Octavo Gram., p. 150.  He then proceeds to prove his point, by alleging that the preposition governs the objective case in English, and the ablative in Latin, and that what is so governed, cannot be the nominative, or any part of it.  All this is true enough, but still some men who know it perfectly well, will now and then write as if they did not believe it.  And so it was with the writers of Latin and Greek.  They sometimes wrote bad syntax; and the grammarians have not always seen and censured their errors as they ought.  Since the preposition makes its object only an adjunct of the preceding noun, or of something else, I imagine that any construction which thus assumes two different cases as joint nominatives or joint antecedents, must needs be inherently faulty.

OBS. 19.—­Dr. Adam simply remarks, “The plural is sometimes used after the preposition cum put for et; as, Remo cum fratre Quirinus jura dabunt.  Virg.”—­Latin and English Gram., p. 207; Gould’s Adam’s Latin Gram., p. 204; W.  Allen’s English Gram., 131.  This example is not fairly cited; though many have adopted the perversion, as if they knew no better.  Alexander has it in a worse form still:  “Quirinus, cum fratre, jura dabunt.”—­Latin Gram., p. 47.  Virgil’s words are, “Cana FIDES, et VESTA, Remo cum fratre Quirinus, Jura dabunt.”—­AEneid, B. i, l. 296.  Nor is cum here “put for et,” unless we suppose also an antiptosis of Remo fratre for Remus frater; and then what shall the literal meaning be, and how shall the rules of syntax be accommodated to such changes?  Fair examples, that bear upon the point, may, however, be adduced from good authors, and in various languages; but the question is, are they correct in syntax?  Thus Dr. Robertson:  “The palace of Pizarro, together with the houses of several of his adherents, were pillaged by the soldiers.”—­ Hist. of Amer., Vol. ii, p. 133.  To me, this appears plainly ungrammatical; and, certainly, there are ways enough in which it may be corrected.  First, with the present connective retained, “were” ought to be was.  Secondly, if were be retained, “together with” ought to be changed to and, or and also.  Thirdly, we may well change both, and say, “The palace of Pizarro, as well as the houses of several of his adherents, was pillaged by the soldiers.”  Again, in Mark, ix, 4th, we read:  “And there appeared unto them Elias, with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus.”  If this text meant that the three disciples were talking with Jesus, it would be right as it stands; but St. Matthew has it, “And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias, talking with him;” and our version in Luke is, “And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias.”—­Chap. ix, 30.  By these corresponding texts, then, we