Part 6

In these beautiful passages, as in the English if you put _it_ and _its_ instead of _his_, _she_, _her_, you destroy the images, and reduce, what was before highly Poetical and Rhetorical, to mere prose and common discourse; so if you render them into another language, Greek, Latin, French, Italian, or German, in which Hill, Heaven, Cloud, Religion, are constantly Masculine, or Feminine, or Neuter, respectively, you make the images obscure and doubtful, and in proportion diminish their beauty.

This excellent remark is Mr. Harris’s, Hermes, p. 58.

[10] Some Writers have used _Ye_ as the Objective Case Plural of the Pronoun of the Second Person; very improperly and ungrammatically.

“But Tyrants dread _ye_, lest your just decree Transfer the pow’r, and set the people free.”

Prior.

“His wrath, which one day will destroy _ye_ both.”

Milton, P. L. ii. 734.

Dr. Bently has corrected this mistake, which is probably an error of the Press, or of the Editor of whom he talks so much. But he has done it, without taking the least notice of the matter, or assuming any merit to himself from an emendation, which is one of the very few that are really such in his whole performance.

[11] The Neuter Pronoun of the Third Person had formerly no variation of Cases. Instead of the Possessive _its_ they used _his_, which is now appropriated to the Masculine. “Learning hath _his_ infancy, when _it_ is but beginning, and almost childish; then _his_ youth, when _it_ is luxuriant and juvenile; then _his_ strength of years, when _it_ is solid and reduced; and lastly _his_ old age, when _it_ waxeth dry and exhaust.” Bacon, Essay 58. In this example _his_ is evidently used as the Possessive Case of _it_: but what shall we say to the following, where _her_ is applied in the same manner, and seems to make a strange confusion of Gender? “He that pricketh the heart maketh _it_ to shew _her_ knowledge.” _Ecclus._ xxii. 19.

“Oft have I seen a timely-parted ghost, Of ashy semblance, meagre, pale, and bloodless, Being all descended to the lab’ring heart, _Who_, in the conflict that _it_ holds with death, Attracts the same for aidance ’gainst the enemy.”

Shakespear.

If the Poet had said _he_ instead of _it_, he would have avoided a confusion of Genders, and happily compleated the spirited and elegant Prosopopœia, begun by the Personal Relative _who_. The Neuter Relative _which_ would have made the sentence more strictly grammatical, but at the same time more prosaic.

[12] So the Saxon _Ic_ hath the Possessive Case _Min_; _Thu_, Possessive _Thin_; _He_, Possessive _His_: from which our Possessive Cases of the same Pronouns are taken without alteration. To the Saxon Possessive Cases _hire_, _ure_, _eower_, _hira_, (that is, _her’s_, _our’s_, _your’s_, _their’s_) we have added the _s_, the Characteristic of the Possessive Case of Nouns. Or _our’s_, _your’s_, are directly from the Saxon _ures_, _eoweres_; the Possessive Case of the Pronominal Adjectives _ure_, _eower_; that is, _our_, _your_.

[13] _Whose_ is by some authors made the Possessive Case of _which_, and applied to things as well as persons; I think, improperly.

“The _question_, _whose_ solution I require, Is, what the sex of women most desire.”

Dryden.

“Is there any other _doctrine_, _whose_ followers are punished?” Addison.

[14] So the Saxon _hwa_ hath the Possessive Case _hwæs_. Note, that the Saxons rightly placed the Aspirate before the _w_: as we now pronounce it. This will be evident to any one that shall consider in what manner he pronounces the words _what_, _when_; that is, _hoo-àt_, _hoo-èn_.

[15] Adjectives are very improperly called _Nouns_; for they are not the _Names_ of things. The Adjectives _good_, _white_, are applied to the Nouns _man_, _snow_, to express the Qualities belonging to those Subjects; but the Names of those Qualities in the Abstract, (that is, considered in themselves, and without being attributed to any Subject) are _goodness_, _whiteness_; and these are Nouns, or Substantives.

