She ran in haste, &c.
_F. Q._ iv. 7, 32.
{454}
s. 571. Imperatives have three peculiarities. (1.) They can only, in
English, be used in the second person: (2.) They take pronouns after,
instead of before, them: (3.) They often omit the pronoun altogether.
s. 572. For the syntax of subjunctives, see the Chapter on Conjunctions.
* * * * *
{455}
CHAPTER XX.
ON THE TENSES.
s. 573. Notwithstanding its name, the present tense in English, does not
express a strictly _present_ action. It rather expresses an habitual one.
_He speaks well_=_he is a good speaker_. If a man means to say that he is
in the act of speaking, he says _I am speaking_.
It has also, especially when combined with a subjunctive mood, a future
power--_I beat you_ (=_I will beat you_) _if you don't leave off_.
s. 574. The English praeterite is the equivalent, not to the Greek perfect
but the Greek aorist. _I beat_=[Greek: etupsa] not [Greek: tetupha]. The
true perfect is expressed, in English, by the auxiliary _have_ + the past
participle.
* * * * *
{456}
CHAPTER XXI.
SYNTAX OF THE PERSONS OF VERBS.
s. 575. For the impersonal verbs see Part IV. Chapter 27.
s. 576. _The concord of persons._--A difficulty that occurs frequently in
the Latin language is rare in English. In expressions like _ego et ille_
followed by a verb, there arises a question as to the person in which that
verb should be used. Is it to be in the first person in order to agree with
_ego_, or in the _third_ in order to agree with _ille_? For the sake of
laying down a rule upon these and similar points, the classical grammarians
arrange the persons (as they do the genders) according to their _dignity_,
making the verb (or adjective if it be a question of gender) agree with the
most _worthy_. In respect to persons, the first is more worthy than the
second, and the second more worthy than the third. Hence, the Latins said--
_Ego_ et _Balbus sustulimus_ manus.
_Tu_ et _Balbus sustulistis_ manus.
Now, in English, the plural form is the same for all three persons. Hence
we say _I and you are friends_, _you and I are friends_, _I and he are
friends_, &c., so that, for the practice of language, the question as to
the relative dignity of the three persons is a matter of indifference.
Nevertheless, it _may_ occur even in English. Whenever two or more pronouns
of different persons, and of the _singular_ number, follow each other
_disjunctively_, the question of concord arises. _I or you_,--_you or
he_,--_he or I_. I believe that, in these cases, the rule is as follows:--
1. Whenever the words _either_ or _neither_ precede the {457} pronouns, the
verb is in the third person. _Either you or I is in the wrong_; _neither
you nor I is in the wrong_.
2. Whenever the disjunctive is simple (_i. e._ unaccompanied with the word
_either_ or _neither_) the verb agrees with the _first_ of the two
pronouns.
_I_ or _he am_ in the wrong.
_He_ or _I is_ in the wrong.
_Thou_ or _he art_ in the wrong.
_He_ or _thou is_ in the wrong.
The reasons for these rules will appear in the Chapter on Conjunctions.
Now, provided that they are correct, it is clear that the English language
knows nothing about the relative degrees of dignity between these three
pronouns; since its habit is to make the verb agree with the one which is
placed first--whatever may be the person. I am strongly inclined to believe
that the same is the case in Latin; in which case (in the sentence _ego et
Balbus sustulimus manus_) _sustulimus_ agrees, in person, with _ego_, not
because the first person is the worthiest, but because it comes first in
the proposition. That the greater supposed worth of the first person may be
a reason for putting it first in the proposition is likely enough.
* * * * *
{458}
CHAPTER XXII.
ON THE VOICES OF VERBS.
s. 577. In English there is neither a passive nor a middle voice.
The following couplet from Dryden's "Mac Flecnoe" exhibits a construction
which requires explanation:--
An ancient fabric, raised to'inform the sight,
There stood of yore, and Barbican _it hight_.
Here the word _hight_=_was called_, and seems to present an instance of the
participle being used in a passive sense without the so-called verb
substantive. Yet it does no such thing. The word is no participle at all;
but a simple preterite. Certain verbs are _naturally_ either passive or
active, as one of two allied meanings may predominate. _To be called_ is
passive; so is, _to be beaten_. But, _to bear as a name_ is active; so is,
_to take a beating_. The word, _hight_, is of the same class of verbs with
the Latin _vapulo_; and it is the same as the Latin word,
_cluo_.--_Barbican cluit_=_Barbican audivit_=_Barbican it hight_.
* * * * *
{459}
CHAPTER XXIII.
ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS.
s. 578. The auxiliary verbs, in English, play a most important part in the
syntax of the language. They may be classified upon a variety of
principles. The following, however, are all that need here be applied.
A. _Classification of auxiliaries according to their inflectional or
non-inflectional powers._--Inflectional auxiliaries are those that may
either replace or be replaced by an inflection. Thus--_I am struck_=the
Latin _ferior_, and the Greek [Greek: tuptomai]. These auxiliaries are in
the same relation to verbs that prepositions are to nouns. The inflectional
auxiliaries are,--
1. _Have_; equivalent to an inflection in the way of tense--_I have
bitten=mo-mordi_.
2. _Shall_; ditto. _I shall call_=_voc-abo_.
3. _Will_; ditto. _I will call_=_voc-abo_.
4. _May_; equivalent to an inflection in the way of mood. _I am come that I
may see_=_venio ut vid-eam_.
5. _Be_; equivalent to an inflection in the way of voice. _To be
beaten_=_verberari_, [Greek: tuptesthai].
6. _Am, art, is, are_; ditto. Also equivalent to an inflection in the way
of tense. _I am moving_=_move-o_.
7. _Was, were_; ditto, ditto. _I was beaten_=[Greek: e-tuphthen]. _I was
moving_=_move-bam_.
_Do_, _can_, _must_, and _let_, are non-inflectional auxiliaries.
B. _Classification of auxiliaries according to their non-auxiliary
significations._--The power of the word _have_ in the combination of _I
have a horse_ is clear enough. It means possession. The power of the same
word in the combination _I have been_ is not so clear; nevertheless it is a
power which has grown out of the idea of possession. This shows that {460}
the power of a verb as an auxiliary may be a modification of its original
power; _i. e._, of the power it has in non-auxiliary constructions.
Sometimes the difference is very little: the word _let_, in _let us go_,
has its natural sense of permission unimpaired. Sometimes it is lost
altogether. _Can_ and _may_ exist only as auxiliaries.
1. Auxiliary derived from the idea of possession--_have_.
2. Auxiliaries derived from the idea of existence--_be_, _is_, _was_.
3. Auxiliary derived from the idea of future destination, dependent upon
circumstances external to the agent--_shall_. There are etymological
reasons for believing that _shall_ is no present tense, but a perfect.
4. Auxiliary derived from the idea of future destination, dependent upon
the volition of the agent--_will_. _Shall_ is simply predictive; _will_ is
predictive and promissive as well.
5. Auxiliary derived from the idea of power, dependent upon circumstances
external to the agent--_may_.
6. Auxiliary derived from the idea of power, dependent upon circumstances
internal to the agent--_can_. _May_ is simply permissive; _can_ is
potential. In respect to the idea of power residing in the agent being the
cause which determines a contingent action, _can_ is in the same relation
to _may_ as _will_ is to _shall_.
"_May_ et _can_, cum eorum praeteritis imperfectis, _might_ et _could_,
potentiam innuunt: cum hoc tamen discrimine: _may_ et _might_ vel de
jure vel saltem de rei possibilitate dicuntur, at _can_ et _could_ de
viribus agentis."--WALLIS, p. 107.
7. Auxiliary derived from the idea of sufferance--_let_.
8. Auxiliary derived from the idea of necessity--_must_.
"_Must_ necessitatem innuit. Debeo, oportet, necesse est urere, _I must
burn_. Aliquando sed rarius in praeterito dicitur _must_ (quasi ex
_must'd_ seu _must't_ contractum). Sic, si de praeterito dicatur, _he
must_ (seu _must't_) _be burnt_, oportebat uri seu necesse habuit ut
ureretur."--WALLIS, 107.
9. Auxiliary derived from the idea of action--_do_.
C. _Classification of auxiliary verbs in respect to their mode_ {461} _of
construction._--Auxiliary verbs combine with others in three ways.
1. _With participles._--_a_) With the present, or active, participle--_I am
speaking_: _b_) With the past, or passive, participle--_I am beaten_, _I
have beaten_.
2. _With infinitives._--_a_) With the objective infinitive--_I can speak_:
_b_) With the gerundial infinitive--_I have to speak_.
3. _With both infinitives and participles._--_I shall have done, I mean to
have done._
D. _Auxiliary verbs may be classified according to their
effect._--Thus--_have_ makes the combination in which it appears equivalent
to a tense; _be_ to a passive form; _may_ to a sign of mood, &c.
This sketch of the different lights under which auxiliary verbs may be
viewed, has been written for the sake of illustrating, rather than
exhausting, the subject.
s. 579. The following is an exhibition of some of the _times_ in which an
action may take place, as found in either the English or other languages,
expressed by the use of either an inflection or a combination.
_Time considered in one point only_--
1. _Present._--An action taking place at the time of speaking, and
incomplete.--_I am beating_, _I am being beaten_. _Not_ expressed, in
English, by the simple present tense; since _I beat_ means _I am in the
habit of beating_.
2. _Aorist._--An action that took place in past time, or previous to the
time of speaking, and which has no connection with the time of
speaking.--_I struck_, _I was stricken_. Expressed, in English, by the
praeterite, in Greek by the aorist. The term aorist, from the Greek [Greek:
a-oristos]=_undefined_, is a convenient name for this sort of time.
3. _Future._--An action that has neither taken place, nor is taking place
at the time of speaking, but which is stated as one which _will_ take
place.--Expressed, in English, by the combination of _will_ or _shall_ with
an infinitive mood. In Latin and Greek by an inflection. _I shall_ (or
_will_) _speak_, [Greek: lek-so], _dica-m_. {462}
None of these expressions imply more than a single action; in other words,
they have no relation to any second action occurring simultaneously with
them, before them, or after them.--_I am speaking now_, _I spoke
yesterday_, _I shall speak to-morrow_. Of course, the act of mentioning
them is not considered as an action related to them in the sense here
meant.
By considering past, present, or future actions not only by themselves, but
as related to other past, present, or future actions, we get fresh
varieties of expression. Thus, an act may have been going on, when some
other act, itself an act of past time, interrupted it. Here the action
agrees with a present action, in being incomplete; but it differs from it
in having been rendered incomplete by an action that has past. This is
exactly the case with the--
4. _Imperfect._--_I was reading when he entered._ Here we have two acts;
the act of _reading_ and the act of _entering_. Both are past as regards
the time of speaking, but both are present as regards each other. This is
expressed, in English, by the past tense of the verb substantive and the
present participle, _I was speaking_; and in Latin and Greek by the
imperfect tense, _dicebam_, [Greek: etupton].
5. _Perfect._--Action past, but connected with the present by its effects
or consequences.--_I _have_ written, and here is the letter._ Expressed in
English by the auxiliary verb _have_, followed by the _participle passive
in the accusative case and neuter gender of the singular number_. The Greek
expresses this by the reduplicate perfect: [Greek: te-tupha]=_I have
beaten._
6. _Pluperfect._--Action past, but connected with a second action,
subsequent to it, _which is also past_.--_I _had_ written when he _came_
in._
7. _Future present._--Action future as regards the time of speaking,
present as regards some future time.--_I shall _be speaking_ about this
time to-morrow._
8. _Future praeterite._--Action future as regards the time of speaking,
past as regards some future time.--_I shall _have spoken_ by this time
to-morrow._ {463}
These are the chief expressions which are simply determined by the
relations of actions to each other, and to the time of speaking, either in
the English or any other language. But over and above the simple idea of
_time_, there may be others superadded: thus, the phrase, I do _speak_
means, not only that _I am in the habit of speaking_, but that I also
_insist_ upon it being understood that I am so.
