of his education prevailed so far, that he could not forbear taking me up in his right hand, and stroking me gently with the other, after a hearty fit of laughing, asked me whether I was a whig or tory? Then turning to his first minister, who waited behind him with a white staff, near as tall as the mainmast of the Royal-Sovereign, he observed how contemptible a thing was human grandeur, which could be mimicked by such diminutive insects as I: and yet, says he, I dare engage, these creatures have their titles and distinctions of honour, they contrive little nests and burrows, that they call houses and cities; they make a figure in dress and equipage; they love, they fight, they dispute, they cheat, they betray. And thus he continued on, while my colour came and went several times, with indignation, to hear our noble country, the mistress of arts and arms, the scourge of France, the arbitress of Europe, the seat of virtue, piety, honour and truth, the pride and envy of the world, so contemptuously treated.
But as I was not in a condition to resent injuries, so, upon mature thoughts, I began to doubt whether I was injured or[1] no. For, after having been accustomed several months to the sight and converse of this people, and observed every object upon which I cast mine eyes to be of proportionable magnitude, the horrour I had at first conceived from their bulk and aspect, was so far worn off, that if I had then
- ↑ 'Whether I was injured or no.' — This vulgar and ungrammatical mode of expression has become almost universal, but instead of 'no,' the particle, 'not,' should be used. The absurdity of the former will appear by only repeating the word to which it refers, and annexing it to it, as thus — 'whether I were injured, or no injured,' whereas, 'whether I were injured, or not injured, is good grammar.