[16] The Double Superlative _most highest_ is a Phrase peculiar to the Old Vulgar Translation of the Psalms, where it acquires a singular propriety from the Subject to which it is applied, the Supreme Being, who is _higher than the highest_.

[17] “_Lesser_, says Mr. Johnson, is a barbarous corruption of _Less_, formed by the vulgar from the habit of terminating comparisons in _er_.”

“Attend to what a _lesser_ Muse indites.”

Addis.

_Worser_ sounds much more barbarous, only because it has not been so frequently used:

“A dreadful quiet felt, and _worser_ far Than arms, a sullen interval of war.”

Dryden.

[18] A greater variety of endings to distinguish the Persons in the Verb is not necessary; as the Verb is always attended with the Personal Pronoun, wherever an ambiguity would otherwise arise. For the same reason the Plural termination in _en_, _they loven_, _they weren_, which was formerly in use, hath been long obsolete.

[19] _Thou_, in the Polite, and even in the Familiar Style, is disused, and the Plural _You_ is employed instead of it: we say _You have_, not _Thou hast_. Tho’ in this case we apply _You_ to a single Person, yet the Verb too must agree with it in the Plural Number: it must necessarily be _You have_, not _You hast_. _You was_, the Second Person Plural of the Pronoun placed in agreement with the First or Third Person Singular of the Verb, is an enormous Solecism: and yet Authors of the first rank have inadvertently fallen into it. “Knowing that _you was_ my old master’s good friend.” Addison, Spect. No 517. “Would to God _you was_ within her reach.” Lord Bolingbroke to Swift, Letter 46. “If _you was_ here.” Ditto, Letter 47. “I am just now as well, as when _you was_ here.” Pope to Swift, P. S. to Letter 56. On the contrary the Solemn Style admits not of _You_ for a Single Person. This hath led Mr. Pope into a great impropriety in the beginning of his Messiah:

“O _Thou_ my voice inspire Who _touch’d_ Isaiah’s hallow’d lips with fire!”

The Solemnity of the Style would not admit of _You_ for _Thou_ in the Pronoun; nor the measure of the Verse _touchedst_, or _didst touch_, in the Verb; as it indispensably ought to be, in the one, or the other of these two forms: _You_ who _touched_; or _Thou_ who _touchedst_, or _didst touch_. Again:

“Just of _thy_ word, in every thought sincere, Who _knew_ no wish but what the world might hear.”

Pope, Epitaph.

It ought to be _your_ in the first line, or _knewest_ in the second.

[20] This Participle represents the action as complete and finished; and, being subjoined to the Auxiliary _to have_, constitutes the Perfect Time: I call it therefore the Perfect Participle. The same subjoined to the Auxiliary _to be_, constitutes the Passive Verb; and in that state, or when used without the Auxiliary in a passive sense, is called the Passive Participle.

[21]

“Before the sun, Before the heav’ns thou _wert_.”

Milton.

“Remember what thou _wert_.”

Dryden.

“I knew thou _wert_ not slow to hear.”

Addison.

“Thou who of old _wert_ sent to Israel’s court.”

Prior.

“All this thou _wert_.”⸺

Pope.

Shall we in deference to these great authorities allow _wert_ to be the same with _wast_, and common to the Indicative and Subjunctive Mode? or rather abide by the practice of our best antient writers; the propriety of the language, which requires, as far as may be, distinct forms for different Modes; and the analogy of formation in each Mode; I _was_, Thou _wast_; I _were_, Thou _wert_? all which conspire to make _wert_ peculiar to the Subjunctive Mode.

[22] Note, that the Imperfect and Perfect Times are here put together. And it is to be observed, that in the Subjunctive Mode, the event being spoken of under a condition, or supposition, or in the form of a wish, and therefore as doubtful and contingent, the Verb itself in the Present, and the Auxiliary both of the Present and Past Imperfect Times, often carry with them somewhat of a Future sense: as, “If he come to-morrow, I may speak to him:” ⸺ “If he should, or would, come to-morrow, I might, would, could, or should, speak to him.” Observe also, that the Auxiliary _should_ in the Imperfect Times is used to express the Present, as well as the Past; as, “It _is_ my desire, that he _should_ [now] come;” as well as, “It _was_ my desire that he _should_ [then] come.” So that in this Mode the precise Time of the Verb is very much determined by the nature and drift of the Sentence.

