[Sidenote: _Making rules is risky_.]

It is also evident, to those who have studied the language
historically, that it is very hazardous to make rules in grammar: what
is at present regarded as correct may not be so twenty years from now,
even if our rules are founded on the keenest scrutiny of the
"standard" writers of our time. Usage is varied as our way of thinking
changes. In Chaucer's time two or three negatives were used to
strengthen a negation; as, "Ther _nas no_ man _nowher_ so vertuous"
(There never was no man nowhere so virtuous). And Shakespeare used
good English when he said _more elder_ ("Merchant of Venice") and
_most unkindest_ ("Julius Cæsar"); but this is bad English now.

If, however, we have tabulated the inflections of the language, and
stated what syntax is the most used in certain troublesome places,
there is still much for the grammarian to do.

[Sidenote: _A broader view_.]

Surely our noble language, with its enormous vocabulary, its peculiar
and abundant idioms, its numerous periphrastic forms to express every
possible shade of meaning, is worthy of serious study, apart from the
mere memorizing of inflections and formulation of rules.

[Sidenote: _Mental training. An æsthetic benefit._]

Grammar is eminently a means of mental training; and while it will
train the student in subtle and acute reasoning, it will at the same
time, if rightly presented, lay the foundation of a keen observation
and a correct literary taste. The continued contact with the highest