lumniate any man, _nor_ give the
least encouragement to calumniators.'--'There is _not_ a Christian duty to
which providence has not annexed a blessing, _nor_ any affliction for which
a remedy is not provided.' If the above distinction be just, the following
passage seems to be faulty:

'Seasons return, but _not_ to me returns
Day, _or_ the sweet approach of ev'n _or_ morn,
_Or_ sight of vernal bloom, _or_ summer's rose,
_Or_ flocks, _or_ herds, _or_ human face divine.'
_Milton, P. L._, B. iii, l. 40.--"_Burn's Gr._, p. 108.

OBS. 18.--T. O. Churchill, whose Grammar first appeared in London in 1823,
treats this matter thus: "As _or_ answers to _either, nor_, a compound of
_not or [ne or_] by contraction, answers to _neither_, a similar compound
of _not either [ne either_]. The latter however does not constitute that
double use of the negative, in which one, agreeably to the principles of
philosophical grammar, destroys the other; for a part of the first word,
_neither_, cannot be understood before the second, _nor_: and for the same
reason a part of it could not be understood before _or_, which is sometimes
improperly used in the second clause; while the whole of it, _neither_,
would be obviously improper before _or_. On the other hand, when _not_ is
used in the first clause, _nor_ is improper in the second; since it would
involve the impropriety of understanding _not_ before a compound of _not_
[or _ne_] with _or_. 'I shall _not_ attempt to convince, _nor_ to persuade
you.--What will you _not_ attempt?--To convince, _nor_ to persuade you.'
The impropriety of _nor_ in this answer is clear: but the answer should
certainly repeat the words not heard, or not understood."--_Churchill's New
Gram._, p. 330.

OBS. 19.--"It is probable, that the use of _nor_ after _not_ has been
introduced, in consequence of such improprieties as the following: 'The
injustice of inflicting death for crimes, when _not_ of the most heinous
nature, _or_ attended with extenuating circumstances.' Here it is obviously
not the intention of the writer, to understand the negative in the last
clause: and, if this were good English, it would be not merely allowable to
employ _nor_ after _not_, to show the subsequent clause to be negative as
well as the preceding, but it would always be necessary. In fact, however,
the sentence quoted is faulty, in not repeating the adverb _when_ in the
last clause; 'or _when_ attended:' which woul