"The herds without a keeper strayed,
The plough was in mid-furrow staid."—Lady of the Lake.
"The eager huntsman knew his bound,
And in mid chase called off his hound."—Ibidem.
OBS. 3.—For the chief points of the compass, we have so many adjectives, and so many modes of varying or comparing them, that it is difficult to tell their number, or to know which to choose in practice. (1.) North, south, east, and west, are familiarly used both as nouns and as adjectives. From these it seems not improper to form superlatives, as above, by adding most; as, "From Aroar to Nebo, and the wild of southmost Abarim."—Milton. "There are no rivulets or springs in the island of Feror, the westmost of the Canaries."—White's Nat. Hist. (2.) These primitive terms may also be compared, in all three of the degrees, by the adverbs farther and farthest, or further and furthest; as, "Which is yet farther west."—Bacon. (3.) Though we never employ as separate words the comparatives norther, souther, easter, wester, we have northerly, southerly, easterly, and westerly, which seem to have been formed from such comparatives, by adding ly; and these four may be compared by the adverbs more and most, or less and least: as, "These hills give us a view of the most easterly, southerly, and westerly parts of England."—GRAUNT: in Joh. Dict. (4.) From these supposed comparatives likewise, some authors form the superlatives northermost, southermost, eastermost, and westermost; as, "From the westermost part of Oyster bay."—Dr. Webster's Hist. U. S., p. 126. "And three miles southward of the southermost part of said bay."—Trumbull's Hist. of Amer., Vol. i, p. 88. "Pockanocket was on the westermost line of Plymouth Colony."—Ib., p. 44. "As far as the northermost branch of the said bay or river."—Ib., p. 127. The propriety of these is at least questionable; and, as they are neither very necessary to the language, nor recognized by any of our lexicographers, I forbear to approve them. (5.) From the four primitives we have also a third series of positives, ending in ern; as, northern, southern, eastern, western. These, though they have no comparatives of their own, not only form superlatives by assuming the termination most, but are sometimes compared, perhaps in both degrees, by a separate use of the adverbs: as, "Southernmost, a. Furthest towards the south."—Webster's Dict. "Until it shall intersect the northernmost part of the thirty-first degree of north latitude."—Articles of Peace. "To the north-westernmost head of Connecticut river."—Ib. "Thence through the said lake to the most north-western point thereof."—Ib.
OBS. 4.—It may be remarked of the comparatives former and latter or hinder, upper and under or nether, inner and outer or utter, after and hither; as well as of the Latin superior and inferior, anterior and posterior, interior and exterior, prior and ulterior, senior and junior, major and minor; that they cannot, like other comparatives, be construed with the conjunction than. After all genuine English comparatives, this conjunction may occur, because it is the only fit word for introducing the latter term of comparison; but we never say one thing is former or latter, superior or inferior, than an other. And so of all the rest here named. Again, no real comparative or superlative can ever need an other superadded to it; but inferior and superior convey ideas that do not always preclude the additional conception of more or less: as, "With respect to high and low notes, pronunciation is still more inferior to singing."—Kames, Elements of Criticism, Vol. ii, p. 73. "The mistakes which the most superior understanding is apt to fall into."—West's Letters to a Young Lady, p. 117.
OBS. 5.—Double comparatives and double superlatives, being in general awkward and unfashionable, as well as tautological, ought to be avoided. Examples: "The Duke of Milan, and his more braver daughter, could control thee."—Shak., Tempest. Say, "his more gallant daughter." "What in me was purchased, falls upon thee in a more fairer sort."—Id., Henry IV. Say, "fairer," or, "more honest;" for "purchased" here means stolen. "Changed to a worser shape thou canst not be."—Id., Hen. VI. Say, "a worse shape"—or, "an uglier shape." "After the most straitest sect of our religion, I lived a Pharisee."—Acts, xxvi, 5. Say, "the strictest sect." "Some say he's mad; others, that lesser hate him, do call it valiant fury."—Shak. Say, "others, that hate him less." In this last example, lesser is used adverbially; in which construction it is certainly incorrect. But against lesser as an adjective, some grammarians have spoken with more severity, than comports with a proper respect for authority. Dr. Johnson says, "LESSER, adj. A barbarous corruption of less, formed by the vulgar from the habit of terminating comparatives in er; afterward adopted by poets, and then by writers of prose, till it has all the authority which a mode originally erroneous can derive from custom."—Quarto Dict. With no great fairness, Churchill quotes this passage as far as the semicolon, and there stops. The position thus taken, he further endeavours to strengthen, by saying, "Worser, though not more barbarous, offends the ear in a much greater degree, because it has not been so frequently used."—New Gram., p. 232. Example: "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night."—Gen., i, 16. Kirkham, after making an imitation of this passage, remarks upon it: "Lesser is as incorrect as badder, gooder, worser."—Gram., p. 77. The judgement of any critic who is ignorant enough to say this, is worthy only of contempt. Lesser is still frequently used by the most tasteful authors, both in verse and prose: as, "It is the glowing style of a man who is negligent of lesser graces."—Blair's Rhet., p. 189.
