rarely
been equalled. We can assure our readers
that a pleasanter or more profitable employ-
ment than the perusal of this book, it would be
difficult to recommend to them.
Many of our public writers, highly educated,
and perhaps because they have been so educated,
undertake English composition as if it were the
one exceptional art which required no rules but
the "rule of thumb." To such, the lamentable
fiasco of the Dean, owing to his disregard of
rules, should be a lesson, but, too probably,
will not. We cannot help wishing that a writer
who is so eminently qualified as Mr. Moon to
teach a subject which, just now, so greatly
needs to be taught, and who illustrates so
adinirably by his example the precepts that he
so clearly enforces, would devote himself to
the task of drawing up a code of rules for
composition, such as our journalists and period-
ical writers might appeal to, as a standard for
correct English. We are of opinion that there
is a crying want of such a work, that it would
be one of the most useful and most popular
works of the day, and that Mr. Moon, with his
thorough mastery of the subject, with his keen
perception, nice judgment, and pellucid and
elegant style, is just the person to write it.
When a man displays peculiar aptitudes, and
of a high order, for a given subject, we grieve,
we almost resent it, if our natural expectations
should remain unfulfilled. We feel that to be
defeated of our hopes is, in some sense, to be
c 2
xxxiv
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
defrauded of our rights. We think we have a
right to call upon Mr. Moon, now that he has
once exhibited this shining talent, not to wrap
it up again in a napkin, but to put it out to
interest, and we have no doubt of its bringing
him back most abundant returns. We enter-
tain this opinion notwithstanding Mr. Moon's
disclaimer that " very little can be added to
the canons of criticism already laid down;
though very much may be done for the per-
manent enriching of our language, by popular
writers using more care as to the examples
they set in composition, than as to the lessons
they teach concerning it." It is precisely be-
cause Mr. Moon teaches so well by example,
that we would fain have him make this example
the vehicle for the inculcation of precepts, and
the execution of the work the best comment
upon, and illustration of, its rules.
THE RECORD.
on
READERS remember a series of papers
'The Queen's English' by Dean Alford, which
first appeared in 'Good Words'. Immediately
on the publication of the first paper, the learned
Dean was inundated with epistolary comments,
critiques, and remonstrances by volunteer critics
from all parts of the country. The most for-
midable of these assailants was the redoubtable
Mr. Moon, who, after a preliminary skirmish or
two in private, came out with a positive
pamphlet. The Dean replied, and Mr. Moon
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
XXXV
returned again and again to the charge. The
final result is that the Dean's essays are col-
lected into a revised volume, and Mr. Moon's
have settled down and completed themselves
in another. Most readers will, we believe,
think with us that Mr. Moon comes cleanest out
of the controversy, and has in every way the
best of the argument. The Dean entered
the arena with a light jaunty step, and spoke
with the air, and in the tone, of a man whose
decision was to be final; all he said at first was
quite ex cathedrâ, and bore the look of being
said by one whose ipse dixit was to settle all
strife about words: a very Daniel in the person
of a Dean had come to judgment. But he
speedily had to lower his pretensions. Mr.
Moon cried, "Physician, heal thyself. Before
you attempt to teach us how to use the Queen's
English, see that you know how to write it your-
self." Coming out for wool, in fact, the Dean
went back shorn; rushing forth to teach, he
went home taught. We can cordially recom-
mend Mr. Moon's volume. It is really an able
critique. The argument is conducted with
admirable temper, and no reader can finish the
volume without learning many valuable lessons
in English composition, and some other things
well worth knowing.
THE CHURCHMAN.
MR. MOON has performed a public service by
his exposure of the errors into which men of
xxxvi
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
even the position of Dean Alford fall when they
attempt to write English. The amusing speci-
mens of ungrammatical and slovenly sentences
which are here collected will serve, we hope, to
warn authors against similar offences, and we
think Mr. Moon entitled to the gratitude of all
lovers of our language in its purity for this ex-
posure of the Dean's English.
THE CHURCH REVIEW.
We do not wonder to see the collection of Mr.
Washington Moon's criticisms in their third
edition. The vigour with which he has at-
tacked unlucky Dean Alford, and the awkward
-way in which the latter struggles and kicks
under the infliction, are very entertaining. It
is curious to see mistakes and inelegancies per-
petrated in English composition for one tithe of
which in the classical languages the offenders
would meet with severe castigation, and for
which, indeed, they themselves would blush
with shame. The book is one which we should
wish to put into the hands of our young learner
of English, that he may be upon his guard
against current modes of speech, and the adop-
tion of custom as a standard.
THE CHURCH STANDARD.
THERE is so much in this neatly printed volume
to command our approval, that we cannot with-
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
xxxvii
hold our meed of praise. There is a great deal
of sound and trenchant criticism, and the style
is vigorous, versatile, and epigrammatic.
THE CHRISTIAN OBSERVER.
We believe with Mr. Moon, that Dean Alford's
English is singularly incorrect, and that the
style of his reproofs is utterly indefensible.
1
THE CHRISTIAN NEWS.
To fathers of families this book will be worth
more than all the money which they are now
paying for their children's grammar. In mary
of the criticisms, the acumen displayed by Mr.
Moon is of no common kind. His letters are
models of English composition, and are so full
of animation, so sharp, lively, and trenchant,
that it is quite a treat to read them. He has
demonstrated beyond dispute that the Dean of
Canterbury, who sets himself up as a defender
of the English language, commits the most
culpable blunders in writing it. The formida-
ble indictment is supported with an ability and
acuteness we have seldom seen excelled. Mr.
Moon writes with greater elegance, with greater
ease, with greater perspicuity, with greater
vigour, and with incomparably greater accuracy,
than his opponent. He has rendered a dry and
forbidding subject both pleasing and profitable.
Xxxviii
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
Though there is a remorseless exactness about
his criticisms which makes one feel as if the
writing of proper English were a hopeless
attempt, there is really nothing of the true
pedant about him any more than there is about
the sturdy Dean himself. Both volumes are
equally free from pedantry, and both, though
in different senses, we can recommend to all
who take any interest in the subject.
THE LONDON CHRISTIAN TIMES.
THERE are but few of our readers, we presume,
who have not already heard of this work; but
we are nevertheless glad of an opportunity of
expressing the opinion we entertain of its merits,
and of urging the perusal of it upon all our
friends, especially upon those who have read
'The Queen's English.' The raciness and smart-
ness of these criticisms invest a dry subject
with interest. The frequent discomfiture of the
warlike Dean will amuse all persons, and we
have no doubt that the contents of this book will
enliven many a fireside during these long, dark,
winter evenings. We shall be mistaken if
the perusal of it does not lead, amongst the
members of many domestic circles to a good-
humoured criticism, for a time, of each other's
words and sentences. The result will be in-
creasing correctness in the phraseology em-
ployed; and that the end of both the Dean and
his critic will be in some good degree realised.
1
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
xxxix
We have spoken of “the discomfiture of the
"warlike Dean," and we cannot doubt, that, on
the whole, this word fitly describes the result of
this smart passage of arms. The Dean advanced
with the bearing of one who deemed that he had
no superior, if indeed, any equal. He did not
imagine that anyone would be found daring
enough to confront him, and to dispute the
positions he had assumed. Mr. Moon, with
little delay or ceremony, attacked and repulsed
him; caring nothing for offended dignity, or
anything else, save the vindication of the truth.
It is impossible not to see that he is fond of a
brush. He goes about his work and prosecutes.
it con amore.
Scarcely a page occurs in this small volume
in which the Dean is not proved to have fallen
intc errors, either of grammar, construction,
orthography, or pronunciation. Whenever he
shall write again in defence of the Queen's
English, he will, no doubt, write with greater
care. He has done the public good service by
introducing the subject; but the advantage
gained will be owing, in a very great degree, to
the criticisms of his accomplished and keen-
eyed antagonist.
THE NONCONFORMIST.
THERE is really something quite refreshing
about Mr. Moon's brochures. He must excuse
our confessing to a slight sense of amusement,
on a first perusal of his strictures on the Dean.
xl
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
The spirit of hearty vehemence by which they
were pervaded only failed to elicit our complete
sympathy, because it seemed to us that the
object of so vigorous an assault was after all a
man of straw". The faults of style, and even
of grammatical structure, in Dean Alford's
essays, were so obvious that a less grave mode
of exposure would have seemed to us more
appropriate. However, we thank Mr. Moon
very cordially for what he has done, and have
no hesitation in saying that he has so far suc-
ceeded in his vindication of pure and correct,
as opposed to lax and slipshod, English, as to
deserve the gratitude of those who, like our-
selves, deem our mother tongue, in all its
restraints as well as in all its liberties, to be
one of the most precious inheritances of Eng-
lishmen.
THE PATRIOT.
ONE would have thought that the Dean, in re-
plying to animadversions upon his style, would
have written with especial care; instead of this,
his second article contains more and grosser
faults than his first. The Dean boldly avows
his disrespect for Lindley Murray, treats him
with as little reverence as Colenso treats Moses,
and forthwith proceeds, somewhat flagrantly,
to exemplify his boasted ignorance of the whole-
some rules according to which all of good English
that we knew at school was flogged into us.
Had this been the Dean's schoolboy experience
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
xli
too, we cannot help thinking that it would have
been better for him now. Mr. Moon gives the
Dean a severe castigation for more than offences
against the Queen's English; and we are bound,
in justice, to say that the Dean has fairly pro-
voked it. Had he been a little less self-opin-
ionated, and a little more respectful towards one
who appears to have addressed him, in the first
instance, with all gentlemanly courtesy, Mr.
Moon would not, probably, have appeared in
print. As it is, while we cannot altogether ex-
tenuate the tone of Mr. Moon's second letter,
we are compelled to say that Dean Alford's
paper singularly lacks both the simplicity of a
great mind and the deference of a great scholar.
Mr. Moon is no meddling ignoramus. He is by
no means impeccable himself; but, as a master
of the English language, he is far superior to
the Dean.
THE ENGLISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATION.
THE Dean of Canterbury, apparently desirous
of emulating a fellow-dignitary, whose hearty
and learned labours in the mine of our lan-
guage have opened up veins of richness few
ever dreamed of, has published an article en-
titled 'A Plea for the Queen's English'. The
work we review is a reply to the Dean's
production. We are greatly obliged to Mr.
Moon for taking up the matter. It would have
been a pity to have allowed the Dean to escape
xlii
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
a castigation he deserved. We do not expect.
the physician who attends us to be exempt from
all complaints at all times. He is mortal, and
subject to mortal ills. But if we find him
giving us advice as to a course of physic or
diet, which course he himself does not follow
when he is similarly afflicted, we give him
credit for either insincerity or ignorance. The
Dean sets himself up as a healer of the sick-
nesses brought by careless habit on the "Queen's
"English"; but, while pointing out those com-
plaints and prescribing their remedies, he was
labouring under similar maladies, whose exist-
ence in himself he utterly ignored, or repre-
sented as virtues rather than otherwise, when
Mr. Moon privately pointed them out to him.
Such a doctor merits no confidence, and the
exposure of his incapacity is a public good.
In light, lively writing, strict correctness of
diction and arrangement is not requisite. For
our recreation reading, the stately periods of
Robertson would be intolerable; but Dickens's
brilliant page, utterly ignoring stops and vio-
lating all rules of composition, is delightfully
fresh and grateful. Dashing leaders in the
papers we do not expect to find reducible to
strict principles like those laid down by Kames
or Campbell. But when a man seriously pre-
tends to be writing to amend faults, his own
style should be faultless, especially when he
speaks in the tone of calm, self-assured supe-
riority to vulgar error which the Dean of
Canterbury assumes. It would occupy too
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
xliii
much space were we to give a resumé of
the contents of Mr. Moon's clever work.
We coincide with all his strictures on the
Dean's article, and do not doubt that, with
ourselves, he could have pointed to many more
egregious blunders on the part of this new
would-be critic. We advise all our readers to
see Mr. Moon's reply. Written in pure, for-
cible, elegant, and classic, English-perfect in
composition and punctuation, and in its gentle-
manly dignity so opposed to the slipshod,
half-vulgar easiness of the Dean's 'Plea'—it
merits the attention of all students of our
tongue, and shows that though in familiar talk
and writing we may be as men at home-free
and at our ease there is not wanting amongst
us that covert stateliness and rigid propriety
which a weighty subject demands.
THE EDUCATIONAL TIMES.
THIS is a continuation of the now somewhat
notorious controversy between Dean Alford and
Mr. Washington Moon, on certain points arising
out of the publication of the Dean's 'Plea for
'the Queen's English', which Mr. Moon seems
to have considered to be itself far from free
from the very faults of grammar and diction it
professed to hold up to reprobation. We
think that in this linguistic passage of arms
Mr. Moon has decidedly the best of it.
xliv
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
THE DAILY NEWS.
DEAN ALFORD could hardly have reflected upon
what he was about to do when he sat down
to write an easy, gossipy sort of paper for Good
'Words' on the subject of common errors in
speaking and in writing English. He certainly
did not expect his free remarks to be so sharply
challenged as they have been. And he finds
himself engaged in a kind of controversy for
which neither his natural turn of mind, nor his
particular training has fitted him. His own
style is at times so poor, so loose in the joints,
so deficient in clear and sensitive perception of
the proper force of words, that people have
naturally wondered as to how this writer, above
all others, could have been led to assume the
critic's function. He sticks to it, however;
revises and republishes his strictures, and
seems not to have the least idea that he has
been beaten in the battle. Mr. Moon, there-
fore, his foremost antagonist, gives him here
the benefit of a third letter in answer to his
• Plea Number Three.' The Dean is clearly in
error in his contempt for the grammarians.
He might very properly enlighten them if he
could show that they have framed some of their
rules on too narrow grounds, but he is himself
a warning example against the neglect of
regular English teaching in our great schools.
It may be hoped that he will improve-he cer-
tainly ought under Mr. Moon's instructions.
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
Xly
THE NEWSMAN.
GREATLY as we fear that the Dean of Canterbury
has failed to establish his claim to be regarded
as an authority on the Queen's English, we, by
no means, regret the appearance of his present
work; and for this reason-had there never
been ‘The Queen's English', there would pro-
bably never have been 'The Dean's English';
and had there never been The Dean's English',
the world would have lost a very valuable con-
tribution to English philology, and one of the
most masterly pieces of literary criticism in
the language.
THE CAMBRIDGE INDEPENDENT PRESS.
Ír is written with a power of sarcasm and
criticism rarely excelled. Mr. Moon is a
brilliant writer; his work is full of point,
sound in English, and deserves to be generally
read.
THE SUNDAY TIMES.
MR. MOON has rendered a real service to litera-
ture in this exposure of Dean Alford, and we
are glad to express our recognition of the value
of his labours.
xlvi
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
THE MORNING ADVERTISER.
Ir is one of the smartest pieces of prose-
criticism we have chanced to meet with for
many a day.
THE COURT CIRCULAR.
ALL who are interested in such critical discus-
sions as are so clearly and accurately carried on
in this little book will be grateful to Mr. Moon,
not only for much solid instruction, but for
much entertainment also.
PUBLIC OPINION.
A CRITICAL study of the English language is
always a pleasant task; it is here rendered
doubly agreeable by the happy style of the
author of 'The Dean's English'.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH:
A CRITICISM.
TO THE VERY REV. HENRY ALFORD, D.D.,
DEAN OF CANTERBURY.
REV. SIR,
On the publication of your 'Plea for
'the Queen's English'* I was surprised to
observe inaccuracies in the structure of
your sentences and more than one gram-
matical error. Under ordinary circum-
stances I should not have taken notice
of such deviations from what is strictly
correct in composition; but the subject of
your essay being the Queen's English, my
attention was naturally drawn to the
* A Plea for the Queen's English', by the Dean
of Canterbury: 'Good Words', March, 1863.
B
2
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
language you had employed; and as, when
I privately wrote to you respecting it,
you justified your use of the expressions.
to which I had referred, I am desirous of
knowing whether such expressions are
really allowable in writings, and especially
whether they are allowable in an essay
which has for its object the exposure and
correction of literary inaccuracies. I there-
fore publish this my second letter to you;
and I do so, to draw forth criticism upon
the rules involved in this question; that,
the light of various opinions being made
to converge upon these rules, their value
or their worthlessness may thereby be
manifested. I make no apology for this
course; for when, by your violations of
syntax and your defence of those viola-
tions, you teach that Campbell's Philoso-
phy of Rhetoric', Kames's 'Elements of
Criticism', and Blair's 'Lectures on Rhe-
'toric and Belles Lettres' are no longer to
be our guides in the study of the English
language, no apology is needed from me
for asking the public whether they con-
firm the opinion that these hitherto ac-
(
(
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
3
knowledged authorities should be super-
seded.
To spread this enquiry widely is the
more necessary, because, on account of
the position which you hold, and the
literary reputation which you enjoy, your
modes of expression, if suffered to pass
unchallenged, will, probably, by-and-by be
quoted in justification of the style of other
writers who shall presume to damage by
example, if not by precept, the highway
of thought over which all desire to
travel.
of example.
By influential example it is that lan- The power
guages are moulded into whatever form
they take; therefore, according as example
is for good or for evil, so will a language
gain in strength, sweetness, precision, and
elegance, or will become weak, harsh,
unmeaning, and barbarous. Great writers
may make or may mar a language. It is
with them, and not with grammarians,
that the responsibility rests; for language
is what custom makes it; and custom is,
has been, and always will be, more influ-
enced by example than by precept.
B 2
4
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
Dr. Camp-
bell on the
formation
of lan-
guages.
Dr. Campbell, speaking of the formation
of languages, justly says: *- Language
"is purely a species of fashion, in which
by the general, but tacit, consent of the
66
(6
people of a particular state or country,
"certain sounds come to be appropriated
'to certain things as their signs, and
"certain ways of inflecting and combining
"those sounds come to be established as
"denoting the relations which subsist
((
among the things signified. It is not
"the business of grammar, as some critics
seem preposterously to imagine, to give
"law to the fashions which regulate our
speech. On the contrary, from its con-
formity to these, and from that alone, it
"derives all its authority and value. For,
"what is the grammar of any language?
"It is no other than a collection of general
"observations methodically digested, and
"comprising all the modes previously and
"independently established, by which the
(6
significations, derivations, and combi-
“nations of words in that language are
* Campbell's 'Philosophy of Rhetoric', vol. i, book
2, chap. 1, 2.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
5
10
“ ascertained.
It is of no consequence
"here to what causes originally these
"modes or fashions owe their existence-
"to imitation, to reflection, to affectation,
"or to caprice; they no sooner obtain and
"become general than they are the laws
"of the language, and the grammarian's
only business is to note, collect, and
methodise them." "But,' it may be
"said, 'if custom, which is so capricious
"and unaccountable, is everything in
'language, of what significance is either
"the grammarian or the critic?'
((
66 (
(6
ic
Of
considerable significance notwithstand-
ing; and of most then, when they con-
fine themselves to their legal depart-
"ments, and do not usurp an authority
"that does not belong to them. The
<<
man who, in a country like ours,
"should compile a succinct, perspicuous,
'and faithful digest of the laws, though
"no lawgiver, would be universally ac-
cc
knowledged to be a public benefactor.
"How easy would that important branch
"of knowledge be rendered by such a
"work, in comparison with what it must
6
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
"thee".
be, when we have nothing to have re-
course to, but a labyrinth of statutes,
"reports, and opinions. That man also
"would be of considerable use, though
"not in the same degree, who should
vigilantly attend to every illegal practice
"that was beginning to prevail, and should
“evince its danger by exposing its con-
"trariety to law. Of similar benefit,
though in a different sphere, are gram-
"mar and criticism. In language, the
ઃઃ
"L
grammarian is properly the compiler
"of the digest; and the verbal critic,
"the man who seasonably notifies the
"abuses that are creeping in. Both tend
"to facilitate the study of the tongue to
(6
66
ic
strangers, and to render natives more
perfect in the knowledge of it, to ad-
vance general use into universal, and
"to give a greater stability at least, if
“not a permanency, to custom, that most
"mutable thing in nature."
"Thou" and I have quoted these passages because
they have direct reference to the subject
under consideration; for I do not find
fault with the critical remarks in your
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
7
essay. Many of them, it is true, are not
new; but most of them are good, and
therefore will bear re-perusal; yet, I
must say, it was scarcely necessary to
repeat in the March number of Good
"Words', the meaning of "avocation", which
Archbishop Whately had given in the
same magazine in the previous August.
And so far from its being "so well known
a fact” that we reserve the singular pro-
nouns
""
“thee
"thou” and
((
entirely for
our addresses in prayer to Him who is
"the highest Personality", it is not a
fact. These pronouns are very extensively
and very properly used in poetry, even
when inanimate objects are addressed; as
is the case in the following lines from
Coleridge's' Address to Mont Blanc':-
“O dread and silent Mount! I gazed upon thee
“Till thou, still present to the bodily sense,
"Didst vanish from my thought: entranced in prayer
"I worshipped the Invisible alone.”
popular
However, I shall not notice your critical Influence of
remarks, for they are of only secondary writers.
importance. Very little can be added to
8
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
Throwing
stones.
Persuasive
teaching.
the canons of criticism already laid down;
very much may be done for the perma-
nent enriching of our language, by popular
writers exercising more care as to the
examples they set in composition, than ast
to the lessons they teach concerning it.
But, in literature especially, it has al-
ways been so much easier for authors to
censure than to guide by example, and it
has been thought by them so much better
fun to break other authors' windows than
to stay quietly at home taking care of
their own, that the throwing of stones has
long been a favourite amusement. Nor
do we object to it, providing two things
be granted: first, that the glass of the
windows is so bad that the objects seen
through it appear distorted; and, secondly,
that in no spirit of unkindness shall the
stones be thrown, lest you not only break
the author's windows, but also wound the
author himself.
It must be admitted that there is in
your essay so little of that "sweetness of
"the lips" which "increaseth learning",
that but a very small amount of good can
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
9
result to those whom you think to be most
in need of improvement. You speak of
"the vitiated and pretentious style which
"passes current in our newspapers". You
sneeringly say, "In a leading article of
"The Times' not long since, was this
"beautiful piece of slipshod English": then
follows the quotation, with this remark
appended, "Here we see faults enough be-
"sides the wretched violations of grammar";
and, “these writers are constantly doing
"something like this".*
Then you say,
"Sometimes the editors of our papers
* "When it is considered that in every newspaper
of any pretensions there are articles, letters, and
paragraphs, from thirty or fifty different pens, there
is not much to be astonished at in occasional blunders.
If the Dean knew more of newspaper matters he
would be more charitable in his criticism. Is it fair
to expect in a leading article composed at midnight,
against time, and carried off to the printers slip by
slip as it is written, the same rhythmical beauty and
accuracy of expression as in any essay elaborated by
the labour of many days for a quarterly review?
