Part 7

[48] “To _see_ so many _to make so_ little conscience of so great a sin.” Tillotson, Vol. I. Serm. 22. “It cannot but be a delightful spectacle to God and Angels to _see_ a young person, besieged by powerful temptations on either side, _to acquit_ himself gloriously, and resolutely _to hold_ out against the most violent assaults: to _behold_ one in the prime and flower of his age, that is courted by pleasures and honours, by the devil and all the bewitching vanities of the world, _to reject_ all these, and _to cleave_ stedfastly unto God.” Ib. Serm. 54. The impropriety of the Phrases distinguished by Italic Characters is evident.

[49] Το γαρ θελειν παρακειται μοι, το δε κατεργαζεσθαι το καλον ουχ ευρισχω. Rom. vii. 18.

[50] Προς το θεαθηναι τοις ανθρωποις. Matt. xxiii. 5. The following sentences seem defective either in the construction, or the order of the words: “Why do ye that, _which is not lawful to do_ on the sabbath days?⸺The shew bread, _which is not lawful to eat_, but for the priests alone.” Luke vi. 2, 4. The Construction may be rectified by supplying _it_; “which _it_ is not lawful to do; which _it_ is not lawful to eat:” or the order of the words in this manner; “_to do which_, _to eat which_, is not lawful:” where the Infinitive _to do_, _to eat_, does the office of the Nominative Case, and the Relative _which_ is in the Objective Case.

[51] “I am not like other men, _to envy_ the talents I cannot reach.” Tale of a Tub, Preface. An improper use of the Infinitive.

[52] This Rule arises from the nature and idiom of our Language, and from as plain a principle as any on which it is founded: namely, that a word which has the Article before it, and a Noun, with the Possessive Preposition _of_, after it, must be a Noun; and if a Noun, it ought to follow the Construction of a Noun, and not have the Regimen of a Verb. It is the Participial Termination of this sort of words that is apt to deceive us, and make us treat them as if they were of an amphibious species, partly Nouns, and partly Verbs. I believe there are hardly any of our Writers, who have not fallen into this inaccuracy. That it is such, will perhaps more clearly appear, if we examine and resolve one or two examples in this kind.

“God, who didst teach the hearts of thy faithful people, by _the sending_ to them _the light_ of thy Holy Spirit:⸺” Collect, Whitsunday. _Sending_ is in this place a Noun; for it is accompanied with the Article: nevertheless it is also a Transitive Verb, for it governs the Noun _light_ in the Objective Case: but this is inconsistent; let it be either the one or the other, and abide by its proper Construction. That these Participial Words are sometimes real Nouns is undeniable; for they have a Plural Number as such: as, “the _outgoings_ of the morning.” _The Sending_ is the same with _the Mission_; which necessarily requires the Preposition _of_ after it, to mark the relation between it and _the light_; _the mission of the light_; and so, _the sending of the light_. The Phrase would be proper either way, by keeping to the Construction of the Noun, _by the sending of the light_; or of the Participle, or Gerund, _by sending the light_.

Again:⸺“Sent to prepare the way of thy Son our Saviour, _by preaching of Repentance_:⸺” Collect, St. John Baptist. Here the Participle, or Gerund, hath as improperly the Preposition _of_ after it; and so is deprived of its Verbal Regimen, by which as a Transitive it would govern the Noun _Repentance_ in the Objective Case. Besides, the Phrase is rendered obscure and ambiguous: for the obvious meaning of it in its present form is, “by preaching concerning or on the Subject of Repentance;” whereas the sense intended is, “by publishing the Covenant of Repentance, and declaring Repentance to be a condition of acceptance with God.” The Phrase would have been perfectly right and determinate to this sense either way; by the Noun, _by the preaching of repentance_; or by the Participle, _by preaching repentance_.

[53] These are the three Primary Modes, or manners of expressing our thoughts concerning the being, doing, or suffering of a thing. If it comes within our knowledge, we explain it, or make a declaration of it; if we are ignorant or doubtful of it, we make an inquiry about it; if it is not immediately in our power, we express our desire or will concerning it. In Theory therefore the Interrogative form seems to have as good a Title to a Mode of its own, as either of the other two; but Practice has determined it otherwise; and has in all the Languages, with which we are most acquainted, supplied the place of an Interrogative Mode, either by Particles of Interrogation, or by a peculiar order of the words in the sentence. If it be true, as I have somewhere read, that the Modes of the Verbs are more numerous in the Lapland Tongue than in any other, possibly the Laplanders may be provided with an Interrogative Mode.

[54]

“The burning lever _not deludes_ his pains.”

