have hazarded no conjecture, nor have given any explanation of obscure points, inconsistent with the general sense of Scripture, which must be our guide in all dubious passages.' Gilpin. It ought to be: 'and have given no explanation;' or, 'I have neither hazarded any conjecture, nor given any explanation.' The use of or after neither is as common, as that of nor after no or not.[429] 'Neither the pencil or poetry are adequate.' Coxe. Properly, 'Neither the pencil nor poetry is adequate.' 'The vow of poverty allowed the Jesuits individually, to have no idea of wealth.' Dornford. We cannot allow a nonentity. It should be: 'did not allow, to have any idea.'"--Ib., p. 333.
OBS. 21.--Thus we see that Churchill wholly and positively condemns nor after not, no, or never; while Burn totally disapproves of or, under the same circumstances. Both of these critics are wrong, because each carries his point too far; and yet it may not be right, to suppose both particles to be often equally good. Undoubtedly, a negation may be repeated in English without impropriety, and that in several different ways: as, "There is no living, none, if Bertram be away."--Beauties of Shak., p. 3. "Great men are not always wise, neither do the aged [always] understand judgement."--Job, xxxii, 9. "Will he esteem thy riches? no, not gold, nor all the forces of strength."--Job, xxxiv. 19. Some sentences, too, require or, and others nor, even when a negative occurs in a preceding clause; as, "There was none of you that convinced Job, or that answered his words."--Job, xxxii, 12. "How much less to him that accepteth not the persons of princes nor regardeth the rich more than the poor."--Job, xxxiv, 19. "This day is holy unto the Lord your God; mourn not, nor weep."--Neh., viii, 9. "Men's behaviour should be like their apparel, not too straight or point-de-vise, but free for exercise."--Ld. Bacon. Again, the mere repetition of a simple negative is, on some occasions, more agreeable than the insertion of any connective; as, "There is no darkness, nor shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves."--Job, xxxiv, 22. Better: "There is no darkness, no shadow of death, wherein the workers of iniquity may hide themselves." "No place nor any object appears to him void of beauty."--Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 255. Better: "No place, no object, appears to him void of beauty." That passage from Milton which Burn supposes to be faulty, and that expression of Addison's which Churchill dislikes, are, in my opinion, not incorrect as they stand; though, doubtless, the latter admits of the variation proposed. In the former, too, or may twice be changed to nor, where the following nouns are nominatives; but to change it throughout, would not be well, because the other nouns are objectives governed by of:
"Seasons return, but not to me returns Day, nor the sweet approach of ev'n or morn, Nor sight of vernal bloom, or summer's rose, Or flocks, or herds, or human face divine."
OBS. 22.--Ever and never are directly opposite to each other in sense, and yet they are very frequently confounded and misapplied, and that by highly respectable writers; as, "Seldom, or never can we expect," &c.--Blair's Lectures, p. 305. "And seldom, or ever, did any one rise, &c."--Ib., p. 272. "Seldom, or never, is[430] there more than one accented syllable in any English word."--Ib., p. 329. "Which that of the present seldom or ever is understood to be."--Dr. Murray's Hist. of Lang., Vol. ii, p. 120. Here never is right, and ever is wrong. It is time, that is here spoken of; and the affirmative ever, meaning always, or at any time, in stead of being a fit alternative for seldom, makes nonsense of the sentence, and violates the rule respecting the order and fitness of time: unless we change or to if, and say, "seldom, if ever." But in sentences like the following, the adverb appears to express, not time, but degree; and for the latter sense ever is preferable to never, because the degree ought to be possible, rather than impossible: "Ever so little of the spirit of martyrdom is always a more favourable indication to civilization, than ever so much dexterity of party management, or ever so turbulent protestation of immaculate patriotism."--Wayland's Moral Science, p. 411. "Now let man reflect but never so little on himself."--Burlamaqui, on Law, p. 29. "Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely."--Ps., lviii, 5. The phrase ever so, (which ought, I think, to be written as one word,) is now a very common expression to signify in whatsoever degree; as, "everso little,"--"everso much,"--"everso wise,"--"everso wisely." And it is manifestly this, and not time, that is intended by the false phraseology above;--"a form of speech handed down by the best writers, but lately accused, I think with justice, of solecism. *
- * It can only be defended by supplying a very harsh and unprecedented
ellipsis."--Johnson's Dict., w. Never.
OBS. 23.--Dr. Lowth seconds this opinion of Johnson, respecting the phrase, "never so wisely," and says, "It should be, 'ever so wisely;' that is, 'how wisely soever.'" To which he adds an other example somewhat different: "'Besides, a slave would not have been admitted into that society, had he had never such opportunities.' Bentley."--Lowth's Gram., p. 109. This should be, "had he had everso excellent opportunities." But Churchill, mistaking the common explanation of the meaning of everso for the manner of parsing or resolving it, questions the propriety of the term, and thinks it easier to defend the old phrase never so; in which he supposes never to be an adverb of time, and not to relate to so, which is an adverb of degree; saying, "'Be it never so true,' is resolvable into, 'Be it so true, as never any thing was.'[431] 'I have had never so much