Yet the English of the Dean, corrected and recor-
rected, pales before that of 'The Times' written per-
haps by a wearied man at two in the morning."-
'The Christian News,' Glasgow.
10
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
Editors fall-
ing from
their ignor-
rance.
((
fall, from their ignorance, into absurd
“mistakes”. Certainly not a very happy
arrangement of words in which to remark
upon the "absurd mistakes" of other
people; for we ought to be as careful
what our sentences suggest, as what they
affirm; and we are so accustomed to speak
of people falling from a state or position,
that your words naturally suggest the
absurb idea of editors falling from their
ignorance.
I submit it to the reviewers whether
your sentence be not altogether faulty.
The words, "from their ignorance" should
not come after "fall", they should precede
it. But, for the reason just given, the
word "from" is objectionable in any part
of the sentence, which would have been
better written thus, Sometimes our editors,
in consequence of their ignorance, fall
into absurb mistakes. If you say that
the defect in perspicuity is removed by
the punctuation, I answer, in the language
of Lord Kames, "Punctuation may re-
((
move an ambiguity, but will never
"produce that peculiar beauty which is
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
11
((
perceived when the sense comes out
"clearly and distinctly by means of a
'happy arrangement". The same high
authority tells us that a circumstance
ought never to be placed between two
capital members of a sentence; or if it
be so placed, the first word in the con-
sequent member should be one that
cannot connect it with what precedes. In
your sentence, unfortunately, the connec-
tion is perfect, and the suggestion of a
ridiculous idea is the result.
((
(C
tors with-
out the
compunc-
Nor is this the only instance of this "Composi-
kind of faulty arrangement.
You say, slightest
"The great enemies to understanding tion.
anything printed in our language are
"the commas. And these are inserted by
"the compositors without the slightest
compunction". I should say that the
great enemy to our understanding these
sentences of yours is the want of commas ;
for though the defective position of words,
can never be compensated for by commas,
they do frequently help to make the sense
clearer, and would do so in this instance.
How can we certainly know that the words
12
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
"Composi-
tors with-
out any
mercy."
"without the slightest compunction " refer
to "inserted?" They seem, by their order
in the sentence, to describe the character
of the compositors; they are "without
"the slightest compunction". And then
that word "compunction"; what an ill-
chosen word of which to make use when
speaking of punctuation. But this is only
on a par with what occurs in the first
paragraph of your essay, where you speak
of people "mending their ways"; and in
the very next paragraph you speak of the
Queen's highway", and of "by-roads"
and "private roads”.
66
((
But to return. Not only do you describe
the poor compositors as beings "without
any compunction "; but also as beings
"without any mercy". The sentence runs
thus: "These 'shrieks', as they have been
((
called, are scattered up and down the
"page by compositors without any mercy".
I have often heard of "printers devils",
and I imagined them to be the boys who
assist in the press-room; but if your
description of compositors is true, these
are beings of an order very little superior.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
B
the body".
By-the-way, while noticing these ghostly "Introduce
existences, I may just remark that imme-
diately after your speaking of "things
"without life", you startle us with that
strange sentence of yours-"I will intro-
((
duce the body of my essay". Introduce
the body! We are prepared for much in
these days of "sensation" writing; and
the very prevalence of the fashion for that
style of composition predisposes any one
of a quick imagination, to believe for the
instant that your essay on the 'Queen's
'English' is about to turn into a 'Strange
Stɔry'.
losing his
mother in
the papers.
But to be more serious " as you say in A man
your essay, and then immediately give us
a sentence in which the grave and the
grotesque are most incongruously blended.
I read, "A man does not lose his mother
((
now in the papers". I have read figur-
ative language which spoke of lawyers.
being lost in their papers, and students
being buried in their books; but I never
read of a man losing his mother in the
papers: therefore I do not quite see what
the adverb "now" has to do in the
14
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
Misuse of
adverbs.
sentence. Ah! stop a moment. You did
not mean to speak of a man losing his
mother in the papers. I perceive by the
context that what you intended to say
was something of this sort: According to
the papers, a man does not now lose his
mother; but that is a very different thing.
How those little prepositions "from" and
"in" do perplex you; or rather, how
greatly your misuse of them perplexes
your readers.
With the adverbs also you are equally
at fault. You say, "In all abstract cases
"where we merely speak of numbers the
"verb is better singular." Here the placing
of the adverb "merely" makes it a
limitation of the following word "speak";
and the question might naturally enough
be asked, But what if we write of num-
bers? The adverb, being intended to
qualify the word "numbers", should have
been placed immediately after it. The
sentence would then have read, "In all
"abstract cases where we speak of num-
"bers merely, the verb is better singular."
So also in the sentence, "I only bring
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
15
'
""
"forward some things", the adverb "only"
is similarly misplaced; for, in the follow-
ing sentence, the words "Plenty more
"might be said", show that the "only
refers to the "some things", and not to
the fact of your bringing them forward.
The sentence should therefore have been,
I bring forward some things only. Plenty
"more might be said." Again, you say
"Still, though too many commas are bad,
"too few are not without inconvenience
"also." Here the adverb (6
also", in
consequence of its position, applies to
inconvenience"; and the sentence signi-
fies that too few commas are not with-
out inconvenience besides being bad.
Doubtless, what you intended was, "Still,
"though too many commas are bad, too
"few also are not without inconvenience."
Blair, speaking of adverbs, says, "The Dr. Blair on
fact is, with respect to such adverbs as
66
((
(6
only, wholly, at least, and the rest of that
tribe, that, in common discourse, the
"tone and emphasis we use in pronoun-
<<
cing them, generally serves to show their
"reference, and to make the meaning
adverbs.
16
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
On the con-
struction of
،،
clear; and hence we acquire the habit
"of throwing them in loosely in the
course of a period. But in writing",
[and I wish you to notice this, because it
bears upon a remark in your letter to me,]
“But in writing, where a man speaks to
"the eye and not to the ear, he ought to be
more accurate, and so to connect those
“ adverbs with the words which they qualify
(6
as to put his meaning out of doubt upon
"the first inspection."
In my former letter to you, I quoted as
sentences. the basis of some remarks I had to make,
the well known rule that "those parts of
a sentence which are most closely con-
"nected in their meaning, should be as
closely as possible connected in position.”
In your reply you speak of my remarks
as "the fallacious application of a supposed
"rule." Whether my application of the
rule be fallacious or not, let others judge
from this letter; and as to whether the rule
itself be only "a supposed rule", or whether
it is not, on the contrary, a standard rule
emanating from the highest authorities, let
the following quotations decide.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
17
Kames's
I read in Kames's 'Elements of Criti- Lord
"cism', "Words expressing things connected opinion.
"in the thought, ought to be placed as
"near together as possible."
((
bell's
I read in Campbell's Philosophy of Dr. Camp-
"Rhetoric', "In English and other modern opinion.
languages, the speaker doth not enjoy
"that boundless latitude which an orator
"of Athens or of Rome enjoyed when
"haranguing in the language of his coun-
With us, who admit very few
"inflections, the construction, and conse-
quently the sense, depends almost entirely
or the order."
"try.
(6
(6
I read in Blair's 'Lectures on Rhetoric Dr. Blair's
and Belles Lettres', "The relation which
"the words, or members of a period, bear
"to one another, cannot be pointed out
"in English, as in Greek or Latin, by
((
((
means of terminations; it is ascertained
only by the position in which they
stand. Hence a capital rule in the
arrangement of sentences is, that the
"words or members most nearly related
"should be placed in the sentence, as
near to each other as possible; so as
((
C
opinion.
18
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
Other
authorities.
Examples of
the viola-
tion of the
"to make their mutual relation clearly
(6
appear."
See also 'Murray's Grammar', part 2,
in the Appendix; likewise, 'The Ele-
'ments of English Composition', by David
Irving, LL.D., chapter 7; and the ‘Gram-
'mar of Rhetoric', by Alexander Jamieson,
LL.D., chapter 3, book 3.
As an illustrative example of the vio-
law of posi- lation of this rule, take the following
sentences. "It contained", says Swift,
tion.
(6
a warrant for conducting me and my
"retinue to Traldragdubb or Trildrog-
"drib, for it is pronounced both ways,
"as near as I can remember, by a party
"of ten horse." The words in italics
must be construed with the participle
"conducting", but they are placed so far
from that word, and so near the word
pronounced", that at first they suggest
a meaning perfectly ridiculous.
(6
Again, in the course of a certain exam-
ination which took place in the House of
Commons in the year 1809, Mr. Dennis
Browne said, the witness had been
"ordered to withdraw from the bar in
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
19
(6
consequence of being intoxicated, by
"the motion of an honourable member."
This remark, as might have been ex-
pected, produced loud and general laughter.
The speaker intended to say, that, "in
consequence of being intoxicated, the
"witness, by the motion of an honourable
member, had been ordered to withdraw
"from the bar."
((
((
A similar error occurs in a work by
Isaac D'Israeli. He meant to relate that,
“The beaux of that day, as well as the
women, used the abominable art of
(C
painting their faces "; but he writes,
"The beaux of that day used the abo-
minable art of painting their faces, as
"well as the women"!
In a recent number of a fashionable
morning paper, there is a paragraph headed
A Dangerous Cow', of which it is said not
only that it tossed several persons, but that
"it plunged and tossed about the street in
((
a formidable manner". It must indeed
have been a dangerous cow.
In your essay, you say, "I remember
"when the French band of the 'Guides'.
C 2
20
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
"were in this country, reading in the
"Illustrated News'". Were the French-
men, when in this country, reading in the
'Illustrated News'? or did you mean that
you remembered reading in the ‘Illustrated
'News', when the band of the French
Guides, &c. ?
You also say,
"It is not so much of
"the great highway itself of the Queen's
'English that I would now speak, as of
((
((
some of the laws of the road; the by-
"rules, to compare small things with
((
((
great, which hang up framed at the
various stations". What are the great
things which hang up framed at the
various stations? If you meant that
the by-rules hang up framed at the
various stations, the sentence would have
been better thus, "the laws of the road;
'or, to compare small things with great,
"the by-rules which hang up framed at
"the various stations ".
So, too, in that sentence which intro-
duces the body of your essay, you speak of
"the reluctance which we in modern
(6
Europe have to giving any prominence
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
21
"to the personality of single individuals
“in social intercourse "; and yet it was
evidently not of single individuals in
social intercourse that you intended to
speak, but of giving, in social inter-
course, any prominence to the person-
ality of single . individuals. Your lan-
guage expresses a meaning different from
that which was intended: just as does
Goldsmith's language when, in the fol-
lowing tautological sentence, he says,
'The Greeks, fearing to be surrounded
"on all sides, wheeled about and halted,
with the river on their backs." Talk
of Baron Munchausen! Why, here was
an army of Munchausens. They "wheeled
"about and halted, with the river on their
"backs."
((
((
Once more, you say, "When I hear a A sentence
with a
person use a queer expression, or pro- squinting
"nounce a name in reading differently
((
66
from his neighbours, it always goes
down, in my estimate of him, with a
"minus sign before it stands on the side
of deficit, not of credit." Poor fellow!
So he falls in your estimation, merely
tion.
22
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
((
because when "reading differently from
his neighbours," you hear him "pro-
“nounce a name". Would you have him
pass over the names without pronouncing
them? The fact is, that in the very
words in which you censure a small fault
of another person, you expose for censure
a greater fault of your own.
The pro-
nunciation of proper names is a subject
upon which philologists are not in every
case unanimous; and to differ where
the wise are not agreed, if it be a fault,
cannot be a great fault; but to publish
a sentence like yours, having in it a
clause with what the French call
call a
<<
'squinting construction",* is to commit
a fault such as no one would expect to
find in 'A Plea for the Queen's English'.
The words “in reading", look two ways at
once, and may be construed either with the
words which precede, or with those which
follow. We may understand you to say,
"pronounce a name in reading"; or, "in
reading differently from his neighbours".
66
*" Construction louche".
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
23
A more striking example of this ludicrous
error could scarcely have been given.
bell on con-
structive
ambiguity.
Dr. Campbell, in speaking of similar Dr. Camp-
instances of bad arrangement, says, In
"all the above instances there is what
'may be justly termed a constructive
66
ambiguity; that is, the words are so
"disposed in point of order, as to render
"them really ambiguous, if, in that con-
(6
struction which the expression first sug-
"gests, any meaning were exhibited. As
"this is not the case, the faulty order of
"the words cannot properly be considered
ce
as rendering the sentence ambiguous,
"but obscure. It may indeed be argued
that, in these and the like examples,
"the least reflection in the reader will
quickly remove the obscurity. But
'why is there any obscurity to be re-
"moved? Or why does the writer require
more attention from the reader, or the
((
((
((
speaker from the hearer, than is abso-
"lutely necessary? It ought to be re-
((
membered, that whatever application we
"must give to the words, is, in fact, so
much deducted from what we owe to
24
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
the sentiments. Besides, the effort that
"is exerted in a very close attention to
"the language, always weakens the effect
"which the thoughts were intended to
“produce in the mind. 'By perspicuity',
"as Quintillian justly observes, 'care is
"taken, not that the hearer may under-
"stand, if he will, but that he must
"understand, whether he will or not.'*
Perspicuity, originally and properly,
implies transparency, such as may be
"ascribed to air, glass, water, or any
"other medium through which material
((
66
objects are viewed. From this original
"and proper sense it has been meta-
"phorically applied to language; this
"being, as it were, the medium through
"which we perceive the notions and
"sentiments of a speaker. Now, in cor-
"poreal things, if the medium through
"which we look at any object is per-
"fectly transparent, our whole attention.
"is fixed on the object; we are scarcely
"sensible that there is a medium which
"intervenes, and we can hardly be said
*' Instit'. lib. viii. cap. 2.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
25
"to perceive it. But if there is any
"flaw in the medium, if we see through
"it but dimly, if the object is imper-
"fectly represented, or if we know it to
"be misrepresented, our attention is im-
"mediately taken off the object to the
"medium. We are then anxious to dis-
cover the cause, either of the dim and
"confused representation, or of the mis-
"representation, of things which it ex-
"hibits, that so the defect in vision may
"be supplied by judgment. The case of
language is precisely similar. A dis-
"course, then, excels in perspicuity when
"the subject engrosses the attention of
"the hearer, and the diction is so little
“minded by him, that he can scarcely
"be said to be conscious it is through.
"this medium he sees into the speaker's
"thoughts. On the contrary, the least
obscurity, ambiguity, or confusion in the
((
((
style, instantly removes the attention
"from the sentiment to the expression,
"and the hearer endeavours, by the aid of
reflection, to correct the imperfections
"of the speaker's language."
((
26
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
Perspicuity.
Emphasis.
In contending for the law of position,
as laid down by Lord Kames, Dr. Camp-
bell, and others, I do so on the ground
that the observance of this law contri-
butes to that most essential quality in
all writings,-perspicuity; and although
I would not on any account wish to see
all sentences constructed on one uniform
plan, I maintain that the law of position
must never be violated when such violation
would in any way obscure the meaning. Let
your meaning still be obvious, and you
may vary your mode of expression as you
please; and your language will be the
richer for the variation. Let your mean-
ing be obscure, and no grace of diction,
nor any music of a well-turned period,
will make amends to your readers for
their being liable to misunderstand you.
In noticing my remarks upon this part
of the subject, you say, "The fact is,
the rules of emphasis come in, in in-
(6
terruption of your supposed general law
"of position." Passing over the inelegant
stuttering, "in, in, in," in this sentence,
I reply to your observation. The rules
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
27
of emphasis, and what you are pleased
to call "the supposed general law of
position", are entirely independent of
each other, and can no more clash than
two parallel lines can meet. The rules
of emphasis do not come "in, in in-
(c
-
terruption of the general law of position."
A sentence ought, under all circumstances,
to be constructed accurately, whatever
may chance to be the emphasis with
which it will be read. A faulty construc
tion may be made intelligible by emphasis,
but no dependence on emphasis will
justify a faulty construction. Besides,
if the sentence is ambiguous, how will
emphasis assist the reader to the author's
meaning? Where shall he apply the
emphasis ? He must comprehend what
is ambiguous, in order that what is am-
biguous may by him be comprehended,
which is an absurdity.
Emphasis may be very useful to me
in explaining to you my own meaning, or,
in explaining another's meaning which I
may understand; but it can be of no use
to me to explain that which I do not
28
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
"And they
did eat."
Unallow-
able ellipsis.
understand. When to correctness of posi-
tion is added justness of emphasis, your
words will be weighty; but when the
first of these qualities is wanting, not the
thunder of a Boanerges will compensate
for the deficiency.
((
An amusing instance of wrong emphasis
in reading the Scriptures was thus given
in a recent number of 'The Reader'. "A
clergyman, in the course of the church
"service, coming to verses 24 and 25 of
"1 Sam. xxviii, which describe how Saul,
"who had been abstaining from food in
"the depth of his grief, was at last
66
persuaded to eat, read them thus: ´And
"the woman had a fat calf in the house;
"and she hasted, and killed it, and took
"flour, and kneaded it, and did bake
unleavened bread thereof: and she
"brought it before Saul, and before his
'servants; and they did eat'".
(6 (
Continuing my review of your essay,
I notice that it is said of a traveller on
the Queen's highway, "He bowls along
"it with ease in a vehicle which a few
"centuries ago would have been broken
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
29
"to pieces in a deep rut, or come to grief
"in a bottomless swamp." There being
here no words immediately before "come",
to indicate in what tense that verb is, I
have to turn back to find the tense, and
am obliged to read the sentence thus,
"would have been broken to pieces in a
(6
deep rut, or (would have been) come to
"grief in a bottomless swamp"; for, a part
of a complex tense means nothing with-
out the rest of the tense; therefore, the
rest of the tense ought always to be found
in the sentence. Nor is it allowable, as
in your sentence, to take part of the tense
of a passive verb to eke out the meaning
of an active verb given without any tense
whatever.
of mistakes.
Further on, I find you speaking of The source
"that fertile source of mistakes among
"our clergy, the mispronunciation of
"Scripture proper names". It is not
the "mispronunciation of Scripture pro-
"per names" which is the source of mis-
takes; the mispronunciation of Scripture
proper names constitutes the mistakes
themselves of which you are speaking;
30
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
Pronuncia-
tion of
Greek
proper
names.
Should the
"h" in
and a thing cannot at the same time be
a source, and that which flows from it. It
appears that what you intended to speak
of was
that fertile source of mistakes
among our clergy, their ignorance of
Scripture proper names, the mispronun-
ciation of which is quite inexcusable."
((
(6
Speaking on this subject, I may re-
mark that, as you so strongly advocate
our following the Greeks in the pro-
nunciation of their proper names, I hope
you will be consistent and never again
in reading the Lessons, call those ancient.
cities Samaria and Philadelphia otherwise
than Samaria and Philadelphia.
I was much amused by your attempt
humble" to set up the Church 'Prayer Book' as
rated? an authority for the aspiration of the
"h" in the word "humble"; when, on
be aspi-
'
the first page of the Morning Prayer,'
we are exhorted to confess our sins "with
"an humble, lowly, penitent, and obedient
"heart". As for the argument which
you base upon the alliterative style of the
"Prayer Book'; that argument proves
too much, to be in your favour; for if,
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
31
because we find the words "humble” and
((
hearty" following each other, we are
therefore to believe that it was the in-
tention of the compilers of our beautiful
ritual that we should aspirate the "h" in
"humble", as in "hearty"; what was the
intention of the compilers when, in the
supplication for the Queen, they required
us to pray that we may faithfully serve,
"honour, and humbly obey her"?
((
and
Towards the end of your essay you say, "Odious"
“Entail is another poor injured verb. "odorous.”
Nothing ever leads to anything as a
((
(6
consequence, or brings it about, but it
always entails it. This smells strong of
"the lawyer's clerk". It was a very
proper expression which Horace made use.
of when, speaking of over-laboured com-
positions, he said that they smelt of the
lamp; but it is scarcely a fit expression
which you employ, when, speaking of a
certain word, you say, this smells strong
of the lawyer's clerk. Lawyers or their
clerks may be odious to you, but that does
not give you the right to use an expression
which implies that they are odorous.
32
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
The test
a scholar's
mastery
over the
Just as we may know by the way in
which a man deals with the small trials
language. of life, how far he has attained a mastery
over himself; so may we know by the
way in which a writer deals with the
small parts of speech, how far he has at-
tained a mastery over the language. Let
us see therefore how you manage the
pronouns.
Pronouns I begin by noticing a remark which, in
your letter to me, has reference to this
part of the subject. You say, respecting
my criticism on your essay, "Set to work
"in the same way with our English ver-
“sion of the Bible, and what work you
"would make of it"! To this I reply:
Our English version of the Bible is ac-
knowledged to be, on the whole, excellent,
whether considered with respect to its
faithfulness to the originals, or with re-
spect to its purity and elegance of lan-
guage. Its doctrines being divine, are,
like their Author, perfect; but the trans-
lation, being human, is frequently obscure.
You bid me look at the "he" and "him
in Luke xix, 3, 4, 5. You surely do not
""
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
33
defend the construction of these sentences?
See what Dr. Campbell says on this sub-
ject, in his Philosophy of Rhetoric',
book ii, chap. 6. "It is easy to conceive
"that, in numberless instances, the pro-
noun 'he' will be ambiguous, when two
(6
or more males happen to be mentioned
"in the same clause of a sentence. In
"such a case we ought always either to
"give another turn to the expression, or
"to use the noun itself, and not the pro-
"noun; for when the repetition of a word
"is necessary, it is not offensive. The
((
translators of the Bible have often ju-
"diciously used this method; I say
"judiciously, because, though the other
method is on some occasions preferable,
"yet, by attempting the other, they would
“have run a much greater risk of destroy-
((
ing that beautiful simplicity which is an
"eminent characteristic of Holy Writ.
<<
I shall take an instance from the speech
"of Judah to his brother Joseph in
Egypt. We said to my lord, The lad
"cannot leave his father, for if he should
D
34
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
Misuse of
pronouns.
"leave his father, his father would die.'
"Gen. xliv, 22. The words his father'
are, in this short verse, thrice repeated,
"and yet are not disagreeable, as they
"contribute to perspicuity.
Had the
"last part of the sentence run thus,
"if he should leave his father he
""would die', it would not have ap-
"peared from the expression, whether
it were the child or the parent that
"would die ".
(6
A little attention to this matter would
have saved you from publishing such a
paragraph as the following;-"Two other
"words occur to me which are very com-
monly mangled by our clergy. One of
these is 'covetous' and its substantive
((
(6
66 6
covetousness'. I hope some who read
"these lines will be induced to leave off
66
pronouncing them 'covetious' and 'cove-
(( ( tiousness'. I can assure them that
"when they do thus call them, one at
"least of their hearers has his appre-
“ciation of their teaching disturbed ".*
* The italics are not the Dean's.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
35
You have so confusedly used your pro-
nouns in the above paragraph, that it
may be construed in ten thousand different
ways.
