d ever willingly throw himself upon the horns of such a
dilemma! The nature and design _of a book_, whatever they may be, are
matters for which the author alone is answerable; but the nature and design
_of grammar_, are no less repugnant to the strain of this apology, than to
the vast number of errors and defects which were overlooked by Murray in
his work of compilation. It is the express purpose of this practical
science, to enable a man to write well himself. He that cannot do this,
exhibits no excess of modesty when he claims to have "done all that could
reasonably be expected in a work of this nature."--_L. Murray's Gram.,
Introd._, p. 9. He that sees with other men's eyes, is peculiarly liable to
errors and inconsistencies: uniformity is seldom found in patchwork, or
accuracy in secondhand literature. Correctness of language is in the mind,
rather than in the hand or the tongue; and, in order to secure it, some
originality of thought is necessary. A delineation from new surveys is not
the less original because the same region has been sketched before; and how
can he be the ablest of surveyors, who, through lack of skill or industry,
does little more than transcribe the field-notes and copy the projections
of his predecessors?

14. This author's oversights are numerous. There is no part of the volume
more accurate than that which he literally copied from Lowth. To the Short
Introduction alone, he was indebted for more than a hundred and twenty
paragraphs; and even in these there are many things obviously erroneous.
Many of the best practical notes were taken from Priestley; yet it was he,
at whose doctrines were pointed most of those "positions and discussions,"
which alone the author claims as original. To some of these reasonings,
however, his own alterations may have given rise; for, where he "persuades
himself he is not destitute of originality," he is often arguing against
the text of his own earlier editions. Webster's well-known complaints of
Murray's unfairness, had a far better cause than requital; for there was no
generosity in ascribing them to peevishness, though the passages in
question were not worth copying. On perspicuity and accuracy, about sixty
pages were extracted from Blair; and it requires no great critical acumen
to discover, that they are miserably deficient in both. On the law of
language, there are fifteen pages from Campbell; which, with a few
exceptions, are well written. The rules for spe