their faults.  All of them are whimsically conceived and badly written.  In short, had the author artfully designed to turn English grammar into a subject of contempt and ridicule, by as ugly a caricature of it as he could possibly invent, he could never have hit the mark more exactly than he has done in this “new theory”—­this rash production, on which he so sincerely prides himself.  Alone as he is, in well-nigh all his opinions, behold how prettily he talks of “COMMON SENSE, the only sure foundation of any theory!” and says, “On this imperishable foundation—­this rock of eternal endurance—­I rear my superstructure, the edifice of scientific truth, the temple of Grammatical consistency!”—­Peirce’s Preface, p. 7.

OBS. 13.—­For the teaching of different languages, it has been thought very desirable to have “a Series of grammars, Greek, Latin, English, &c., all, so far as general principles are concerned, upon the same plan, and as nearly in the same words as the genius of the languages would permit.”—­See Bullions’s Principles of E. Gram., 2d Ed., pp. iv and vi.  This scheme necessarily demands a minute comparison not only of the several languages themselves, but also of the various grammars in which their principles, whether general or particular, are developed.  For by no other means can it be ascertained to what extent uniformity of this kind will be either profitable to the learner, or consistent with truth.  Some books have been published, which, it is pretended, are thus accommodated to one an other, and to the languages of which they treat.  But, in view of the fact, that the Latin or the Greek grammars now extant, (to say nothing of the French, Spanish, and others,) are almost as various and as faulty as the English, I am apprehensive that this is a desideratum not soon to be realized,—­a design more plausible in the prospectus, than feasible in the attempt.  At any rate, the grammars of different languages must needs differ as much as do the languages themselves, otherwise some of their principles will of course be false; and we have already seen that the nonobservance of this has been a fruitful source of error in respect to English syntax.  The achievement, however, is not altogether impossible, if a man of competent learning will devote to it a sufficient degree of labour.  But the mere revising or altering of some one grammar in each language, can scarcely amount to any thing more than a pretence of improvement.  Waiving the pettiness of compiling upon the basis of an other man’s compilation, the foundation of a good grammar for any language, must be both deeper and broader than all the works which Professor Bullions has selected to build upon:  for the Greek, than Dr. Moor’s “Elementa Linguae, Graecae;” for the Latin, than Dr. Adam’s “Rudiments of Latin and English Grammar;” for the English, than Murray’s “English Grammar,” or Lennie’s “Principles of English Grammar;” which last work, in fact, the learned gentleman preferred, though he pretends to have mended the code of Murray.  But, certainly, Lennie never supposed himself a copyist of Murray; nor was he to much extent an imitator of him, either in method or in style.