In some sentences your pronouns have Nouns.
actually no nouns to which they apply.
For example, on page 192, "That nation".
What nation? You have not spoken of
any nation whatever. You have spoken
of "the national mind", "the national
((
"
speech", and "national simplicity",
things pertaining to a nation, but have
not spoken of a nation itself. So also, on
page 195, "a journal published by these
"people". By what people? Where is
the noun to which this relative pro-
noun refers ? In your head it may
have been, but it certainly is not in
your essay.
The relation between nouns and pro-
nouns is a great stumbling-block to most
writers. The following sentence occurs in
Hallam's Literature of Europe':-" No
one as yet had exhibited the structure of
"the human kidneys, Vesalius having
D 2
<<
36
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
A pronoun
too widely
separated
from its
noun.
(C
only examined them in dogs". Human
kidneys in dogs ! *
In a memoir of John Leyden, the
shepherd boy, in 'Small Beginnings; or,
the Way to Get On', there is, on page
104, the following passage:-"The Pro-
"fessor soon perceived, however, that the
"intellectual qualities of the youth were
'superior to those of his raiment ".
Intellectual qualities of raiment !
(C
CC
((
((
In your essay, on page 196, you say, “I
have known cases where it has been
thoroughly eradicated ". "When I hear
a man gets to his its", says Wm. Cob-
bett, "I tremble for him ". Now just
read backwards with me, and let us see
how many singular neuter nouns inter-
vene before we come to the one to which
your prounoun “it” belongs. "A tipple",
"a storm", "the charitable explanation "
"the well-known infirmity", "the way",
ale",
an apology", "the consterna-
"tion", "their appearance", "dinner".
"the house", "the following incident".
cr
* Breen's 'Modern English Literature'.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
37
"his ed", "a neighbouring table",
((
((
South-Eastern train ",
"ern", " Reading",
((
a
(C
a
a Great West-
refreshment-
""
"room", "the hatmosphere", "the hair",
"the air", "the cholera", "his opinion "
"this vulgarism", "energy","self-re-
"spect", perception", "intelligence",
habit". Here we have it at last. Only
twenty-eight nouns intervening between
the pronoun "it", and the noun "habit
to which it refers! I could give addi-
tional examples from your essay, but
surely this is enough, to show that the
schoolmaster is needed by other people
besides the Directors of the Great Western
and South-Eastern railways.
"" ((
One word in conclusion. You make
the assertion that the possessive pronoun
its never occurs in the English ver-
sion of the Bible". It is to be regretted
that you have spoken so positively on
this subject. Probably the knowledge of
our translators' faithfulness to the original
text, and the fact of there being in
Hebrew no neuter, may have led you
38
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
and others into this error; but look at
Leviticus xxv, 5, "That which groweth
"of its own accord ", and you will see that
its", the possessive of "it", does occur
"in the English version of the Bible".
66
I am, Rev. Sir,
Yours most respectfully,
G. WASHINGTON MOON.
London, April, 1863
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
CRITICISM No. II;
IN REPLY TO THE DEAN OF CANTERBURY'S
REJOINDER.
teous."
WHAT! is it possible that the Dean of "Be cour-
Canterbury can have so forgotten the
Scriptural precept "Be courteous", as to
speak, in a public meeting, in such a
manner about an absent antagonist, that
the language is condemned by the assem-
bly, and the Dean is censured by the
public press? Your own county paper,
Reverend Sir, The South-Eastern Gazette,
in giving a report of your second lecture*
in St. George's Hall, Canterbury, makes
the following observations: "Mr. G. W.
(
* Subsequently published in 'Good Words',
June, 1863.
40
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
((
“Moon issued a pamphlet controverting
many of the points advanced by the
Dean, and showing that the reverend
"gentleman himself had been guilty of
"the very violations of good English
"which he had so strongly condemned in
"others. The greater portion of the
“Dean's lecture on Monday evening was
"devoted to an examination of the state-
ments made by Mr. Moon, and to a
"defence of the language employed by
"the Dean in his former lecture. Opin-
"ions differ as to the success of the
"reverend gentleman, many of his posi-
"tions being called in question; while
<<
the epithets which he did not hesitate
"to use in speaking of an antagonist
"possessing some acquaintance with the
English language, were generally con-
"demned. These might and ought to
((
((
have been avoided, especially by one
"whose precepts and example have their
"influence, for good or for harm, upon
"the society in which he moves. Get
"wisdom, get understanding, and forget it
not', is a text that even the Dean of
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
41
"Canterbury might ponder over with
"advantage"
•
What, too, is to be said of that language "Idiots."
which, even in your calmer moments,
you have not scrupled to apply to me?
You had, in your former essay,* worded
a sentence so strangely, that it suggested
a meaning perfectly ludicrous. I called
your attention to this, first in a private
letter, and afterwards in a pamphlet,†
and, in your 'Plea for the Queen's Eng-
'lish, No. II', you indignantly exclaim,
in reference to my remarks, "We do not
write for idiots". Thank
Thank you for your
politeness; I can make all excuses for
hasty words spoken in unguarded mo-
ments; but when a gentleman deliber-
ately uses such expressions in print, he
shows, by his complacent self-sufficiency,
how much need he has to remember that
it is possible to be worse than even an
idiot. "Seest thou a man wise in his own
*'A Plea for the Queen's English'.-' Good
'Words', March, 1863.
+ The previous letter is a re-publication of that
pamphlet.
42
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
"A most
abnormal
elongation
<<
conceit? there is more hope of a fool
"than of him". Prov. xxvi, 12.
Continuing your remarks on my criti-
of the auri- cisms, you say, "It must require, to speak
qular appen- «< in the genteel language which some of
dages.
my correspondents uphold, a most abnor-
"mal elongation of the auricular appen-
((
dages, for a reader to have suggested to
"his mind a fall from the sublime height
"of ignorance down into the depth of a
"mistake." I spoke of editors falling
into mistakes: it remained for the Dean
of Canterbury to add, that they fell down
into the depth of a mistake. You say you
do not write for idiots; who else would
imagine that it were possible to fall up
into a depth? Reverting to your expres-
sion, "abnormal elongation of the auricular
appendages",—you recommended us, in
your former essay, to use plainness of
language, and when we mean a spade, to
say so, and not call it "a well-known ob-
long instrument of manual husbandry ".
I wonder you did not follow your own
teaching, and, in plain language, call me
an ass; but I suppose you considered the
1HE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
43
language plain enough, and certainly it is:
there can be no doubt as to your meaning.
I must leave it to the public to decide.
whether I have deserved such a distin-
guished title. Recipients of honours do
not generally trouble themselves about
merit; but, as I am very jealous for the
character of him who has thus flatteringly
distinguished me; and as some captious
persons may call in question his right to
confer the title of ass; I shall endeavour,
in the following pages, to silence for ever
all cavillers, and to prove, to demonstra-
tion, that he did not give away that
which did not belong to him.
کی کو
a
distinguis
fitte.
abi so the
plaintiff."
Of my former letter, you say that, "No case:
when you first looked it through, it re-
minded you of the old story of the attor-
ney's endorsement of the brief,-"No
((
case: abuse the Plaintiff": for, the
objections brought by me against the
matter of your essay, are very few
and by no means weighty; as I have
spent almost all my labour in criticisms
on your style and sentences. Precisely!
I wished to show, by your own writings,
44
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
How the cat
jumps.
that so far were you from being competent
to teach others English composition, that
you had need yourself to study its first prin-
ciples; but there is no abuse whatever in
that letter: you had no precedent in my
remarks for your language; and as for my
having made but few objections to your
essay, I will at once give you convincing
proof that it was not because I had no
more objections to make.
I had written the following paragraph
before your second essay was published;
and although, in that essay, you defend
the statement you had previously made, I
conceive that you have not by any means
established your position.
I venture to assert that, what we say
figuratively of some not over-wise people,
we may say literally of you,—“ You do
"not know how the cat jumps"; for,
what do you tell us? You tell us that it
is wrong to say, “The cat jumped on to the
"chair", the "to", you remark, "being
wholly unneeded and never used by any
"careful writer or speaker." With all due
deference to such a high authority on such
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
45
a very important matter, I beg leave to
observe that, when we say, "The cat
"jumped on to the chair", we mean that
the cat jumped from somewhere else to
the chair, and alighted on it; but when
we say, “The cat jumped on the chair”,
we mean that the cat was on the chair
already, and that, while there, she jumped.
The circumstances are entirely different;
and according to the difference in the
circumstances, so should there be a dif-
ference in the language used to describe
them respectively. It is evident that in
watching the antics of puss, you received
an impulse from her movements, and you
yourself jumped-to a wrong conclusion.*
(C
6
* The Edinburgh Review', after objecting to
some of my remarks as hypercritical, says, “It is not
"meant that all Mr. Moon's comments are of this
"kind. The Dean's style is neither particularly ele-
gant nor correct, and his adversary sometimes hits
"him hard; besides in one or two cases successfully
disputing his judgments. On the important ques-
❝tion (for instance) whether we should say the cat
"jumped on to the chair', or on the chair', we
"must vote against the Dean, who unjustly condemns
“the former expression."
(6
6
(
46
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
"Honor 9
66 "favor", &c.
((
Again, you say, "I pass on now to
spelling, on which I have one or two
"remarks to make. The first shall be,
"on the trick now so universal" ['so uni-
'versal'! as if universality admitted of
comparison]" across the Atlantic, and be-
coming in some quarters common among
"us in England, of leaving out the 'u' in
the termination our'; writing honor,
“favor, neighbor, Savior, &c. Now the ob-
"jection to this is not only that it makes
"very ugly words, totally unlike anything
“in the English language before, but that
"it obliterates all trace of the derivation
"and history of the word." ****“The
'late Archdeacon Hare, in an article on
((
English orthography in the ‘Philological
"Museum', some years ago, expressed a
"hope that such abominations as honor
"and favor would henceforth be confined
"to the cards of the great vulgar.' There
"we still see them, and in books printed
"in America; and while we are quite
" contented to leave our fashionable friends
"in such company, I hope we may none
"of us be tempted to join it." I will tell
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
47
you where else these "abominations" may
be found, besides being found "on the
"cards of the great vulgar". They may
be found in a volume of poems by Henry
Alford, Dean of Canterbury; a volume
published, not in America, but in this
country, by Rivingtons of Pall Mall.
The following is a specimen taken from
RECENT POEMS". Two verses will
his
suffice.
RECENT POEMS.
A WISH.
"Would it were mine, amidst the changes
"Through which our varied lifetime ranges,
"To live on Providence's bounty
"Down in some favored western county.
*
*
"There may I dwell with those who love me;
"And when the earth shall close above me,
(( My memory leave a lasting savor
“Of grace divine, and human favor."
It is true that there is a preface to the
volume, and that it accounts for the spell-
ing of such words, by informing us that
many of the poems have been published.
48
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
in America; but that is no justification of
your retaining the Transatlantic spelling
which you condemn.
condemn. I guess you do not
mean to imply that it is with poems as
with people,-i.e., that a temporary resi-
dence abroad occasions them to acquire
habits of pronunciation, &c., not easily
thrown off on a return to the mother
country: and yet, if this be not what the
preface means; pray, what does it mean?
Perhaps, as mountain travellers brand cer-
tain words on their alpenstocks, to show
the height that has been attained by those
using them, so you have thought well to
favor us with this savor of Americanisms,
to show us that your poems have had the
honor of being republished on the other
side of the Atlantic.
It appears to me that the preface serves
only to make matters worse; for it shows
that the objectionable form of orthography
is retained with your knowledge and your
sanction, for I have quoted from the
Third Edition." How is this? You
say that the spelling in question should
- be confined to the cards of "the great
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
49
((
vulgar"; and you yourself adopt that
very spelling!
>
and "bass":
Before quitting the subject of the spell- "Tenor"
ing of words of the above class, I beg
leave to say that although there are, in our
language, certain words ending in "our",
which, as we have seen, are sometimes
spelt with "or" only; as honor, favor,
&c., without interference with the sense,
honor being still the same as honour, and
favor the same as favour; there is one
word of this class, the meaning of which
changes with the change of spelling;
namely, the word tenour, which, with the
662635 means continuity of state; as in
Gray's Elegy',-
(C
Along the cool sequestered vale of life
They kept the noiseless tenour of their way :"
but without the "u", signifies a certain
clef in music. This distinction has been
very properly noticed by Dr. Nugent in
his 'English and French Dictionary':
there the word stands thus
"Tenor, alto, m.
“Tenour, manière, f.”
E
50
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
but you, after lecturing us upon the im-
propriety of leaving out the "u" in
“honour”, and in "favour", although the
omission in these words makes no altera-
tion in the sense, yourself leave the "u"
out of "tenour", and speak, on page 429,
of the "tenor" of your essay! If this be
not straining at gnats and swallowing a
camel, I do not know what is. What
with the tenor of your essay, and the bass,
or baseness, of your English, you certainly
are fiddling for us a very pretty tune. It
is to be hoped that if we do not dance
quite correctly, to your new music, you
will take into consideration the extreme
difficulty we have to understand the con-
tradictory instructions we have received.
"Open up". Again, you censure the editors of news-
papers for using the expression "open up",
and you say,
"what it means more than
open would mean, I never could dis-
"cover". Permit me to say that, if you
look at home, you will find in your own
periodical, in the identical number of it
containing this remark of yours, two
Doctors of Divinity using the very ex-
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
51
pression you condemn; a third Doctor of
Divinity using an expression very similar;
and a fourth, yourself, using an expression
which, under the circumstances, is deserv-
ing of severe censure. To begin with the
Editor; the Rev. Norman Macleod, D.D.,
says, on page 204, "He opens up in the
parched desert a well that refreshes us".
The Rev. John Caird, D.D., says, on page
237, "Now these considerations may open
"up to us one view of the expediency of
"Christ's departure". The Rev. Thomas
Guthrie, D.D., says, on page 163, "the
(C
((
past, with its sin and folly, rose up before
"his eyes".
I suppose you would say,
"What rose up means more than rose would
((
mean I cannot discover". Probably not,
but just tell us what you mean by saying,
on page 197, “Even so the language grew “Grew up”
'up; its nerve, and vigour, and honesty,
"and toil, mainly brought down to us in
"native Saxon terms". If the word up
be redundant in the quoted sentences of
the other learned Doctors, what shall we
say of it in your own? In their expres-
sions there is sense; so, too, is there in
E 2
52
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
Neglect of
the study of
English.
your expression; but it is a kind of sense
best described by the word nonsense. The
language grew up by being brought down!
Sure, it must have been the Irish language
that your honour was spāking of.
Now for your reply to my letter. In
condemnation of your wretched English,
I had cited some of the highest authori-
ties;* and you coolly say, "I must freely
" acknowledge to Mr. Moon, that not one
"of the gentlemen whom he has named
"has ever been my guide, in whatever
study of the English language I may
"have accomplished, or in what little I
may have ventured to write in that lan-
guage".. "I have a very strong per-
“suasion that common sense, ordinary
"observation, and the prevailing usage of
"the English people, are quite as good
<<
(6
guides in the matter of the arrangement
"of sentences, as [are] the rules laid down
“by rhetoricians and grammarians." Thus
we come to the actual truth of the matter.
It appears that you really have never
* Dr. Campbell, Lord Kames, Hugh Blair, Lindley
Murray, and others.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
53
"Heis wiser
"He is than me".
"A decided
made the English language your study!
All that you know about it is what you
have picked up by "ordinary observa-
"tion";* and the result is, that you
tell us it is correct to say,
“wiser than me"; and that you speak
of "a decided weak point" in a man's weak
character! You must have a decidedly
weak point in your own character, to set
up yourself as a teacher of the English
language, when the only credentials of
qualification that you can produce are
such sentences as these.
You sneer at "Americanisms ", but you
would never find an educated American
who would venture to say,
It is me",
for "It is I"; or, "It is him", for "It
"is he"; or, "different to", for "different
<<
from". And nowhere are the use and the
* "It is notorious that at our public schools,
every boy has been left to pick up his English
"where and how he could."-Harrison On the
English Language', preface, p. v.
6
point"
This subject was ably commented on by a writer
in the English Churchman', and by a writer in
the 'Glasgow Christian News'. See Appendix.
54
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
"The one
rule of all
others".
omission of the "h", as an aspirate, so clearly
distinguished as in the United States.*
With regard to the purport of your
second essay on the Queen's English,
it is, as I expected it would be, chiefly a
condemnation of my former letter; but
you very carefully avoid those particular
errors which I exposed; such as, "Some-
"times the editors of our papers fall, from
"their ignorance, into absurd mistakes";
and, "A man does not lose his mother now
"in the papers". There are, however, in
your second essay, some very strange speci-
mens of Queen's English. You say, “The
((
one rule, of all others, which he cites".
Now as, in defence of your particular
views, you appeal so largely to common
sense, let me ask, in the name of that
common sense, How can one thing be
another thing? How can one rule be of all
other rules the one which I cite? If this
be Queen's English, you may well say of
the authorities I quoted, "There are more
• See 'Lectures on the English Language', by
George P. Marsh, Minister of the United States at
the court of the King of Italy.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
55
"things in the English language than
seem to have been dreamt of in their
philosophy"; for I am quite sure that
they never dreamt of any such absurdi-
ties.
coarser than
usual."
In my former letter I drew attention "Speak no
to your misplacing of adverbs; and now
you appear to be trying, in some instances,
to get over the difficulty by altogether
omitting the adverbs, and supplying their
places by adjectives; and this is not a
new error with you. You had previously
said, "If with your inferiors, speak no
"coarser than usual; if with your superiors,
"no finer." We may correctly say, "a
"certain person speaks coarsely”; but it
is absurdly ungrammatical to say, "he
"speaks coarse"! In your second essay,
you say, "the words nearest connected",
instead of, "the words most nearly con-
nected"; but this will never do; the
former error, that of position, was bad
enough, it was one of syntax; the latter
error, that of substituting one part of
speech for another, is still worse. I have Adjectives
spoken of your "decided weak point"; I verbs.
((
and ad-
56
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
will now give another example, a very
remarkable one, for it is an example of
using an adjective instead of an adverb,
in a sentence in which you are speaking of
using an adverb instead of an adjective.
You say, "The fact seems to be, that in
((
te
this case I was using the verb 'read' in
"a colloquial and scarcely legitimate sense,
"and that the adverb seems necessary,
"because the verb is not a strict neuter-
(6
substantive." We may properly speak
of a word being not strictly a neuter-sub-
stantive; but we cannot properly speak
of a substantive being “strict". So much
for the grammar of the sentence; now for
its meaning. Your sentence is an expla-
nation of your use of the word "oddly",
in the phrase, “would read rather oddly”;
and oddly enough you have explained it;
"would read" is the conditional form of
the verb; and how can that ever be either
a neuter-substantive, or a substantive of any
other kind?
In your former essay you prepared us
to expect many strange things; I suppose
we are to receive this as one of them.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
57
I may
""
You told us, "Plenty more might be said
"about grammar; plenty that would
astonish some teachers of it.
"say something of this another time.
Take all the credit you like; you have
well earned it; for you have more than
redeemed your promise; you have aston-
ished other people besides teachers of
grammar.
Again, you say, "The whole number is
"divided into two classes: the first class
"and the last class. To the former of
"these belong three: to the latter, one".
That is, "To the former of these belong
(C
three; to the latter [belong] one"; one
belong! When, in the latter part of a
compound sentence, we change the nomi-
native, we must likewise change the verb,
that it may agree with its nominative.
The error is repeated in the very next sen-
tence. You say, "There are three that are
ranged under the description 'first': and
"one that is ranged under the description
"last"." That is, "There are three that
((
are ranged under the description 'first';
"and [there are] one that is ranged under
"There are
One".
58
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
"the description 'last'." There are one!
The sentence cannot be correctly analysed
in any other way. It is true we understand
what you mean; just as we understand
the meaning of the childish prattle of our
little ones; but, because your sentence
is not unintelligible, it is not, on that
account, the less incorrect. It appears
to me that, before you have finished a
sentence, you have forgotten how you
began it. Here is another instance. You
say, "We call a 'cup-board', a 'cubbard',
((
a ‘half-penny', a 'haepenny', and so of
"many other compound words". Had
you begun your sentence thus, We speak of
a "cup-board" as a "cubbard", of a
"half-penny" as a "haepenny", it would
have been correct to say, "and so of many
"other compound words"; because the
clause would mean, "and so [we speak]
"of many other compound words"; but
having begun the sentence with, "We
call", it is sheer nonsense to finish it
with, "and so of"; for it is saying, “and
"so [we call] of many other compound
"words".
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
59
Elsewhere you say, "Call a spade a
'spade', not an oblong instrument of
"manual husbandry; let home be 'home',
“not a residence; a place ‘a place', not a
"locality; and so of the rest." What is
your meaning in this last clause? The
sentence is undoubtedly faulty, whether
the words "and so of" are considered in
connexion with the first clause, or in con-
nexion with the following one. In the
former case we must say, "and [speak] so
"of the rest"; and in the latter case we
must say,
"and [let us speak] so of the
"rest". In neither case can we use the
word "call", with which you have begun
your sentence.
have trou-
self".
Here is another specimen of your "I need not
'Queen's English', or rather, of the Dean's bled my.
English; a specimen in which the verbs,
past and present, are in a most delightful
state of confusion. You are speaking of
your previous essay, and of the reasons
you had for writing it; and you say, “If
"I had believed the Queen's English to
"have been rightly laid down by the dic-
“tionaries and the professors of rhetoric, I
¥60
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
Professors
walking off
with the
dictionaries.
"need not have troubled myself to write
"about it. It was exactly because I did.
not believe this, but found both of them
"in many cases going astray, that I ven-
"tured to put in my plea."
Now, "I need not" is present, not past;
and it is of the past you are speaking; you
should therefore have said, "I needed not",
or, “I should not have needed". And the
verb "troubled", which you have put in
the past, should have been in the present;
just as the verb "need", which you have
put in the present, should have been in the
past; for you were not speaking of what
you would not have needed to have done,
but of what you would not have needed to
do. The sentence, then, should have been,
"If I had believed so-and-so, I should not
"have needed to trouble myself".
((
I may notice also that, in the above
sentence, you speak of rules laid down
by the
dictionaries", and the "pro-
"fessors of rhetoric"; thus substituting,
in one case, the works for the men;
and, in the other case, speaking of the
men themselves. Why not either speak
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
61.
of the "compilers of dictionaries", and the
"professors of rhetoric"; or else speak of
the "dictionaries", and the "treatises on
“rhetoric”? Write either figuratively or
literally, whichever you please; or write
in each style, by turns, if you like; for,
variety in a series of sentences, where
there is uniformity in each, is a beauty;
but variety in a single sentence is merely
confusion: witness the following extract
from Gilfillan's Literary Portraits':-
Channing's mind was planted as thick
"with thoughts, as a backwood of his
"own magnificent land." A backwood
planted with thoughts! What a glorious
harvest for the writers of America!
says Breen. However, I must not enter
upon the subject of style, lest I should
extend this letter to a wearisome length.
