The Sun.
London, England, 1868-09-24 00:00:00

BAD ENGLISH OF ENGLISH TVRI7ERS.

(From the Anglo-American Times.)
Those in the habit of reading the American news-
papers must, a few months ago, have seen a series
of criticisms by Mr. G. 'Washington Moon in the
Nation, and chiefly in the Round Table; first, on
the Hon. George P. Marsh's " Essays," and after-
wards on Edward S. Gould's " Good Englizh." This
book is a collection of these essays, together with
five on Lindley Murray. There are many who
turned impatiently from the length of the news-
paper controversy, appalled by disquisitions on
" shall," " only," and the use of such words, who,
in this shape, will read these criticisms with inte-
rest, instruction, and what may perhaps surprise—
with great amusement. The truth is that no man
writes English which a keen and learned critic can-
not riddle if the writing be stuck up for him as a

target, and " Bad English" is an amusing proof of
this fact. We are accustomed from our childhood

_
to regard Lindley Murray as the test by which to
try the correctness of English composition. To
prove Lindley Murray himself to have written un-
grammatically is to demolish our foundation. But
when we follow Mr. Moon's criticisms, we see that

Lindley Murray broke his own rules, and is, there-
fore, condemned by himself. Lindley Murray did
not enunciate false doctrine ; what he did was

clearly to lay down the rules of grammar, and pro-
ceed straightway to infringe them. lie was per-
fect iu theory, but faulty in practice, and if Lindley

Murray has so erred, what chance have any of us
—the host of scribblers, more especially newspaper
scribblers—to escape the writing of sentences through
which men like Mr. Moon could, if they chose, drive
a coach and six. , When what is written is carPfully
analysed, the authors are amazed to find so many
errors in so small a space, and those who hug them-
selves most complacently and with full confidence
in the purity of their diction and its freedom from
error, are often the greatest blunderers. Mr. Moon
follows no small game. The first man he attacks
is, as we have said, Lindley Murray, but as the
grammarian is dead and gone and Mr. Moon dearly
loves a fight, he selects the living writers on the
English language. Some time ago he published a
1 series of criticisms on the Dean of Canterbury's

" Essays on the Queen's English," and having de
molished the British champion who undertook a
reform among English authors, he turned to
America. The Dean, who we presume, from the
cloisters of Canterbury desired to correct the abuse
he witnessed of our mother tongue, was found
under the severe test to be tripping at every step,
and utterly unqualified for the task to which he had
elected himself. Giving way before his critic he
made a host of alterations and corrections in his book.
At that time Mr. Marsh was contributing to the
.Aration a series of articles on the new edition of
Webster's Dictionary, and here was an opportunity
for Mr. Moon. But Mr. Marsh would not fight,
and Mr. S. only, offered himself, who proved alto-
gether too tame and unworthy the lance of the re-
doubtable knight errant of the Englishlanguage. Mr.
Moon was able to extract no more from him than the
use of a noun in three totally different senses in one
criticism. Mr. Moon adds, "If that were not enough
he makes confusion more confounded by prefixing to
the noun when next he uses it such an adjective
that his description of a term in grammar is iden-
tical with the storekeepers' hackneyed description of
his wares. I speak of facts. The Hon. G. P.
Marsh's champion, Mr. S. of Trinity College, for I
have not yet finished with him, tells us not only of
•an ' article' (a criticism) upon the article' (a or
an); hut, after mentioning grocers and druggists,
and their articles' (of commerce), speaks of the
little word an' as " a genuine article' ! " But we
must hurry over the criticisms on Mr. Marsh, for his
champion, Mr. S., is not of that pugnacious dispo-
sition from which fun can be extracted, and we be-
lieve the world looks more for fun than for instruction.
Mr. S., and the critic, finally bid each other good
bye, shook hand;—anal parted. Then, with a loud
flourish of trumpets—another champion enters the
lists. It will be observed that it was not Mr. S.'s
work that Mr. Moon was criticising ; that the end
might then have been different may be shown by
the result of the approaching combat. Nothing can
exceed the civility of both gladiators. The most
punctilious Frenchmen met for a duel could not
waived every advan-
tagehavemoe
of
weapon,
e
gracefully
saluted b bowed, w
we i
t h
the most profound
ended by dashing the
hapiiptseaerfatnhcee of
their weapons
w respecteaponsi dnatnoeaeh
other's faces. No-
thing is too polite to say at first; nothing too bad
to say at last ; and although AIL% Moon never de-
scends from the tone of a gentleman, he certainly
o practices
tlie
g controversy bya
insinuating very mean
gonist, and that he is not
remarkable for veracity.
c closes
ainst h ie
antagonist,
t
Nor is Mr. Gould one
whit behind ; in fact, he is, in this respect, in ad-
vance of his antagonist. What Mr. Gould finally
said we cannot tell, for we have lest the very sheet
of the Round Table which was the last column the
editor gave to the controversy. But we have be-
fore us the number of January 4, 1868, wherein
Mr. Gould leaves it to " the readers of the Round
Table to draw their own conclusions as to Mr.
Moon's claims to the character of a gentleman."
Turning to the first criticism on Mr. Edward
Moon says, " There is in it much to be commended,
S. Gould's " good English," we find that Mr.
much for which we owe him our thanks. His re-
probation of errors, common to the current litera-
ture of the day, is
timely and valuable ; but far
more so is the evidence which he brings forward
that even our careful writers are sometimes off
their guard—himself among the number." After
Mr. Gould's laudatory remarks on "The Dean's
English," Mr. Moon feared that adverse criticism
of " Good English" would be considered discourte-
ous ; but he judges it to be necessary, and he hopes
that Mr. Gould will accept what he writes as a mild
rebuke for carelessness, and couple it with the fact that
he acknowledges much that is excellent in his work.
First, he shows from " Good English, or Popular
Errors in Language" that the author of such a work
may fairly be held responsible for every error it
contains, and that extreme carelessness is in these
instances hardly to be excused. On the contrary
errors in grammar are not to be wondered at in
hastily-written contributions to journals ; " but
that there should be in treatises on those errors the
identical faults which those treatises are written to
condemn, is a circumstance well calculated to impress
all students of the language with the necessity for in
creased vigilance." If Mr. Moon really imagined that
the wrath of Mr. Gould would not be aroused, he
must have a much better knowledge of the English
language than of human nature, for we can hardly
conceive anything more calculated to excite intense
indignation,
and indignation which would be in
proportion to Mr. Moon's success. What he un-
dertook to do was, simply to show that one who
put himself forward as a teacher required to be
taualit ; that a scholar who publicly criticised the
faults of others was himself in the maze of error
from which he professed to lead the others; in one
word, though not an impostor, he was blindly self-
deluded ! Lindley Murray was dead, and therefore
could not make a public display of his anger. We
do not know how the Dan took his punishment,
but we do know how Mr. Gould comported himself
on the occ.lsion, and it was in conformity with what
we anticipated. Ile grew more and more angry, and
Mr. Moon did not quite keep his temper—so, on the
whole, it was as well that the gentlemen were se-
parated by the broad Atlantic. "He is not a hard
taskmaster," says Mr. Moon•—" one requiring me to
make bricks without straw ; he givesme plenty of the
latter material (errors) ; and knowing that it has
been only " superficially" thrashed, expects that I
shall thrash it thoroughly. His expectation shall
not be disappointed, nor shall any of his straw be