"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." Besides, 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 connexion 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 require 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

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 groundthe study of the rules of composition should cramp the expression of the thoughts! Never was there a more groundless apprehension and in proportion as you are successful in disseminating such notions, do you inflict on our language the most serious injury. Fortunately 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 purpose 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

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.

"says Wordsworth, in vindicating the self-imposed bondage of the Sonnet; "and in so saying, he enunciated a principle no less philosophically human than "wide in its application."

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 grammar of his native tongue, wrote as follows: "Whoever in a state knows how to form

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

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 "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 infantry of good authors, that barbarism. "which makes large inroads upon the

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 "mutations are portended in a commonwealth, 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