Suffice it to say, you do not mean that
you found the professors of rhetoric
walking off with the books; though you
do tell us you "found both of them"
(the dictionaries and the professors of
rhetoric) "in many cases going astray".
"A difficul-
Continuing my review, I have to notice ty of him”
•
62
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
The present
and future
of verbs.
The verb
"to pro-
gress".
that you say, "His difficulty (and I men-
"tion it because it may be that of many
"others besides him) is that he has missed.
"the peculiar sense of the preposition by
as here used." Your difficulty seems
to be, that you have missed seeing the
peculiar sense (nonsense) of your own ex-
pressions. You tell us that you men-
tion your correspondent's difficulty, be-
cause it may be a difficulty of many
other people, besides being a difficulty of
him!
((
Finally, as regards my criticisms on
your grammar; you
you say, The next
point which I notice shall be the use of
"the auxiliaries 'shall' and 'will'. Now
'here we are at once struck by a curious
"phenomenon." We certainly are ;-
the phenomenon of a gentleman setting
himself up to lecture on the use of verbs,
and publicly proclaiming his unfitness for
the task, by confusing the present and the
future in the very first sentence he utters
on the subject.
Speaking of the verb "to progress",
you say, "The present usage makes the
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
63
"verb neuter", and, "We seem to want
"it; and if we do, and it does not violate
(( any known law of formation, by all
<<
((
means let us have it. True, it is the
first of its own family; we have not
(
yet formed aggress, regress, &c., into
"verbs." If you will allow me to digress
from the consideration of your grammar
to the consideration of your accuracy, I
will show that you transgress in making
this statement. In the folio edition of
Bailey's Universal Dictionary', published
in 1755, I find the very verbs, “to ag-
"gress
and "to regress", which you, in
1863, say “we have not yet formed". In
the same dictionary there is also the verb
“to progress”; and it is given as a verb
neuter. So that what you call "the pre-
“sent usage " is, clearly, the usage of the
past; the verb which you say is "the first
((
"
of its own family", is nothing of the
(C
sort;
"to aggress" and "to regress", which
you say we have not yet formed”, are
found in a dictionary published in 1755;
and the neuter verb which you say
((
<<
we
seem to want”, we have had in use more
64
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
in".
ઃઃ
Express-
ing a sen-
tence".
than one hundred years! Nor are the
verbs aggress and regress mere "dictionary
“words without any authority for their use”.
The former is used by Prior in his 'Ode to
'Queen Anne'; and the latter is used
by Sir Thomas Browne in his 'Vulgar
'Errors'.*
I will briefly notice a few of your
numerous errors in syntax, &c., and then
pass on to weightier matters. You speak
“Precluded of a possibility being "precluded in” the
mind. You tell us of "a more neat way
"of expressing what would be Mr. Moon's
"sentence". We express a meaning, or we
write a sentence; but we do not express a
sentence. The word seems to be rather a
pet of yours; you speak, on page 198,
Expressing of expressing a woman ! 'Queer Eng-
'lish' would not have been an inappro-
priate title to your essays. Then we
"In respect have "in respect of", for "with respect
a woman.
of".
* For an account of the origin and gradual develop-
ment of the words "progress", "digress ", " egress",
regress", and "transgress", see an interesting
little book, called ' English Roots', by A. J. Knapp,
p. 135.
66
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
65
exception.
"to ".* and "
an exception, which I cannot Treating an
"well treat", instead of, "of which I can-
"not well treat"; for it is evident from
the context, that you were not speaking of
treating an exception, but of treating of an
exception.
The construction
of some of your objection-
sentences is very objectionable:
((
able con-
struction of
you sentences.
'say, I have noticed the word 'party'
"used for
an
individual, occurring
vidual".
"in Shakspeare", instead of, “I have
"noticed, in Shakspeare, the word 'party'
"used for an individual". But how is it
that you call a man an individual? In "An indi-
your first essay on the Queen's English
you said, "It is certainly curious enough
"that the same debasing of our language
"should choose, in order to avoid the
good honest Saxon 'man', two words,
(6
66 6
66
individual and ‘party', one of which ex-
presses a man's unity, and the other
belongs to man associated." It certainly
*This error is treated of at some length in
'Lectures on the English Language', by George P.
Marsh, edited by Dr. William Smith, Classical Ex-
aminer at the University of London, pp. 467-9.
F
66
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
Stated
into pro-
minence."
is curious; but what appears to me to be
more curious still, is that you, after writing
that sentence, should yourself call a man
an individual” !
Again, I read, "The purpose is, to bring
“the fact stated into prominence”: stated
into prominence! unquestionably, this
should be, “to bring into prominence the
The natural « fact stated”.
order of con-
structing a
sentence.
Even when writing on the proper con-
struction of a sentence, you construct your
own sentence so improperly that it fails.
to convey your meaning. You say, "The
"natural order of constructing the sen-
“tence would be to relate what happened
first, and my surprise at it afterwards".
Your sentence does not enlighten us on
your views of the proper order in which
the facts should be related; it tells us
merely that we should relate what first
happened, and your subsequent surprise
at it. Not one word about the order of
relation. We are to relate what “happened
"first", but we are not told what to relate
first. You should have said, “ The natural
"order of constructing the sentence would
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
67
((
((
"be to relate first what happened, and
afterwards my surprise at it". You go
on to tell us that we ought not “to mislead
"the reader, by introducing the possibi-
"lity of constructing the sentence other-
wise than as the writer intended".
How much easier it is to preach than to
practise! What do you wish us to un-
derstand by readers "constructing" the
sentence? Writers construct; readers
construe.
"Con-
struct" and
construe".
Incongru-
ous associa
tion of
Lastly, on this part of the subject; to
you say, Mr. Moon quotes, with dis-
approbation, my words, where I join
'together would have been broken to
(6
(( (
6
'pieces in a deep rut, or come to grief
“´in a bottomless swamp'. He says this
"can only be filled in thus, 'would have
"'been "", &c. I am quite sure that Mr.
Moon never, after mentioning your sen-
tence about " a deep rut" and "a bottomless
"swamp", speaks of the sentence being
filled in"! That is the Dean of Canter-
bury's style; he gives a sentence about
eating and being full, and then speaks of
the sentence being "filled up"! He speaks
66
F 2
68
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
"Dean's
English".
Eight-and-
twenty
of people mending their ways; and, in the
very next paragraph, talks about the
Queen's highway" and "by-roads” and
"private roads". He speaks of things
“without life”; and immediately afterwards
says he will introduce the body of—his essay.
You will, doubtless, gain great notoriety
by your strange essays on the Queen's
English; for, in consequence of your in-
accuracies in them, it will become usual to
describe bad language as "Dean's English”.
By "bad language ", I do not mean rude
language; I say nothing about that. I
mean that, in consequence of your un-
grammatical sentences, it will be as com-
mon to call false English, "Dean's Eng-
“lish”, as it is to call base white metal,
German Silver."
<<
You say, "I have given a fair sample
tween a pro- “of the instances of ambiguity which Mr.
noun and its "Moon cites out of my essay".
nouns be-
noun.
A fair
sample! And yet you have made no
mention of the instance of the eight-and-
twenty nouns intervening between the
pronoun "it" and the noun "habit", to
which it refers. A fair sample! And
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
69
of ten lines,
yet with
10,240 dif-
ferent read-
a ings.
yet you have made no mention of the A paragraph
instance of ambiguity in the paragraph
about “covetous and covetousness";
paragraph of less than ten lines, yet so
ambiguously worded that you may ring
as many changes on it as on a peal of
bells; only the melody would not be quite
as sweet. However, if you do not object
to a little bell-ringing, and if you will
not think it sacrilegious of me to pull
the ropes,
I will just see what kind of a
peal of bells it is that you have hung
in your belfry, for I call the paragraph,
"the belfry", and the pronouns, “the peal
of bells", and these I name after the
gamut, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, so we shall
not have any difficulty in counting the
changes. You say, "While treating of
"the pronunciation of those who minister
"in public, two other words occur to me
"which are very commonly mangled by
A
our clergy. One of these is covetous',
"and its substantive covetousness'. I
hope some who read these lines, will
be induced to leave off pronouncing
((
B
"them 'covetious' and 'covetiousness'. I
70
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
((
с
D
can assure them that when they do thus
E
F
"call them, one, at least, of their hearers.
G
"has his appreciation of their teaching
<<
disturbed". I fancy that many a one
who reads these lines will have his appre-
ciation of your teaching disturbed, as far
as it relates to the Queen's English. But
now for the changes which may be rung.
on these bells, as I have called them.
The first of them, "A", may apply either
to "words", or to "our clergy". You
say, "our clergy. One of these is covet-
ous I am sorry to say that the
general belief is, there are more than one;
but perhaps you know one in particular.
However, my remarks interrupt the bell-
ringing, and we want to count the changes,
so I will say no more, but will at once
demonstrate that we can ring 10,240
changes on your peal of bells! In other
words, that your paragraph, of less than
ten lines, is so ambiguously worded, that,
without any alteration of its grammar or
syntax, it may be read in 10,240 different
ways! and only one of all that number shall
be the right way to express your meaning.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
71
The Pro-
nouns.
Nouns to which they may apply.
No. of
Nouns.
No. of Different Readings.
A
these
words, or clergy
2
2
B
them
words, clergy, readers, or lines
4
these 4 x by the above
2=
8
C
them
words, clergy, readers, or lines
4
D
they
words, clergy, readers, or lines
4
E
them
words, clergy, readers, or lines
4
F
their
words, clergy, readers, or lines
4
these 4 x by the above
these 4 x by the above 32= 128
these 4 x by the above 128= 512
these 4 x by the above 512= 2048
8= 32
G
or hearers
their words, clergy, readers, lines,
5
these 5 x by the above 2048-10,240
This is indeed a valuable addition to A literary
curiosity.
the curiosities of literature: a treasure
((
PRESENTED TO THE BRITISH NATION BY
"THE VERY REV. THE DEAN OF CANTER-
"BURY". No doubt it will be carefully
preserved in the library of the British
Museum.
Hamlet
ghost left
I have now, a serious charge to pre- The play of
fer against you; a charge to which I with the
am reluctant to give a name.
I will out.
therefore simply state the facts, and leave
the public to give to your proceedings in
this matter, whatever name they may
think most fitting. You say, on page
439, "I am reminded, in writing this, of a
"criticism of Mr. Moon's on my remarks
72
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
"that we have dropped 'thou' and 'thee'
"in our addresses to our fellow-men, and
"reserved those words for our addresses
"in prayer to Him who is the highest
"personality. It will be hardly believed
"that he professes to set this right by
"giving his readers and me the information
that these pronouns are very extensively
"and profusely' (I used no such word)
"used in poetry, even (!) when inanimate
"objects are addressed': and thinks it
"worth while to quote Coleridge's Address
"to Mont Blanc to prove his point! Really,
might not the very obvious notoriety of
"the fact he adduces have suggested to
"him that it was totally irrelevant to the
"matter I was treating of?" Truly, this
is the play of Hamlet with the ghost left
out by special desire. Your object was to
controvert what I had advanced against
your essay; and, I must say, that the
means you have adopted to accomplish
that end, are, to speak mildly, not much
to your credit. I will prove what I say.
The one word, against which the whole of
my argument was directed, you have, in
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
73
reproducing your sentence, omitted from
the quotation; and then, of the mangled
remains of the sentence, you exclaim, “It
"will be hardly believed that he professes
'to set this right". I professed nothing
of the sort; you must know well, that my
attack was against the one word which you
have omitted. That this was the case,
may clearly be seen on reference to my
former letter,* where that word was, and
still is, printed in italics, to draw special
attention to it. You betray the weakness
of your cause when you have recourse to
such a suppression.
tion of an
opponent's
Nor is the above instance of misquota- Misquota-
tion the only one in your essay. On page words.
429, you put into my mouth words which
I never uttered; words which express a
meaning totally at variance with what I
said. You enclose the sentence in inverted
commas to mark that it is a quotation;
and, as if that were not enough, you preface
that sentence with this doubly emphatic
remark; "these are his words, not mine".
You then make me say that I hope "as I
* Page 7.
74
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
sentations.
"so strongly advocate our following the
"Greeks in the pronunciation of their
66
proper names, I shall be consistent, and
"never again, in reading the Lessons, call
“those ancient cities Samaria and Phila-
(C
delphia otherwise than Samaria and
Philadelphia." I never had any such
thought, nor did I ever express any such
wish. These words are not mine; nor are
they any more like mine, than I am like
you. The original sentence, of which the
above is a perversion, will be found on
page 30 of my former letter.
Misrepre- But the part of my letter which you
most fully notice in your reply, is that
which treats of the arrangement of sen-
tences; and, exactly as you suppress, in
the instance I have given, the one important
word on which the whole of the argument
turns; so, in the matter of the arrangement
of sentences, you suppress the one impor-
tant paragraph which qualifies all the rest!
You privately draw the teeth of the lion
and then publicly show how valiantly you
can put your head into his mouth; thus
not only damaging your own character for
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
75
honesty of representation, but also insult-
ing the intelligence of the public, who,
you imagine, can be deceived by such
childish performances. The following are
the facts of the case. You say, after
mentioning the authorities I had named,
“The one rule of all others" (!) “which
"he" (Mr. Moon) "cites from these au-
<<
thorities, and which he believes me to
"have continually violated, is this: that
"those parts of a sentence which are most
(((
'closely connected in their meaning, should
"be as closely as possible connected in
""position". Or, as he afterwards quotes
"it from Dr. Blair, A capital rule in the
arrangement of sentences is, that the
""words or members most nearly related
“should be placed in the sentence as near
“'to each other as possible, so as to make
"their mutual relation clearly appear"".
You then go on to say, "Now doubtless
"this rule is, in the main, and for general
"guidance, a good and useful one; indeed,
((
so plain to all, that it surely needed no
"inculcating by these venerable writers.
“But there are more things in the English
76
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
66
language than seem to have been dreamt
“of in their philosophy. If this rule
((
were uniformly applied, it would break
"down the force and the living interest of
((
style in any English writer, and reduce his.
"matter to a dreary and dull monotony;
"for it is in exceptions to its application
"that almost all vigour and character of
style consist". Would any person-
could any person-in reading the above
extract from your reply to my letter, ever
imagine that that letter contains such a
paragraph as the following? I quote from
page 26, where I say, “In contending for
"the law of position, as laid down by Lord
Kames, Dr. Campbell, and others, I do
"so on the ground, that the observance of
"this law contributes to that most essen-
“tial quality in all writings-perspicuity;
" and although I would not, on any account,
"wish to see all sentences constructed on
one uniform plan, I maintain that the
"law of position must never be violated
“when such violation would in any way
"obscure the meaning. Let your meaning
"still be obvious, and you may vary your
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
77
"mode of expression as you please, and your
<<
language will be the richer for the varia-
"tion. Let your meaning be obscure, and
((
no grace of diction, nor any music of a
"well-turned period, will make amends to
your readers for their being liable to
"misunderstand you". The existence of
this paragraph, by which I so carefully
qualify the reader's acceptance of Dr.
Blair's law of position as a universal rule,
you utterly ignore; and, with the most
strange injustice, you charge me, through
sentence after sentence, and column after
column, of your tedious essay, with main-
taining that all expressions should be
worded on one certain uniform plan.
Sentences so arranged are, you say, accord-
ing to "Mr. Moon's rule". Sentences
differing from that arrangement are, you
say, a violation of "Mr. Moon's rule".
With as much reasonableness might you
leave out the word "not", from the ninth
commandment, and assert that it teaches,
"Thou shalt bear false witness against thy
neighbour."
This being your method of conducting
78
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
The date of
the intro-
duction of
a controversy, I assure you that, were you
not the Dean of Canterbury, I would not
answer your remarks. Doubtless, before
the publication of this rejoinder, many of
the readers of your second essay will have
noticed the significant circumstance, that,
of the various examples you give of sen-
tences constructed on what you are pleased
to call "Mr. Moon's rule", but which, as I
have shown, is only a part of "Mr. Moon's
"rule", not one example is drawn from
Mr. Moon's own letter.
You say, "But surely we have had
"enough of Mr. Moon and his rules".
I do not doubt that you have; but I must
still detain you, as the Ancient Mariner
detained the wedding-guest, until the tale
is told. That being finished, I will let you
go; and I trust that, like him, you will
learn wisdom from the past:-
"He went like one that hath been stunned,
"And is of sense forlorn :
"A sadder and a wiser man,
"He rose the morrow morn.'
With respect to the date of the intro-
"its" into duction of the possessive pronoun "its",
the Bible.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
79
((
which, you said, never occurs in the
(6
English version of the Bible"; and
which, as I showed you, occurs in Levit-
icus, xxv. 5; you shelter yourself under
the plea that you meant that the word
never occurs in the "authorised edition”,
known as "King James's Bible". But,
as you did not say either "authorised
"edition "or" King James's Bible", I am
justified in saying that you have only
yourself to blame for the consequences
of having used language so unmistakably
equivocal, as you certainly did when you
said, "the English version of the Bible",
and did not mean the English version
now in every one's hands, but meant a
particular edition published 252 years
ago. Speaking of my correction of your
error, you say, "What is to be regretted
<<
is, that a gentleman who is setting
"another right with such a high hand,
“should not have taken the pains to ex-
amine the English version as it really
stands, before printing such a sentence
as that which I have quoted". I will
((
((
66
80
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
(C
<<
a real occurrence.
show you that my examination of the
subject has been sufficiently deep to dis-
cover that yours must have been very
superficial. Speaking of the word "its",
you say, "Its apparent occurrence in the
place quoted is simply due to the King's
printers, who have modernised the pas-
sage". "Apparent occurrence"! It is
Are we not to believe
our eyes? As for the "King's prin-
"ters", it was not they who introduced
the word "its" into the English Bible.
The first English Bible in which the word
is found, is one that was printed at a time
when there was no King on the English
throne, consequently when there were no
"King's printers": it was printed during
the Commonwealth. Nor was that Bible
printed by the "printers to the Parlia-
"ment". Indeed, it is doubtful whether
it was printed in this country. The word
"its" first occurs in the English version
of the Bible, in a spurious edition sup-
posed to have been printed in Amsterdam.
It may be distinguished from the genuine.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
81
*
edition of the same date, 1653, by that
very word "its", which is not found in
the editions printed by the "printers to
"the Parliament", or by the "King's prin-
“ters” until many years afterwards. So
when, in your endeavours to escape the
charge of inaccuracy contained in my
former letter, you say that the introduc-
tion of the word "its", into the English
version of the Bible, is owing to the "King's
“printers”, you, in trying to escape Scylla,
are drawn into the whirlpool of Cha-
rybdis !
Misquo-
Scripture.
You speak of my demolishing your tation of
character for accuracy. I do not know
what character you have for accuracy;
* The genuine edition contains most gross errors ;
for instance, in Rom. vi. 13, it is said, "Neither yield
“ye your members as instruments of righteousness”,
instead of "unrighteousness"; and, as if to con-
firm the above teaching, it is said, in 1 Cor. vi. 9,
"the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of
"God"; instead of " shall not inherit”. Com-
plaint was made to the Parliament; and most of the
copies now extant were cleared of the errors by the
cancelling of leaves. The spurious edition is com-
paratively faultless.
G
82
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
but this I know, that whenever I see a
man sensitively jealous of any one point
in particular of his character, I am not
often wrong in taking his jealousy to be
a sure sign of conscious weakness in that
very point. What are the facts of the
ease with regard to yourself? I have
given several instances of your gross
inaccuracy. I take no notice of unim-
portant misquotations of the Scriptures
and of my own sentences, though I could
mention several of each occurring in your
second essay; but what are we to say of
the following? It is, if intentional, which
I cannot believe, the boldest instance of
misquotation of Scripture, to suit a special
purpose, that I ever met with. I am sure
it must have been unintentional; but it
is such an error, that to have fallen into
it will, I hope, serve so to convince you
that you, like other mortals, are liable to
err; that the remembrance of it will be
a powerful restraint on your indignation,
if others should venture, as I have done,
to call in question your accuracy.
The
singular instance of misquotation to which
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
83
I refer is the following.-Speaking of the
adverb “only” and of its proper position
in a sentence; you say, "The adverb
"'only', in many sentences, where strictly
speaking it ought to follow its verb, and
<<
((
((
to limit the objects of the verb, is in
good English placed before the verb.
"Let us take some examples of this from
"the great storehouse of good English,
"our authorised version of the Scriptures.
"In Numbers xii. 2, we read, 'Hath the
"Lord only spoken by Moses? hath He
"not spoken also by us?' According to
((
((
<<
CC C
some of my correspondents, and to Mr.
Moses?'
Moon's pamphlet (p. 12)*, this ought to
be, 'Hath the Lord spoken only by
I venture to prefer very
"much the words as they stand". Now,
strange as it may appear after your asser-
tion, it is nevertheless a fact that the
words, as you quote them, do not occur
either in the authorised version, known as
King James's Bible of 1611, or in our
present version, or in any other version
that I have ever seen; and the words, in
* Page 14, in this Edition.
G 2
84
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
Why do you
call me an
ass?
the order in which you say I and your
other correspondents would have written
them, do occur in every copy of the Scrip-
tures to which I have referred! So you
very much prefer the words as they stand,
do you? Ha ha ha! So do I. When
next you write about the adverb “only”,
be sure you quote only the right passage
of Scripture to suit your purpose; and on
no account be guilty of perverting the
sacred text; for these are not the days
when the Laity will accept without proof,
where proof is possible, the statements of
even the Dean of Canterbury.
Before closing this letter, I have just
one question to ask; it is this: Why do
you say I must have "a most abnormal
((
elongation of the auricular appendages"?
In other words, Why do you call me an
ass? I confess to a little curiosity in the
matter; therefore pardon me if I press
the inquiry. Is it because the authorities
I quoted are “venerable Scotchmen" and
that therefore you conclude I must be
fond of thistles ?—No? Well, I will
guess again.
Is it because I kicked at
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
85
your authority ?-No? Well, once more.
Is it because, like Balaam's ass, I “forbad
"the madness of the prophet"? Still, No?
Then I must give it up, and leave to my
readers the solving of the riddle; and
while perhaps there may be some who
will come to the conclusion that the Dean
of Canterbury calls me an ass because I
have been guilty of braying at him; there
are others, I know, who will laughingly
say that the braying has been of that
kind mentioned in Prov. xxvii. 22.
I am, Rev. Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,
G. WASHINGTON MOON.
London, July, 1863.
86
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
NOTE.—The Dean of Canterbury having
published a letter exonerating himself
from the charge of discourtesy, the fol-
lowing appeared in The Patriot' news-
paper, in answer to that letter.