Again, an action that is mentioned as either taking place, or as having
taken place at a given time, may take place again and again. Hence the idea
of _habit_ may arise out of the idea of either present time or aorist time.
[alpha]. In English, the present form expresses _habit_. See p. 455.
[beta]. In Greek the aorist expresses habit.
Again, one tense, or one combination, may be used for another. _I was
speaking when he enters._
The results of these facts may now be noticed:
1. The _emphatic present and praeterite._--Expressed by _do_ (or _did_), as
stated above. A man says _I do_ (or _did_) _speak_, _read_, &c., when,
either directly or by implication, it is asserted or implied that he does
not. As a question implies doubt, _do_ is used in interrogations.
"_Do_ et _did_ indicant emphatice tempus praesens, et praeteritum
imperfectum. _Uro_, _urebam_; _I burn_, _I burned_: vel (emphatice) _I
do burn_, _I did burn_."--WALLIS, p. 106.
2. _The predictive future._--_I shall be there to-morrow._ This means
simply that the speaker will be present. It gives no clue to the
circumstances that will determine his being so.
3. The _promissive future._--_I will be there to-morrow._--This means not
only that the speaker will be present, but that he _intends_ being so. For
further observations on _shall_ and _will_, see pp. 471-474.
4. That the power of the present tense is, in English, not present, but
habitual, has already been twice stated.
s. 580. _The representative expression of past and future time._--An action
may be past; yet, for the sake of bringing it more vividly before the
hearers, we may make it present. {464} _He walks (_for_ walked) up to him,
and knocks (_for_ knocked) him down._ This denotes a single action; and is
by no means the natural habitual power of the English present. So, in
respect to a future, _I beat you if you don't leave off_, for _I will beat
you_. This use of the present tense is sometimes called the _historic_ use
of the present tense. I find it more convenient to call it the
representative use; inasmuch as it is used more after the principles of
painting than of history; the former of which, necessarily, _represents_
things as present, the latter, more naturally, describes them as _past_.
The use of the representative present to express simple actions is
unequivocally correct. To the expression, however, of complex actions it
gives an illogical character,--_As I was doing this he enters_ (for
_entered_). Nevertheless, such a use of the present is a fact in language,
and we must take it as it occurs.
s. 581. The present tense can be used instead of the future; and that on
the principle of representation. Can a future be used for a present? No.
The present tense can be used instead of the aorist; and that on the
principle of representation. Can a past tense, or combination, be used for
a present?
In respect to the perfect tense there is no doubt. The answer is in the
affirmative. For all purposes of syntax a perfect tense, or a combination
equivalent to one, is a present tense. Contrast the expression, _I come
that I may see_; with the expression, _I came that I might see_; _i.e._,
the present construction with the aorist. Then, bring in the perfect
construction, _I have come_. It differs with the aorist, and agrees with
the present. _I have come that I may see._ The reason for this is clear.
There is not only a present element in all perfects, but for the purposes
of syntax, the present element predominates. Hence expressions like _I
shall go_, need give us no trouble; even though _shall_ be considered as a
perfect tense. Suppose the root, _sk-ll_ to mean _to be destined_ (or
_fated_). Provided we consider the effects of the action to be continued up
to the time of speaking, we may say _I _have been_ destined to go_, just as
well as we can say _I _am_ destined to go_. {465}
The use of the aorist as a present (except so far as both the tenses agree
in their power of expressing _habitual_ actions) is a more difficult
investigation. It bears upon such expressions as _I ought to go_, &c., and
will be taken up in p. 475.
s. 582. Certain adverbs, _i.e._, those of time, require certain tenses. _I
am then_, _I was now_, _I was hereafter_, &c., are contradictory
expressions. They are not so much bad grammar as impossible nonsense.
Nevertheless, we have in Latin such expressions as
"Ut _sumus_ in ponto ter frigore constitit Ister."
Here the connection of the present and perfect ideas explains the apparent
contradiction. The present state may be the result of a previous one; so
that a preterite element may be involved in a present expression. _Ut
sumus_=_since I have been where I am_.
It is hardly necessary to remark that such expressions as _since I am here_
(where _since_=_inasmuch as_) do not come under this class.
s. 583. Two fresh varieties in the use of tenses and auxiliary verbs may be
arrived at by considering the following ideas, which may be superadded to
that of simple time.
1. _Continuance in the case of future actions._--A future action may not
only take place, but continue: thus, a man may, on a given day, not only be
called by a particular name, but may _keep_ that name. When Hesiod says
that, notwithstanding certain changes which shall have taken place, good
shall _continue_ to be mixed with bad, he does not say, [Greek: esthla
michthesetai kakoisin], but,
[Greek: All' empes kai toisi memixetai esthla kakoisin].
_Opera et Dies._
Again,--
[Greek: Epeith' ho polites entetheis en katalogoi]
[Greek: Oudeis kata spoudas metengraphesetai],
[Greek: All' hosper en to protun engegrapsetai].
ARISTOPH. _Equites_, 1366.
{466}
Here [Greek: metengraphesetai] means _change from one class to another_,
[Greek: engegrapsetai] _continuance in the same_.--See Mathiae, ii. s. 498.
Upon the lines,--
[Greek: Hothen pros andron husteron keklesetai]
[Greek: Doureios hippos].
_Troades_, 13, 14.
Seidler remarks that [Greek: klethesetai], est _nomen accipiet_; [Greek:
keklesetai], _nomen geret_.
Now it is quite true that this Greek tense, the so-called
_paulo-post-futurum_, "bears the same relation to the other futures as,
among the tenses of past time, the perfectum does to the
aorist."--(Mathiae.) And it is also true that it by no means answers to the
English _shall have been_. Yet the logical elements of both are the same.
In the English expression, the _past_ power of the perfect predominates, in
the Greek its _present_ power.
2. _Habit in the case of past actions._--_I had dined when I rode out._
This may apply to a particular dinner, followed by a particular ride. But
it may also mean that when the speaker _had dined, according to habit, he
rode out, according to habit also_. This gives us a variety of pluperfect;
which is, in the French language, represented by separate
combination--_j'avais din['e]_, _j'eus din['e]_.
s. 584. It is necessary to remember that the connection between the present
and the past time, which is involved in the idea of a perfect tense
([Greek: tetupha]), or perfect combination (_I have beaten_), is of several
sorts.
It may consist in the _present proof_ of the _past_ fact,--_I have written,
and here is the evidence_.
It may consist in the _present effects_ of the _past_ fact,--_I have
written, and here is the answer_.
Without either enumerating or classifying these different kinds of
connexion, it is necessary to indicate two sorts of _inference_ to which
they may give origin.
1. _The inference of continuance._--When a person says, _I have learned my
lesson_, we presume that he can say it, _i. e._, that, _he has a present
knowledge of it_. Upon this principle {467} [Greek: kektemai]=_I have
earned_=_I possess_. The past action is assumed to be continued in its
effects.
2. _The inference of contrast._--When a person says, _I have been young_,
we presume that he is so no longer. The action is past, but it is continued
up to the time of speaking by the contrast which it supplies. Upon this
principle, _fuit Ilium_ means _Ilium is no more_.
In speaking, this difference can be expressed by a difference of accent. _I
_have_ learned my lesson_, implies that _I don't mean to learn it again_.
_I have _learned_ my lesson_, implies that _I can say it_.
s. 585. The construction of the auxiliary, _may_, will be considered in the
Chapter on Conjunctions; that of _can_, _must_, and _let_, offer nothing
remarkable. The combination of the auxiliary, _have_, with the past
participle requires notice. It is, here, advisable to make the following
classifications.
1. The combination with the participle of a _transitive verb_.--_I have
ridden the horse_; _thou hast broken the sword_; _he has smitten the
enemy_.
2. The combination with the participle of an _intransitive_ verb,--_I have
waited_; _thou hast hungered_; _he has slept_.
3. The combination with the participle of the verb substantive,--_I have
been_; _thou hast been_; _he has been_.
It is by examples of the first of these three divisions that the true
construction is to be shown.
For an object of any sort to be in the possession of a person, it must
previously have existed. If I possess a horse, that horse must have had a
previous existence.
Hence, in all expressions like _I have ridden a horse_, there are two
ideas, a past idea in the participle, and a present idea in the word
denoting possession.
For an object of any sort, affected in a particular manner, to be in the
possession of a person, it must previously have been affected in the manner
required. If I possess a horse that has been ridden, the riding must have
taken place before I mention the fact of the ridden horse being in my
possession; inasmuch as I speak of it as a thing already done,--the
participle, _ridden_, being in the past tense. {468}
_I have ridden a horse_=_I have a horse ridden_=_I have a horse as a ridden
horse_, or (changing the gender and dealing with the word _horse_ as a
thing)=_I have a horse as a ridden thing_.
In this case the syntax is of the usual sort. (1)
_Have_=_own_=_habeo_=_teneo_; (2) _horse_ is the accusative case=_equum_;
(3) _ridden_ is a past participle agreeing either with _horse_, or _with a
word in apposition with it understood_.
Mark the words in italics. The word _ridden_ does not agree with _horse_,
since it is of the neuter gender. Neither if we said _I have ridden the
horses_, would it agree with _horses_; since it is of the singular number.
The true construction is arrived at by supplying the word _thing_. _I have
a horse as a ridden thing_=_habeo equum equitatum_ (neuter). Here the
construction is the same as _triste lupus stabulis_.
_I have horses as a ridden thing_=_habeo equos equitatam_ (singular,
neuter). Here the construction is--
"Triste ... maturis frugibus imbres,
Arboribus venti, nobis Amaryllides irae."
or in Greek--
[Greek: Deinon gunaixin hai di' odinon gonai].
The classical writers supply instances of this use of _have_. _Compertum
habeo_, milites, verba viris virtutem non addere=_I have discovered_=_I am
in possession of the discovery_. Quae cum ita sint, satis de Caesare hoc
_dictum habeo_.
2. The combination of _have_ with an intransitive verb is irreducible to
the idea of possession: indeed, it is illogical. In _I have waited_, we
cannot make the idea expressed by the word _waited_ the object of the
_verb_ have or _possess_. The expression has become a part of language by
means of the extension of a false analogy. It is an instance of an
illegitimate imitation.
3. The combination of _have_ with _been_ is more illogical still, and is a
stronger instance of the influence of an illegitimate imitation. In German
and Italian, where even _intransitive_ verbs are combined with the
equivalents to the English _have_ {469} (_haben_ and _avere_), the verb
substantive is not so combined; on the contrary, the combinations are
Italian; _io sono stato_=_I am been_.
German; _ich bin gewesen_=_ditto_.
which is logical.
s. 586. _I am to speak._--Three facts explain this idiom.
1. The idea of _direction towards an object_ conveyed by the dative case,
and by combinations equivalent to it.
2. The extent to which the ideas of necessity, obligation, or intention are
connected with the idea of _something that has to be done_, or _something
towards which some action has a tendency_.
3. The fact that expressions like the one in question historically
represent an original dative case, or its equivalent; since _to speak_
grows out of the Anglo-Saxon form _to sprecanne_, which, although called a
gerund, is really a dative case of the infinitive mood.
When Johnson (see Mr. Guest, _Phil. Trans._ No. 44) thought that, in the
phrase _he is to blame_, the word _blame_ was a noun, if he meant a noun in
the way that _culpa_ is a noun, his view was wrong. But if he meant a noun
in the way that _culpare_, _ad culpandum_, are nouns, it was right.
s. 587. _I am to blame._--This idiom is one degree more complex than the
previous one; since _I am to blame_=_I am to be blamed_. As early, however,
as the Anglo-Saxon period the gerunds were liable to be used in a passive
sense: _he is to lufigenne_=not _he is to love_, but _he is to be loved_.
The principle of this confusion may be discovered by considering that _an
object to be blamed_, is _an object for some one to blame_, _an object to
be loved_ is _an object for some one to love_.
s. 588. _Shall_ and _will._--The simply predictive future verb is _shall_.
Nevertheless, it is only used in the first person. The second and third
persons are expressed by the promissive verb _will_.
