overthrew a literary idol, without provoking the anger of its worshipers.”—­Philological Museum, Vol. i, p. 489.  The certificates given in commendation of this “set of opinions,” though they had no extensive effect on the public, showed full well that the signers knew little of the history of grammar; and it is the continual repetition of such things, that induces me now to dwell upon its history, for the information of those who are so liable to be deceived by exploded errors republished as novelties.  A eulogist says of Cardell, “He had adopted a set of opinions, which, to most of his readers, appeared entirely new." A reviewer proved, that all his pretended novelties are to be found in certain grammars now forgotten, or seldom read.  The former replies, Then he [Cardell,] is right—­and the man is no less stupid than abusive, who finds fault; for here is proof that the former “had highly respectable authority for almost every thing he has advanced!”—­See The Friend, Vol. ii, pp. 105 and 116, from which all the quotations in this paragraph, except one, are taken.

25.  The reader may now be curious to know what these doctrines were.  They were summed up by the reviewer, thus:  “Our author pretends to have drawn principally from his own resources, in making up his books; and many may have supposed there is more novelty in them than there really is.  For instance:  1.  He classes the articles with adjectives; and so did Brightland, Tooke, Fisher, Dalton, and Webster. 2.  He calls the participles, adjectives; and so did Brightland and Tooke. 3.  He make the pronouns, either nouns or adjectives; and so did Adam, Dalton, and others. 4.  He distributes the conjunctions among the other parts of speech; and so did Tooke. 5.  He rejects the interjections; and so did Valla, Sanctius, and Tooke. 6.  He makes the possessive case an adjective; and so did Brightland. 7.  He says our language has no cases; and so did Harris. 8.  He calls case, position; and so did James Brown. 9.  He reduces the adjectives to two classes, defining and describing; and so did Dalton. 10.  He declares all verbs to be active; and so did Harris, (in his Hermes, Book i, Chap. ix,) though he admitted the expediency of the common division, and left to our author the absurdity of contending about it.  Fisher also rejected the class of neuter verbs, and called them all active. 11.  He reduces the moods to three, and the tenses to three; and so did Dalton, in the very same words.  Fisher also made the tenses three, but said there are no moods in English. 12.  He makes the imperative mood always future; and so did Harris, in 1751.  Nor did the doctrine originate with him; for Brightland, a hundred years ago, [about 1706,] ascribed it to some of his predecessors. 13.  He reduces the whole of our syntax to about thirty lines; and two thirds of these are useless; for Dr. Johnson expressed it quite as fully in ten.  But their explanations are both good for nothing; and Wallis, more wisely, omitted it altogether.”—­The Friend, Vol. ii, p. 59.