‘
THE QUEEN'S ENGLISH.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE PATRIOT.
"SIR,-Permit me to say, in reference to the
letter from the Dean of Canterbury which you
published in the last number of 'The Patriot',
that I heartily join you in your regret that any
personalities should have intruded into this
discussion on the Queen's English, and I gladly
welcome from the Dean any explanation which
exonerates him from the charge of discourtesy.
But I must say, in justification of my having
made those condemning remarks which called
forth the Dean's letter, that I was not alone in
my interpretation of his language. Those who
had the privilege of hearing the Dean deliver
his 'Plea', when there were all the accom-
panying advantages of emphasis and gesture
to assist the hearers to a right understanding
of the speaker's meaning, understood the
epithets which he employed to be intended for
me; and, as such, generally condemned them.
My authority is 'The South-Eastern Gazette',
of May 19th, which published a report of the
meeting.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
87
“The Dean states, in his explanatory letter,
that he intended the objectionable epithets not
for me, but for the hypothetical reader supposed
by me to be capable of the misapprehensions
I had adduced. It happens, rather unfor-
tunately for the Dean's explanation, that I had
not spoken of any hypothetical reader. Litera
scripta manet,-judge for yourself. I spoke
not of what the Dean's faulty language might
suggest to some imaginary reader, but of what
it did suggest; and to whom, but to me? The
hypothetical reader is entirely a creation of
the Dean's. However, as he says he intended
the epithets for this said reader, that is suf-
ficient. I am quite willing to help the Dean
to put the saddle on this imaginary "ass
ass";
and I think the Dean cannot do better than set
the imaginary "idiot" on the said ass's back,
and then probably the one will gallop away
with the other, and we may never hear any-
thing more of either of them.
"" 'I am, Sir,
"Yours most respectfully,
"G. WASHINGTON MOON.
Sept. 12th, 1863.”
“Instead of always fixing our thoughts
upon the points in which our literature and
our intellectual life generally are strong, we
should, from time to time, fix them upon
“those in which they are weak, and so learn to
"perceive clearly what we have to amend."
MATTHEW ARNOLD.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
REV. SIR,
CRITICISM No. III.
THE CONCLUSION.
of the
charge of
It gives me great pleasure to withdraw Withdrawal
the charge of discourtesy contained in my discourtesy.
former letter to you. I cordially accept
the explanation you have given; and
though I cannot quite reconcile your
statements with all the facts of the case,
I feel sure that the discrepancy is ap-
parent, not real; and that you are sincere.
in saying you did not intend to apply to
me those epithets of which I complained.
But allow me to remark that for whom-
soever they were intended, they are
"objectionable". Such figures of speech
neither add weight to arguments, nor give
dignity to language; they serve only to
90
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
A teacher is
always a-
menable
criticism.
illustrate how easy it is for a teacher of
others to disregard his own lessons, and
become oblivious of the fact that all
teaching, like all charity, should begin
at home.
Actuated by a sincere love for the
metable to language which, it seems to me, you are
injuring by precept and by example, I
resume my criticisms on your essays.
You constitute yourself a teacher of the
Queen's English. Were it not so, I
should consider any strictures on your
language as simply impertinent; but as
you have judged it to be right to lecture
the public on certain improprieties of
expression which have crept into common
use; it cannot be out of place for one of
the public whom you address, to step
forward on behalf of himself and his
companions, and test your fitness for the
office you have assumed; especially if he
confine his test to an examination of
the language used in those very lectures
themselves.
"Honor"
and
"favor".
The only deviation which I have
made from that course is in my second
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
91
In
letter. There, noticing your remarks con-
cerning the practice of spelling without
the "u" such words as "honour" and
"favour”, I quote from your 'Poems' the
words so spelt, and add some prefatory
remarks of yours concerning them.
your third essay you speak of the above.
circumstance, and you inform me that
the words "honor" and "favor", which I
quoted from your 'Poems', were from that
part of the volume which was printed
in America, and that it was against such
American spelling that you, in your preface,
protested.
cc
nu-
Allow me to say, in explanation of my les".
having unconsciously quoted from the
American part of the volume, that, as the
preface stated that the poems which you
added to the American edition were the
products of "later years", it was not un-
natural for me to believe they were
those headed "RECENT POEMS": and it
was from them that my quotations were
made. Besides, you call the American
part of the volume the "nucleus" of the
edition: therefore, if I had taken my
92
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
"No more",
and "never
again".
examples of orthography from the com-
mencement as well as from the end of
the volume, I should have been justified
in doing so; for, surely, a "nucleus" is
that around which other matter is col-
lected. You do indeed make a strange
use of the word when you call 400 pages
of a volume of poems the "nucleus” and
leave only 29 pages at the end, to come
under the description of "conglobated
"matter"! However, even in those few
pages of English printing, which, accord-
ing to your own confession, were under
your control, I find the word honour
spelt "honor", and the word odours spelt
"odors". The charge, therefore, stands as
it did; and your explanation has served
only to draw more scrutinizing attention to
an inconsistency which otherwise might
have passed almost unnoticed.
So you really defend your ungrammati-
cal sentence, “If with your inferiors speak
no coarser than usual; if with your
superiors, no finer"; and you not only
defend it, as allowable, but actually main-
tain that it is "strictly correct"; the
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
93
""
ground of your assertion being that you
had "no choice" open to you between
saying "speak no coarser than usual”,
and “speak no more coarsely than usual”;
and you objected to the latter expression
because you believed it would have been
ambiguous, owing to the term "no more
being capable of meaning "never again".
Are you not aware that a weak defence
is a strong admission? It is true that
more sometimes signifies never
"again"; but you well know that it
never can have that signification when
it is followed by "than". The phrase
"speak no more coarsely than usual
could never be understood as "speak
(6
((
по
""
never again coarsely than usual”; for,
such a sentence would be without mean-
ing. Besides, if you feared that your
sentence would be ambiguous with the
expression "no more than", why did you
use that expression in other parts of your
essays? For instance, you say, "The
Queen is no more the proprietor of the
English language than you or I". A
certain word, you say, "ought no more to
((
((
94
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
Right to a
Does
"than""
govern an
accusative?
"be spelt diocess', than cheese ought to
"be spelt chess"." Where were your
scruples about “ no more" and " never
""
again", when you wrote these sentences?
As for your having no choice between
saying "speak no coarser than usual
and saying "speak no more coarsely than
"usual"; you certainly had not well con-
sidered the subject when you made this
remark; for, neither of the expressions is
the best that might have been used;
indeed, the former is grossly ungrammat-
ical; and as for the latter, to make it
((
""
'right to a t,” you must change the “no
into “not”; and we shall then have what
will be correct,-"If with your inferiors
“speak not more coarsely than usual”; or,
“do not speak more coarsely than usual”.
""
You tell us that "than
governs an
accusative case. What nonsense!
If
"than" governs an accusative, the trans-
lators of the Scriptures were wrong in
making Solomon say, in Eccles. ii, 25,
"Who can eat more than I?" They should
have made him say, "Who can eat more
“than me?” but even a child would tell
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
95
you that such an expression would be
absurd, except under the supposition that
Solomon was the king of the Cannibal
Islands!
(
"How nice-
looks".
In your first Plea for the Queen's Eng-ly she
'lish', you laid it down as a rule that
neuter verbs should not be qualified by
adverbs, but by adjectives; i.e. we ought
not to say "how nicely she looks",
but "how nice she looks"; because,
the verb "to look", as here used, is a
neuter verb, one not indicating an action
but merely a quality or state. Very well;
but unfortunately your practice mars the
good which otherwise might be done by
your precept; for, "to appear" is as much
a neuter verb as "to look" used as above;
in fact it is but another form of expres-
sion for the same meaning; and yet, after
ridiculing "young ladies fresh from
((
'school", for saying "how nicely she
"looks"; you yourself say that the ac-
count to be given of a certain inaccuracy
appears still more plainly" from the
fact that, &c., &c. If I may be allowed
to make a somewhat questionable pun, I
96
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
Adjectives
and adverbs
The prepo-
sition
"from".
will say that it appears to me more and
more plain that you never more com-
pletely missed your vocation than when
you began lecturing "boarding-school
“misses" on the Queen's English.
While remarking on your wrong use
of adverbs, I may notice that you say
((
our Lord's own use so frequently of the
term ". His use of a particular term
may be said to have been frequent; but
it cannot be said to have been "frequently”.
Transpose the words in your sentence
and you will see this at once. "Our
"Lord's own so frequently use of the
"term"! Surely no boarding-school miss
would ever write thus. It is the verb
that requires the adverb; the noun requires
the adjective. He used the term frequently;
but his use of it was frequent.
In a former letter I called attention to
your injudicious use of the preposition
from"; and I pointed out the necessity
for guarding against suggesting any idea
which has no real connexion with the
matter of which you may be speaking.
I gave, as an example of this kind of fault,
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
97
"C
((
your sentence, "Sometimes the editors of
our papers fall, from their ignorance, into
"absurd mistakes". Here the preposition.
from", immediately following the verb
"fall", suggests the absurd idea of editors
falling from their ignorance.
In your
third essay you repeat the fault, and speak
of “architectural transition, from the ven-
"erable front of an ancient cathedral ".
The sentence runs thus, "A smooth front
"of stucco may be a comely thing for
"those that like it, but very few sensible
men will like it, if they know that in
laying it on, we are proposing to ob-
"literate the roughnesses, and mixture of
<<
(6
styles, and traces of architectural transi-
tion, from the venerable front of an
"ancient cathedral." Here, if you per-
ceived that the mere juxtaposition of the
words "transition" and "from" was
suggestive of an idea which you by no
means intended to convey, you should
have separated the words by transposing
the last clause of the sentence. It might
have been done thus ;-" proposing "to
"obliterate, from the venerable front of
H
98
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
"an ancient cathedral, the roughnesses,
"and mixture of styles, and traces of
"architectural transition." You may say
these are trifles; but, remember, "it is by
"attention to trifles that perfection is at-
"tained; and, perfection is no trifle." Be-
sides, to quote your own words, “ An error
"may be, in an ordinary person, a trifle;
but when a teacher makes it, it is no
"longer a trifle."
In your remarks on "so", used in con-
nexion with "as", you say "so' cannot
"be used in the affirmative proposition,
"nor as' in the negative". If this be
correct, why do you yourself use "as"
in the negative? You say "its' was never
"used in the early periods of our language,
((
nor, indeed, as late down as Elizabeth."
But I suppose it is almost useless for
me to address you on the subject of the
various niceties of arrangement which re-
quire to be attended to in the construction.
of sentences. You seem to care for none
of these things. Yet, believe me, such
matters, unimportant as they may appear,
contribute in a far greater degree than
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
99
less fear.
you imagine, to make up the sum of the
difference between a style of composition
which is ambiguous and inelegant; and one
which is perspicuous and chastely correct.
You evidently entertain some fear lest A ground-
the study of the rules of composition
should cramp the expression of the
thoughts! Never was there a more
groundless apprehension: and in propor-
tion as you are successful in disseminating
such notions, do you inflict on our lan-
guage the most serious injury. For-
tunately for that language, the poison
of your teaching carries with it its own
antidote. They who read your essays on
the Queen's English cannot fail to notice
the significant fact that he who is thus
strongly advocating the principle that the
rules of composition serve no other pur-
pose than to "cramp the expression of
his thoughts", does not exhibit that
fluency and gracefulness of diction which,
if his view of the matter were correct,
would necessarily be displayed in his
own compositions.
A reviewer in 'The Nonconformist' writes
UorM
H 2
100
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
as follows:-"Away with all needless and
“artificial rules, say we, indeed—as ener-
"getically as the most energetic. But
"the elementary and natural laws of a
((
language fetter only the impatient or the
"unskilful; and in the living freedom
"with which genius obeys those laws, is
"its strength and mastery shown.
Mou
6 The ………….. unchartered freedom tries,'
"says Wordsworth, in vindicating the
self-imposed bondage of the Sonnet;
"and in so saying, he enunciated a prin-
ciple no less philosophically human than
“wide in its application."
(6
What was John Milton's opinion on
this subjcct? Was he opposed to rules
and maxims? Did he think they served
no other purpose than to "cramp the
expression of the thoughts"? Quite
the contrary.
In the year 1638, Milton, in a Latin
letter addressed to an Italian scholar who
was then preparing a work on the gram-
mar of his native tongue, wrote as follows:
"Whoever in a state knows how to form
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
101
<<
(6
wisely the manners of men and to rule
them at home and in war by excellent
"institutes, him in the first place, above
others, I should esteem worthy of all
honour; but next to him the man who
strives to establish in maxims and rules
"the method and habit of speaking and
((
((
writing derived from a good age of the
"nation, and, as it were, to fortify the same
“round with a kind of wall, the daring to
66
overleap which, a law, only short of that
"of Romulus, should be used to prevent.
"Should we choose to compare the two in
"respect to utility, it is the former only
that can make the social existence of the
(<
(6
citizens just and holy; but it is the
latter that makes it splendid and beauti-
"ful, which is the next thing to be desired.
"The one, as I believe, supplies a noble
"courage and intrepid counsels against an
((
((
enemy invading the territory; the other
"takes to himself the task of extirpating
"and defeating, by means of a learned.
detective police of ears and a light in-
fantry of good authors, that barbarism
"which makes large inroads upon the
((
102
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
((
minds of men, and is a destructive intes-
"tine enemy to genius. Nor is it to be
considered of small importance what
"language, pure or corrupt, a people has,
" or what is their customary degree of pro-
"priety in speaking it a matter which
"oftener than once was the salvation of
“Athens: nay, as it is Plato's opinion
"that by a change in the manner and
"habit of dress serious commotions and
(6
mutations are portended in a common-
"wealth, I, for my part, would rather
believe that the fall of that city and its
"low and obscure condition followed on
"the general vitiation of its usage in the
"matter of speech; for, let the words of a
country be in part unhandsome and of-
"fensive in themselves, in part debased
by wear and wrongly uttered, and what
"do they declare but, by no light indica-
((
tion, that the inhabitants of that country
"are an indolent, idly-yawning race, with
"minds already long prepared for any
"amount of servility? On the other hand,
we have never heard that any empire,
“any state, did not flourish in at least a
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
66
middling degree as long as its own liking
"and care for its language lasted."
Now let us
So far John Milton-the noble advocate
of law and rule, though in virtue of the
transcendency of his genius he might have
claimed to be above all rules.
have a specimen of your English,-the
English of the Dean of Canterbury, who,
avowedly, disregards all rules, fearing they
would" cramp the expression of his thoughts"!
The following example is taken from Obscure
your third essay. I read, "this' and 'these'
((
((
tr
(C
writing.
refer to persons and things present, or
"under immediate consideration; that'
and those' to persons and things not
present nor under immediate considera-
tion; or, if either of these, one degree
“further removed than the others of which
are used 'this' and 'these "". What can
be the meaning of this last clause? The
reader can only wonder and guess. It
utterly defies all power of analysis, and
really makes one uncomfortable to read it.
It forcibly recalls the following anecdote An anecdote
told of Douglas Jarrold. "On recovering Jerrold.
"from a severe illness, Browning's Sordello'
of Douglas
104
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
((
(C
was put into his hands. Line after line,
page after page, he read, but no consecu-
❝tive idea could he get from the mystic
production. Mrs. Jerrold was out, and
"he had no one to whom to appeal. The
thought struck him that he had lost his
reason during his illness, and that he
was so imbecile he did not know it. A
"perspiration burst from his brow, and he
"sat silent and thoughtful. As soon as
((
66
his wife returned, he thrust the mys-
“terious volume into her hands, crying out,
66 6
<<
'Read this, my dear'! After several
attempts to make any sense out of the
first page or so, she gave back the book,
"saying, 'Bother the gibberish! I don't
´understand a word of it'. 'Thank
"Heaven', cried Jerrold, then I am not
"an idiot !
'The Edinburgh Review' thus speaks of
the poem :-"This poem is, in our judg-
ment, from its confused and tortuous
((
((
style of expression, the most illegible
"production of any time or country.
Every kind of obscurity is to be found
"in it. Infinitives without their particles.
(C
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
105
((
-suppression of articles definite and
"indefinite-confusion and suppression of
pronouns relative and personal—adjec-
"tives pining for their substantives-
"verbs in an eternal state of suspense for
"their subjects-elisions of every kind—
sentences prematurely killed off by
interjections, or cut short in their
career by other sentences-parentheses
within parentheses-prepositions some-
times entirely divorced from their
"nouns-anacoloutha, and all kinds of
abnormal forms of speech, for which
grammarians have ever invented names.
-oblique narrations, instead of direct—
"and puzzling allusions to obscure persons
"and facts disenterred from Muratori or
(6
((
((
((
<<
(6
Tiraboschi, as though they were perfectly
"familiar to the reader. Indeed, to be
compelled to look at a play through
(6
a pair of horn spectacles would be a
"cheerful pastime compared with the
“ennui of tracing the course of 'Sordello'
((
through that veil of obscurity which
"Mr. Browning's style of composition
"places between us and his conception."
106
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
Incomplete
sentence.
The Saturday Review,' in commenting
on these remarks, says, "It is but just to
"Mr. Browning to state that the poem is
((
only a youthful sketch, and that Mr.
"Browning himself has acknowledged its
many faults of expression, and has
explained why he thought it profitless to
try to rectify them."
Here is another specimen from your
essay; I give the entire sentence, which,
closing with a period, should be complete
in its sense. You say, "The next thing
"I shall mention, not for its own sake,
'but as a specimen of the kind of criti-
"cism which I am often meeting with,
"and instructive to those who wish to be
"critics of other men's language."
It was not until I had long and hope-
lessly pondered over your sentence, that
I discovered what it was you intended to
say, and what was the reason of my not
instantly catching your meaning. I find
that the first clause in your sentence is
inverted, and that the punctuation neces-
sary to mark the inversion is incorrect, or
rather, is altogether omitted; hence, I
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
107
read the sentence thus,-" The next thing"
[which] "I shall mention, not for its own
"sake, but as a specimen," &c.; whereas
your meaning was,-"The next thing" []
((
I shall mention, not for its own sake,
"but as a specimen," &c.; or, putting the
words in their natural order, "I shall
“mention the next thing, not for its own
sake, but as a specimen," &c. Your
hobby of leaving out commas carries you
too far; your readers cannot follow you:
and if you are going to set aside the rules
of punctuation as well as those of gram-
mar, you must give us something better
than this to convince us of the advantage
to be gained by adopting such a course.
((
persons".
Among other curious matters to be "Educated
found in your essays, is the somewhat
startling information that the expressions
I ain't certain", "I ain't going", are not
unfrequently used by "educated persons"!
I suppose you mean, educated at college,
where the study of English is altogether
ignored; but of that, more by-and-by.
In the meantime I pass on to the next
sentence in your essay. Having told us
108
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
"Treated",
and
"treated
of".
Ellipsis.
that the above expressions are not un-
frequently used by "educated persons";
you go on to say, "The main objection to
"them is, that they are proscribed by usage;
"but exception may also be taken to them
on their own account". So I should
think, if they will use such expressions as
“I ain't certain", "I ain't going".
(6
I see you still say "treated", rather
than "treated of”; e.g.
a matter treated
"in my former paper". On a previous
occasion I spoke of this error; but I
suppose, as you still express yourself in
the same way, you consider the terms
synonymous; but they certainly are not.
To treat is one thing; to treat of is
another; and it is the latter expression
that would convey your meaning. The
following sentence will exhibit the dif
ference between the two terms. "A matter
"treated of in my former paper was treated
"by you with indifference."
One of the defects noticeable in your
essays, is that of making your expressions
too elliptical. Brevity is undoubtedly an
excellent quality in writing; but brevity
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
109
""
should always be subordinate to per-
spicuity. This has not been attended to
in the following sentence, which, singularly
enough, happens to be upon the very
subject of ellipsis itself. You say, "Some
languages are more elliptical than others;
that is, the habits of thought of some
"nations will bear the omission of certain
"members of a sentence better than the
"habits of thought of other nations
[will]. Do you not perceive that but for
the little word "will", which I have added
to your sentence, the statement would be,
that "the habits of thought of some
"nations will bear the omission of certain
"members of a sentence better than [they
"will bear] the habits of thought of other
nations"?—a truth which no one will
be found to deny; but, at the same time,
a truth which you did not mean to
affirm.
((
quack?"
"Bow,
WOW
"!
The consequence of too free an indul- "Quack,
gence in the elliptical form of expres-
sion, would probably be that [in the
language of every-day life, at any rate,]
all connective words would gradually dis-
110
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
CC at all'
•
appear from use; and we should, perhaps,
ultimately find ourselves, for brevity's
sake, adopting the style exemplified in
the anecdote given by Farrar, and which
runs thus." An Englishman in China,
"seeing a dish placed before him, about
"which he felt suspicious, and wishing
"to know whether it was duck, said
"with an interrogative accent, Quack,
""quack?"
He received the clear and
straightforward answer, Bow, wow'!
This, no doubt was as good as the
"most eloquent conversation on the same
"subject between an Englishman and a
"French waiter; but I doubt whether it
“deserves the name of language.'
(6
Expletives: Among the peculiarities of style ob-
servable in your essays is your evident
fondness for feeble expletives which add
nothing to the meaning of the sentences
to which they are attached. You say,
for instance,
"I did not allude to the letter at
“ all”.
* Farrar's' Origin of Language,' p. 74, as quoted
in Max Müller's 'Lectures,' p. 346.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
111
"Twice one not being plural at all”.
"Some found fault with me for dealing
"at all with the matter".
"Is it really part of the verb 'have',
“at all?”
((
If we use the past tense at all”.
"Without any pains at all".
"The use of the plural verb at all is
" unusual”.
I should much like to know the origin
of the phrase, and what difference in the
meaning of any of the above sentences
there would be if the words were struck
out.
"" and the
Irishisms also should be avoided; for Irishisms :
"the like o' them” are anything but like".
pleasing in essays on the Queen's Eng-
lish.
You say, "Wrong understanding of
"obsolete phrases and the like”.
(C
Patrobas, Aristobulus and the like”.
"Making out that Andromache was An-
"drew Mackay and the like".
"Such expressions as 'It is me', 'I
knew it to be him', and the like”.
6
"We continually hear and read This
112
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
“much I know', 'Of that much I am
(( (
certain', and the like".
"To take it in good part, to take a
"man for his brother, and the like".
cc C
Plain', 'soft', 'sweet',
"'wrong', and the like".
'right',
"I mean in my youth, or when I was
"in Cheshire, or the like".
