It seems impossible to prevent writers from using _cui bono?_ in the unclassical sense. The correct meaning is known to be of this nature: suppose that a crime has been committed; then inquire who has gained by the crime—_cui bono?_ for obviously there is a probability that the person benefited was the criminal. The usual sense implied by the quotation is this: What is the good? the question being applied to whatever is for the moment the object of depreciation. Those who use the words incorrectly may, however, shelter themselves under the great name of Leibnitz, for he takes them in the popular sense: see his works, vol. v., p. 206. A very favorite quotation consists of the words “_laudator temporis acti_;” but it should be remembered that it seems very doubtful if these words by themselves would form correct Latin; the _se puero_ which Horace puts after them are required. There is a story, resting on no good authority, that Plato testified to the importance of geometry by writing over his door, “Let no one enter who is not a geometer.” The first word is often given incorrectly, when the Greek words are quoted, the wrong form of the negative being taken. I was surprised to see this blunder about two years since in a weekly review of very high pretensions. It is very difficult in many cases to understand precisely what is attributed to another writer when his opinions are cited in some indirect way. For example, a newspaper critic finishes a paragraph in these words: “unless, indeed, as the _Pall Mall Gazette_ has said that it is immoral to attempt any cure at all.” The doubt here is as to what is the statement of the _Pall Mall Gazette_. It seems to be this: _it is immoral to attempt any cure at all_. But from other considerations foreign to the precise language of the critic, it seemed probable that the statement of the _Pall Mall Gazette_ was, _unless, indeed, it is immoral to attempt any cure at all_. There is a certain vague formula which, though not intended for a quotation, occurs so frequently as to demand notice. Take for example— “... the sciences of logic and ethics, according to the partition of Lord Bacon, are far _more extensive than we are accustomed to consider them_.” No precise meaning is conveyed, because we do not know what is the amount of extension we are accustomed to ascribe to the sciences named. Again: “Our knowledge of Bacon’s method is much less complete than it is _commonly supposed_ to be.” Here again we do not know what is the standard of common supposition. There is another awkwardness here in the words _less complete_: it is obvious that _complete_ does not admit of degrees. Let us close these slight notes with very few specimens of happy expressions.