[23]

⸺“Perdition catch my soul But I _do_ love thee!—”

⸺“This to me In dreadful secrecy impart they _did_.”

Shakespear.

“Die he certainly _did_.”

Sherlock, Vol. 1. Disc. 7.

“Yes, I _did_ love her:” that is, at that time, or once; intimating a negation, or doubt, of present love.

“The Lord called Samuel: and he ran unto Eli, and said, Here am I, for thou _calledst_ me.⸺And the Lord called yet again, Samuel. And Samuel arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I, for thou _didst_ call me.” 1 Sam. iii. 4-6.

[24] This distinction was not observed formerly as to the word _shall_, which was used in the Second and Third Persons to express simply the Event. So likewise _should_ was used, where we now make use of _would_. See the Vulgar Translation of the Bible.

[25] Bishop Wilkins gives the following elegant investigation of the Modes in his _Real Character_, Part iii. Chap. 5.

“To shew in what manner the Subject is to be joined with his Predicate, the Copula between them is affected with a Particle, which from the use of it is called _Modus_, the manner or _Mode_.

Now the Subject and Predicate may be joined together either _Simply_, or with some kind of _Limitation_; and accordingly these Modes are Primary or Secondary.

The Primary Modes are called by Grammarians Indicative and Imperative.

When the matter is declared to be so, or at least when it seems in the Speaker’s power to have it be so, as the bare union of Subject and Predicate would import, then the Copula is nakedly expressed without any variation: and this manner of expressing it is called the Indicative Mode.

When it is neither declared to be so, nor seems immediately in the Speaker’s power to have it so; then he can do no more in words but make out the expression of his will to him that hath the thing in his power; namely to

{ Superior } { Petition, } his { Equal } by { Persuasion, } { Inferior } { Command. }

And the manner of these affecting the Copula, (Be it so, or, let it be so,) is called the Imperative Mode; of which there are these three varieties very fit to be distinctly provided for. As for that other use of the Imperative Mode, when it signifies _Permission_; this may be sufficiently expressed by the _Secondary Mode_ of _Liberty_; You _may_ do it.

The Secondary Modes are such, as, when the Copula is affected with any of them, make the Sentence to be (as the Logicians call it) a _Modal Proposition_.

This happens, when the matter in discourse, namely, the being, or doing, or suffering of a thing, is considered, not _simply by itself_, but _gradually in its causes_, from which it proceeds _contingently_, or _necessarily_.

Then a thing seems to be left _Contingent_, when the Speaker expresses only the _Possibility_ of it, or his own _Liberty_ to it.

1. The _Possibility_ of a thing depends upon the power of its cause; and may be expressed

when { _Absolute_ } by the Particle { _Can_, { _Conditional_ } { _Could_.

2. The _Liberty_ of a thing depends upon a freedom from all obstacles either within or without, and is usually expressed in our language

when { _Absolute_ } by the Particle { _May_, { _Conditional_ } { _Might_.

Then a thing seems to be of _Necessity_, when the Speaker expresseth the resolution of his own _will_, or some other _obligation_ upon him from without.

3. The _Inclination of the Will_ is expressed,

if { _Absolute_ } by the Particle { _Will_, { _Conditional_ } { _Would_.

4. The Necessity of a thing from some _external Obligation_, whether _Natural_, or _Moral_, which we call Duty, is expressed,

if { _Absolute_ } by the Particle { _Must_, _ought_, _shall_; { _Conditional_ } { _Must_, _ought_, _should_.”

See also HERMES, Book I. Chap. viii.