Dryden, Ovid. Metam. B. xii.

“I hope, my Lord, said he, I _not offend_.”

Dryden, Fables.

These examples make the impropriety of placing the Adverb _not_ before the Verb very evident.

[55] “_Did_ he _not fear_ the Lord, and _besought_ the Lord, and the Lord _repented_ him of the evil, which he had pronounced against them?” Jer. xxvi. 19. Here the Interrogative and Explicative forms are confounded. It ought to be, “Did he not _fear_ the Lord, and _beseech_ the Lord? and _did not_ the Lord _repent_ him of the evil,⸺?” See likewise Matt. xviii. 12.

[56]

“For ever in this humble cell _Let Thee_ and _I_, my fair one, dwell.”

Prior.

It ought to be _Me_.

[57] It is not easy to give particular rules for the management of the Modes and Times of Verbs with respect to one another, so that they may be proper and consistent: nor would it be of much use; for the best rule that can be given is this very general one, To observe what the sense necessarily requires. But it may be of use to consider one or two examples, that seem faulty in these respects, and to examine where the fault lies.

“Some who the depths of eloquence _have found_, In that unnavigable Stream _were drown’d_.”

Dryden, Juv. Sat. x.

The event mentioned in the first line is plainly prior in time to that mentioned in the second; this is subsequent to that, and a consequence of it. The first event is mentioned in the Present Perfect Time; it is present and compleated; “they _have_ [now] _found_ the depths of eloquence.” The second event is expressed in the Past Indefinite Time; it is past and gone, but, when it happened, uncertain: “they _were drown’d_.” We observed, that the last mentioned event is subsequent to the first: but how can the Past Time be subsequent to the Present? It therefore ought to be in the second line _are drown’d_, in the Present Perfect, which is consistent with the same Time in the first line: or in the first line _had found_ in the Past Perfect, which would be consistent with the Past Indefinite in the second line.⸺There seems to be a fault of the like nature in the following passage:

“But oh! _’twas_ little that her life O’er earth and waters _bears_ thy fame:”⸺

Prior.

It ought to be _bore_ in the second line.

Again;

“Him portion’d maids, apprentic’d orphans _blest_, The young who _labour_, and the old who _rest_.”

Pope, Moral Ep. iii. 267.

The Verb in the first line ought to be in the same Time with those in the last.

“Had their records been delivered down in the vulgar tongue,⸺they could not now be understood, unless by Antiquaries, who _made_ it their study to expound them.” Swift, Letter, on the English Tongue. Here the latter part of the sentence depends intirely on the _Supposition_ expressed in the former, “of their records being delivered down in the vulgar tongue:” therefore _made_ in the Indicative Mode, which implies no supposition, and in the Past Indefinite Time, is improper: it would be much better in the Past Definite, _had made_; but indeed ought to be in the Subjunctive Mode, Present or Past Time, _should make_, or _should have made_.

[58] “By _this means_ thou shalt have no portion on this side the river.” Ezra, iv. 16. “It renders us careless of approving ourselves to God by religious duties, and by _that means_ securing the continuance of his goodness.” Atterbury, Sermons. Ought it not to be, by _these means_, by _those means_? or by _this mean_, by _that mean_, in the singular number? as it is used by Hooker, Sidney, Shakespear, &c. “I have not wept _this_ forty _years_.” Dryden. “I am not recommending _these kind_ of sufferings to your liking.” Bishop Sherlock, Disc. Vol. II. p. 267. So the Pronoun must agree with its Noun: in which respect let the following example be considered. “_It is_ an unanswerable argument of a very refined age, the wonderful _Civilities_ that have passed between the nation of authors and those of readers.” Swift, Tale of a Tub, Sect. x. As to these wonderful _Civilities_, one might say, that “_they are_ an unanswerable argument, &c.” but as the Sentence stands at present it is not easy to reconcile it to any grammatical propriety. “_A person whom_ all the world allows to be so much your _betters_.” Swift, Battle of Books. And the Phrase which occurs in the following examples, tho’ pretty common and authorised by Custom, yet seems to be somewhat defective in the same way:

“_’Tis these_ that early taint the female soul.”

Pope.

“_’Tis they_ that give the great Atrides’ spoils; _’Tis they_ that still renew Ulysses’ toils.”

Prior.