The promissive future verb is _will_. Nevertheless, it is only used in the
first person. The second and third persons are expressed by the predictive
verb _shall_. {470}
"In _primis_ personis _shall_ simpliciter praedicentis est; _will_, quasi
promittentis aut minantis.
"In secundis et tertiis personis, _shall_ promittentis est aut minantis:
_will_ simpliciter praedicentis.
"Uram=_I shall burn_.
Ures=_Thou wilt burn_.
Uret=_He will burn_.
Uremus=_We shall burn_.
Uretis=_Ye will burn_.
Urent=_They will burn_.
nempe, hoc futurum praedico.
"_I will burn._
_Thou shalt burn._
_He shall burn._
_We will burn._
_Ye shall burn._
_They shall burn._
nempe, hoc futurum spondeo, vel faxo ut sit."
Again--"_would_ et _should_ illud indicant quod erat vel esset futurum: cum
hoc tantum discrimine: _would_ voluntatem innuit, seu agentis propensionem:
_should_ simpliciter futuritionem."--Wallis, p. 107.
s. 589. Archdeacon Hare explains this by a _usus ethicus_. "In fact, this
was one of the artifices to which the genius of the Greek language had
recourse, to avoid speaking presumptuously of the future: for there is an
awful, irrepressible, and almost instinctive consciousness of the
uncertainty of the future, and of our own powerlessness over it, which, in
all cultivated languages, has silently and imperceptibly modified the modes
of expression with regard to it: and from a double kind of _litotes_, the
one belonging to human nature generally, the other imposed by good-breeding
on the individual, and urging him to veil the manifestations of his will,
we are induced to frame all sorts of shifts for the sake of speaking with
becoming modesty. Another method, as we know, frequently adopted by the
Greeks was the use of the conditional moods: and as sentiments of this kind
always imply some degree of intellectual refinement, and strengthen with
its increase, this is called an Attic usage. The same name too has often
been given to the above-mentioned middle forms of the future; not that in
either case the practice was peculiar to the Attic dialect, but that it was
more general where the feelings which produced it were {471} strong and
more distinct. Here again our own language supplies us with an exact
parallel: indeed this is the only way of accounting for the singular
mixture of the two verbs _shall_ and _will_, by which, as we have no
auxiliary answering to the German _werde_, we express the future tense. Our
future, or at least what answers to it, is, _I shall_, _thou wilt_, _he
will_. When speaking in the first person, we speak submissively: when
speaking to or of another, we speak courteously. In our older writers, for
instance in our translation of the Bible, _shall_ is applied to all three
persons: we had not then reacht that stage of politeness which shrinks from
the appearance even of speaking compulsorily of another. On the other hand
the Scotch use _will_ in the first person: that is, as a nation they have
not acquired that particular shade of good-breeding which shrinks from
thrusting itself[61] forward."
{472}
s. 590. _Notice of the use of _will_ and _shall_, by Professor De
Morgan._--"The matter to be explained is the synonymous character of _will_
in the first person with _shall_ in the second and third; and of _shall_ in
the first person with _will_ in the second and third: _shall_ (1) and
_will_ (2, 3) are called _predictive_: _shall_ (2, 3) and _will_ (1)
_promissive_. The suggestion now proposed will require four distinctive
names.
"Archdeacon Hare's _usus ethicus_ is taken from the brighter side of human
nature:--'When speaking in the first person we speak submissively; when
speaking to or of another, we speak courteously.' This explains _I shall_,
_thou wilt_; but I cannot think it explains _I will_, _thou shalt_. It
often happens {473} that _you will_, with a persuasive tone, is used
courteously for something next to, if not quite, _you shall_. The present
explanation is taken from the darker side; and it is to be feared that the
_[`a] priori_ probabilities are in its favour.
"In introducing the common mode of stating the future tenses, grammar has
proceeded as if she were more than a formal science. She has no more
business to collect together _I shall_, _thou wilt_, _he will_, than to do
the same with _I rule_, _thou art ruled_, _he is ruled_.
"It seems to be the natural disposition of man to think of his own volition
in two of the following catagories, and of another man's in the other two:
Compelling, non-compelling; restrained, non-restrained.
{474}
"The _ego_, with reference to the _non-ego_, is apt, thinking of himself,
to propound the alternative, 'Shall I compel, or shall I leave him to do as
he likes?' so that, thinking of the other, the alternative is, 'shall he be
restrained, or shall he be left to his own will?' Accordingly, the express
introduction of his own will is likely to have reference to compulsion, in
case of opposition: the express introduction of the will of another, is
likely to mean no more than the gracious permission of the _ego_ to let
_non-ego_ do as he likes. Correlatively, the suppression of reference to
his own will, and the adoption of a simply predictive form on the part of
the _ego_, is likely to be the mode with which, when the person is changed,
he will associate the idea of another having his own way; while the
suppression of reference to the will of the _non-ego_ is likely to infer
restraint produced by the predominant will of the _ego_.
"Occasionally, the will of the _non-ego_ is referred to as under restraint
in modern times. To _I will not_, the answer is sometimes _you shall_,
meaning, in spite of the will--sometimes _you will_, meaning that the will
will be changed by fear or sense of the inutility of resistance."[62]
s. 591. _I am beaten._--This is a present combination, and it is present on
the strength of the verb _am_, not on the strength of the participle
_beaten_, which is praeterite.
The following table exhibits the _expedients_ on the part of the different
languages of the Gothic stock, since the loss of the proper passive form of
the Moeso-Gothic.
_Language._ Latin _datur_. Latin _datus est_.
_Moeso-Gothic_ gibada, ist, vas, varth gibans.
_Old High German_ ist, wirdit kepan, was, warth kepan.
_Notker_ wirt keben, ist keben.
_Middle High German_ wirt geben, ist geben.
_New High German_ wird gegeben, ist gegeben worden.
_Old Saxon_ is, wirtheth gebhan, was, warth gebhan.
_Middle Dutch_ es, bl[^i]ft ghegheven, waert, bl[^e]f ghegeven.
_New Dutch_ wordt gegeven, es gegeven worden.
_Old Frisian_ werth ejeven, is ejeven.
{475}
_Anglo-Saxon_ weorded gifen, is gifen.
_English_ is given, has been given.
_Old Norse_ er gefinn, hefr verit gefinn.
_Swedish_ gifves, har varit gifven.
_Danish_ bliver, vorder given, har varet given.
Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 19.
s. 592. _Ought, would, &c., used as presents._--These words are not in the
predicament of _shall_.
They are _present_ in power, and _past_ in form. So, perhaps, is _shall_.
But they are not, like _shall_, perfect forms; _i. e._, they have no
natural present element in them.
They are _aorist_ praeterites. Nevertheless, they have a present sense.
So had their equivalents in Greek: [Greek: echren]=[Greek: chre], [Greek:
edei]=[Greek: dei], [Greek: proseken]=[Greek: prosekei].
In Latin, too, _would_ was often not represented by either _volo_ or
_volebam_, but by _velim_.
I believe that the _usus ethicus_ is at the bottom of this construction.
The assertion of _duty_ or _obligation_ is one of those assertions which
men like to soften in the expression: _should_, _ought_.
So is the expression of power, as denoted by _may_ or _can_--_might_,
_could_.
Very often when we say _you should_ (or _ought to_) _do this_, we leave to
be added by implication--_but you do not_.
Very often when we say _I could_ (or _might_) _do this_, we leave to be
added by implication--_but I do not exert my power_.
Now, if what is left undone be the _present_ element in this assertion, the
duty to do it, or the power of doing it, constitutes a past element in it;
since the power (or duty) is, in relation to the performance, a
cause--insufficient, indeed, but still antecedent. This hypothesis is
suggested rather than asserted.
s. 593. By substituting the words _I am bound_ for _I ought_, {476} we may
see the expedients to which this present use of the praeterite forces us.
_I_ am bound _to do this_ now = _I_ owe _to do this_ now. However, we do
not say _owe_, but _ought_.
Hence, when we wish to say _I_ was bound _to do this_ two years ago, we
cannot say _I ought_ (_owed_) _to do this_, &c., since _ought_ is already
used in a present sense.
We therefore say, instead, _I_ ought to have done _this_ two years ago;
which has a similar, but by no means an identical meaning.
_I was bound to pay two years ago, _means_ two years ago I was under an
obligation to make a payment, either then or at some future time._
_I was bound to have paid, _&c., means_ I was under an obligation to have
made a payment._
If we use the word _ought_, this difference cannot be expressed.
Common people sometimes say, _you had not ought to do so and so_; and they
have a reason for saying it.
The Latin language is more logical. It says not _debet factum fuisse_, but
_debuit fieri_.
* * * * *
{477}
CHAPTER XXIV.
THE SYNTAX OF ADVERBS.
s. 594. The syntax of the adverb is simpler than that of any other part of
speech, excepting, perhaps, that of the adjective.
Adverbs have no concord.
Neither have they any government. They _seem_, indeed, to have it, when
they are in the comparative or superlative degree; but it is merely
apparent. In _this is better than that_, the word _that_ is governed
neither by _better_ nor by _than_. It is not governed at all. It is a
nominative case; the subject of a separate proposition. _This is better_
(_i. e._, _more good_) _than that is good_. Even if we admit such an
expression as _he is stronger than me_ to be good English, there is no
adverbial government. _Than_, if it govern _me_ at all, governs it as a
preposition.
The position of an adverb is, in respect to matters of syntax,
pre-eminently parenthetic; _i. e._, it may be omitted without injuring the
construction. _He is fighting--now_; _he was fighting--then_; _he
fights--bravely_; _I am--almost--tired_, &c.
s. 595. By referring to the Chapter on the Adverbs, we shall find that the
neuter adjective is frequently converted into an adverb by deflection. As
any neuter adjective may be so deflected, we may justify such expressions
as _full_ (for _fully_) _as conspicuous_, and _peculiar_ (for _peculiarly_)
_bad grace_, &c. We are not, however, bound to imitate everything that we
can justify.
s. 596. The termination _-ly_ was originally adjectival. At present it is a
derivational syllable by which we can convert an adjective into an adverb:
_brave_, _brave-ly_. {478} When, however, the adjective ends in _-ly_
already, the formation is awkward. _I eat my daily bread_ is
unexceptionable English; _I eat my bread daily_ is exceptionable. One of
two things must here take place: the two syllables _-ly_ are packed into
one (the full expression being _dai-li-ly_), or else the construction is
that of a neuter adjective deflected.
Adverbs are convertible. _The then men_=[Greek: hoi nun brotoi], &c. This
will be seen more clearly in the Chapter on Conjunctions.
s. 597. It has been remarked that in expressions like _he sleeps the sleep
of the righteous_, the construction is adverbial. So it is in expressions
like _he walked a mile_, _it weighs a pound_. The ideas expressed by _mile_
and _pound_ are not the names of anything that serves as either object or
instrument to the verb. They only denote the _manner_ of the action, and
define the meaning of the verb.
s. 598. _From whence, from thence._--This is an expression which, if it
have not taken root in our language, is likely to do so. It is an instance
of excess of expression in the way of syntax; the _-ce_ denoting direction
_from_ a place, and the preposition doing the same. It is not so important
to determine what this construction _is_, as to suggest what it is _not_.
It is _not_ an instance of an adverb governed by a preposition. If the two
words be dealt with as logically separate, _whence_ (or _thence_) must be a
noun=_which place_ (or _that place_); just as _from then till now_=_from
that time to this_. But if (which is the better view) the two words be
dealt with as one (_i. e._, as an improper compound) the preposition _from_
has lost its natural power, and become the element of an adverb.
* * * * *
{479}
CHAPTER XXV.
ON PREPOSITIONS.
s. 599. All prepositions govern an oblique case. If a word cease to do
this, it ceases to be a preposition. In the first of the two following
sentences the word _up_ is a preposition, in the second an adverb.
1. _I climbed up the tree._
2. _I climbed up._
All prepositions in English precede the noun which they govern. _I climbed
up the tree_, never _I climbed the tree up_. This is a matter not of
government, but of collocation. It is the case in most languages; and, from
the frequency of its occurrence, the term _pre-position_ (or _prefix_) has
originated. Nevertheless, it is by no means a philological necessity. In
many languages the prepositions are _post-positive_, following their noun.
s. 600. No preposition, in the present English, governs a genitive case.