"Athos, Olympus, Ætna, Atlas, made
These hills seem things of lesser dignity."—Byron.
OBS. 6.—The adjective little is used in different senses; for it contrasts sometimes with great, and sometimes with much. Lesser appears to refer only to size. Hence less and lesser are not always equivalent terms. Lesser means smaller, and contrasts only with greater. Less contrasts sometimes with greater, but oftener with more, the comparative of much; for, though it may mean not so large, its most common meaning is not so much. It ought to be observed, likewise, that less is not an adjective of number,[182] though not unfrequently used as such. It does not mean fewer, and is therefore not properly employed in sentences like the following: "In all verbs, there are no less than three things implied at once."—Blair's Rhet., p. 81. "Smaller things than three," is nonsense; and so, in reality, is what the Doctor here says. Less is not the proper opposite to more, when more is the comparative of many: few, fewer, fewest, are the only words which contrast regularly with many, more, most. In the following text, these comparatives are rightly employed: "And to the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance."—Numbers, xxxiii, 54. But if writers will continue to use less for fewer, so that "less cattle," for instance, may mean "fewer cattle;" we shall be under a sort of necessity to retain lesser, in order to speak intelligibly: as, "It shall be for the sending-forth of oxen, and for the treading of lesser cattle."—Isaiah, vii, 25. I have no partiality for the word lesser, neither will I make myself ridiculous by flouting at its rudeness. "This word," says Webster, "is a corruption, but [it is] too well established to be discarded. Authors always write the Lesser Asia."—Octavo Dict. "By the same reason, may a man punish the lesser breaches of that law."—Locke. "When we speak of the lesser differences among the tastes of men."—Blair's Rhet., p. 20. "In greater or lesser degrees of complexity."—Burke, on Sublime, p. 94. "The greater ought not to succumb to the lesser."—Dillwyn's Reflections, p. 128. "To such productions, lesser composers must resort for ideas."—Gardiner's Music of Nature, p. 413.
"The larger here, and there the lesser lambs,
The new-fall'n young herd bleating for their dams."—Pope.
OBS. 7.—Our grammarians deny the comparison of many adjectives, from a false notion that they are already superlatives. Thus W. Allen: "Adjectives compounded with the Latin preposition per, are already superlative: as, perfect, perennial, permanent, &c."—Elements of E. Gram., p. 52. In reply to this, I would say, that nothing is really superlative, in English, but what has the form and construction of the superlative; as, "The most permanent of all dyes." No word beginning with per, is superlative by virtue of this Latin prefix. "Separate spirits, which are beings that have perfecter knowledge and greater happiness than we, must needs have also a perfecter way of communicating their thoughts than we have."—Locke's Essay, B. ii, Ch. 24, §36, This mode of comparison is not now good, but it shows that perfect is no superlative. Thus Kirkham: "The following adjectives, and many others, are always in the superlative degree; because, by expressing a quality in the highest degree, they carry in themselves a superlative signification: chief, extreme, perfect, right, wrong, honest, just, true, correct, sincere, vast, immense, ceaseless, infinite, endless, unparalleled, universal, supreme, unlimited, omnipotent, all-wise, eternal." [183]—Gram., p. 73. So the Rev. David Blair: "The words perfect, certain, infinite, universal, chief, supreme, right, true, extreme, superior, and some others, which express a perfect and superlative sense in themselves, do not admit of comparison."—English Gram., p. 81. Now, according to Murray's definition, which Kirkham adopts, none of these words can be at all in the superlative degree. On the contrary, there are several among them, from which true superlatives are frequently and correctly formed. Where are the positives which are here supposed to be "increased to the highest degree?" Every real superlative in our language, except best and worst, most and least, first and last, with the still more irregular word next, is a derivative, formed from some other English word, by adding est or most; as, truest, hindmost. The propriety or impropriety of comparing the foregoing words, or any of the "many others" of which this author speaks, is to be determined according to their meaning, and according to the usage of good writers, and not by the dictation of a feeble pedant, or upon the supposition that if compared they would form "double superlatives."
OBS. 8.—Chief is from the French word chef, the head: chiefest is therefore no more a double superlative than headmost: "But when the headmost foes appeared."—Scott. Nor are chief and chiefest equivalent terms: "Doeg an Edomite, the chiefest of the herdsmen."—1 Samuel, xxi, 7. "The chief of the herdsmen," would convey a different meaning; it would be either the leader of the herdsmen, or the principal part of them. Chiefest, however, has often been used where chief would have been better; as, "He sometimes denied admission to the chiefest officers of the army."—Clarendon, let us look further at Kirkham's list of absolute "superlatives."