[59] “Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of his goodness to give you safe deliverance, and _hath preserved_ you in the great danger of Childbirth:”⸺Liturgy. The Verb _hath preserved_ hath here no Nominative Case; for it cannot be properly supplied by the preceding word _God_, which is in the Objective Case. It ought to be, “_and He hath preserved_ you;” or rather, “_and to preserve_ you.” Some of our best Writers have frequently fallen into this, which I take to be no small inaccuracy: I shall therefore add some more examples of it, by way of admonition; inferring in each within Crotchets, the Nominative Case that is deficient, and that must necessarily be supplied to support the proper Construction of the Sentence. “If the calm, in which he was born, and [which] lasted so long, had continued.” Clarendon, Life, p. 43. “The Remonstrance he had lately received from the House of Commons, and [which] was dispersed throughout the Kingdom.” Clarendon, Hist. Vol. I. p. 366. 8ᵛᵒ. “These we have extracted from an Historian of undoubted credit, a reverend bishop, the learned Paulus Jovius; and [they] are the same that were practised under the pontificate of Leo X.” Pope, Works, Vol. VI. p. 301. “A cloud gathering in the North; which we have helped to raise, and [which] may quickly break in a storm upon our heads.” Swift, Conduct of the Allies. “A man, whose inclinations led him to be corrupt, and [who] had great abilities to manage and multiply and defend his corruptions.” Gulliver, Part I. Chap. vi. “My Master likewise mentioned another quality, which his servants had discovered in many Yahoos, and [which] to him was wholly unaccountable.” Gulliver, Part IV. Chap. vii. “This I filled with the feathers of several birds I had taken with springes made of Yahoos hairs, and [which] were excellent food.” Ibid. Chap. x. “Osyris, whom the Grecians call Dionysius, and [who] is the same with Bacchus.” Swift, Mechan. Oper. of the Spirit, Sect. ii.

[60] “_Which rule_, if it had been observed, a neighbouring Prince would have wanted a great deal of that incense, which hath been offered up to him by his adorers.” Atterbury, Vol. I. Serm. 1. The Pronoun _it_ is here the Nominative Case to the Verb _observed_; and _which rule_ is left by itself, a Nominative Case without any Verb following it. This manner of expression, however improper, is very common. It ought to be, “If _this rule_ had been observed, &c.”

[61] Adjectives are sometimes employed as Adverbs; improperly, and not agreeably to the Genius of the English Language. As, “_extreme_ elaborate:” Dryden, Essay on Dram. Poet. “_marvellous_ graceful:” Clarendon, Life, p. 18. “_extreme_ unwilling;” “_extreme_ subject:” Swift, Tale of a Tub, and Battle of Books. “I shall endeavour to live hereafter _suitable_ to a man in my station.” Addison, Spect. Nᵒ 530. “Homer describes this river _agreeable_ to the vulgar reading.” Pope, Note on Iliad, ii. v. 1032. So _exceeding_, for _exceedingly_, however improper, occurs frequently in the Vulgar Translation of the Bible, and has obtained in common discourse. “We should live soberly, righteously, and _godly_ in this present world.” Tit. ii. 12.

“O Liberty, Thou Goddess _heavenly_ bright.”

Addison.

On the other hand an Adverb is improperly used as an Adjective in the following passage: “We may cast in such seeds and principles, as we judge most likely to take _soonest_ and deepest root.” Tillotson, Vol. I. Serm. 52.

[62] “_How much soever_ the Reformation of this corrupt and degenerate Age is _almost utterly_ to be despaired of, we may yet have a more comfortable prospect of future times.” Tillotson, Vol. I. Pref. to Serm. 49. The first part of this Sentence abounds with Adverbs, and those such as are hardly consistent with one another.

[63] “We are still much at a loss, _who_ civil power belongs _to_.” Locke. It ought to be _whom_.

[64] Pope, Preface to his Poems.

[65] _With_ in composition retains the signification, which it hath among others in the Saxon, of _from_ and _against_: as to _withhold_, to _withstand_. So also for has a negative signification from the Saxon: as, to _forbid_, _forbeodan_; to _forget_, _forgitan_.