This remark is made, because expressions like the _part of the body_=_pars
corporis_,--_a piece of the bread_=_portio panis_, make it appear as if the
preposition _of_ did so. The true expression is, that the preposition _of_
followed by an objective case, is equivalent, in many instances, to the
genitive case of the classical languages.
s. 601. The writer, however, of a paper on English preterites and
genitives, in the Philological Museum (II. 261) objects to the current
doctrine concerning such constructions as, _this is a picture of the
king's_. Instead of considering the sentence elliptic, and equivalent to
_this is a picture of_ or (_from_) _the king's pictures_, he entertains the
following view,--"I confess, however, that I feel some doubt whether this
phrase is {480} indeed to be regarded as elliptical, that is, whether the
phrase in room of which it is said to stand, was ever actually in use. It
has sometimes struck me that this may be a relict of the old practice of
using the genitive after nouns as well as before them, only with the
insertion of the preposition _of_. One of the passages quoted above from
'Arnold's Chronicle,' supplies an instance of a genitive so situated; and
one cannot help thinking that it was the notion that _of_ governed the
genitive, that led the old translators of Virgil to call his poem _The
Booke of Eneidos_, as it is termed by Phaer, and Gawin Douglas, and in the
translation printed by Caxton. Hence it may be that we put the genitive
after the noun in such cases, in order to express those relations which are
most appropriately expressed by the genitive preceding it. _A picture of
the king's_ is something very different from _the king's picture_: and so
many other relations are designated by _of_ with the objective noun, that
if we wish to denote possession thereby, it leaves an ambiguity: so, for
this purpose, when we want to subjoin the name of the possessor to the
thing possest, we have recourse to the genitive, by prefixing which we are
wont to express the same idea. At all events as, if we were askt whose
castle Alnwick is, we should answer, _The Duke of Northumberland's_; so we
should also say, _What a grand castle that is of the Duke of
Northumberland's!_ without at all taking into account whether he had other
castles besides: and our expression would be equally appropriate, whether
he had or not."
Again, Mr. Guest quotes, amongst other passages, the following:--
Suffice this hill _of ours_--
They fought two houres _of the nightes_--
Yet neither class of examples is conclusive.
_Ours_ does not necessarily mean _of us_. It may also mean of _our hills_,
_i. e._, of _the hills of our choice_. _Nightes_ may mean _of the night's
hours_. In the expression, _what a grand castle_, &c., it is submitted to
the reader that we _do_ take into our account other castles, which the Duke
of Northumberland {481} may or may not have. _The Booke of Eneidos_ is a
mistaken Latinism. As it does not seem to have been sufficiently considered
that the real case governed by _of_ (as by _de_ in Latin) is the ablative,
it is the opinion of the present writer that no instance has yet been
produced of _of_ either governing, or having governed a genitive case.
s. 602. It is not so safe to say in the present English that no preposition
governs a dative. The expression _give it him_ is good English; and it is
also equivalent to the Latin _da ei_. But we may also say _give it to him_.
Now the German _zu_=_to_ governs a dative case, and in Anglo-Saxon, the
preposition _to_, when prefixed to the infinitive mood, required the case
that followed it to be a dative.
s. 603. When the infinitive mood is used as the subject of a proposition,
_i.e._, as a nominative case, it is impossible to allow to the preposition
_to_, by which it is preceded, any separate existence whatever,--_to
rise_=_rising_; _to err_=_error_. Here the preposition must, for the
purposes of syntax, be considered as incorporated with the noun, just like
an inseparable inflection. As such it may be preceded by another
preposition. The following example, although a Grecism, illustrates this:--
Yet not to have been dipt in Lethe's lake,
Could save the son of Thetis _from to die_.
s. 604. Akin to this, but not the same, is the so-called vulgarism,
consisting of the use of the preposition _for_. _I am ready to go=I am
ready for going_=the so-called vulgarism, _I am ready_ for _to go_. Now,
this expression differs from the last in exhibiting, not only a _verbal_
accumulation of prepositions, but a _logical_ accumulation as well:
inasmuch as _for_ and _to_ express like ideas.
s. 605. Composition converts prepositions into adverbs. Whether we say
_upstanding_ or _standing-up_, we express the _manner_ in which an action
takes place, and not the relation between two substantives. The so-called
prepositional compounds in Greek ([Greek: anabaino, apothnesko], &c.) are
all adverbial.
* * * * *
{482}
CHAPTER XXVI.
ON CONJUNCTIONS.
s. 606. A CONJUNCTION is a part of speech which connects
_propositions_,--_the day is bright_, is one proposition. _The sun shines_,
is another. _The day is bright_ because _the sun shines_ is a pair of
propositions connected by the conjunction, _because_.
From this it follows, that whenever there is a conjunction, there are two
subjects, two copulas, and two predicates: _i.e._, two propositions in all
their parts.
But this may be expressed compendiously. _The sun shines_, _and the moon
shines_, may be expressed by the _sun and moon shine_.
Nevertheless, however compendious may be the expression, there are always
two propositions wherever there is one conjunction. A part of speech that
merely combines two words is a preposition--_the sun along with the moon
shines_.
It is highly important to remember that conjunctions connect propositions.
It is also highly important to remember that many double propositions may
be expressed so compendiously as to look like one. When this takes place,
and any question arises as to the construction, they must be exhibited in
their fully expanded form; _i.e._, the second subject, the second
predicate, and the second copula must be supplied. This can always be done
from the first proposition,--_he likes you better than me_=_he likes you
better than he likes me_. The compendious expression of the second
proposition is the first point of note in the syntax of conjunctions.
s. 607. The second point in the syntax of conjunctions is the fact of their
great convertibility. Most conjunctions have been developed out of some
other part of speech. {483}
The conjunction of comparison, _than_, is derived from the adverb of time,
_then_; which is derived from the accusative singular of the demonstrative
pronoun.
The conjunction, _that_, is derived also from a demonstrative pronoun.
The conjunction, _therefore_, is a demonstrative pronoun + a preposition.
The conjunction, _because_, is a substantive governed by a preposition.
One and the same word, in one and the same sentence, may be a conjunction
or preposition, as the case may be.
_All fled but John._--If this mean _all fled_ except _John_, the word _but_
is a preposition, the word _John_ is an accusative case, and the
proposition is single. If, instead of _John_, we had a personal pronoun, we
should say _all fled but_ him.
_All fled but John._--If this mean _all fled, but John did not fly_, the
word _but_ is a conjunction, the word _John_ is a nominative case, and the
propositions are two in number. If, instead of _John_, we had a personal
pronoun, we should say, _all fled but_ he.
From the fact of the great convertibility of conjunctions it is often
necessary to determine whether a word be a conjunction or not. _If it be a
conjunction, it cannot govern a case. If it govern a case, it is no
conjunction but a preposition._ A conjunction cannot govern a case, for the
following reason,--the word that follows it _must_ be the subject of the
second proposition, and, as such, a nominative case.
s. 608. The third point to determine in the syntax of conjunctions is the
certainty or uncertainty in the mind of the speaker as to the facts
expressed by the propositions which they serve to connect.
1. Each proposition may contain a certain, definite, absolute fact--_the
day is clear_ because _the sun shines_. Here, there is neither doubt nor
contingency of either the _day being clear_, or of the _sun shining_.
2. Of two propositions one may be the condition of the other--_the day will
be clear_ if _the sun shine_. Here, although it is certain that _if the sun
shine the day will be clear_, there is {484} no certainty of _the sun
shining_. Of the two propositions one only embodies a certain fact, and
that is certain only conditionally.
Now an action, wherein there enters any notion of uncertainty, or
indefinitude, and is at the same time connected with another action, is
expressed, not by the indicative mood, but by the subjunctive. _If the sun_
shine (not _shines_) _the day will be clear_.
Simple uncertainty will not constitute a subjunctive construction,--_I am_,
perhaps, _in the wrong_.
Neither will simple connection,--_I am wrong_ because _you are right_.
But, the two combined constitute the construction in question,--_if I_ be
_wrong_, _you are right_.
Now, a conjunction that connects two certain propositions may be said to
govern an indicative mood.
And a conjunction that connects an uncertain proposition with a certain
one, may be said to govern a subjunctive mood.
_The government of mood is the only form of government of which
conjunctions are capable._
s. 609. Previous to the question of the government of conjunctions in the
way of mood, it is necessary to notice certain points of agreement between
them and the relative pronouns; inasmuch as, in many cases, the relative
pronoun exerts the same government, in the way of determining the mood of
the verb, as the conjunction.
Between the relative pronouns and conjunctions in general there is this
point of connection,--both join propositions. Wherever there is a relative,
there is a second proposition. So there is wherever there is a conjunction.
Between certain relative pronouns and those particular conjunctions that
govern a subjunctive mood there is also a point of connection. Both suggest
an element of uncertainty or indefinitude. This the relative pronouns do,
through the logical elements common to them and to the interrogatives:
these latter essentially suggesting the idea of doubt. Wherever the person,
or thing, connected with an action, and expressed by a relative be
indefinite, there is room for the use {485} a subjunctive mood. Thus--he
that troubled you shall bear his judgment, _whosoever_ he _be_.
s. 610. By considering the nature of such words as _when_, their origin as
relatives on the one hand, and their conjunctional character on the other
hand, we are prepared for finding a relative element in words like _till_,
_until_, _before_, _as long as_, &c. These can all be expanded into
expressions like _until the time when_, _during the time when_, &c. Hence,
in an expression like _seek out his wickedness till thou_ find (not
_findest_) _none_, the principle of the construction is nearly the same as
in _he that troubled you_, &c., or _vice vers[^a]_.[63]
s. 611. In most conditional expressions the subjunctive mood should follow
the conjunction. All the following expressions are conditional.
1. _Except_ I _be_ by Silvia in the night,
There is no music in the nightingale.
SHAKSPEARE.
2. Let us go and sacrifice to the Lord our God, _lest_ he _fall_ upon
us with pestilence.--_Old Testament._
3.---- Revenge back on itself recoils.
Let it. I reck not, _so_ it _light_ well aimed.
J. MILTON.
4. _If_ this _be_ the case.
5. _Although_ my house _be_ not so with God.--_Old Testament._
6. He shall not eat of the holy thing _unless_ he _wash_ his flesh with
water.--_Old Testament._
Expressions like _except_ and _unless_ are equally conditional with words
like _if_ and _provided that_, since they are equivalent to _if--not_.
Expressions like _though_ and _although_ are peculiar. They join
propositions, of which the one is a _prim[^a] facie_ reason against the
existence of the other: and this is the conditional element. In the
sentence,_ if the children be so badly brought up, they are not to be
trusted_, the _bad bringing-up_ is the reason {486} for their _being unfit
to be trusted_; and, as far as the expression is concerned, _is admitted to
be so_. The only uncertainty lies in the question as to the degree of the
badness of the education. The inference from it is unequivocal.
But if, instead of saying _if_, we say _although_, and omit the word _not_,
so that the sentence run _although the children be so badly brought up they
are to be trusted_, we do two things: we indicate the general relation of
cause and effect that exists between _bad bringing-up_ and _unfitness for
being trusted_, but we also, at the same time, take an exception to it in
the particular instance before us. These remarks have been made for the
sake of showing the extent to which words like _though_, &c., are
conditional.
It must be remembered, however, that conjunctions, like the ones lately
quoted, do not govern subjunctive moods because they are conditional, but
because, in the particular condition which they accompany, there is an
element of uncertainty.
s. 612. This introduces a fresh question. Conditional conjunctions are of
two sorts:--
1. Those which express a condition as an actual fact, and one admitted as
such by the speaker.
2. Those which express a condition as a possible fact, and one which the
speaker either does not admit, or admits only in a qualified manner.
Since _the children_ are _so badly brought up_, &c.--This is an instance of
the first construction. The speaker admits as an actual fact the _bad
bringing-up of the children_.
