OBS. 23.—­On this point.  Bullions and Brace, two American copyists and plagiarists of Lennie, adopt opposite notions.  The latter copies the foregoing note, without the last sentence; that is, without admitting that “than whom” has ever been used by good writers.  See Brace’s Gram., p. 90.  The former says, “The relative usually follows than in the objective case, even when the nominative goes before; as, ’Alfred, than whom a greater king never reigned.’  This anomaly it is difficult to explain.  Most probably, than, at first had the force of a preposition, which it now retains only when followed by the relative.”—­Bullions, E. Gram., of 1843, p. 112.  Again:  “A relative after than is put in the objective case; as, ‘Satan, than whom none higher sat.’  This anomaly has not been satisfactorily explained.  In this case, some regard than as a preposition. It is probably only a case of simple enallage”—­Bullions, Analyt. and Pract.  Gram., of 1849, p. 191.  Prof.  Fowler, in his great publication, of 1850, says of this example, “The expression should be, Satan, than who None higher sat.”—­Fowler’s E. Gram., Sec.482, Note 2.  Thus, by one single form of antiptosis, have our grammarians been as much divided and perplexed, as were the Latin grammarians by a vast number of such changes; and, since there were some among the latter, who insisted on a total rejection of the figure, there is no great presumption in discarding, if we please, the very little that remains of it in English.

OBS. 24.—­Peirce’s new theory of grammar rests mainly on the assumption, that no correct sentence ever is, or can be, in any wise, elliptical.  This is one of the “Two GRAND PRINCIPLES” on which the author says his “work is based.”—­The Grammar, p. 10.  The other is, that grammar cannot possibly be taught without a thorough reformation of its nomenclature, a reformation involving a change of most of the names and technical terms heretofore used for its elucidation.  I do not give precisely his own words, for one half of this author’s system is expressed in such language as needs to be translated into English in order to be generally understood; but this is precisely his meaning, and in words more intelligible.  In what estimation he holds these two positions, may be judged from the following assertion:  “Without these grand points, no work, whatever may be its pretensions, can be A GRAMMAR of the LANGUAGE.”—­Ib. It follows that no man who does not despise every other book that is called a grammar, can entertain any favourable opinion of Peirce’s.  The author however is tolerably consistent.  He not only scorns to appeal, for the confirmation of his own assertions and rules, to the judgement or practice of any other writer, but counsels the learner to “spurn the idea of quoting, either as proof or for defence,