The truth is, that, however forms of spelling varied, (as they must where both writers and printers spelt phonographically,) the forms of grammatical construction were as strict then as now.  There were some differences of usage, as where two nominatives coupled by a conjunction severally governed the verb, and where certain nouns in the plural were joined with a verb in the singular,—­as dealings, doings, tidings, odds, and as is still the case with news.  It is not impossible that the French termination in esse helped to make the confusion.  We have in the opposite way made a plural of riches, which was once singular.  Some persons used the strong preterites, and some the weak,—­some said snew, thew, sew, and some snowed, thawed, sowed.  Bishop Latimer used the preterite shew, which Mr. Bartlett, in his “Dictionary of Americanisms,” pronounces to be the shibboleth of Bostonians.  But such differences were orthoepic, and not syntactic.

We regret Mr. White’s glossological excursions the more because they are utterly supererogatory, and because they seem to imply a rashness of conclusion which can very seldom be laid to his charge as respects the text.  He volunteers, without the least occasion for it, an opinion that abye and abide are the same word, (which they are not,) suggests that vile and vild (whose etymology, he says, is obscure) may be related to the Anglo-Saxon hyldan, and tells us that dom is Anglo-Saxon for house.  He pronounces ex cathedra that besides is only a vulgar form of beside, though the question is still sub judice, and though the language has contrived adverbial and prepositional forms out of the distinction, as it has, in the case of the compounds with ward and wards, adverbial and adjectival ones.[J] He declares that the distinction between shall and will was imperfectly known in Shakspeare’s time, though we believe it would not be difficult to prove that the distinction was more perfect in some respects than now.  We the less value his opinion on these points as he himself shows an incomplete perception of the difference between would and should. (See Vol.  V. pp. 114, 115, “We would now say, ’all liveliness,’” and “We would now write, ‘the traits of,’” etc.) He says that the pronunciation commandement was already going out of use two centuries and a half ago.  Mr. Pegge speaks of it as a common Cockneyism at the beginning of this century.  Sometimes this hastiness, however, affects the value of an elucidatory note, as where he tells us that a principality is “an angel of the highest rank next to divinity” [deity], and quotes St. Paul, breaking off the passage at the word in question.  But St. Paul goes on to say powers,—­and there were, in fact, three orders of angels above the principalities, the highest being the Seraphim.  An editor should be silent or correct, especially where there is no need of saying anything.