If _the children_ be _so badly brought-up_, &c.--This is an instance of the
second construction. The speaker admits as a possible (perhaps, as a
probable) fact the _bad bringing-up of the children_: but he does not adopt
it as an indubitable one.
s. 613. Now, if every conjunction had a fixed unvariable meaning, there
would be no difficulty in determining whether a condition was absolute, and
beyond doubt, or possible, and liable to doubt. But such is not the case.
_Although_ may precede a proposition which is admitted as well as one which
is doubted. {487}
_a._ Although _the children_ are, &c.
_b._ Although _the children_ be, &c.
_If_, too, may precede propositions wherein there is no doubt whatever
implied: in other words it may be used instead of _since_.
In some languages this interchange goes farther than in others; in the
Greek, for instance, such is the case with [Greek: ei], to a very great
extent indeed.
Hence we must look to the meaning of the sentence in general, rather than
to the particular conjunction used.
It is a philological fact (probably referable to the _usus ethicus_) that
_if_ may stand instead of _since_.
It is also a philological fact that when it does so it should be followed
by the indicative mood.
This is written in the way of illustration. What applies to _if_ applies to
other conjunctions as well.
s. 614. As a point of practice, the following method of determining the
amount of doubt expressed in a conditional proposition is useful:--
Insert, immediately after the conjunction, one of the two following
phrases,--(1.) _as is the case_; (2.) _as may or may not be the case_. By
ascertaining which of these two supplements expresses the meaning of the
speaker, we ascertain the mood of the verb which follows.
When the first formula is one required, there is no element of doubt, and
the verb should be in the indicative mood. _If_ (_as is the case_), _he
_is_ gone, I must follow him_.
When the second formula is the one required, there _is_ an element of
doubt, and the verb should be in the subjunctive mood. _If_ (_as may or may
not be the case_) _he _be_ gone, I must follow him_.
s. 615. The use of the word _that_ in expressions like _I eat that I may
live_, &c., is a modification of the subjunctive construction, that is
conveniently called _potential_. It denotes that one act is done for the
sake of supplying the _power_ or opportunity for the performance of
another.
In English the word _that_, so used, cannot be said to govern a mood,
although generally followed by either _may_ or _might_. {488} It should
rather be said to require a certain combination to follow it. The most
important point connected with the powers of _that_ is the so-called
_succession of tenses_.
s. 616. _The succession of tenses._--Whenever the conjunction _that_
expresses intention, and consequently connects two verbs, the second of
which takes place _after_ the first, the verbs in question must be in the
same tense.
I _do_ this _that_ I _may_ gain by it.
I _did_ this _that_ I _might_ gain by it.
In the Greek language this is expressed by a difference of mood; the
subjunctive being the construction equivalent to _may_, the optative to
_might_. The Latin idiom coincides with the English.
A little consideration will show that this rule is absolute. For a man _to
be doing_ one action (in present time) in order that some other action may
_follow_ it (in past time) is to reverse the order of cause and effect. To
do anything in A.D. 1851, that something may result from it in 1850 is a
contradiction; and so it is to say _I _do_ this _that_ I _might_ gain by
it_.
The reasons against the converse construction are nearly, if not equally
cogent. To have done anything at any _previous_ time in order that a
_present_ effect may follow, is, _ipso facto_, to convert a past act into a
present one, or, to speak in the language of the grammarian, to convert an
aorist into a perfect. To say _I _did_ this_ that _I may gain by it_, is to
make, by the very effect of the expression, either _may_ equivalent to
_might_, or _did_ equivalent to _have done_.
_I _did_ this_ that _I _might_ gain_.
_I _have done_ this_ that _I _may_ gain_.
A clear perception of the logical necessity of the law of the succession of
tenses, is necessary for understanding the nature of several anomalous
passages in the classical writers. In the following, an aorist is followed
not by an optative, but by a subjunctive.
[Greek: Ouk agathon polukoiranie; heis koiranos esto,]
[Greek: Heis basileus, hoi edoke Kronou pais ankulometeo]
[Greek: Skeptron t' ede themistas, hina sphisin embasileuei.]
{489}
Here it is necessary to construe [Greek: edoke], _has given and continues
to allow_, which is to construe it like a _perfect_[64] tense. Upon similar
passages Mathiae writes, "but frequently the conjunctive is used, although
the preceding word be in the time past, viz., when the verb which depends
upon the conjunction shows an action continued to the present time." That
means when the verb is really a perfect.
In Latin, where the same form is both aorist and perfect, the succession of
tenses is a means of determining which of the two meanings it conveys.
_Veni ut videam_=_I have come that I may see._ _Veni ut viderem_=_I came
that I might see_.
Arnold states, from Krueger and Zumpt, that even where the praeterite was
clearly a perfect (_i. e._, =_to have_ with the participle), the Roman ear
was so accustomed to the _imperfect_ subjunctive, that it preferred such an
expression _as diu dubitavi num melius esset to diu dubitavi num melius
sit_. The latter part of the statement is sure enough; but it is by no
means so sure that _dubitavi_, and similar forms in similar constructions
are perfects. There is no reason for considering this to be the case in the
present instance. It seems to be so, because it is connected with _diu_;
but an action may last a long time, and yet not last up to the time of
speaking. _Diu dubitavi_ probably expresses, _I doubted a long time_, and
leaves it to be inferred that _now I do not doubt_.
s. 617. It has been stated above that whilst the Latin and English have a
succession of _tenses_, the Greek language {490} exhibits what may be
called a succession of _moods_. This suggests inquiry. Is the difference
real? If so, how is it explained? If not, which of the two grammatical
systems is right?--the English and Latin on the one side, or the Greek on
the other? Should [Greek: tuptoimi] be reduced to a past tense, or
_verberarem_ be considered an optative mood.
The present writer has no hesitation in stating his belief, that all the
phaenomena explicable by the assumption of an optative mood are equally
explicable by an expansion of the subjunctive, and a different distribution
of its tenses.
1. Let [Greek: tupso] be considered a subjunctive _future_ instead of a
subjunctive aorist.
2. Let [Greek: tuotoimi] be considered an _imperfect subjunctive_.
3. Let [Greek: tetuphoimi] be considered a _pluperfect subjunctive_.
4. Let [Greek: tupsaimi] be considered an aorist _subjunctive_.
Against this view there are two reasons:
1. The double forms [Greek: tupsaimi] and [Greek: tupsoimi], one of which
would remain unplaced.
2. The use of the optative and conjunctive in simple propositions, as--
[Greek: o pai, genoio patros eutuchesteros.]
The first reason I am not prepared to impugn. _Valeat quantum_, &c. The
second indicates a class of expressions which tense will _not_ explain, and
which mood _will_. Yet this is not conclusive. _Would that thou wert_ is
thoroughly optative: yet it is expressed by a tense.
The _form_ of the so-called optatives proves nothing. Neither the
subjunctive nor the optative has any signs of _mood_ at all, except the
negative one of the absence of the augment. Their signs are the signs of
_tense_.
In favour of the view are the following reasons:--
1. The analogy of other languages. The imperfect has a subjunctive in
Latin. So has the future.
2. The undoubtedly future character of the so-called aorist imperative. To
give an order to do a thing in _past_ time is a philological contradiction.
Forms like [Greek: blepson] _must_ be future. Though [Greek: thes] and
[Greek: tithei] differ in power, they both mean an {491} action subsequent
to, or, at any rate, simultaneous with the order given; certainly not one
anterior to it.
s. 618. _Be_ may stand for _may be_. In this case the preterite is not
_were_ but _might be_. The sentence, _what_ care _I how fair the lady_ be,
_if she be not fair to her admirer_? is accurate. Here _be_ = _may be_.
But, _what_ cared _I how fair the lady_ were, _if she were not fair to her
admirer_? is inaccurate. It ought to run thus,--_what_ cared _I how fair
the lady_ might be, _if she were not fair to her admirer_?[65]
s. 619. _Disjunctives_.--Disjunctives (_or_, _nor_) are of two sorts, real,
and nominal.
_A king or queen always rules in England._ Here the disjunction is real;
_king_ or _queen_ being different names for different objects. In all
_real_ disjunctions the inference is, that if one out of two (or more)
individuals (or classes) do not perform a certain action, the other does.
_A sovereign or supreme ruler always rules in England._ Here the
disjunction is nominal; _sovereign_ and _supreme governor_ being different
names for the same object. In all nominal disjunctives the inference is,
that if an agent (or agents) do not perform a certain action under one
name, he does (or they do) it under another.
Nominal disjunctives are called by Harris, _sub_disjunctives.
In the English language there is no separate word to distinguish the
nominal from the real disjunctive. In Latin, {492} _vel_ is considered by
Harris to be disjunctive, _sive_ subdisjunctive. As a periphrasis the
combination _in other words_ is subdisjunctive.
Both nominal and real disjunctives agree in this,--whatever may be the
number of nouns which they connect, the construction of the verb is the
same as if there were but one--Henry _or_ John, _or_ Thomas, _walks_ (not
_walk_); the sun, _or_ solar luminary, _shines_ (not _shine_). The
disjunctive _isolates_ the subject however much it may be placed in
juxtaposition with other nouns.
s. 620. _Either, neither._--Many disjunctives imply an alternative. If it
be not this person (or thing) that performs a certain action (or exists in
a certain state) it is some other. If a person (or thing) do not perform a
certain action (or exist in a certain state), under one name, he (or it)
does so under another. This alternative is expressed by the word _either_.
When the word _either_ is connected immediately with the copula of a
proposition, it is, if not a true conjunction, at least _a part of a
conjunctional periphrasis_.--_This either is or is not so._
When it belongs more to one of the terms of a proposition than to the
copula, it is a pronoun,--_Either I or you is in the wrong_. _It is either
you or I._
I use the words, _part of a conjunctional periphrasis_, because the full
conjunction is _either_ + _or_ (or _neither_ + _nor_); the essential
conjunctions being the latter words. To these, _either_ (or _neither_) is
superadded, indicating the _manner_ in which the disjunction expressed by
_or_ (or _nor_) takes place; _i. e._, they show that it takes place in the
manner of an alternative. Now, this superadded power is rather adverbial
than conjunctional.
s. 621. From the pronominal character of the word _either_, when it forms
part of a term, and from the power of the disjunctive, _or_, in _isolating_
the subject of the verb, combined with an assumption which will be
explained hereafter, we get at the principle of certain rules for doubtful
constructions.
In expressions like _either you or I is in the wrong_, we must {493}
consider _either_ not only as _a_ pronoun, but as _the leading_ pronoun of
the proposition; a pronoun of which _or I_ is an explanation; and, finally,
as the pronoun which determines the person of the verb. _Either you or I is
wrong_=_one of us_ (_you or I_) _is wrong_.
Then, as to expressions like _I, or you, am in the wrong_. Here, _I_ is the
leading pronoun, which determines the person of the verbs; the words, _or
you_, being parenthetic, and subordinate. These statements bear upon the
rules of p. 457.
s. 622. Will this principle justify such expressions as _either they or we
is in the wrong_?
Or will it justify such expressions as _either he or they is in the wrong_?
Or will it justify such expressions as _I or they am in the wrong_? In all
which sentences one pronoun is plural.
Perhaps not. The assumption that has been just alluded to, as helping to
explain certain doubtful constructions, is the following, _viz._, that in
cases of apposition, disjunction, and complex terms, the _first_ word is
the one which determines the character of the sentence wherein it occurs.
This is a practice of the English language, which, in the opinion of the
present writer, nothing but a very decided preponderance of a difference in
person, gender, or number, can overrule. Such may fairly be considered to
be the case in the three examples just adduced; especially as there is also
the secondary influence of the conjunctional character of the word
_either_. Thus, although we say,--
_One of two parties, they or we, is in the wrong._
We also say,--
_Either they or we are in the wrong_.
As for the other two expressions, they are in the same predicament, with an
additional reason for the use of the plural. It _contains_ the singular.
The chief object of the present remarks has been less to explain details
than to give due prominence to the following leading principles.