[26] I doubt much of the propriety of the following examples: “The rules of our holy Religion, from which we _are_ infinitely _swerved_.” Tillotson, Vol. I. Serm. 27. “The whole obligation of that law and covenant, which God made with the Jews, _was_ also _ceased_.” Ib. Vol. II. Serm. 52. “Whose number _was_ now _amounted_ to three hundred.” Swift, Contests and Dissensions, Chap. 3. Neuter Verbs are sometimes employed very improperly as Actives: “I think, it by no means a fit and decent thing to _vie Charities_, and to erect the reputation of one upon the ruins of another.” Atterbury, Vol. I. Serm. 2.

[27] These two have also _beaten_ and _bursten_ in the Participle; and in that form they belong to the Third Class of Irregulars.

[28] The Verbs marked thus throughout the three Classes of Irregulars, have the Regular as well as the Irregular form in use.

[29] This Verb in the Past Time and Participle is pronounced short; _read_, _red_, _red_; like _lead_, _led_, _led_; and perhaps ought to be written in this manner: our antient writers spelt it _redde_.

[30] They follow the Saxon rule: “Verbs which in the Infinitive end in _dan_ and _tan_,” (that is, in English, _d_ and _t_; for an is only the Characteristic termination of the Saxon Infinitive;) “in the Preterit and Participle Preterit commonly for the sake of better sound throw away the final ed; as _beot_, _afed_, (both in the Preterit and Participle Preterit) for _beoted_, _afeded_; from _beotan_, _afedan_.” Hickes, Grammat. Saxon, cap. 9. So the same Verbs in English, _beat_, _fed_, instead of _beated_, _feeded_.

[31] When _en_ follows a Vowel or Liquid the _e_ is dropt: so _drawn_, _slayn_, (or _slain_,) are instead of _drawen_, _slayen_; so likewise _known_, _born_, are for _knowen_, _boren_, in the Saxon _cnawen_, _boren_: and so of the rest.

[32] This Verb is also formed like those of _i_ long into _i_ short; Write, writ, written; and by Contraction _writ_ in the Participle, but, I think, improperly.

[33] Frequent mistakes are made in the formation of the Participle of this Verb. The analogy plainly requires _sitten_; which was formerly in use: “The army having _sitten_ there so long:”⸺“Which was enough to make him stir, that would not have _sitten_ still, though Hanibal had been quiet.” Raleigh. “That no Parliament should be dissolved, till it had _sitten_ five months.” Hobbes, Hist. of Civil Wars, p. 257. But it is now almost wholly disused, the form of the Past Time _sat_, having taken its place. Dr. Middleton hath with great propriety restored the true Participle:⸺“To have _sitten_ on the heads of the Apostles:”⸺“to have _sitten_ upon each of them.” Works, Vol. II. p. 30. “Blessed is the man,⸺that hath not _sat_ in the seat of the scornful.” Ps. i. 1. The old Editions have _sit_; which may be perhaps allowed as a Contraction of _sitten_. “And when he was _set_, his disciples came unto him:” καθισαντος αυτου. Matt. v. 1.⸺“who is _set_ on the right hand;”⸺“and is _set_ down at the right hand of the throne of God:” in both places εκαθισεν. Heb. viii. 1. & xii. 2. _Set_ can be no part of the Verb _to sit_. If it belongs to the Verb _to set_, the Translation in these passages is wrong: for _to set_ signifies _to place_, but without any designation of the posture of the person placed; which is a circumstance of importance expressed by the original.

[34] This Neuter Verb is frequently confounded with the Verb Active _to lay_, [that is, _to put_, or _place_;] which is Regular, and has in the Past Time and Participle _layed_, or _laid_.

[35] “Thus having _chosed_ each other.⸺” Clarendon, Hist. Vol. III. p. 797. 8ᵛᵒ. Improperly.

[36] That is, as a bird, _volare_; whereas _to flee_ signifies _fugere_, as from an enemy. This seems to be the proper distinction between _to fly_, and _to flee_; which in the Present Time are very often confounded. Our Translation of the Bible is not quite free from this mistake. It hath _flee_ for _volare_ in perhaps seven or eight places out of a great number; but never _fly_ for _fugere_.

[37] Essay xxix.