((
What! Not yet over that "pons asino-
rum” " of juvenile writers, the "con-
"struction louche"? You were there
when I wrote to you my first letter; and
you are there still? This ought not to
be;
for, the effect of this error is so
ridiculous, and the error itself may be
so easily avoided. You say, "Though
some of the European rulers may be
females, when spoken of altogether, they
"may be correctly classified under the
"denomination 'kings"." In this sen-
tence, the clause which I have put in
italics has, what our Gallic neighbours.
designate, "a squinting construction", it
looks two ways at once; that is, it may
be construed as relating to the words
which precede, or to those which follow.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
113
Your former error of this sort was in the
omission of a comma; this time you have
erred by the insertion of a comma, and in
each case a like result is produced. Had
there been no comma after the word
"altogether", the ambiguity would have
been avoided, because the words in italics
would then have formed part of the
last clause of the sentence: but as the
italicised clause is isolated by commas,
the sentence is as perfect a specimen of
this error as ever could have been given.
Absurd as would be the sentence, its con-
struction is such, that we may understand
you to say, "Some of the European rulers
"may be females, when spoken of alto-
gether"; or we may understand you
to say, "when spoken of altogether, they
"may be correctly classified under the
"denomination kings""; but, even in
this last clause, it is evident that you say
one thing and mean another. The con- The differ-
text shows that what you meant, was, be correctly
"they may correctly be classified", not classified"
(C
>
ence be-
tween "may
and "may
correctly be
they may be correctly classified". Slight classified".
as is the apparent difference here, the real
I
,
114
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
The Dean
calls Her
female!
difference is very great. If I say “they
may be correctly classified", my words
mean that the classification may be made
in a correct manner; but if I say, “they
'may correctly be classified", the meaning
is, that it is correct to classify them. In
the first example, the adverb qualifies the
past participle "classified"; in the second,
it qualifies the passive verb to "be clas-
"sified"; or, in other words, the adverb
in the former instance describes the thing
as being properly done; and, in the latter
instance, as being a thing proper to do.
One word more before we finish with
Majesty a this strange sentence of yours. On page
65 I had to ask you why, when speak-
ing of a man, you used the slang word
" individual". I have here, to ask you a
question which is still graver.—Why,
when speaking of women, do you apply
to them the most debasing of all slang
expressions? You speak of the highest
person in the land, and that person a lady,
and your description of her is one that is
equally applicable to a dog!—Her Majesty
is-a female! I am sure that all who
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
115
desire your welfare will join me in hoping
that Her Majesty will not see your book.
It is but too evident that in condemning
these slang phrases, as you do in your
'Queen's English', page 246, you are
echoing the sentiments of some other
writer, rather than expressing your own
abhorrence of slang. I shall be glad if
you are able to inform me that I am mis-
taken in this particular; and that you
have not been quoting, but have been
giving us original matter.
Reverting to the error occasioned by a
comma in the former part of your sen-
tence, I may give, as another example of
the importance of correct punctuation,
an extract from a letter in The Times' of
June 19th, 1863; there, simply by the
placing of the smallest point, a comma,
before, instead of after, one of the smallest
words in the language, the word “on”,
the whole meaning of the sentence is
entirely altered, and it is made to express
something so horrible that the reader
shudders at the mere suggestion of it.
The letter is on American affairs, and
The import-
ance of cor-
rect punc-
tuation.
I 2
116
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
the writer says,
<<
The loss of life will
"In a fix".
The final
cr
u" in
and the final
"(
hardly fall short of a quarter of a million;
"and how many more were better with
"the dead than doomed to crawl, on the
"mutilated victims of this great national
"crime!" He meant to say" than doomed
"to crawl on, the mutilated victims of this
great national crime.”
<<
But I must hasten to the conclusion of
my letter. You say, The derivation of
"the word, as well as the usage of the
((
great majority of English writers, fix
"the spelling the other way", i.e. This
(as well as that) fix it! Excuse me, but
I must ask you why you write thus, even
though by putting the question, I put
" in a fix
to answer it.
you
دو
You speak of "the final 'u' in tenour",
"tenour" and "the final 's' in months". You
"months", might just as reasonably speak of the
final "A" in the alphabet.
" in
These errors are so gross that I cannot
forbear reproving you in your own words.
<<
Surely it is an evil for a people to be daily
“accustomed to read English expressed thus
"obscurely and ungrammatically: it tends
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
117
“to confuse thought, and to deprive language
((
((
of its proper force, and by this means to
degrade us as a nation in the rank of
"thinkers and speakers."
always
ing",
In your second essay you are loud in Variety not
praise of variety in composition; and "charm-
variety enough you undoubtedly have
given us; but, unfortunately, the variety
is not of that description which, in our
school days, writing-masters made us
describe in our copy-books as "charming".
We have found, in your Essays on the
Queen's English, errors in the use of
pronouns; errors in the use of nouns,
both substantive and adjective; errors
in the use of verbs and of adverbs; and
errors in the use of prepositions. There
are errors in composition, and errors in
punctuation; errors of ellipsis, and errors
of redundancy; specimens of feeble ex-
pletives, and specimens of circumlocution;
specimens of ambiguity, and specimens
of squinting constructions; specimens of
slang, and specimens of misquotation of an
opponent's words; and, worst of all, a
specimen of a misquotation of Scripture.
Add to this the following specimens of
118
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
Tautology
and tautoph-
ony.
tautology and tautophony, and the list
will, I think, be tolerably complete.
As you have introduced into your
essays the short preface to your Poems,
that preface becomes fairly amenable to
criticism, and I remark that in it you say,
"This will account for a few specimens of
"Transatlantic orthography for which the
"author must not be accounted responsible".
The following is from your third essay,
-"An officer whose duty it is to keep a
((
counter-roll, or check on the accounts of
"others. It seems also clear, from this
“account of the word, that it ought not,"&c.
Then I read, "One word on 'this'
"and 'that', as we pass onward”.
((
At last we abated the nuisance by
enacting, that in future the debatable
"first syllable should be dropped".
Thought and speech have ever been
"freer in England than in other countries.
"From these and other circumstances,
"the English language has become more
"idiomatic than most others".
“The sentences which I have quoted are
"but a few out of the countless instances
"in our best writers, and in their most
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
119
"chaste and beautiful passages, in which
this usage occurs. On examining into
"it, we find "—&c. &c.
Enough! It was my intention to say a
few words of caution to students of the
Queen's English, on your advice to them
to disregard the rules of grammarians and
be guided by custom and common sense;
but, on second thoughts, I am sure that
any further remarks must be unnecessary;
for if your plan cannot do more for its
teacher, there need be no fear that it will
be followed by any sagacious pupil.
I had fully intended to speak also on
the necessity of a more thorough study
of English at our Universities; but any
remarks on that, will likewise be con-
sidered needless; for, your own English
is, itself, a volume on the subject.*
66
* "To such as can hardly believe, that in our
"Public Schools, Colleges, and Universities, there
"is not the slightest special training in English,
even for those who are about to enter Holy Orders,
"I can only say that, however surprising it may
seem, it is the simple fact." "Some have said,
"that no English teaching is needed in our Univer-
'sities, for men are sufficiently instructed in the
66
120
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
(6
66
66
Ah! Doctor Alford, we find you guilty
language when they come up'. I meet this by a
simple denial, adding that most men are not suffi-
ciently instructed even when they go down'. I
appeal to College Tutors, Examiners, Bishops'
"Chaplains, and to the Public, whether I exaggerate
(C
66
or not in making this assertion."—'A Plea for the
'Study of the English Language', by Alexander J. D.
D'Orsey, B.D., English Lecturer at the Corpus
Christi College, Cambridge, pp. 2, 37.
Read also the 'Report of Her Majesty's Com-
'missioners appointed to inquire into the manage-
'ment of certain Colleges and Schools". (Presented
to Parliament by command of Her Majesty, March,
1864.) The following is from the Report of the exam-
ination of the head master of Eton, "the greatest
" and most influential of our Public Schools."
(6
Question, No. 3530, [Lord Clarendon].
"What
measures do you now take to keep up English at
"Eton ?"
((
"There are none at present, except
through the ancient languages."
Question, No. 3531. "You can scarcely learn
"English reading and writing through Thucydides ?"
66 -No."
Question, No. 3532, [Sir S. Northcote].
"" You
"do not think it is satisfactory ?"-" No; the
"English teaching is not satisfactory, and as a
66
question of precedence, I would have English
"taught before French."
Question, No. 3533.
"You do not consider that
"English is taught at present?”—“ No.”
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
121
of injuring by your example a glorious
(6
(6
"In Greek and Latin, no doubt, the clergy have
"advanced as fast as their age, or faster. University
men now write Greek Iambics, as every one
knows, rather better than Sophocles, and would
no more think of violating the Pause than of
violating an oath. A good proportion of them
are also perfectly at home in the calculation
"of perihelions, nodes, mean motions, and other
"interesting things of the same kind, which it
"is unnecessary to specify more particularly. So
((
((
far the clergy are at least on a level with
"their age. But this is all that can be said.
"When we come to their mother-tongue a dif-
"ferent story is to be told. Their English-the
66
English of their sermons-is nearly where it was a
"hundred years ago. The author of 'Twenty years
"in the Church' makes the driver of a coach remark
"to his hero, that young gentlemen from college pre-
paring to take orders appear to have learned
(6
(6
(6
everything except their own language. And so
they have. Exceptions, of course, there are, many
"and bright; but in the main the charge is true.
"The things in which, compared with former ages,
they excel so conspicuously, are the very things
"which have least concern with their special calling.
"The course of their progress has reversed the
፡፡
course of charity;-it began abroad, and has never
"yet reached home."- Cornhill Magazine,' May,
1861.
122
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
inheritance, such as has been bequeathed
to no other nation under heaven.*
I can believe that the English language
is destined to be that in which shall arise,
as in one universal temple, the utterance
of the worship of all hearts. Broad and
deep have the foundations been laid; and
so vast is the area which they cover, that
it is co-extensive with the great globe itself.
For centuries past, proud intellectual giants
have laboured at this mighty fabric;
and still it rises, and will rise for genera-
tions to come: and on its massive stones
will be inscribed the names of the pro-
foundest thinkers, and on its springing
arches the records of the most daring.
flights of the master minds of genius, whose
fame was made enduring by their love of
the Beautiful and their adoration of the All
Good. In this temple the Anglo-Saxon
* Grimm says,
"The English tongue possesses a
"veritable power of expression, such as, perhaps,
(( never stood at the command of any other language
"of man.".
'—' Ursprung der Sprache,' p. 52.
6
"Take it all in all, it is the grandest and the
"richest of modern tongues."— Edinburgh Review,'
July, 1864, p. 176.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
123
mosaic of the sacred words of truth will
be the solid and enduring pavement; the
dreams of poets will fill the rich tracery
of its windows with the many-coloured
hues of thought; and the works of lofty
philosophic minds will be the stately
columns supporting its fretted roof, whence
shall hang, sculptured, the rich fruits of
the tree of knowledge, precious as "apples
"of gold "," the words of the wise".
I am, Rev. Sir,
Yours most respectfully,
G. WASHINGTON MOON.
London, May, 1864.
"Curam verborum rerum volo esse solici-
tudinem."-QUINTILIAN.
EXAMPLE versus PRECEPT.
THE Dean said [Good Words', 1863, page
437] "The less you turn your words right or
left to observe Mr. Moon's rules, the better”.
It will provoke a smile on the face of the
reader to be told that although the Dean
gives this advice to others, he himself has, in
the second edition of his work, altered and
struck out, altogether not fewer than eight-
and-twenty passages which Mr. Moon had
condemned as faulty. For the entertainment
of the curious in such matters, the original
passages as condemned in
condemned in The Dean's
'English', and the same passages as altered in
the second edition of The Queen's English',
are subjoined in parallel columns. It is
scarcely requisite to say that "altered” does
not necessarily imply "corrected".
126
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
I.
SO
So far from its being
"well known a fact" that we
reserve the singular pronouns
"thou" and "thee" entirely
for our addresses in prayer to
Him who is the highest Per-
sonality, it is not a fact.-p. 7.
THE
QUEEN'S ENGLISH.
Struck out.
II.
You say, "The great enemies
"to understanding anything
printed in our language are
And these are
"the commas.
A comma in-
serted between
(C
compositors
the slightest
'inserted by the compositors and "without
"without the slightest com-
"punction." I should say that "compunction".
the great enemy to our under-
-p. 99.
standing this sentence of yours
is the want of commas.-p. 11.
"
III.
You speak of persons “mend-
'ing their ways"; and in the
very next paragraph you speak
of the Queen's highway",
and of "by-roads” and “pri-
"vate roads ".—p. 12.
Struck out.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
127
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH
IV.
Immediately after your speak-
ing of "things without life",
you startle us with that strange
sentence of yours,-"I will
"introduce the body of my
essay". Introduce the body!
-p. 13.
V.
"But to be more serious",
as you say in your essay, and
then immediately give us a sen-
tence in which the grave and
the grotesque are most incon-
gruously blended. I read, "A
man does not lose his mother
now in the papers." I have
read figurative language which
spoke of lawyers being lost in
their papers, and students be-
ing buried in their books; but
I never read of a man losing
his mother in the papers.—p.
13.
THE
QUEEN'S ENGLISH.
Struck out.
In the papers, a
man does not now
lose his mother.-
p. 251.
66
VI.
In the sentence, "I only
'bring forward some things”,
the adverb "only" is similarly
128
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
misplaced; for, in the following
sentence, the words "Plenty
more might be said", show
that the " only" refers to the
some things", and not to the
fact of your bringing them for-
ward. The sentence should
therefore have been, “I bring
'forward some things only".
-p. 15.
"the
VII.
9
In your essay, you say, "I
remember, when the French
band of the 'Guides' were
"in this country, reading in
· Illustrated News
Were the Frenchmen, when in
this country, reading in 'The
'Illustrated News'? or did you
mean that you remembered
reading in 'The Illustrated
'News'?-p. 19.
VIII.
THE
QUEEN'S ENGLISH.
Struck out.
Iremember, when
the French band of
the 'Guides' were
in this country, to
have read in the
'Illustrated News'.
-p. 249.
You also say,
"It is not so
"much of the great highway
itself of the Queen's English
"that I would now speak, as of
some of the laws of the road;
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
129
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
"the by-rules, to compare small
things with great, which hang
up framed at the various sta-
“tions". What are the great
things which hang up framed
at the various stations ?-p. 20.
IX.
So, too, in that sentence
which introduces the body of
your essay, you speak of "the
"reluctance which we in modern
Europe have to giving any
"prominence to the personality
of single individuals in social
intercourse"; and yet it was
evidently not of single indi-
viduals in social intercourse
that you intended to speak, but
of giving, in social intercourse,
any prominence to the person-
ality of single individuals.-p.
20.
X.
Continuing my review of your
essay, I notice that it is said of
a traveller on the Queen's high-
way,
He bowls along it with
ease in a vehicle, which a few
“centuries ago would have been
to
THE
QUEEN'S ENGLISH.
The by-rules, so
speak, which
the various sta-
hang up framed at
tions.—p. 5.
Struck out.
K
130
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
"broken to pieces in a deep rut,
or come to grief in a bottom-
THE
QUEEN'S ENGLISH.
He bowls along
vehicle, which
a
"less swamp". There being it with ease in a
here no words immediately be-
fore"
come", to indicate in few centuries ago
what tense that verb is, I have would have been
to turn back to find the tense, broken to pieces
and am obliged to read the in a deep rut, or
sentence thus, "would have would have come
"been broken to pieces in a to grief in a bot-
deep rut, or [would have been]
come to grief in a bottomless p. 2.
swamp".-p. 28.
XI.
Further on, I find you speak-
ing of "that fertile source of
“mistakes among our clergy,
"the mispronunciation of Scrip-
"ture proper names". It is
not the "mispronunciation of
"Scripture proper
names"
which is the source of mistakes;
the mispronunciation of Scrip-
ture proper names constitutes
the mistakes themselves of
which you are speaking; and
a thing cannot at the same time
be a source, and that which
flows from it.-p. 29.
tomless swamp.-
Struck out.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
131
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
THE
QUEEN'S ENGLISH.
XII.
In some sentences your pro-
nouns have actually no nouns
to which they apply. For ex-
ample, you say, a journal
A journal pub-
'published by these people". lished by the ad-
By what people? Where is the vocates of this
noun to which this relative change.—p. 14.
pronoun refers ? In your head
it may have been, but it cer-
tainly is not in your essay.-p.
35.
XIII.
Only eight-and-twenty nouns. The paragraph
intervening between the pro- has been entirely
noun "it" and the noun "habit" reconstructed.—p.
to which it refers!-p. 37.
XIV.
You make the assertion that
the possessive pronoun its"
42.
In the English
version of the Bi-
never occurs in the " English ble, made in its
"version of the Bible”. Look
(6
form in the reign
at Leviticus xxv, 5, "That present authorized
"which groweth of its own
accord".-p. 37.
XV.
There are, in your second
essay, some very strange speci-
of James I.-p. 7.
K 2
132
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
THE
QUEEN'S ENGLISH.
The one rule
which is supposed
by the ordinary
rhetoricians to re-
mens of Queen's English. You
say, "The one rule, of all others,
"which he cites". Now as, in
defence of
of your particular
views, you appeal so largely to
common sense, let me ask, in gulate the arrange-
the name of that common sense,
how can one thing be another
thing? How can one rule be of
all other rules the one which I
cite ?-p. 54.
XVI.
You say, "The verb is not
a strict neuter-substantive".
Your sentence is an explanation
of your use of the word "oddly",
in the phrase, "would read
“rather oddly ”;
and oddly
enough you have explained it:
"would read" is the condi-
tional form of the verb; and
how can that ever be either a
neuter-substantive, or a substan-
tive of any other kind? --p. 56.
XVII.
The whole
Again, you say,
"number is divided into two
"classes: the first class, and the
"' last class. To the former of
ment of words in
sentences, is, &c.—
p. 123.
In a previous
paragraph we now
read of a verb, "of
that class called
neuter-substantive,
i.e., neuter, and
akin in construc-
tion to the verb-
substantive to be".
-p. 206.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
133
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
"these belong three: to the lat-
"ter, one". That is, "To the
former of these belong three:
"to the latter [belong] one";
one belong! When, in the latter
part of a compound sentence,
we change the nominative, we
must likewise change the verb,
that it may agree with its
nominative.—p. 57.
XVIII.
THE
QUEEN'S ENGLISH.
To the former of
these belong three:
to the latter belongs
one.-p. 146.
There are three
The error is repeated in the
very next sentence. You say,
“There are three that are ranged
"under the description 'first': that are ranged
"and one that is ranged under under the descrip-
the description 'last'". That tion 'first'; and
is, "There are three that are there is one that is
"ranged under the description ranged under the
first'; and [there are] one description 'last’.
"that is ranged under the des- p. 146.
666
cription 'last'".
one!-p. 57.
XIX.
There are
It appears to me that, before
you have finished a sentence,
you have forgotten how you
134
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
began it. Here is another in-
THE
QUEEN'S ENGLISH.
stance.
You say,
"We call a
cup-board' a
cubbard', a
We call a 'cup-
'board'
a 'cub-
'bard', a 'half-
'penny' a 'hae-
half-penny' a 'haepenny',
"and so of many other com-
pound words”. Had you be-
gun your sentence thus, "We
speak of a cup-board' as a
'cubbard', of a 'half-penny' as
a 'haepenny', it would have
been correct to say, "and so of 'pny', and we
"many other compound words"; similarly contract
because the clause would mean, many other com-
"and so [we speak] of many pound words. -p.
"other compound words "; but 53.
having begun the sentence with
"We call," it is sheer nonsense
to finish it with " and so of";
for it is saying, "and so [we
call] of many other com-
“pound words”.—p. 58.
XX.
You speak of rules laid down
"by the dictionaries" and the
"professors of rhetoric"; thus
substituting, in one case, the
works for the men; and, in the
other case, speaking of the men
themselves. Why not either
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
135
66
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
speak of the "compilers of dic-
“tionaries” and the “professors
of rhetoric"; or else speak
of the " dictionaries" and the
“treatises on rhetoric "?—p. 59.
XXI.
THE
QUEEN'S ENGLISH.
Struck out.
The construction of some of
your sentences is very objec-
tionable: you say, "I have
"noticed the word 'party' used
"for an individual, occurring
"in Shakspeare"; instead of,
"I have noticed, in Shak- in
speare, the word 'party' used p. 246.
for an individual." But how
66
66
is it that you call a man an
“individual"?—p. 65.
You say,
XXII.
"While treating of
"the pronunciation of those
"who minister in public, two
"other words occur to me
"which are very commonly
"mangled by our clergy. One
"of these is 'covetous', and its
"substantive covetousness'.
"I hope some who read these
The word 'party',
for a man, occurs
Shakspeare.—
136
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
"lines will be induced to leave
"off pronouncing them 'cove-
"'tious', and 'covetiousness'.
'I can assure them, that when
they do thus call them, one,
at least, of their hearers has
"his appreciation of their teach-
ing disturbed". I fancy that
many a one who reads these
lines will have his appreciation
of your teaching disturbed.
p. 69.
XXIII.
Speaking of the word "its",
you say, "Its apparent occur-
rence in the place quoted is
simply due to the King's
'printers, who have modernised
"the passage". Apparent oc-
currence! It is a real occur-
Are we not to believe
rence.
our eyes?—p. 80.
XXIV.
As for the "King's printers",
it was not they who introduced
the word "its" into the Eng-
lish Bible. The first English
Bible in which the word is
THE
QUEEN'S ENGLISH.
I hope that some
of my clerical read-
ers will be induced
to leave off pro-
nouncing them ‘co-
I
vetious' and 'co-
'vetiousness'.
can assure them,
that when they do
thus call the words,
&c.—p. 63.
Struck out.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
137
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
found, is one that was printed
at a time when there was no
King on the English throne,
THE
QUEEN'S ENGLISH.
An alteration by
consequently when there were the printers.-p. 7.
no "King's printers": it was
printed during the Common-
wealth.-p. 80.
XXV.
The following is, if inten-
tional, which I cannot believe,
the boldest instance of mis-
quotation of Scripture, to suit.
a special purpose, that I ever
met with. You say, "In Num-
"bers xii, 2, we read, 'Hath
"the Lord only spoken by
"Moses? hath He not spoken
"´also by us?' According to
some of my correspondents,
"and to Mr. Moon's pamphlet,
"this ought to be 'Hath the
“Lord spoken only by Moses?*
""
I venture to prefer very much
"the words as they stand".
Now, strange as it may appear
after your assertion, it is never-
theless a fact that the words, as
you quote them, do not occur
in the authorized version,known
138
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
THE
QUEEN'S ENGLISH.
as King James's Bible of 1611,
or in our present version, or in
any other version I have ever
seen; and the words, in the
order in which you say I
and your other correspondents
would have written them, do
occur in every copy of the
Scriptures to which I have which suited his
referred! So you very much purpose, and quo-
prefer the words as they stand, ted it. p. 143.
do you? Ha! Ha! Ha! So do
I. When next you write about
the adverb " only", be sure
you quote only the right pas-
sage of Scripture to suit your
purpose.-p. 82.