1. That _either_ (or _neither_) is[66] essentially singular in number.
{494}
2. That it is, like any common noun, of the third person.
3. That it is pronominal where it is in apposition with another noun.
4. That when it is the first word of the proposition it determines the
concord of the verb, unless its character of a noun of the singular number
and third person be disguised by the prominence of some plural form, or
some pronoun of the first or second person in the latter part of the term.
5. That in a simple disjunctive proposition (_i.e._, one where _either_
does not occur) all nouns are subordinate to the first.
s. 623. I believe that the use of _either_ is limited to _real_
disjunctives; in other words, that we can say _either a king or a queen
always reigns in England_, but that we cannot say _either a sovereign or a
supreme ruler always reigns in England_.
* * * * *
{495}
CHAPTER XXVII.
THE SYNTAX OF THE NEGATIVE.
s. 624. When the verb is in the infinitive mood, the negative precedes
it.--_Not to advance is to retreat._
When the verb is not in the infinitive mood, the negative follows it.--_He
advanced not. I cannot._
This rule is absolute. It only _seems_ to precede the verb in such
expressions as _I do not advance_, _I cannot advance_, _I have not
advanced_, &c. However, the words _do_, _can_, and _have_, are no
infinitives; and it consequently follows them. The word _advance_ is an
infinitive, and it consequently precedes it. Wallis's rule makes an
equivalent statement, although differently. "Adverbium negandi _not_ (non)
verbo postponitur (nempe auxiliari primo si adsit; aut si non adsit
auxiliare, verbo principali): aliis tamen orationis partibus praefigi
solet."--P. 113.
That the negative is rarely used, except with an auxiliary, in other words,
that the presence of a negative converts a simple form like _it burneth
not_ into the circumlocution it _does not burn_, is a fact in the practice
of the English language. The syntax is the same in either expression.
s. 625. What may be called the _distribution_ of the negative is pretty
regular in English. Thus, when the word _not_ comes between an indicative,
imperative, or subjunctive mood and an infinitive verb, it almost always is
taken with the word which it _follows--I can not eat_ may mean either _I
can--not eat_ (_i.e._, _I can abstain_), or _I can not--eat_ (_i.e._, _I am
unable to eat_); but, as stated above, it _almost_ always has the latter
signification.
But not _always_. In Byron's "Deformed Transformed" we find the following
lines:-- {496}
Clay! not dead but soulless,
Though no mortal man would choose thee,
An immortal no less
Deigns _not to refuse_ thee.
Here _not to refuse_=_to accept_; and is probably a Grecism. _To not
refuse_ would, perhaps, be better.
The next expression is still more foreign to the English idiom:--
For _not_ to have been dipped in Lethe's lake
_Could save_ the son of Thetis from to die.
Here _not_ is to be taken with _could_.
s. 626. In the present English, two negatives make an affirmative. _I have
not not seen him_=_I have seen him_. In Greek this was not the case. _Duae
aut plures negativae apud Graecos vehementius negant_ is a well-known rule.
The Anglo-Saxon idiom differed from the English and coincided with the
Greek. The French negative is only apparently double; words like _point_,
_pas_, mean not _not_, but _at all_. _Je ne parle pas_ = _I not speak at
all_, not _I not speak no_.
s. 627. _Questions of appeal._--All questions imply want of information;
want of information may then imply doubt; doubt, perplexity; and perplexity
the absence of an alternative. In this way, what are called, by Mr.
Arnold,[67] _questions of appeal_, are, practically speaking, negatives.
_What should I do?_ when asked in extreme perplexity, means that nothing
can well be done. In the following passage we have the presence of a
question instead of a negative:--
Or hear'st thou (_cluis_, Lat.) rather pure aetherial stream,
Whose fountain who (_no one_) shall tell?
_Paradise Lost._
s. 628. The following extract from the Philological Museum (vol. ii.)
illustrates a curious and minute distinction, which the author shows to
have been current when Wicliffe wrote, but which was becoming obsolete when
Sir Thomas More wrote. It is an extract from that writer against Tyndall.
{497}
"I would not here note by the way that Tyndall here translateth _no_ for
_nay_, for it is but a trifle and mistaking of the Englishe worde: saving
that ye shoulde see that he whych in two so plain Englishe wordes, and so
common as in _naye_ and _no_ can not tell when he should take the one and
when the tother, is not for translating into Englishe a man very mete. For
the use of these two wordes in aunswering a question is this. _No_
aunswereth the question framed by the affirmative. As for ensample if a
manne should aske Tindall himselfe: ys an heretike meete to translate Holy
Scripture into Englishe? lo to thys question if he will aunswere trew
Englishe, he must aunswere _nay_ and not _no_. But and if the question be
asked hym thus lo: is not an heretike mete to translate Holy Scripture into
Englishe? To this question if he will aunswere trewe Englishe, he must
aunswere _no_ and not _nay_. And a lyke difference is there betwene these
two adverbs _ye_ and _yes_. For if the question bee framed unto Tindall by
the affirmative in thys fashion. If an heretique falsely translate the New
Testament into Englishe, to make his false heresyes seem the word of Godde,
be his bokes worthy to be burned? To this questyon asked in thys wyse, yf
he will aunswere true Englishe, he must aunswere _ye_ and not _yes_. But
now if the question be asked him thus lo; by the negative. If an heretike
falsely translate the Newe Testament into Englishe to make his false
heresyes seme the word of God, be not hys bokes well worthy to be burned?
To thys question in thys fashion framed if he will aunswere trewe Englishe
he may not aunswere _ye_ but he must answere _yes_, and say yes marry be
they, bothe the translation and the translatour, and al that wyll hold wyth
them."
* * * * *
{498}
CHAPTER XXVIII.
ON THE CASE ABSOLUTE.
s. 629. Broadly speaking, all adverbial constructions are absolute. The
term, however, is conveniently limited to a particular combination of the
noun, verb, and participle. When two actions are connected with each other
either by the fact of their simultaneous occurrence, or as cause and
effect, they may be expressed within the limits of a single proposition, by
expressing the one by means of a verb, and the other by means of a noun and
participle agreeing with each other. _The door being open, the horse was
stolen._
Considering the nature of the connection between the two actions, we find
good grounds for expecting _[`a] priori_ that the participle will be in the
instrumental case, when such exists in the language; and when not, in some
case allied to it, _i.e._, the ablative or dative.
In Latin the ablative is the case that is used absolutely. _Sole orto,
claruit dies._
In Anglo-Saxon the absolute case was the dative. This is logical.
In the present English, however, the nominative is the absolute case. _He
made the best proverbs, him alone excepted_, is an expression of
Tillotson's. We should now write _he alone excepted_. The present mode of
expression is only to be justified by considering the nominative form to be
a dative one, just as in the expression _you are here_, the word _you_,
although an accusative, is considered as a nominative. A real nominative
absolute is as illogical as a real accusative case governing a verb.
* * * * *
{499}
PART VI.
ON THE PROSODY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
s. 630. Prosody deals with metre; and with accent, quantity and the
articulate sounds, as subordinate to metre. For these the reader is
referred to Part III. Chapters 1. 6. 7.
_Metre_ is a general term for the recurrence, within certain intervals, of
syllables similarly affected.
Syllables may be similarly affected: 1. in respect to their quantities; 2.
in respect to their accents; 3. in respect to their articulations.
1.
P[)a]l[=a]i k[)y]naeg[)e]to[=u]nt[)a] k[=a]i m[)e]tro[=u]m[)e]n[=o]n.
[Greek: Palai kunegetounta kai metroumenon.]--SOPH. _Ajax_, 3.
Here there is the recurrence of similar quantities.
2.
The w['a]y was l['o]ng, the w['i]nd was c['o]ld.
_Lay of the Last Minstrel._
Here there is the recurrence of similar accents.
3.
The way was long, the wind was _cold_,
The minstrel was infirm and _old_.--_Ditto._
Here, besides the recurrence of similar accents, there is a recurrence of
the same articulate sounds; _viz._ of _o_ + _ld_.
s. 631. Metres founded upon the periodic recurrence of similar
articulations are of two sorts.
1. _Alliterative metres._--In alliterative metres a certain {500} number of
words, within a certain period, must _begin_ with a similar articulation.
In Caines cynne
thone cwealm gewraec.
CAEDMON.
Alliteration is the general character of all the _early_ Gothic metres.
(See Rask's _Anglo-Saxon Grammar_, Rask, _On the Icelandic Prosody_, and
Conybeare, _On Anglo-Saxon Poetry_.)
2. _Assonant metres._--In assonant metres a certain number of words, within
a certain period, must _end_ with a similar articulation. All _rhymes_ and
all approaches to rhyme, form the assonant metres. The word _assonant_ has
a limited as well as a general sense.
s. 632. All metre goes by the name of poetry, although all poetry is not
metrical. The Hebrew poetry (_see_ Lowth, _De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum_) is
characterized by the recurrence of similar _ideas_.
s. 633. The metres of the classical languages consist _essentially_ in the
recurrence of similar quantities; accent also playing a part. The
incompatibility of the classical metres with the English prosody lies in
the fact (stated at p. 166), _that the classic writer measures quantity by
the length of the syllable taken altogether, while the Englishman measures
it by the length of the vowel alone_.
s. 634. The English metres consist essentially of the recurrence of similar
accents; the recurrence of similar articulations being sometimes (as in all
rhyming poetry) superadded.
s. 635. In the specimen of alliteration lately quoted the only articulation
that occurred was the letter c. It is very evident that the _two_, the
_three_, or the _four_ first letters, or even the whole syllable, might
have coincided. Such is the case with the following lines from Lord Byron:
Already doubled is the cape, the bay
Receives the _prow_, that _prou_dly _sp_urns the _sp_ray.
Alliteration, as an ornament, must be distinguished from alliteration as
the essential character of metre. Alliteration, as an ornament, is liable
to many varieties. {501}
s. 636. _Rhyme._--In _English_ versification, _rhyme_ is, next to accent,
the most important element. The true nature of a rhyme may best be
exhibited after the analysis of a syllable, and the exhibition of certain
recurrent combinations, that look like rhyme without being so.
Let the syllable _told_ be taken to pieces. For metrical purposes it
consists of three parts or elements: 1, the vowel (_o_); 2, the part
preceding the vowel (_t_); 3, the part following the vowel (_ld_). The same
may be done with the word _bold_. The two words can now be compared with
each other. The comparison shows that the vowel is in each the same (_o_);
that the part following the vowel (_ld_) is the same; and, finally, that
the part preceding the vowel is _different_ (_t_ and _b_). This difference
between the part preceding the vowel is essential.
_Told_, compared with itself (_told_), is no rhyme, but an _homoeoteleuton_
([Greek: homoios], _homoios_=_like_, and [Greek: teleute],
_teleutae_=_end_) or _like-ending_. It differs from a rhyme in having the
parts preceding the vowel alike. Absolute identity of termination is not
recognized in English poetry, except so far as it is mistaken for rhyme.
The soft-flowing outline that steals from the _eye_,
Who threw o'er the surface? did you or did _I_?
WHITEHEAD.
Here the difference in spelling simulates a difference in sound, and a
_homoeoteleuton_ takes the appearance of a rhyme.
_Bold_ and _note_.--As compared with each other, these words have two of
the elements of a rhyme: _viz._ the identity of the vowel, and the
difference of the parts preceding it. They want, however, the third
essential, or the identity of the parts following; _ld_ being different
from _t_. The coincidence, however, as far as it goes, constitutes a point
in metre. The words in question are assonances in the limited sense of the
term; and because the identity lies in the _vowels_, they may be named
vowel assonances. Vowel assonances are recognized in (amongst others) the
Spanish and Scandinavian metrical systems. In English they occur only when
they pass as rhymes. {502}
_Bold_ and _mild_.--Here also are two of the elements of a rhyme, viz., the
identity of the parts following the vowel (_ld_), and the difference of the
parts preceding (_b_ and _m_). The identity of the vowel (_o_ being
different from _i_) is, however, wanting. The words in question are
assonances in the limited sense of the term, and consonantal assonances.
Recognized in the Scandinavian, they occur in English only when they pass
as rhymes.