[38] The whole number of Verbs in the English language, Regular and Irregular, Simple and Compounded, taken together, is about 4300. See Dr. Ward’s Essays on the English Language; the Catalogue of English Verbs.

[39]

⸺“He would _have spoke_.”

Milton, P. L. x. 517.

“Words _interwove_ with sighs found out their way.”

P. L. i. 621.

“And to his faithful servant _hath_ in place _Bore_ witness gloriously.”—Samson Ag. ℣. 1752.

“And envious darkness, ere they could return, _Had stole_ them from me.”—Comus, ℣. 195.

Here it is observable, that the Author’s MS. and the First Edition have it _stolne_.

⸺“And in triumph _had rode_.”

P. R. iii. 36.

⸺“I _have chose_ This perfect man.”⸺

P. R. i. 165.

⸺“The fragrant brier _was wove_ between.”

Dryden, Fables.

“Then finish what you _have began_, But scribble faster, if you can.”

Dryden, Poems, Vol. 2. p. 172.

“_Have sprang._”

Atterbury, Vol. 1. Serm. 4.

“_Had spake_”⸺“_had began_.”⸺Clarendon, Contin. Hist. p. 40, & 120. “The men _begun_ to embellish themselves.” Addison, Spect. Nᵒ 434.

“Rapt into future times the bard _begun_.”

Pope, Messiah.

And without the necessity of rhyme:

“A second deluge learning thus _o’er-run_, And the Monks finish’d what the Goths _begun_.”

Essay on Criticism.

“Repeats you verses _wrote_ on glasses.”

Prior.

“Mr. Misson _has wrote_.”—Addison, Preface to his Travels. “He could only command his voice, _broke_ with sighs and sobbings, so far as to bid her proceed.” Addison, Spect. Nᵒ 164.

“No civil broils _have_ since his death _arose_.”

Dryden, on O. Cromwell.

“Illustrious virtues, who by turns _have rose_.”

Prior.

⸺“_Had_ not _arose_.” Swift, Tale of a Tub, Sect. x. and Battle of Books: and Bolingbroke, Letter to Wyndham, p. 233.⸺“This nimble operator will _have stole_ it.” Tale of a Tub, Sect. x. “Some philosophers _have mistook_.” Ibid. Sect. ix.

⸺“Silence _Was took_ ere she was ware.”

Milton, Comus.

“Into these common places look, Which from great authors I _have took_.”

Prior, Alma.

“A free Constitution, when it has _been shook_ by the iniquity of former administrations.” Lord Bolingbroke, Patriot King, p. 111.⸺“Too strong to _be shook_ by his enemies.” Atterbury. “But there _was_ now an accident _fell_ out.”⸺Clarendon, Contin. p. 292.

⸺“Ev’n there he should _have fell_.”

Prior, Solomon.

“Sure some disaster _has befell_: Speak, Nurse; I hope the Boy is well.”

Gay, Fables.

[40] “Was the _easilier_ persuaded.”—Raleigh. “The things _highliest_ important to the growing age.” Lord Shaftesbury, Letter to Lord Molesworth. Improperly, for _more easily_, _most highly_.

[41] The Conjunction _because_ used to express the motive or end, is either improper or obsolete: as, “The multitude rebuked them, _because_ they should hold their peace.” Matt. xx. 31. “It is the case of some, to contrive false periods of business, _because_ they may seem men of dispatch.” Bacon, Essay xxv. We should now make use of _that_.

[42] “He caused all persons, _whom_ he knew had, or he thought might have, spoken to him, to be apprehended.” Clarendon, Vol. III. p. 618. 8ᵛᵒ. It ought to be _who_, the Nominative Case to _had_; not _whom_, as if it were the Objective Case governed by _knew_.

“Scotland and _Thee_ did each in other live.”

Dryden, Poems, Vol. II. p. 220.

It ought to be _Thou_.

[43]

“But _Thou_ false Arcite never _shall_ obtain Thy bad pretence.”⸺

Dryden, Fables.

“That _Thou might_ fortune to thy side engage.”