The Dean found
another passage,
XXVI.
Though some of the Euro-
pean rulers may be females,
"when spoken of altogether,
they may be correctly classi-
"fied under the demonination
kings'". In this sentence,
the clause which I have put in
italics has, what our Gallic
neighbours designate, "a squin-
"ting construction", it looks
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
139
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
THE
QUEEN'S ENGLISH.
the
Though some of
European ru-
lers may be fe-
males, they may
be correctly classi-
fied, when spoken
of altogether, un-
der the denomina-
two ways at once; that is, it
may be construed as relating to
the words which precede, or to
those which follow. Absurd as
would be the sentence, its con-
struction is such, that we may
understand you to say, "Some
"of the European rulers may
"be females, when spoken of tion "kings".—p.
"altogether."-p. 112.
97.
XXVII.
You say,
"The derivation of
the word, as well as the usage
of the great majority of Eng-
“lish writers, fix the the spelling
the other way". i.e. This [as
well as that] fix it! Excuse
me, but I must ask you why
you write thus, even though by
putting the question, I put you
"in a fix" to answer it.—
p. 116.
XXVIII.
The derivation
of the word, as
well as the usage
of the great ma-
jority of English
writers, fixes the
spelling the other
way.—p. 33.
"At last we abated the At last we abated
"nuisance by enacting, that the nuisance by
"in future the debatable first
'syllable should be dropped".
-p. 118.
enacting that in
future the first syl-
lable should be
dropped.-p. 56.
140
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.
Of course the Dean was wise to alter
his sentences;—to turn his words right and
left in observance of certain rules. The
joke is, that he should do so after having
advised his readers to do nothing of the
sort. We congratulate the Dean that, con-
cerning the alteration of sentences, we are
able in his case to reverse the old adage and
say, “Do as the Dean does, and not as the
"Dean says".
APPENDIX.
A CRITICISM FROM THE ENGLISH
CHURCHMAN.
The Queen's English. Stray Notes on
Speaking and Spelling.
By Henry
Alford, D.D., Dean
D.D., Dean of Canterbury.
(London: Strahan and Co.; Deighton,
Bell, and Co., pp. 257.)
WE scarcely know whether to look upon the
labours of Dean Alford in the cause of our
language as a loss or as a gain. In many ways
his remarks on the Queen's English must have
been attended with good results. The wide
circulation which they obtained, when first
published in 'Good Words', has caused a vast
number of persons to pay far more attention
to this much-neglected subject than they had
ever done before. Many have been brought
for the first time to bestow a serious attention
on their mother-tongue, and to see that the
consideration of the words in which their
thoughts are clothed is a matter of no small
142
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
moment, and furnishes a true test of a nation's
character and progress. In these papers they
have been warned against the use of mean and
slipshod English, against an affected and un-
natural style, and, in fact, against most of the
faults which mar the language of the present
day, and which may be found so abundant in
the columns of the periodical press, and in the
conversation of half-educated persons. On
the other hand, the Dean has set an evil ex-
ample by rendering the standard of right and
wrong in language more wavering and un-
certain than ever: custom, according to him,
is the only court of appeal, and the laws of
grammar are to be left to pedants and peda-
gogues. If this is to be the case, it seems
hopeless to bring many of those, who habitu-
ally break the laws of language, to a sense of
their shortcomings. They have been brought
up from their birth amongst persons who com-
mit the same faults, and they are unable to
see the nature of these faults. If referred to
the laws of grammar, they appeal to the au-
thority of Dean Alford to show that it is
pedantic to be guided by grammarians; if
referred to the custom of educated persons,
they maintain their own experience against that
of their reprovers, and declare that their own
usage is the customary one, and that the one
recommended to them is contrary to custom.
Amongst the paradoxical statements of Dean
Alford, we have selected some of the most
prominent for comment. At the time of the
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
143
first appearance of these papers, a great, and,
in our opinion, not unreasonable, outcry was
made against the sanctioning of the phrase,
"It is me". The Dean brings forth Dr. La-
tham in support of his opinion, and refers us
to the following extract from that gentleman's
History of the English Language' :-
We may...
call the word me a secondary nomi-
native, inasmuch as such phrases as It is me—It is I,
are common. To call such expressions incorrect Eng-
lish, is to assume the point. No one says that c'est moi
is bad French, and c'est je is good. The fact is, that
with us the whole question is a question of degree.
Has or has not the custom been sufficiently prevalent
to have transferred the forms me, ye, and you, from
one case to another? Or perhaps we may say, is there
any real custom at all in favour of I, except so far as
the grammarians have made one? It is clear that the
French analogy is against it. It is also clear that the
personal pronoun as a predicate may be in a different
analogy from the personal pronoun as a subject ".
We have great respect for Dr. Latham's
learning, but in a matter like the present we
cannot submit to his authority. Modern wri-
ters on language, when treating of well-known
words and phrases, are often apt to seek op-
portunities for displaying their own ingenuity
in giving unusual explanations of them, and
Dr. Latham is by no means free from a par-
tiality for crotchets of this kind. There is no
analogy between English and French in this
matter. It is a peculiarity of the French
language that each pair of words which repre-
144
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
sents the different cases of the singular personal
pronouns in other languages is in French
represented by three words instead of two.
I, me-je, me, moi; thou, thee-tu, te, toi;
he, him—il, le, lui. Moi, toi, lui, are used as
nominative cases when coming after the verb.
If Dr. Latham's reasoning is right, that be-
cause we have in French c'est moi, not c'est je,
therefore, it is right to say in English, "it is
"me", not "it is I": then it follows that
because we say c'est toi, not c'est tu, c'est lui,
not c'est il, it is right to say "it is thee", it
"
is him", or "her". It seems to us as bad
grammar to say, it is me", in English, as c'est
me in French. He further says that "when
"constructions are predicative, a change is
"what we must expect rather than be surprised
at". We see this change of construction in
French when the pronouns are predicative,
because each pronoun has three distinct forms,
but as English, together with the rest of the
European languages (with which we are ac-
quainted), has only two forms of personal
pronouns, therefore the change cannot take
place when the construction is predicative.
Another reason given by Dr. Latham for the
usage is, that me is not the proper, but only the
adopted accusative of I, “being in fact a
"distinct and independent form of the personal
pronoun". We do not see why, because me
is the adopted accusative of I, it should become
a secondary nominative". All the European
languages of which we have any knowledge
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
145
have an adopted accusative for the first person
singular, but we do not find in them any traces
of its being used as a secondary nominative
(though it may appear so in French); why,
then, are we to grant this license to English,
merely to gratify a careless habit which may
easily be corrected? We now come to consider
Dean Alford's own remarks on these three little
words. He seems to think that the reason for
the substitution of me for I is a shrinking from
obtruding our own personality, and endeavours
to confirm his view by referring to an instance
of the contrary practice in the well-known
passage:
He said unto them, 'It is I, be not afraid'. This is
a capital instance; for it shows us at once why the
nominative should be sometimes used. The Majesty
of the Speaker here, and his purpose of re-assuring the
disciples by the assertion that it was none other than
Himself, at once point out to us the case in which it
would be proper for the nominative, and not the ac-
cusative, to be used".
We will venture to say that the sole reason
which the translators of the Bible had for writ-
ing "it is I" in this verse, was because they
considered it the proper grammatical phrase,
and “it is me” ungrammatical. How would
Dean Alford account for the two following
verses, Matt. xxvi. 22, 25, “ And they were ex-
ceeding sorrowful, and began every one of
"them to say unto Him, Lord, is it I?" 'Then
"Judas, which betrayed him, answered and
L
146
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
"said, Master, is it I?" Certainly, according
to the Dean's reasoning, we ought in each case
to have, "Is it me?" but there is no trace of
such a usage throughout the Bible.
Dean Alford asks the question, "What are we
'to think of the question whether than does or
"does not govern an accusative case ?"-
"The fact is, that there are two ways of constructing
a clause with a comparative and 'than'. You may say
either than I' or 'than me'. If you say the former,
you use what is called an elliptical expression, i.e. an
expression in which something is left out-and that
something is the verb 'am'. 'He is wiser than I',
being filled out, would be, 'He is wiser than I am'.
'He is wiser than me' is the direct and complete con-
struction".
way.
"He is
We agree that there are two ways of con-
structing the clause-a right way and a wrong
"He is wiser than I" is right.
“wiser than me" is wrong. There is no occa-
sion to make use of an ellipse at all. Than is
a conjunction, and cannot, therefore, govern an
accusative case, as it is a fundamental rule of all
languages that conjunctions should couple like
cases. We cannot see in what way
"He is
"wiser than me" can be more complete than
"He is wiser than I". Again, we find the rule
laid down by the Dean, that, when solemnity is
required, the construction in the nominative is
used; and he quotes John xiv. 28, “My father
"is greater than I". This would be of some
weight if he could bring a single instance in
which than of itself governed an accusative in
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
147
a case where solemnity was not required, but
we do not think that he will find one in the
Bible. In Gen. xxxix. 8, Joseph says to
Potiphar's wife, "Behold, my master knoweth
"not what is with me in the house, and he hath
committed all that he hath to my hand; there
"is none greater in the house than I; neither
´hath he kept back", &c. We cannot suppose
that the translators wished to represent Joseph
as attaching any solemnity to the words "there
"is none greater than I", which are introduced
in the middle of a long sentence. The reason
for their occurring thus is because the transla-
tors knew that the phrase, "there is none greater
“than me”, is entirely ungrammatical. Dean
Alford considers that the invariable use of
than whom", instead of "than who ", is a
proof that than governs an accusative case, as in
Paradise Lost', ii. 299:
•
"Which, when Beelzebub perceived, than whom,
"Satan except, none higher sat".
"than who",
We quite agree that, to say
would be intolerable in this instance to most
ears, but we do not consider that this single
anomalous expression is enough to warrant us
in saying that "than" takes the accusative.
The expressions "than whom", "than which",
are very sparingly used in writing, and never
in ordinary conversation. Probably the first
person who wrote "than whom", did so in
ignorance of the rules of grammar, and the
error was so perpetuated by his copyists that it
L 2
148
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
became a settled usage.
Another explanation
of it is, that the "m" was added for the sake
of euphony. However that may be, we cannot
allow that one anomaly of this kind can justify
us in going counter to the grammar and usage
of all languages.
(C
Of course, when than couples a pronoun to a
word in the accusative case, the pronoun must
also be put in the accusative; we must say "He
likes you better than me", and not "he likes
you better than I"; the latter phrase is inad-
missible.* In our opinion this shows completely
that than is nothing more than a conjunction,
and it is an unheard-of thing in any language
that a conjunction can govern an accusative.
As is a word of precisely the same character as
than: would Dean Alford defend the vulgarisms,
'I am as tall as him ", " He is as tall as me"?
A correspondent has kindly sent us a well-
known example of the latter usage from one of
our standrrd poets:
The nations not so blest as thee
"Must in their turn to tyrants fall,
"Whilst thou shalt flourish, great and free,
"The dread and envy of them all.”
THOMSON'S 'Rule Britannia.'
In our opinion the first line of this stanza is
utterly indefensible.
The Dean upholds the use of the verb to
* "He likes you better than me" is, He likes you better
than [he likes] me; and, "He likes you better than I”
is. He likes you better than I [like you]. The meaning
of each phrase is widely different.-G.W.M.
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
149
"leave", in a neuter, or, as he bids us term it,
an absolute sense. He defends the sentence "I
"shall not leave before December 1" on the
ground that the verb is still active, but the ob-
ject is suppressed. We deny that to leave"
is here used in an active sense; it is synony-
mous with "to go away", "depart", &c., which
are neuter verbs. The Dean brings forward
the instances of the verbs "to read" and "to
write", as though they were analogous cases,
because they may be used at will either transi-
tively or intransitively. These verbs, however,
themselves express an occupation, just as much
as to run, to sit, or to stand. If we wish to
know how any one is spending his time, it is a
sufficient answer to say "He is reading"; if we
are aware of that fact, and wish to know what
is the object of his study, then we must use the
verb transitively, and say, "He is reading 'The
Queen's English"", or any other book. "To
"read" has become to all of us a complete
notion; "to leave" is not so; and, as we said
before, must be used as an equivalent for to
depart, or go away, in the phrase quoted. This
is an unnecessary extension of its signification,
and as all such extensions give rise to more or
less ambiguity, they should be avoided. The
use of a verb in an intransitive as well as a
transitive sense must always be a matter de-
pending entirely on authority. Such a use of
"to leave” was ignored formerly, and has arisen
only within comparatively few years from the
carelessness of slipshod speakers and writers.
150
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
In the present day it is eschewed by good wri-
ters of English; by others it is used invariably,
but quite unnecessarily, in a neuter sense.
In Dr. Alford's objections to the restrictions
placed by grammarians on the words first and
last, former and latter, he makes the following
remarks:-
First' is unavoidably used of that one in a series
with which we begin, whatever be the number which
follow; whether many or few. Why should not last be
used of that one in a series with which we end, whatever
be the number which preceded, whether many or few ?"
We should have thought that the answer was
quite evident. First has two meanings; it
stands for the superlative of the comparative
former, and for the ordinal corresponding to the
cardinal number one. Last is used only as the
superlative of latter; it cannot, therefore, be
ever used in numerical statements. In speaking
of a book in two volumes, which are numbered
1 and 2, we refer to the 1st or 2nd volume;
but 1st is not here the same as first, the super-
lative of former. This is easily shown in the
case of most of our large public schools, where the
6th form is the first, and the 1st form the last in
the school. If we had such a word as oneth to
stand as the ordinal of one, we should say that
the 6th form is the first, and the oneth the last;
as it is, we are obliged to make first do duty in
each case.
We do not agree theoretically with the Dean's
remarks on the aspiration of the "h" in humble,
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
151
though practically we think it advisable to follow
the growing usage of the day, and sound the
"h". It was formerly almost as common to
say umble as it is to say onour and (h)our. In
regard to the words " ospital", erb", and
"umble", our author says that all of them are
very offensive, but the last of them by far the
"worst, especially when heard from officiating
Clergymen". We believe that the reason
why the Clergy have so commonly adopted the
practice of sounding the "h" in humble, is
because educated persons cannot endure the
idea of its being said of them that they drop
their "h's"; directly, therefore, the custom
became prevalent of aspirating humble, the
Clergy at once took it up. It will be the same
as soon as it becomes at all usual to sound the
“h” in honour, honesty, &c. We deny that
“umble and hearty no man can pronounce with-
"out a pain in his throat"; it is just as easy to
under heaven".
pronounce as
In one or two places the Dean becomes hyper-
critical; for instance :—
"By-the-by, what are we to think of the phrase which
came in during the Crimean war, The right man in the
right place'? How can the right man ever be in the
wrong place? or the wrong man in the right place? We
used to illustrate the unfitness of things by saying that
the round man had got into the square hole, and the
square man into the round hole; that was correct enough;
but it was the putting incongruous things together that
was wrong, not the man, nor the hole".
It is the custom in all languages, when it is
152
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
desired that an idea shall be impressed forcibly
on a reader, to repeat the word in some way or
other. Thus, in the 2nd chapter of Genesis,
the original of "thou shalt surely die" is "dy-
"ing thou shalt die"; so likewise, in the New
Testament, with the Hebraism, "with desire
'have I desired". The Greek tragedians
abound in such pleonasms, especially in the
repetition of an adjective, by qualifying the
verb with the adverb formed from the adjective.
In the present instance, "the right man in the
"place", sounds wretchedly flat in comparison
with "the right man in the right place ”.
There are many other remarks in this work
with which we cannot agree, but we have no
wish to weary our readers with further criti-
cisms on this somewhat dry subject.-The Eng-
lish Churchman, January 28, 1864.
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 presented to the pub-
"lic”; so that we may fairly regard both the
canons and the composition of this volume as
the deliberate and final setting forth of the
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
153
-
Dean's notions of the proprieties of the English
language. No plea of hasty writing, such as
unfortunate newspaper writers, or public lec-
turers, or even magazine contributors, might
fitly urge, is valid here. The Dean tells us,
too-what we are very glad to learn, and what
speaks well for the Christian placability of both
parties—that the somewhat sharp passage of
arms betwixt Mr. Moon and himself has ended
in an invitation to dinner and a real friendship.
From antagonism we came to intercourse;
and one result of the controversy I cannot
regret that it has enabled me to receive Mr.
"Moon as a guest, and to regard him hencefor-
"ward as my friend". Will this deprive the
public of the benefit of Mr. Moon's criticisms
upon the present volume? We should be sorry
to think so; for there really is much to be said
about it, and, we fear, much fault to be found
with it. Dean Alford has rendered good service
to his generation. He was an exemplary work-
ing clergyman; and he is, we doubt not, as
exemplary a Dean. He is an excellent poet,
and his beautiful hymn, "Lo, the storms of life
are breaking”, sung to sweet music, has often
soothed our soul. We cannot call him an
accomplished Greek scholar; but he has com-
piled the most useful working Greek Testament
of our generation; amenable to a thousand
adverse criticisms, but laboriously bringing to-
gether almost all that working clergymen need.
But with all this we cannot regard him as an
authority on the philosophy of the English
154
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
language, or as an example of its more accurate
use. It is strange that men should imagine
themselves that which they are so far from
being, that they are unconscious even of their
defects. Only a scholar of the widest philo-
logical reading and of the nicest discrimination
should have presumed to write a book on the
use and abuse of the Queen's English. No
doubt Dean Alford thinks that he is such a
scholar, and that his composition, if not in his
ordinary sermons, yet in this volume, is fault-
less. We regret to be compelled to think other-
wise. His style, where not positively ungram-
matical, is loose, and flabby, and awkward; his
sentences are ungainly in construction, and
sometimes positively ludicrous in the meaning
which they involuntarily convey. We will take
a few instances; and we begin with the third
sentence in the book.
It" (the term "Queen's English ") “is one
“rather familiar and conventional, than strictly
"accurate". As Dean Alford uses it, the ad-
verb "rather" qualifies the terms "familiar "
and "conventional". He means it to qualify the
term "strictly accurate", and should have said,
"It is one familiar and conventional rather than
strictly accurate ”.
"For language wants all these processes, as
'well as roads do", is scarcely so elegant as
a critical Dean should have written.
Again: “And it is by processes of this kind
"in the course of centuries, that our English
'tongue has been ever adapted", &c.; instead
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
155
of "It is by processes of this kind that, in the
course of centuries, our English tongue", &c.
"Carefulness about minute accuracies of in-
"flexion and grammar may appear to some very
contemptible". We trust that the Dean is
not one of these; but would it not have been
better to have written, "may to some appear
very contemptible"?
6 C
“The other example is one familiar to you,
"of a more solemn character". And what is it
to those given to levity? The Dean meant to
say, “The other example is of a more solemn
character, and is one familiar to you".
"The first remark that I have to make shall
"be on the trick now so universal across the
Atlantic". Here tenses are curiously con-
fused; and the Dean apparently forgets that
the term universal is absolute, and does not ad-
mit of a comparative.
666
"The late Archdeacon Hare, in an article on
English orthography in the Philological Mu-
seum'". We did not know that the English
orthography of the 'Philological Museum' was
peculiar or needed an article. The Dean means
in an article in the Philological Museum' on
"English orthography ".
'We do not follow rule in spelling the other
words, but custom". An elegant writer would
have said, "In spelling the other words we do
"not follow rule, but custom".
These specimens occur in the first twelve
pages; how many the entire volume would
afford, is beyond our calculation. A little farther
156
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
on we read:—" 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". We did not know that
the refreshment-room at Reading stood between
two trains.
With many of Dean Alford's canons, both of
derivation, pronunciation, and even spelling,
we have almost equal fault to find; but we
forbear. We must say, however, that, notwith-
standing Mr. Latham's authority, and at the risk
of being reckoned "grammarians of the smaller
sort", we are still unconvinced of the pro-
priety of saying, even colloquially, "It's me",
and of the pedantry of saying, "It's I".
We must add, too, that a somewhat unseemly
egotism and gossipiness pervade the book-
pardonable enough in popular lectures, but
surely to be excluded from a philological trea-
tise. The Dean seems to have no plan, but just
to say anything that comes first, and to say it
anyhow. Perhaps he thinks the chit-chat of a
Dean sufficient for all persons of lesser dignity.
Dean Alford, of course, says many just and
useful things, and will, we trust, do something
to correct some errors and vulgarisms. But it
is one thing to read Dean Alford's sentences,
and it is another to read Macaulay's.—' Patriot,'
January 14, 1864.
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
157
A Plea for the Queen's English. By Henry
Alford, D.D., Dean of Canterbury.
Good
<
Words', March, 1863.
A CRITICISM BY PERNICKITY PAWKIE, GENT.
(
[From the Glasgow Christian News.']
THE "Southrons" (so we at one time called
them) are unlike any other of the nations in
regard to the treatment which they bestow upon
their language. They call it their "mother-
"tongue", and yet, if the Dean of Canterbury
be a trustworthy witness, their mothers did not
speak it; if you check any Southron for mis-
pronouncing a word, he will gravely inform you
that he goes by Entick, Sheridan, Knowles, or
somebody else. You cannot get the Southrons,
as a people, to " go by" any one authority for
five minutes at a time in the accentuation of
their brother-tongue; and yet you will find
yourself greatly mistaken if you suppose that
you are getting from any Southron the credit
of speaking the Queen's English," unless
you condescend to imitate some foppish speaker
of that licentious language.
The Dean of Canterbury has written what he
calls A Plea for the Queen's English' in
Good Words' for March; and I shall be bold
enough to show that, in some particulars, the
Dean has really written adversely towards the
Queen's English.
158
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
The Dean has written as follows:-
"In common talk the pronouns 'I', 'he', 'she', are
freely used. But when the form of the context throws
these pronouns into unusual prominence, we shrink, I
suppose, from making so much of ourselves or one
another as the use of them in the nominative case would
imply. Was there ever one of us who, when asked
'Who's there'? did not first and most naturally reply,
'It's me'. And though reproved, and it may be even
corrected as a child for the mistake, which of us is there
that does not continually fall into it, if it be one, again
and again ?
"
Now let us observe what the Dean says in the
latter part of the above passage: he questions
if the act of placing the word me where I ought
to be is a mistake! Dr. Caird should be most
truly grateful to Dean Alford; for the Doctor
says—“ Believing in that love stronger than
"death which for me, and such as me, drained
"the cup of untold sorrows". If an English
Dean has not something useful to do, let him
by all means avoid teaching us bad English.
The shade of Sir Walter Scott ought to be
most truly grateful to Dean Alford; for the
Dean is of opinion that the following may not
really be a mistake :—
"Yet oft in Holy Writ we see
(6 Even such weak minister as me
May the oppressor bruise".
