"affectation"--the needed letters being in the last case interlined.
Except as regards punctuation, no similar errors occur in any manuscript
from Washington's hand, either in youth or age. Another reason for
supposing that he may have been following an instructor is the excessive
abbreviation. It was by no means characteristic of Washington to
suppress details, but here his condensation sometimes deprives maxims of
something of their force, if not of their sense. _E.g._, Rule 59: "Never
express anything unbecoming, nor Act against the Rules Moral before your
inferiours." _Cf._ Hawkins: "Never expresse anything unbeseeming, nor
act against the Rules morall, before thy inferiours, for in these
things, thy own guilt will multiply Crimes by example, and as it were,
confirme Ill by authority." And "Shift not yourself in the sight of
others" hardly does duty for the precept, "It is insufferable
impoliteness to stretch the body, extend the arms, and assume different
postures." There are, however, but few instances in which the sense of
the original has been lost; indeed, the rendering of the Washington MS.
is generally an improvement on the original, which is too diffuse, and
even more an improvement on the Hawkins version.

Indeed, although Washington was precocious,--a surveyor at
seventeen,--it would argue qualities not hitherto ascribed to him were
we to suppose that, along with his faulty grammar and spelling, he was
competent at fourteen for such artistic selection and prudent omission
as are shown by a comparison of his 110 Rules with the 170 much longer
ones of the English version. The omission of religious passages, save
the very general ones with which the Rules close, and of all scriptural
ones, is equally curious whether we refer the Rules to young Washington
or to the Rector who taught him. But it would be of some significance if
we suppose the boy to have omitted the precept to live "peeceably in
that vocation unto which providence hath called thee;" and still more