[66] Examples of impropriety in the use of the Preposition in Phrases of this kind: “Your character, which I, or any other writer, may now value ourselves _by_ [upon] drawing.” Swift, Letter on the English Tongue. “You have bestowed your favours _to_ [upon] the most deserving persons.” Ibid. “Upon such occasions as fell _into_ [under] their cognisance,” Swift, Contests and Dissensions &c. Chap. 3. “That variety of factions _into_ [in] which we are still engaged.” Ibid. Chap. 5. “The utmost extent of power pretended [to] by the Commons.” Ibid. Chap. 3.⸺“Accused the ministers _for_ [of] betraying the Dutch.” Swift, Four last years of the Queen, Book ii. “Ovid, whom you accuse _for_ [of] luxuriancy of verse.” Dryden, on Dram. Poesy. “Neither the one nor the other shall make me swerve _out of_ [from] the path, which I have traced to myself.” Bolingbroke, Letter to Wyndham, p. 252. “They are now reconciled by a zeal for their cause to what they could not be prompted [to] by a concern for their beauty.” Addison, Spect. Nᵒ 81. “If policy can prevail _upon_ [over] force.” Addison, Travels, p. 62. “Ye blind guides, which strain _at_ a gnat, and swallow a camel.” Matt. xxiii. 24. διυλιζοντες, “which strain _out_, or take a gnat _out_ of the liquor by straining it:” the impropriety of the Preposition has wholly destroyed the meaning of the Phrase. Observe also, that the Noun generally requires after it the same Preposition as the Verb from which it is formed: “It was perfectly in compliance _to_ [with] some persons, for whose opinion I have great deference.” Swift, Pref. to Temple’s Memoirs. “Not from any personal hatred to them, but in justification _to_ [of] the best of Queens.” Swift, Examiner, Nᵒ 23. In the last example, the Verb being Transitive and requiring the Objective Case, the Noun formed from it seems to require the Possessive Case, or its Preposition, after it. Or perhaps he meant to say, “in _justice_ to the best of Queens.” “No discouragement for the authors to proceed.” Tale of a Tub, Preface. “A strict observance _after_ times and fashions.” Ibid. Sect. ii. So the Noun _Aversion_, (that is, a turning away,) requires the Preposition _from_ after it; and does not properly admit of _to_, _for_, or _towards_, which are often used with it.

[67] These are much disused in common discourse, and are retained only in the Solemn, or Formulary Style. “They [our Authors] have of late, ’tis true, reformed in some measure the gouty joints and darning-work of _whereunto’s_, _whereby’s_, _thereof’s_, _therewith’s_, and the rest of this kind; by which complicated periods are so curiously strung, or hook’d on, one to another, after the long-spun manner of the bar or pulpit.” Lord Shaftesbury, Miscel. V.

[68] Or in these and the like Phrases, may not _me_, _thee_, _him_, _her_, _us_, which in Saxon are the Dative Cases of their respective Pronouns, be considered as still continuing such in the English, and including in their very form the force of the Prepositions _to_ and _for_? There are certainly some other Phrases, which are to be resolved in this manner: “Wo is _me_!” The Phrase is pure Saxon; “wa is me:” _me_ is the Dative Case; in English, with the Preposition _to me_. So, “_methinks_;” Saxon, “_me thincth_,” εμοι δοκει. “O well is _thee_!” Psal. cxxviii. 2. “Wel is _him_ that ther mai be.” Anglo-Saxon Poem in Hickes’s Thesaur. Vol. I. p. 231. “Well is _him_, that dwelleth with a wife of understanding.”⸺“Well is _him_, that hath found prudence.” Ecclus. xxv. 8, 9. The Translator thought to correct his phrase afterward, and so hath made it neither Saxon nor English: “Well is _he_, that is defended from it.” Ecclus. xxviii. 19. “Wo worth the day!” Ezek. xxx. 2. that is, Wo be _to_ the day. The word _worth_ is not the Adjective, but the Saxon Verb _weorthan_, or _worthan_, _fieri_, _to be_, _to become_; which is often used by Chaucer, and is still retained as an Auxiliary Verb in the German Language.

[69] _That_ has been used in the same manner, as including the Relative _which_; but it is either improper, or obsolete: as, “To consider advisedly of _that_ is moved.” Bacon, Essay xxii. “She appeared not to wish _that_ without doubt she would have been very glad of.” Clarendon, Hist. Vol. II. p. 363. 8ᵛᵒ. “We speak _that_ we do know, and testify _that_ we have seen.” John iii. 11.

[70] “_Who_, instead of going about doing good, _they_ are perpetually intent upon doing mischief.” Tillotson, Vol. I. Serm. 18. The Nominative Case _they_ in this sentence is superfluous; it was expressed before in the Relative _who_.

[71] “I am _the Lord, that maketh_ all things; _that stretcheth_ forth the heavens alone:”⸺Isaiah xliv. 24. Thus far is right: _the Lord_ in the third Person is the Antecedent, and the Verb agrees with the Relative in the third Person: “I am the Lord, _which Lord_, or _He that, maketh_ all things.” It would have been equally right, if _I_ had been made the Antecedent, and the Relative and the Verb had agreed with it in the First Person: “_I_ am the Lord, _that make_ all things.” But when it follows, “_that spreadeth_ abroad the heavens by _myself_;” there arises a confusion of Persons, and a manifest Solecism.