Prior.

It ought to be _shalt_, _mightest_. The mistake seems to be owing to the confounding of _Thou_ and _You_ as equivalent in every respect; whereas one is Singular, the other Plural. See above, p. 48. “Great _pains has_ [have] been taken.” Pope, P. S. to the Odyssey. “I have considered, _what have_ [hath] been said on both sides in this controversy.” Tillotson, Vol. I. Serm. 27.

[44]

“Tell who _loves who_; what favours some partake, And who is jilted for another’s sake.”

Dryden, Juvenal, Sat. vi.

“Those, _who_ he _thought_ true to his party.” Clarendon, Hist. Vol. I. p. 667. 8ᵛᵒ. “_Who_ should I _meet_ the other night, but my old friend?” Spect. Nᵒ 32. “_Who_ should I _see_ in the lid of it, but the Doctor?” Addison, Spect. Nᵒ 57. “He knows, _who_ it is proper to _expose_ foremost.” Swift, Tale of a Tub, Conclusion. It ought in all these places to be _whom_.

[45] “And restores to his _Island_ that tranquillity and repose, to which they had been _strangers_ during his absence.” Pope, Dissertation prefixed to the Odyssey. _Island_ is not a Noun of Multitude: it ought to be, his _people_; or, _it_ had been _a stranger_. “What reason _have the Church_ of Rome to talk of modesty in this case?” Tillotson, Vol. I. Serm. 49. “All the virtues of mankind are to be counted upon a few fingers, but _his_ follies and vices are innumerable.” Swift, Preface to Tale of a Tub. Is not _mankind_ in this place a Noun of Multitude, and such as requires the Pronoun refering to it to be in the Plural Number, _their_?

[46] “_Whom_ do men say, that _I am_?⸺But _whom_ say ye, that _I am_?” Matt. xvi. 13, 15. So likewise Mark viii. 27, 29. Luke ix. 18, 20. “Whom think ye, that _I am_?” Acts xiii. 25. It ought in all these places to be _who_; which is not governed by the Verb _say_ or _think_, but by the Verb _am_: or agrees in Case with the Pronoun _I_. If the Verb were in the Infinitive Mode, it would require the Objective Case of the Relative, agreeing with the Pronoun _me_: “_Whom_ think ye, or do ye think, _me to be_?”

⸺“To that, _which_ once _was thee_.”

Prior.

It ought to be, _which was thou_; or, _which thou wast_.

[47] On which place says Dr. Bentley, “The Context demands that it be,⸺_Him_ descending, Illo descendente.” But _him_ is not the Ablative Case, for the English knows no such Case; nor does _him_ without a Preposition on any occasion answer to the Latin Ablative _illo_. I might with better reason contend, that it ought to be “_his_ descending,” because it is in Greek αυτου καταβαινοντος in the Genitive; and it would be as good Grammar, and as proper English. This comes of forcing the English under the rules of a foreign Language, with which it has little concern: and this _ugly and deformed fault_, to use his own expression, Bentley has endeavoured to impose upon Milton in several places: see P. L. vii. 15. ix. 829, 883, 1147. x. 267, 1001. On the other hand, where Milton has been really guilty of this fault, he, very inconsistently with himself, corrects him, and sets him right. His Latin Grammar Rules were happily out of his head, and by a kind of _vernacular instinct_ (so, I imagine, he would call it) he perceived that his Author was wrong.

“For only in destroying I find ease To my relentless thoughts; and, _him destroy’d_, Or won to what may work his utter loss, For whom all this was made, all this will soon Follow, as to him link’d in weal or woe.”

P. L. ix. 129.

It ought to be, “_he_ destroy’d,” that is, “_he being_ destroy’d.” Bentley corrects it, “and _man_ destroy’d.”

Archbishop Tillotson has fallen into the same mistake: “Solomon was of this mind; and I make no doubt, but he made as wise and true Proverbs as any body has done since: _Him_ only _excepted_, who was a much greater and wiser man than Solomon.” Vol. I. Ser. 53.