Rhymes may consist of a single syllable, as _told_, _bold_, of two
syllables, as _water_, _daughter_; of three, as _cheerily_, _wearily_. Now,
the rhyme begins where the dissimilarity of parts immediately before the
main vowel begins. Then follows the vowel; and, lastly, the parts after the
vowel. All the parts after the vowel must be absolutely identical. Mere
similarity is insufficient.
Then come ere a _minute's_ gone,
For the long summer day
Puts its wings, swift as _linnets'_ on,
For flying away.--CLARE.[68]
In the lines just quoted there is no rhyme, but an assonance. The identity
of the parts after the main syllable is destroyed by the single sound of _g
in gone_.
A rhyme, to be perfect, must fall on syllables equally accented.--To make
_sky_ and the last syllable of merri_ly_ serve as rhymes, is to couple an
accented syllable with an unaccented one.
A rhyme, to be perfect, must fall upon syllables absolutely accented.--To
make the last syllables of words like fligh_ty_ and merri_ly_ serve as
rhymes, is to couple together two unaccented syllables.
Hence there may be (as in the case of blank verse) accent without rhyme;
but there cannot be rhyme without accent.
A rhyme consists in the combination of like and unlike _sounds_.--Words
like _I_ and _eye_ (_homoeoteleuta_), _ease_ and _cease_ (vowel
assonances), _love_ and _grove_ (consonantal assonances), are printers'
rhymes; or mere combinations of like and unlike letters.
{503}
A rhyme, moreover, consists in the combination of like and unlike
_articulate_ sounds. _Hit_ and _it_ are not rhymes, but identical endings;
the _h_ being no articulation. To my ear, at least, the pair of words,
_hit_ and _it_, comes under a different class from the pair _hit_ (or _it_)
and _pit_.
s. 637. A full and perfect rhyme (the term being stringently defined)
consists in _the recurrence of one or more final syllables equally and
absolutely accented, wherein the vowel and the part following the vowel
shall be identical, whilst the part preceding the vowel shall be different.
It is also necessary that the part preceding the vowel be articulate._[69]
The deviations from the above-given rule, so common in the poetry of all
languages, constitute not rhymes, but assonances, &c., that, by poetic
licence, are recognized as equivalents to rhymes.
s. 638. _Measure._--In lines like the following, the accent occurs on every
second syllable; in other words, every accented syllable is accompanied by
an unaccented one.
The w['a]y was l['o]ng, the w['i]nd was c['o]ld.
This accented syllable and its accompanying unaccented one constitute a
_measure_. The number of the syllables being two, the measure in question
is dissyllabic.
s. 639. In lines like the following the accent falls on every third
syllable, so that the number of syllables to the measure is three, and the
measure is trisyllabic.
At the cl['o]se of the d['a]y when the h['a]mlet is st['i]ll.--BEATTIE.
The primary division of the English measures is into the dissyllabic and
the trisyllabic.
{504}
s. 640. _Dissyllabic measures._--The words _t['y]rant_ and _pres['u]me_ are
equally dissyllabic measures; in one, however, the accent falls on the
first, in the other on the second syllable. This leads us to a farther
division of the English measures.
A measure like _pres['u]me_ (where the accent lies on the second syllable)
may be repeated throughout a whole verse, or a whole series of verses; as,
Then f['a]re thee w['e]ll mine ['o]wn dear l['o]ve;
The w['o]rld has n['o]w for ['u]s
No gr['e]ater gr['i]ef, no pa['i]n ab['o]ve,
The p['a]in of p['a]rting th['u]s.--MOORE.
Here the accent falls on the second syllable of the measure.
A measure like _t['y]rant_ (where the accent lies on the first syllable)
may be repeated throughout a whole verse, or a whole series of verses; as,
H['e]ed! O h['e]ed, my f['a]tal st['o]ry;
['I] am H['o]sier's ['i]njured gh['o]st;
C['o]me to s['e]ek for f['a]me and gl['o]ry,
F['o]r the gl['o]ry ['I] have l['o]st.--GLOVER.
The number of dissyllabic measures is, of necessity, limited to two.
s. 641. _Trisyllabic measures._--The words _m['e]rrily_, _dis['a]ble_,
_cavali['e]r_, are equally trisyllabic, but not similarly accented. Each
constitutes a separate measure, which may be continued through a whole
verse, or a whole series of verses; as,
1.
M['e]rrily, m['e]rrily, sh['a]ll I live n['o]w,
['U]nder the bl['o]ssom that h['a]ngs on the b['o]ugh.
_Tempest._
2.
But v['a]inly thou w['a]rrest;
For th['i]s is al['o]ne in
Thy p['o]wer to decl['a]re:
That ['i]n the dim f['o]rest
Thou he['a]rd'st a low mo['a]ning,
And s['a]w'st a bright l['a]dy surp['a]ssingly fa['i]r.
_Christabel._
{505}
There's a be['a]uty for ['e]ver unf['a]dingly br['i]ght;
Like the l['o]ng ruddy l['a]pse of a s['u]mmer-day's n['i]ght.
_Lalla Rookh._
The number of trisyllabic measures is, of necessity, limited to three.
s. 642. The nature of measures may, as we have already seen, be determined
by the proportion of the accented and unaccented syllables. It may also be
determined by the proportion of the long and short syllables.--In the one
case we measure by the accent, in the other by the quantity. Measures
determined by the quantity are called _feet_. The word _foot_ being thus
defined, we have no _feet_ in the English metres; since in English we
determine our measures by accent only.
The classical grammarians express their feet by symbols; [-] denoting
length, [U] shortness. Forms like [U- -U -UU U-U UU-] &c., are the
symbolical representations of the classical feet.
The classical grammarians have names for their feet; _e.g._, _iambic_ is
the name of [U-], _trochee_ of [-U], _dactyle_ of [-UU], _amphibrachys_ of
[U-U], _Anapaest_ of [UU-], &c.
The English grammarians have no symbols for their feet: since they have no
form for expressing the absence of the accent. Sometimes they borrow the
classical forms [U] and [-]. These, however, being originally meant for
the expression of _quantity_, confusion arises from the use of them.
Neither have the English grammarians names for their measures. Sometimes,
they borrow the classical terms _iambic_, _trochee_, &c. These, however,
being meant for the expression of _quantity_, confusion arises from the use
of them.
As symbols for the English measures, I indicate the use of _a_ as denoting
an accented, _x_ an unaccented syllable; or else that of + as denoting an
accented, - an unaccented syllable. Finally, ' may denote the accent, " the
absence of it.
As names for the English measures I have nothing to offer. At times it is
convenient to suppose that they have a definite order of arrangement, and
to call words like _t['y]rant_ the _first_ measure, and words like
_pres['u]me_ the second measure. In like manner, _m['e]rrily_ is measure 3;
_dis['a]ble_, 4; and _cavali['e]r_, 5. As the number of measures is (from
the necessity of the case) limited, this can be done conveniently. The
classical {506} names are never used with impunity. Their adoption
invariably engenders confusion. It is very true that, _mutatis mutandis_
(_i. e._, accent being substituted for quantity), words like _t['y]rant_
and _pres['u]me_ are trochees and iambics; but it is also true that, with
the common nomenclature, the full extent of the change is rarely
appreciated.
Symbolically expressed, the following forms denote the following measures:
1. + - , or ' ", or _a x_ = _t['y]rant_.
2. - + , or " ', or _x a_ = _pres['u]me_.
3. + - -, or ' " ", or _a x x_ = _m['e]rrily_.
4. - + -, or " ' ", or _x a x_ = _dis['a]ble_.
5. - - +, or " " ', or _x x a_ = _cavali['e]r_.
On these measures the following general assertions may be made; _viz._
That the dissyllabic measures are, in English, commoner than the
trisyllabic.
That, of the dissyllabic measures, the second is commoner than the first.
That of the trisyllabic measures, No. 3 is the least common.
That however much one measure may predominate in a series of verses, it is
rarely unmixed with others. In
_T['y]rants_ swim s['a]fest in a p['u]rple flo['o]d--
MARLOWE--
the measure _a x_ appears in the place of _x a_. This is but a single
example of a very general fact, and of a subject liable to a multiplicity
of rules.
s. 643. Grouped together according to certain rules, measures constitute
lines or verses; and grouped together according to certain rules, lines
constitute couplets, triplets, stanzas, &c.
The absence or the presence of rhyme constitutes blank verse, or rhyming
verse.
The succession, or periodic return, of rhymes constitutes stanzas, or
continuous metre as the case may be.
The quantity of rhymes in succession constitutes couplets, or triplets.
The quantity of _accents_ in a line constitutes the nature of the verse,
taken by itself. {507}
The succession, or periodic return, of verses of the same length has the
same effect with the succession, or periodic return, of rhymes; _viz._, it
constitutes stanzas, or continuous metre, as the case may be.
This leads to the nomenclature of the English metres. Of these, none in any
of the trisyllabic measures have recognized and technical names; neither
have any that are referable to the measure _a x_.
s. 644. Taking, however, those that are named, we have the following list
of terms.
1. _Octosyllabics._--Four measures _x a_, and (unless the rhyme be double)
eight syllables. Common in Sir W. Scott's poetry.
The way was long the wind was cold.
_Lay of the Last Minstrel._
2. _Heroics._--Five measures _x a_. This is the common measure in narrative
and didactic poetry.
To err is human, to forgive divine.
3. _Alexandrines._--Six measures _x a_. This name is said to be taken from
the early romances on the deeds of Alexander the Great.
He lifted up his hand | that back againe did start.--SPENSER.
4. _Service metre._--Seven measures _x a_. This is the common metre of the
psalm-versions. Thence its name.
But one request I made to him | that sits the skies above,
That I were freely out of debt | as I were out of love.
SIR JOHN SUCKLING.
s. 645. Such are the names of certain lines or verses taken by themselves.
Combined or divided they form--
1. _Heroic couplets._--Heroics, in rhyming couplets, successive.--
'Tis hard to say if greater want of skill
Appear in writing or in judging ill.
_Essay on Criticism._
The heroic couplet is called also _riding rhyme_; it being the metre
wherein Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (told by a party riding to Canterbury)
are chiefly written. {508}
2. _Heroic triplets._--Same as the preceding, except that three rhymes come
in succession.
3. _Blank verse._--Heroics without rhyme.
4. _Elegiacs._--The metre of Gray's Elegy. Heroics in four-line stanzas
with alternate rhymes.
5. _Rhyme royal._--Seven lines of heroics, with the last two rhymes
successive, and the first five recurring at intervals. Sometimes the last
line is an Alexandrine. There are varieties in this metre according to the
intervals of the first five rhymes:--
This Troilus in gift of curtesie
With hauke on hond, and with a huge rout
Of knights, rode and did her companie
Passing all the valey far without,
And ferther would have ridden out of doubt,
Full faine, and wo was him to gone so sone,
And tourne he must, and it was eke to doen.
CHAUCER'S _Troilus_.
6. _Ottava rima._--The metre in Italian for narrative poetry. Eight lines
of heroics; the first six rhyming alternately, the last two in
succession.--Byron's Don Juan in English, Orlando Furioso, &c., in Italian.
7. _Spenserian stanza._--Eight lines of heroics closed by an Alexandrine.
There are varieties of this metre according to the interval of the rhymes.
8. _Terza rima._--Taken from the Italian, where it is the metre of Dante's
Divina Commedia. Heroics with _three_ rhymes recurring at intervals.--Lord
Byron's Prophecy of Dante.
9. _Poulterer's measure._--Alexandrines and service measures alternately.
Found in the poetry of Henry the Eighth's time.
10. _Ballad metre._--Stanzas of four lines; the first and third having
four, the second and fourth having three measures each. Rhymes alternate.
Turn, gentle hermit of the dale,
And guide thy lonely way,
To where yon taper cheers the vale
With hospitable ray.
_Edwin and Angelina._
{509}
s. 646. _Scansion._--Let the stanza just quoted be read as two lines, and
it will be seen that a couplet of ballad metre is equivalent to a line of
service metre. Such, indeed, was the origin of the ballad metre. Observe
also the pause (marked |) both in the Alexandrine and the service metres.
