1.  The real history of grammar is little known; and many erroneous impressions are entertained concerning it:  because the story of the systems most generally received has never been fully told; and that of a multitude now gone to oblivion was never worth telling.  In the distribution of grammatical fame, which has chiefly been made by the hand of interest, we have had a strange illustration of the saying:  “Unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him that hath not, shall be taken away even that which he hath.”  Some whom fortune has made popular, have been greatly overrated, if learning and talent are to be taken into the account; since it is manifest, that with no extraordinary claims to either, they have taken the very foremost rank among grammarians, and thrown the learning and talents of others into the shade, or made them tributary to their own success and popularity.

2.  It is an ungrateful task to correct public opinion by showing the injustice of praise.  Fame, though it may have been both unexpected and undeserved, is apt to be claimed and valued as part and parcel of a man’s good name; and the dissenting critic, though ever-so candid, is liable to be thought an envious detractor.  It would seem in general most prudent to leave mankind to find out for themselves how far any commendation bestowed on individuals is inconsistent with truth.  But, be it remembered, that celebrity is not a virtue; nor, on the other hand, is experience the cheapest of teachers.  A good man may not have done all things ably and well; and it is certainly no small mistake to estimate his character by the current value of his copy-rights.  Criticism may destroy the reputation of a book, and not be inconsistent with a cordial respect for the private worth of its author.  The reader will not be likely to be displeased with what is to be stated in this chapter, if he can believe, that no man’s merit as a writer, may well be enhanced by ascribing to him that which he himself, for the protection of his own honour, has been constrained to disclaim.  He cannot suppose that too much is alleged, if he will admit that a grammarian’s fame should be thought safe enough in his own keeping.  Are authors apt to undervalue their own performances?  Or because proprietors and publishers may profit by the credit of a book, shall it be thought illiberal to criticise it?  Is the author himself to be disbelieved, that the extravagant praises bestowed upon him may be justified?  “Superlative commendation,” says Dillwyn, “is near akin to detraction.” (See his Reflections, p. 22.) Let him, therefore, who will charge detraction upon me, first understand wherein it consists.  I shall criticise, freely, both the works of the living, and the doctrines of those who, to us, live only in their works; and if any man dislike this freedom, let him rebuke it, showing wherein it is wrong or unfair.  The amiable author just quoted, says again:  “Praise has so often proved an impostor, that it would be well, wherever we meet with it, to treat it as a vagrant.”—­Ib., p. 100.  I go not so far as this; but that eulogy which one knows to be false, he cannot but reckon impertinent.