Any one who has given the least attention to
the subject must have observed that the Dean
is pleading for a blunder which is just the ever-
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
159
lasting one on both sides of the Tweed: and
that the Dean's idea of its being the result of a
sweet modesty is the veriest nonsense-as if,
forsooth, the spirit of egotism is not as fre-
quently practised under the word me as under
the word I! *
The guide in the matter is very simple: let
the verb be supplied, and the monstrous blunder
frowns in all its hideousness. Let the sentences
which I have above quoted from Dr. Caird
and Sir Walter Scott be implemented (as our law
jargon words it), and the blunder glares out
upon us. Let us write as follows:
'Believing in that love stronger than death which
for me, and such as me [am], drained the cup of untold
sorrows".-' Religion of Common Life,' p. 66.
"Yet oft in Holy Writ we see
"Even such weak minister as me [am]
May the oppressor bruise".
'Marmion,' canto v, xxxi.
*"This shrinking from the use of the personal pronoun,
this autophoby, as it may be called, is not indeed a proof
of the modesty it is designed to indicate; any more than
the hydrophobia is a proof that there is no thirst in the
constitution. On the contrary, it rather betrays a mor-
bidly sensitive self-consciousness."
"So far indeed is the anxiety to suppress the personal
pronoun from being a sure criterion of humility, that
there is frequently a ludicrous contrast between the con-
ventional generality of our language and the egotism of
the sentiments expressed in it."
tr
Modesty must dwell within, in the heart; and a brief
I is the modestest, most natural, simplest word I can
use."
'Guesses at Truth,' pp. 142, 148, 150.
160
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
But it is not in grammar only that the Gre-
cian Dean endeavours to mislead us Scotchmen.
He tries his hand also at pronunciation. He
writes as follows:-
"We still sometimes, even in good society, hear
ospital, erb, and umble-all of them very offensive, but
the last of them by far the worst
•
Will it be believed that the dictionaries are
against Dean Alford (all except two) in the pro-
nunciation of the above words? It surely re-
quires a man to be possessed of not a little
meism before he presumes to write as he has
done respecting the foregoing words. The fol-
lowing dictionaries are in his favour (they are
but two)—namely Webster and Jameson; while,
on the contrary, Walker, Sheridan, Perry,
Knowles, Smart, Wright, Craig, and Surenne
are, all of them, against the Dean; and
Worcester countenances both ways.
The fact is, that this word is simply the
French one-humble-and was pronounced by
our Norman ancestors as the above eight dic-
tionaries continue to pronounce it: two only
being against them, and one of these an
American.
The Dean says, "The English Prayer-Book
"has at once settled the pronunciation of this
"word [humble] for us, by causing us to give
"God our humble and hearty thanks' in the
"General Thanksgiving. Umble and hearty",
says the Dean, no man can pronounce without
a pain in his throat ".
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
161
Did ever such drivelling proceed from a
very Reverend Dean of Canterbury? But this
is not all; for, giving the vulgar mode of
uttering the entire sentence, the critic is so
utterly given over to special pleading that he
writes as follows:-
"Umble and hearty no man can pronounce without
a pain in his throat; and 'umblanarty' he certainly
never was meant to say ".
say".
If this very Reverend Dean decides the pro-
nunciation of the Greek language on such frivo-
lous data as he does this word humble, I must
hold him to be of but little worth as a philolo-
gist; and I advise my compatriots to let most
votes carry the day. With our eight dictionaries
(all of them of much higher standing than the
two opponents) let us decide that the word
“humble” shall not be aspirated.
The very Reverend Dean appears to me to be
out of his element when treating of a matter of
taste. He writes as follows:
Humble and Hearty is the only pronunciation which
will suit the alliterative style of the prayer, which has
in it not only with our lips but in our lives
There is coarseness and the absence of poetic
tact in this observation. Humble, in order to
sympathise with the sentiment which is ex-
pressed in the word, ought to be umble. H is
a hearty letter: U is despondent. Alliteration,
if it teaches anything in such a matter, teaches
M
162
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
the very reverse of this unsympathetic and
unpoetic work-day Dean's whimsies upon the
subject. The word humble ought, in the prayer,
to be enunciated with a pause-it ought to be
uttered with feeling, which requires a pause-it
ought not to be followed rapidly by the words
“and hearty”, which ought to express a different
kind of feeling—a warmth, a cordiality, a vigour.
Let the Dean appeal to anything but some hum-
drum in holy orders, and it will be given against
him, or I am in the last degree mistaken.
The Dean is pleased also to be facetious upon
penny-a-liners”.
We, Scotchmen, have no
especial complaint to make against him on this
score; but this we may say, he may just as well
attempt "to stem the Thames with a pitchfork"
as to stereotype "the Queen's English" as he
calls it. Benjamin Franklin could bring down
the electric fluid from the clouds-an invention
which has carried language with the speed of
lightning, but he could not control human lan-
guage, and yet his. I-ism was me-ism when
compared with the efforts of the Dean upon
this particular. In a letter to Noah Webster,
dated Dec. 26, 1789, Franklin writes as follows:—
"I find that several new words have been introduced
into our parliamentary language. For example, I find
a verb formed from the substantive notice. I should not
have noticed this were it not. Also another verb from
the substantive advocate. The gentleman who advocates
or has advocated that motion. Another from the sub-
stantive progress. The committee having progressed.
The word opposed (though not a new word) I find used in
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
163
a new manner, as, The gentlemen who are opposed to
this new measure. If you happen to be of my opinion
(continues Franklin) with respect to these innovations,
you will use your authority in reprobating them".
No doubt Dean Alford would have lent a
helping hand here; but with what success?
The progress of language is a thing far
mightier than the breath of Deans!
I take exception to the Dean's treatment of
the word press, which has not yet ceased to be a
collective noun. He has no right (on his prin-
ciples) to write as follows:
"Allude to is used in a new sense by the
press, and not only by them, but". The Dean
ought here to have written "it" instead of
“them;" and yet we find this teacher playing him-
self with the inaccuracy (so he calls it) of saying
"twice one are two", and "three times three are
nine". In order to prove the grammatical
incorrectness of these two assertions, the clever
Dean alters the form of the expression, and,
'presto"! the juggle is concluded.
"What we
"want (says the Dean) being simply this, that
"three taken three times makes up, is equal to
"nine". Now, admitting this to be correct,
Mr. Dean-admitting three not to be plural any
more than one (which is just what you should
prove, but also just what you do not attempt to
prove) nevertheless, admitting your improved
premises; yet, when we say what you "want”
to say in another mode, if that other mode have
a plural nominative, the verb must also be
M 2
164
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
plural; and we say "three times" must be plural,
and so must even three.
I might, for example, say of a man and his
wife—“ they twain are one flesh"; but you, Mr.
Dean, might reply to me (as you are now doing),
"What we want to say is simply this-this man
'is, and that woman is, one flesh-makes up, is
equal to one flesh." All very good! But so
long as we speak of them as twain, we must (in
order to be grammatical) employ the word are
respecting them.
It appears to me, Pernickity Pawkie, that this
Southron and Prelatic Dean has mystified and
bewildered his reasoning powers respecting the
grammar of the multiplication table by a highly-
wrought abstraction upon the Athanasian Creed
respecting the triune and official subsistencies
of the Godhead-" Three in one sense, and one
“in another”—may, by some misconception of
the fact, have deranged the ideas of numerical
relation in the Dean's mind, and it will account
for his hallucination in reference to the mode of
stating the multiplication table. It is this
Dean's idiosyncracy to refine.-The Christian
News, May 2, 1863.
THE QUEEN'S ENGLISH.
A CRITICISM FROM ROUTLEDGE'S MAGAZINE,
Ост., 1864.
THE study of language is one of the most
instructive and, at the same time, one of the
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
165
most interesting occupations with which we can
employ ourselves; and, in the present age of
advanced education, it is absolutely necessary
for everybody to obtain a knowledge of his own
language, and to read, speak, and write it in
accordance with the known rules on the subject.
However well taught a man may be in other
branches of study, he will never make his
way in the world unless he can speak cor-
rectly, since correct speaking is, as it were,
the outward attribute of the gentleman, and
the one by which his other qualifications are
judged.
The Dean is evidently not a graceful writer
of English, as he is sure to have put forth all
his strength in the composition of a book on
language. This strength, however, seems tỏ
consist in devising the most unnatural manner
of writing good English, and in violating some
of Lord Kames's most important rules with
regard to words expressing things connected
in thought being placed as near together as
possible.
The Queen's English,' we must state, pro-
fesses to be a reprint from a widely circulated
periodical entitled 'Good Words,' and the
subject is said to be 'presented to the public
' in a considerably altered form.'
This is strictly true, for, having compared the
reprint with the original articles, we are able to
compliment the Dean on the many judicious
alterations he has made; thanks, perhaps, to
the suggestions given by a gentleman styled, in
166
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
a country paper, "a knight, bearing on his
"shield the emblem of the lunar orb", and other
lovers of pure English who have considered that
the reverend grammarian has in some way
defiled the pure well of English.
Sitting down with the book, * and the
volume of 'Good
Good Words' for 1863 before
us,
we note no great difference until we
come to the following expression: "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
"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 hesitation, 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,
Satan except, none higher sat.'
"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 construc-
tion, although the Dean seems to think it should
* Second Edition.
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
167
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 mean-
ing, 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 reflec-
tion 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 I" to "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.
excellent book on English
F. Graham, in his
168
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
"9
as
Style, quotes the objective case after “than
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, "T. e phr: ethan 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 con-
junction 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
ref. ain from allud g 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
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
169
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.
"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. The time when, and the
place where, great men have written their books
is always interesting information, 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
170
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
'that to the most distant," says Murray. This,
however, is not Dean Alford's view of the
matter.
After mentioning the name Sophœnetus (and
no other), he writes, "Every clergyman is, or
ought to be, familiar with his Greek Testa-
'ment;
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 so fast.
In theory, the Dean agrees with our gram-
marian; for, eleven pages further on,
he says,
“'this' and 'these' refer to persons and things
present, or under immediate consideration ;
"that' and 'those' to persons and things not
"present, nor under immediate consideration;
or if either of these, one degree further re-
"moved than the others of which are used 'this'
" and "these"". He then mentions a Scottish
friend, who always designates the book which he
has in hand as "that book." Surely this Scotch-
man and the Dean belong to one family.
It is not often in books that we see an author
plainly contradict himself within the space of
sixteen lines.
On page 183 we read, "I should speak cor-
"rectly if I said, 'Dr. Johnson flew upon me':
incorrectly, if I said, he fell upon me'."
On the same page we read-
And as to my correspondent's last dictum,
"that he fell upon me', would be incorrect; let
"him look at 1 Kings ii, 25, 34, 46, in which
"places it is said of Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei,
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
171
((
respectively, that Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada,
'fell upon him that he died."
Now in all these actions we have instances of
men falling upon others. How happens it that
what is right in one case is wrong in the other?
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 actuated 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, Dean 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."
In the original notes the words would have
were omitted. One of his censors then sug-
gested 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.
}
17,2
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
On page 41 he tells us about some people 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.
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 DEAN'S ENGLISH v. THE QUEEN'S
ENGLISH.
A CRITICISM FROM THE LONDON REVIEW,
July 30, 1864.
A WRITER in the current number of The Edin-
'burgh Review' censures Mr. Moon for hyper-
critically objecting to sentences the meaning of
which is perfectly clear, though it is possible,
having regard to the mere construction, to
interpret them in a sense ludicrously false. We
think that Mr. Moon does occasionally exhibit
an excessive particularity; but many of his
criticisms on Dr. Alford are, as the reviewer
himself admits, thoroughly deserved. Because
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
173
certain ambiguities have become recognised
forms of speech, and are universally understood
in the correct sense, a writer is not entitled to
indulge in a lax mode of expression, which a
little trouble would have rendered unimpeach-
able without any sacrifice of ease, grace, or
naturalness. The reviewer quotes or imagines
two sentences to which no reasonable objection
could be made, though the construction is
assuredly not free from ambiguity :—“ Jack
was very respectful to Tom, and always took
"off his hat when he met him."
"Jack was very
“rude to Tom, and always knocked off his hat
"when he met him." Now, as a mere matter
of syntax, it might be doubtful whether Jack
did not show his respect to Tom by taking off
Tom's hat, and his rudeness by knocking off
his own; but the fault is hardly a fault of
construction-it is a fault inherent in the
language itself, which has not provided for a
distinction of personal pronouns. The sen-
tences in question are clearly defective; but
they could be amended only by an excessive
verbosity and tautology, which would be much
more objectionable; and, at any rate, they are
no justification of those errors of composition
which might easily be amended, and which
spring from the writer's own indolence or care-
lessness. The confusion of personal pronouns,
however, is a subject worthy of comment. It
is incidentally alluded to by a writer in the last
number of The Quarterly Review', in an article
on the report of the Public School Commission-
174
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
ers; and a ludicrous example is given, from the
evidence of a Somersetshire witness in a case
of manslaughter, though, notwithstanding the
jumble, the sense is clear enough. The fatal
affray was thus described by the peasant:
"He'd a stick, and he'd a stick, and he licked
he, and he licked he; and if he'd a licked he
as hard as he licked he, he'd a killed he, and
"not he he.” Now, supposing the witness not
to know either combatant, one does not see
how he could have expressed himself more
clearly, and he would have a right to charge
the defect on the language. Like everything
else in the world, human speech is very imper-
fect, and we must sometimes take it with all its
blemishes, because we can do no better. For
instance, there is a certain form of expression
which involves a downright impossibility, but
which nevertheless is universally accepted. We
cannot explain what we mean more pertinently
than by referring to the phrase commonly seen
painted on dead walls and palings:
"Stick no
'bills." Here what is intended is a prohibi-
tion; but it really takes the form of an
injunction, and of an injunction to do an impos-
sibility. We are not told to refrain from
sticking something, or anything-we are com-
manded to stick something, and the something
we are to stick is "no bills"! We are to
stick on the wall or paling something which
has no existence. Let us try to imagine the
process. We must first take up the nonentity
in one hand, and with the other apply paste to
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
175
its non-existent back; we are then to hoist it
on a pole, and flatten it against a wall. Of
course, the only correct expression would be,
"Do not stick bills"; yet no
one would
seriously recommend the change. (The reader
will observe that we have here unconsciously
fallen into the same mode of speech.
'No one
"would recommend "!) The received expres-
sion is more succinct, and it has now the
sanction of time. In like manner we say, “He
was so vexed that he ate no dinner ", and a
hundred other phrases of the same character.
But they are radically bad, and go far to excuse
the uneducated for so frequently using the
double negative. The unlettered man knows
that he wants to state the negation of some-
thing, and not the affirmation, and he obscurely
perceives that a species of affirmation of the
very thing he wants to deny is put into his
mouth by such a sentence as, "He ate no
dinner"; so he whips in another negative,
and really makes the phrase more intelligible
to himself, and to those of his own class who
hear him.
Some comparatively modern modes of ex-
pression, though not capable of defence, have
already struck their roots so far that it is
almost impossible to drag them up. The writer
in ‘The Edinburgh Review,' when condemning
the recent use of the word "supplement” as a
verb, says :—“So infectious has it become that
“it has, once or twice, crept, notwithstanding
our utmost vigilance, into these pages."
176
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
Ludicrously enough, one of the faults pointed
out in this article is committed in another
article in the very same number. The reviewer
of Dr. Alford objects (and we think very justly
objects) to such French-English as-"Born in
1825, our hero went to Eton in 1837." But
in the article on Edward Livingston we read—
"Born on the 26th of May, 1764, he was in his
thirteenth year on the day of the Declaration
"of Independence."
6.6
Let us conclude with a hope that Dean Alford
and Mr. Moon have by this time made up their
quarrel, and that henceforth they will unite
their forces for the defence of The Queen's
'English'.
CRITICISM.
AN EXTRACT FROM THE SATURDAY REVIEW.
Just two hundred years ago, according to Mr.
Hallam, appeared the first number of the first
review ever published. Monday, the 5th of
January, 1665, was the birthday of the Journal
des Sçavans;' and the enormous development
which the system of reviewing has received
since then, is sufficient proof of its utility. Re-
viewers were at first simply reporters; from
being reporters they soon grew by a natural
process into judges, and from judges they
became legislators. They succeeded in laying
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
177
down canons of criticism which affected the
development of the public taste; and it is in
this capacity that they have been accused, by
the sentimental school, of every variety of
harshness and meanness. The existence of a
vigorous periodical criticism is as necessary a
sanitary condition of modern literature as the
existence of good ventilation is of a house. The
incidental inconveniences that result may be
compared to the draughts which sometimes kill
off invalids in over-ventilated houses. But in
literature invalids ought to be killed off. They
are, indeed, in the habit of complaining during
the process, and weak-minded persons sometimes
take up their complaints, and rail somewhat
vaguely against the evil spirit of periodical
criticism generally. The ignorance of the
Edinburgh reviewers who said that Wordsworth
was dull and childish, and the brutality of the
assault upon Keats in the Quarterly, are the
staple examples of late years. They are neither
of them good for much. Keats was not really
"snuffed out by an article": and Wordsworth
would have been none the worse for attending
to some of Jeffrey's criticism. If he had known
how to take advice, he would not have mixed
with some noble poetry so much that no human
being ever reads except from a sense of duty.
In fact, Wordsworth, whilst hidden in a region
sheltered from critics, produced stuff which, as
coming from a true poet, is the best proof of the
necessity of the critical spur to keep poets up
to the mark. If he had lived in London instead
N
178
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
of on the shores of Rydal, the "Solitary" and
the “Wanderer" could never have been so
pitilessly prosy. But, without examining par-
ticular cases, the general accusation seems to
us to be childish. Few people, however, will
contend that the exposure of bad taste and
writing is too severe habitually. So long as
there is an unfailing supply of absurdity, its
existence seems a tolerable proof that it has not
been laughed at sufficiently. Though you bray
a fool in a mortar, we are told, yet will not his
folly depart from him; and we may add, what
is still more annoying, the braying will not seem
to hurt him. He will be just as happy after the
operation as he was before. The person against
whom the attack is directed is therefore the last
to be pitied. The present system of criti-
cism produces merely a systematic expression of
the average opinion of the more highly educated
classes. It is the embodiment, in a fixed form,
of the floating criticism that must always
permeate society. If a man is ever to publish
anything beyond his own narrow circle, it is a
great blessing to him to have a court ready to
express the common judgment promptly and
frankly. A man may occasionally exist of such
delicate constitution that he cannot bear to hear
what every one thinks of him—that he requires
to be sheltered from every rude blast, and
reared carefully like a plant in a hothouse. The
real difference which the present plan produces
is, that he gets decisively in one dose the
opinions which would otherwise come strained
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
179
and filtered to him through a number of different
channels. He has to take his cold bath at once,
like a man, instead of sneaking into it by degrees.
There can be no doubt that the effect of the shock
is generally healthy. If Keats had really been
slain by an article, it would perhaps have been
as well that he should take his poison in one
dose, instead of collecting it drop by drop. A
series of snubs from kind friends would be even
more depressing to most men than one public
slap in the face. In fact, we doubt whether any
one example can be given in which public
criticism can really be shown to have produced
evils that would not have arisen equally when
each man was his own critic.
It may be contended that criticism establishes
a standard of taste which improves the inferior
intellects, but is a check to the most energetic.
Reviewing is thus considered, not as produc-
ing individual hardships, but as a visible and
outward manifestation of a force which imper-
ceptibly tends to level society at large. To
consider this question would involve a con-
sideration of the merits and weaknesses of our
civilization—a subject of some extent. We can
only state our impression that an examination of
this particular case would go to prove that this
general complaint is capable of an answer.
We should find that the establishment of an
empire of public opinion is, in some aspects,
even favourable to vigour and originality.
However that may be, we should have estab-
lished sufficiently the claims of reviewers to the
180
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
gratitude of the greater part of mankind in
identifying their influence with what are called,
rightly or wrongly, the most progressive ten-
dencies of the age. An historical review of
their achievements in past times would finally
confirm their rank as benefactors of mankind.
A list of the follies destroyed, of the prejudices.
overcome, and of the original power brought
out in different journals, from the days of the
Journal des Sçavans to those of the Quarterly
and Edinburgh or the Revue des Deux Mondes,
would be a record of all the great improve-
ments of two centuries.
THE END.
Recently Published, in 1 vol. sq. 8vo. cloth gilt, toned paper, price 58.
POEMS:
BY
G. WASHINGTON MOON, F. R. S. L.,
AUTHOR OF THE DEAN'S ENGLISH".
Extracts from Reviews.
"G. Washington Moon, Esq., who rendered
himself so famous by his controversies on gram-
matical disputations, has just published a book
of poems.
A brilliant work of his, entitled
A Defence of the Queen's English', a letter
to the Dean of Canterbury, will doubtless be
remembered by all those who delight in sharp
and clever criticism, as being by far the best
work, in that department of English literature,
published this year; every one allowed that the
Dean decidedly got the worst of it in the wordy
warfare. Mr. Moon, mighty in prose, is still
mightier in poetry, and these beautiful poems
must touch the chords of the roughest heart
with their plaintive notes ".-Cambridge Inde-
pendent Press.
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
'We sincerely admire the spirit which must
have dictated these pretty little poems, and we
can scarcely forbear to express surprise that
the same mind from which emanated the clever
and trenchant ‘Defence of the Queen's English'
should, when brought into the region of senti-
ment, be so tender and so good. Love to God
and man pervades every verse".-The Weekly
Review.
"Mr. Moon will, of course, expect the com-
position of any volume of his to be closely and
severely scrutinised. A man who ventures to
correct the Queen's English' of a Dean, should
at least be immaculate in his own.
This test,
so far as we have been able to discover, this
volume will bear. It is the production of a
scholar and an accomplished writer".-Pa-
triot.
"This gentleman is the able and humorous
opponent of Dean Alford in the battle lately
waged in defence of the Queen's English. His
poems are short fugitive pieces, marked by an
easy flow of language, and much purity of
thought and feeling."-Press.
"They are replete with amiable sentiments,
and if a decidedly religious feeling pervades.
them, it is the emanation from a religion of
love and charity in its widest acceptance".-
Kent Herald.
These poems show a cultivated mind, and
considerable command of language, and incul-
cate good and kindly lessons ".-John Bull.
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS.
There is here some good poetry and some
good poetic prose ".-British and Foreign
Evangelical Review.
"This elegant little volume contains good
and spirited verse".-London Quarterly Review.
“This is a beautifully printed collection of
short poetical pieces of considerable merit".-
Liverpool Albion.
They breathe, in well-chosen diction, the
true spirit of Christianity".-Musical Standard.
"Far above mediocrity".-Morning Adver-
tiser.
J. FLETCHER, PRINTER, NORWICH.

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
? 9015 03573 2695
DO NOT REMOVE
OR
MUTILATE CARD