14.  Whatever any may think of their own ability, or however some might flout to find their errors censured or their pretensions disallowed; whatever improvement may actually have been made, or however fondly we may listen to boasts and felicitations on that topic; it is presumed, that the general ignorance on the subject of grammar, as above stated, is too obvious to be denied.  What then is the remedy? and to whom must our appeal be made?  Knowledge cannot be imposed by power, nor is there any domination in the republic of letters.  The remedy lies solely in that zeal which can provoke to a generous emulation in the cause of literature; and the appeal, which has recourse to the learning of the learned, and to the common sense of all, must be pressed home to conviction, till every false doctrine stand refuted, and every weak pretender exposed or neglected.  Then shall Science honour them that honour her; and all her triumphs be told, all her instructions be delivered, in “sound speech that cannot be condemned.”

15.  A generous man is not unwilling to be corrected, and a just one cannot but desire to be set right in all things.  Even over noisy gainsayers, a calm and dignified exhibition of true docrine [sic—­KTH], has often more influence than ever openly appears.  I have even seen the author of a faulty grammar heap upon his corrector more scorn and personal abuse than would fill a large newspaper, and immediately afterwards, in a new edition of his book, renounce the errors which had been pointed out to him, stealing the very language of his amendments from the man whom he had so grossly vilified!  It is true that grammarians have ever disputed, and often with more acrimony than discretion.  Those who, in elementary treatises, have meddled much with philological controversy, have well illustrated the couplet of Denham:  “The tree of knowledge, blasted by disputes, Produces sapless leaves in stead of fruits.”

16.  Thus, then, as I have before suggested, we find among writers on grammar two numerous classes of authors, who have fallen into opposite errors, perhaps equally reprehensible; the visionaries, and the copyists.  The former have ventured upon too much originality, the latter have attempted too little.  “The science of philology,” says Dr. Alexander Murray, “is not a frivolous study, fit to be conducted by ignorant pedants or visionary enthusiasts.  It requires more qualifications to succeed in it, than are usually united in those who pursue it:—­a sound penetrating judgement; habits of calm philosophical induction; an erudition various, extensive, and accurate; and a mind likewise, that can direct the knowledge expressed in words, to illustrate the nature of the signs which convey it.”—­Murray’s History of European Languages, Vol. ii, p. 333.