“_Thou_ great first Cause, least understood! _Who_ all my sense _confin’d_ To know but this, that _Thou art_ good, And that myself am blind: Yet _gave_ me in this dark estate,” &c.

Pope, Universal Prayer.

It ought to be _confinedst_, or _didst confine_; _gavest_, or _didst give_; &c. in the second Person. See above, p. 48. Note.

[72]

“Abuse on all he lov’d, or lov’d him, spread.”

Pope, Epist. to Arbuthnot.

That is, “all _whom_ he lov’d, or _who_ lov’d him:” or to make it more easy by supplying a Relative that has no variation of Cases, “all _that_ he lov’d, or _that_ lov’d him.” The Construction is hazardous, and hardly justifiable, even in Poetry. “In the temper of mind he was then.” Addison, Spect. Nᵒ 549. “In the posture I lay.” Swift, Gulliver, Part 1. Chap. 1. In these and the like Phrases, which are very common, there is an Ellipsis both of the Relative and the Preposition; which were much better supplied: “In the temper of mind _in which_ he was then:” “In the posture _in which_ I lay.” In general, the omission of the Relative seems to be too much indulged in the familiar style; it is ungraceful in the serious; and of whatever kind the style be, it is apt to be attended with obscurity and ambiguity.

[73] The Connective parts of Sentences are of all others the most important, and require the most care and attention: for it is by these chiefly that the train of thought, the course of reasoning, and the whole progress of the mind in continued discourse of all kinds, is laid open; and on the right use of these the perspicuity, that is, the first and greatest beauty, of style principally depends. Relatives and Conjunctions are the instruments of Connection in discourse: it may be of use to point out some of the most common inaccuracies, that writers are apt to fall into with respect to them; and a few examples of faults may perhaps be more instructive, than any rules of propriety that can be given. Here therefore shall be added some further examples of inaccuracies in the use of Relatives.

The Relative placed before the Antecedent: Example; “The bodies, which we daily handle, make us perceive, that whilst they remain between _them_, they do by an insurmountable force hinder the approach of our _hands_ that press them.” Locke, Essay, B. 2. C. 4. §. 1. Here the sense is suspended, and the sentence is unintelligible, till you get to the end of it: there is no Antecedent, to which the Relative _them_ can be referred, but _bodies_; but, “whilst the bodies remain between the bodies,” makes no sense at all. When you get to _hands_, the difficulty is cleared up, the sense helping out the Construction: yet there still remains an ambiguity in the Relatives _they_, _them_, which in number and gender are equally applicable to _bodies_ or _hands_; this, tho’ it may not here be the occasion of much obscurity, which is commonly the effect of it, yet is always disagreeable and inelegant: as in the following examples.

“Men look with an evil eye upon the good that is in others; and think, that _their_ reputation obscures _them_; and that _their_ commendable qualities do stand in _their_ light: and therefore _they_ do what _they_ can to cast a cloud over _them_, that the bright shining of _their_ virtues may not obscure _them_.” Tillotson, Vol. I. Serm. 42.

“The Earl of Falmouth and Mr. Coventry were rivals _who_ should have most influence with the Duke, _who_ loved the Earl best, but thought the other the wiser man, _who_ supported Pen, _who_ disobliged all the Courtiers, even against the Earl, _who_ contemned Pen as a fellow of no sense.” Clarendon, Cont. p. 264.

But the following Sentence cannot possibly be understood without a careful recollection of circumstances through some pages preceding.

“All which, with the King’s and Queen’s so ample promises to _him_ [the Treasurer] so few hours before the conferring the place on another, and the Duke of York’s manner of receiving _him_ [the Treasurer,] after _he_ [the Chancellor] had been shut up with _him_ [the Duke,] as _he_ [the Treasurer] was informed, might very well excuse _him_ [the Treasurer] for thinking _he_ [the Chancellor] had some share in the affront _he_ [the Treasurer] had undergone.” Clarendon, Cont. p. 296.

“Breaking a Constitution by the very same errors, _that_ so many have been _broke_ before.” Swift, Contests and Dissensions, &c. Chap. 5. Here the Relative is employed not only to represent the Antecedent Noun _the errors_, but likewise the Preposition _by_ prefixed to it. It ought to be, “the same errors, _by which_ so many have been _broken_ before.”

Again: “⸺An Undertaking; _which_, although it has failed, (partly &c, and partly &c,) is no objection at all to an Enterprize so well concerted, and with such fair probability of success.” Swift, Conduct of the Allies. That is, “Which Undertaking is no objection to an Enterprize so well concerted;” that is, “to itself:” he means, “_the failing of which_ is no objection at all to it.”