I had collected for an appendix various grammatical peculiarities of the age; but they increased the number of pages, and therefore the price of the book, without, as seemed to me, sufficient cause, more especially as the reader can readily consult Dr. Abbot’s _Shakesperian Grammar_, as well as notices in other books. One point, however, ought to be attended to. Though an educated and University man, accustomed to Latin and Greek, he, like all of his time, followed the then frequent habit of using singular verbs after plural nominatives not immediately preceding them. A close examination of these, both in Scot and Greene, another literate and Utriusque Academiæ in Artibus Magister; and one notable one in Ben Jonson, who elsewhere, so far as I know, avoids this error; as well as those in Shakespeare and others, have shown me that they cannot be explained as is sought in Dr. Abbot’s _Shakesperian Grammar_, § 333, where the form of the verb is held to be a remnant of the northern early English third person plural in “s”. The instances alone of the auxiliary verbs so used set this theory aside, and show that the custom was due to carelessness, habit, the remoteness or after position of the true nominatives, and to the nearness of another word, sometimes even to a transposed objective; or of a “that” or “which” that had the look of a singular, or in the case of a double nominative, to both words being considered as implying one thought, as indeed they often did, being merely synonyms. Our Elizabethan ancestors would have said: “Pity and compassion moves me,” because they held pity and compassion were one and the same; and the habit of using Saxon and Latin, or other synonyms, led them to use the same construction when the meanings were but allied. This seems to me the more likely explanation: but the reader may prefer this—that our ancestors took the phrase to be elliptical, and that the verb really employed after both substantives was to be understood after the first and before the “and”.