evation or intension of the quality, surpassed and
exceeded, that particular degree, whatever it was, becomes merely positive;
for the positive degree of a quality, though it commonly includes the very
lowest measure, and is understood to exceed nothing, may at any time
_equal_ the very highest. There is no paradox in all this, which is not
also in the following simple examples: "_Easier_, indeed, I was, but far
from _easy_."--_Cowper's Life_, p. 50.

"Who canst the _wisest wiser_ make,
And babes _as wise_ as they."--_Cowper's Poems_.

OBS. 7.--The relative nature of these degrees deserves to be further
illustrated. (1.) It is plain, that the greatest degree of a quality in one
thing, may be less than the least in an other; and, consequently, that the
least degree in one thing, may be greater than the greatest in an other.
Thus, the _heaviest_ wood is _less heavy_ than the _lightest_ of the
metals; and the _least valuable_ of the metals is perhaps of _more value_
than the _choicest_ wood. (2.) The comparative degree may increase upon
itself, and be repeated to show the gradation. Thus, a man may ascend into
the air with a balloon, and rise _higher_, and _higher_, and _higher_, and
_higher_, till he is out of sight. This is no uncommon form of expression,
and the intension is from comparative to comparative. (3.) If a ladder be
set up for use, one of its rounds will be _the highest_, and one other will
be _the lowest_, or _least high._ And as that which is _highest_, is
_higher_ than all the rest, so every one will be _higher_ than all below
it. _The higher rounds_, if spoken of generally, and without definite
contrast, will be those in the upper half; _the lower rounds_, referred to
in like manner, will be those in the lower half, or those not far from the
ground. _The highest rounds_, or _the lowest_, if we indulge such latitude
of speech, will be those near the top or the bottom; there being,
absolutely, or in _strictness_ of language, but _one_ of each. (4.) If _the
highest_ round be removed, or left uncounted, the next becomes the
_highest_, though not _so high_ as the former. For every one is _the
highest_ of the number which it completes. All admit this, till we come to
_three_. And, as the third is _the highest of the three_, I see not why the
second is not properly _the highest of the two_. Yet nearly all our
grammarians condemn this phrase, and prefer "_the higher of the two_." But
can they give a _reaso