We regret Mr. White's glossological excursions the more because they are utterly supererogatory, and because they seem to imply a rashness of conclusion which can very seldom be laid to his charge as respects the text. He volunteers, without the least occasion for it, an opinion that _abye_ and _abide_ are the same word, (which they are not,) suggests that _vile_ and _vild_ (whose etymology, he says, is obscure) may be related to the Anglo-Saxon _hyldan_, and tells us that _dom_ is Anglo-Saxon for house. He pronounces _ex cathedrâ_ that _besides_ is only a vulgar form of _beside_, though the question is still _sub judice_, and though the language has contrived adverbial and prepositional forms out of the distinction, as it has, in the case of the compounds with _ward_ and _wards_, adverbial and adjectival ones.[J] He declares that the distinction between _shall_ and _will_ was imperfectly known in Shakspeare's time, though we believe it would not be difficult to prove that the distinction was more perfect in some respects than now. We the less value his opinion on these points as he himself shows an incomplete perception of the difference between _would_ and _should_. (See Vol. V. pp. 114, 115, "We _would_ now say, 'all liveliness,'" and "We _would_ now write, 'the traits of,'" etc.) He says that the pronunciation _commandèment_ was already going out of use two centuries and a half ago. Mr. Pegge speaks of it as a common Cockneyism at the beginning of this century. Sometimes this hastiness, however, affects the value of an elucidatory note, as where he tells us that a principality is "an angel of the highest rank next to divinity" [deity], and quotes St. Paul, breaking off the passage at the word in question. But St. Paul goes on to say _powers_,--and there were, in fact, three orders of angels above the principalities, the highest being the Seraphim. An editor should be silent or correct, especially where there is no need of saying anything. [Footnote J: It is singular, if the _s_ be a corruption, that the Germans should have fallen into the same in their _vorwärts_ and _rückwärts_. We are inclined to conjecture the _s_ a genitival one, supplying the place of a missing _of_ and _von_ respectively. We formerly said, "of this side," "of that side," etc.; but the idiomatic sense of _of_ is so entirely lost, that Mr. Craik (_English of Shakspeare_) actually supposes _o'clock_ and _o'nights_ to be contractions of "_on_ the clock," "_on_ nights," and that, although we still say habitually, "_of_ late," "_of_ old." The French use of _de_, and the Italian of _di_, is parallel. The Italians have also their _avanti_ and _davante_, and no one forgets Dante's "Di quà, di là, di su, dí giù, gli mena." ]