This indicates a question as to where lines _end_; in other words, how can
we distinguish one long line from two short ones.
It may, perhaps, partake of the nature of a metrical fiction to consider
that (in all rhyming poetry) the length of the verse is determined by the
occurrence of the rhyme. Nevertheless, as the matter cannot be left to the
printer only, and as some definition is requisite, the one in point is
attended by as few inconveniences as any other. It must not, however, be
concealed that lines as short as
It screamed and growled, | and cracked and howled--
it treats as _two_; and that lines as long as
Where Virtue wants and Vice abounds,
And Wealth is but a baited hook--
it reduces to a single verse.
s. 647. In metres of measure _a x_, the number of syllables is double the
number of accents, unless the final rhyme be single; in which case the
syllables are the fewest.
In metres of measure _x a_ the number of syllables is double the number of
accents, unless the rhyme be double (or treble); in which case the
syllables are the most numerous.
Now this view (which may be carried throughout the whole five measures) of
the proportion between the accents and the syllables, taken with the fact
that it is determined by the nature of the final syllable, indicates a
division of our metres into symmetrical (where the number of the syllables
is the multiple of the number of accents), and unsymmetrical (where it is
not so).
For practical purposes, however, the length of the last measure may be
considered as indifferent, and the terms indicated may be reserved for the
forthcoming class of metres. {510}
s. 648. Of the metres in question, Coleridge's Christabel and Byron's Siege
of Corinth are the current specimens. In the latter we have the couplet:
He s['a]t him d['o]wn at a p['i]llar's b['a]se,
And dr['e]w his h['a]nd athw['a]rt his f['a]ce.
In the second of these lines, the accents and the syllables are
symmetrical; which is not the case with the first. Now to every, or any,
accent in the second line an additional unaccented syllable may be added,
and the movement be still preserved. It is the fact of the accents and
syllables (irrespective of the latitude allowed to the final measure) being
here unsymmetrical (or, if symmetrical, only so by accident) that gives to
the metres in question their peculiar character. Added to this, the change
from _x x a_, to _x a x_, and _a x x_, is more frequent than elsewhere. One
point respecting them must be borne in mind; _viz._, that they are
essentially trisyllabic metres from which unaccented syllables are
withdrawn, rather than dissyllabic ones wherein unaccented syllables are
inserted.
s. 649. Of measures of one, and of measures of four syllables the
occurrence is rare, and perhaps equivocal.
s. 650. The majority of English _words_ are of the form _a x_; that is,
words like _t['y]rant_ are commoner than words like _pres['u]me_.
The majority of English _metres_ are of the form _x a_; that is, lines like
_The w['a]y was l['o]ng, the w['i]nd was c['o]ld_
are commoner than lines like
_Q['u]een and h['u]ntress ch['a]ste and f['a]ir._
The multitude of unaccentuated words like _the_, _from_, &c., taken along
with the fact that they _precede_ the words with which they agree, or which
they govern, accounts for the apparent antagonism between the formulae of
our _words_ and the formulae of our _metres_. The contrast between a
Swedish line of the form _a x_, and its literal English version (_x a_),
{511} shows this. In Swedish, the secondary part of the construction
_follows_, in English it _precedes_, the main word:--
_Swedish._ V['a]r_en_ k['o]mm_er_; f['u]gl_en_ qvittr_ar_;
sk['o]v_en_ l['o]fv_as_; s['o]l_en_ l['e]r.
_English._ _The_ spr['i]ng _is_ c['o]me; _the_ b['i]rd _is_ bl['y]the;
_the_ w['o]od _is_ gr['e]en; _the_ s['u]n _is_ br['i]ght.
This is quoted for the sake of showing the bearing of the etymology and
syntax of a language upon its prosody.
s. 651. _The classical metres as read by Englishmen._--In p. 500 it is
stated that "the metres of the classical languages consist essentially in
the recurrence of similar quantities; _accent playing a part_." Now there
are reasons for investigating the facts involved in this statement more
closely than has hitherto been done; since the following circumstances make
some inquiry into the extent of the differences between the English and the
classical systems of metre, an appropriate element of a work upon the
English language.
1. The classical poets are authors preeminently familiarized to the
educated English reader.
2. The notions imbibed from a study of the classical prosodies have been
unduly mixed up with those which should have been derived more especially
from the poetry of the Gothic nations.
3. The attempt to introduce (so-called) Latin and Greek metres into the
Gothic tongues, has been partially successful on the Continent, and not
unattempted in Great Britain.
s. 652. The first of these statements requires no comment.
The second, viz., "that the notions imbibed, &c." will bear some
illustration; an illustration which verifies the assertion made in p. 505,
that the English grammarians "sometimes borrow the classical terms
_iambic_, _trochee_," &c., and apply them to their own metres.
How is this done? In two ways, one of which is wholly incorrect, the other
partially correct, but inconvenient.
To imagine that we have in English, for the practical purposes of prosody,
syllables _long in quantity_ or _short in quantity_, syllables capable of
being arranged in groups {512} constituting feet, and feet adapted for the
construction of hexametres, pentametres, sapphics, and alcaics, just as the
Latins and Greeks had, is wholly incorrect. The English system of
versification is founded, not upon the periodic recurrence of similar
_quantities_, but upon the periodic recurrence of similar accents.
The less incorrect method consists in giving up all ideas of the existence
of _quantity_, in the proper sense of the word, as an essential element in
English metre; whilst we admit _accent_ as its equivalent; in which case
the presence of an accent is supposed to have the same import as the
lengthening and the absence of one, as the shortening of a syllable; so
that, _mutatis mutandis_, _a_ is the equivalent to [-], and _x_ to [U].
In this case the metrical notation for--
The w['a]y was l['o]ng, the w['i]nd was c['o]ld--
M['e]rrily, m['e]rrily, sh['a]ll I live n['o]w--
would be, not--
_x a, x a, x a, x a,_
_a x x, a x x, a x x, a_
respectively, but--
[U - U - U - U -]
[- U U - U U - U U -]
Again--
As they spl['a]sh in the bl['o]od of the sl['i]ppery stre['e]t,
is not--
_x x a, x x a, x x a, x x a_,
but
[U U - U U - U U - U U -]
s. 653. With this view there are a certain number of classical _feet_, with
their syllables affected in the way of _quantity_, to which they are
equivalent English _measures_ with their syllables affected in the way of
_accent_. Thus if the formula
A, [- U] be a classical, the formula _a x_ is an English _trochee_.
B, [U -] " " _x a_ " _iambus_.
C, [- U U] " " _a x x_ " _dactyle_.
D, [U - U] " " _x a x_ " _amphibrachys_.
E, [U U -] " " _x x a_ " _anapaest_.
{513}
And so on in respect to the larger groups of similarly affected syllables
which constitute whole lines and stanzas; verses like
A. C['o]me to s['e]ek for f['a]me and gl['o]ry--
B. The w['a]y was l['o]ng, the w['i]nd was c['o]ld--
C. M['e]rrily, m['e]rrily sh['a]ll I live n['o]w--
D. But v['a]inly thou w['a]rrest--
E. At the cl['o]se of the d['a]y when the h['a]mlet is st['i]ll--
are (A), trochaic; (B), iambic; (C), dactylic; (D), amphibrachych; and (E),
anapaestic, respectively.
And so, with the exception of the word _amphibrachych_ (which I do not
remember to have seen) the terms have been used. And so, with the same
exception, systems of versification have been classified.
s. 654. _Reasons against the classical nomenclature as applied to English
metres._--These lie in the two following facts:--
1. Certain English metres have often a very different character from their
supposed classical analogues.
2. Certain classical _feet_ have no English equivalents.
s. 655. _Certain English metres have often a very different metrical
character, &c._--Compare such a so-called English anapaest as--
As they spl['a]sh in the bl['o]od of the sl['i]ppery str['e]et--
with
[Greek: Dekaton men etos tod' epei Priamou.]
For the latter line to have the same movement as the former, it must be
read thus--
Dekat['o]n men et['o]s to d' ep['e]i Priam['o]u.
Now we well know that, whatever may be any English scholar's notions of the
Greek accents, this is not the way in which he reads Greek anapaests.
Again the _trochaic_ movement of the _iambic_ senarius is a point upon
which the most exclusive Greek metrists have insisted; urging the necessity
of reading (for example) the first line in the Hecuba--
H['ae]ko n['e]kron keuthm['o]na kai sk['o]tou p['y]las.
{514} rather than--
Haek['o] nekr['o]n keuthm['o]na kai skot['o]u pyl['a]s.
s. 656. I have said that _certain English metres have often a very
different metrical character_, &c. I can strengthen the reasons against the
use of classical terms in English prosody, by enlarging upon the word
_often_. The frequency of the occurrence of a difference of character
between classical and English metres similarly named is not a matter of
_accident_, but is, in many cases, a necessity arising out of the structure
of the English language as compared with that of the Greek and
Latin--especially the Greek.
With the exception of the so-called second futures, there is no word in
Greek whereof the _last_ syllable is accented. Hence, no English line
ending with an accented syllable can have a Greek equivalent. Accent for
accent--
GREEK. LATIN. ENGLISH.
_T['y]pto_, _V['o]co_ = _T['y]rant_,
_T['y]ptomen_, _Scr['i]bere_ = _M['e]rrily_,
_Keuthm['o]na_, _Vid['i]stis_ = _Dis['a]ble_,
but no Greek word (with the exception of the so-called second futures like
[Greek: nemo]=_nem[^o]_) and (probably) no Latin word at all, is accented
like _pres['u]me_ and _caval['i]er_.
From this it follows that although the first three measures of such
so-called English anapaests as--
As they spl['a]sh in the bl['o]od of the sl['i]ppery str['e]et,
may be represented by Greek equivalents (_i. e._, equivalents in the way of
accent)--
Ep' om['o]isi fero['u]si ta kle['i]na--
a parallel to the last measure (_-ery str['e]et_) can only be got at by one
of two methods; _i. e._, by making the verse end in a so-called second
future, or else in a vowel preceded by an accented syllable, and cut off--
Ep' om['o]isi fer['o]usi ta kle['i]na nem['o]--
{515} or,
Ep' om['o]isi fer['o]usi ta kle['i]na pros['o]p'.[70]
Now it is clear that when, over and above the fact of certain Greek metres
having a different movement from their supposed English equivalents, there
is the additional circumstance of such an incompatibility being less an
accident than a necessary effect of difference of character in the two
languages, the use of terms suggestive of a closer likeness than either
does or ever can exist is to be condemned; and this is the case with the
words, _dactylic_, _trochaic_, _iambic_, _anapaestic_, as applied to
English versification.
s. 657. _Certain classical feet have no English equivalents._--Whoever has
considered the principles of English prosody, must have realized the
important fact that, _ex vi termini, no English measure can have either
more or less than _one_ accented syllable_.
On the other hand, the classical metrists have several measures in both
predicaments. Thus to go no farther than the trisyllabic feet, we have the
pyrrhic ([U U]) and tribrach ([U U U]) without a long syllable at all, and
the spondee ([- -]), amphimacer ([- U -]), and molossus ([- - -]) with more
than one long syllable. It follows, then that (even _mutatis mutandis_,
_i.e._, with the accent considered as the equivalent to the long syllable)
English pyrrhics, English tribrachs, English amphimacers, English spondees,
and English molossi are, each and all, prosodial impossibilities.
It is submitted to the reader that the latter reason (based wholly upon the
limitations that arise out of the structure of language) strengthens the
objections of the previous section.
s. 658. _The classical metres metrical even to English readers._ The
attention of the reader is directed to the difficulty involved in the
following (apparently or partially) contradictory facts.
1. Accent and quantity differ; and the metrical systems founded upon them
differ also.
{516}
2. The classical systems are founded upon quantity.
3. The English upon accent.
4. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the difference of the principle upon which
they are constructed, the classical metres, even as read by Englishmen, and
read _accentually_, are metrical to English ears.
s. 659. Preliminary to the investigation of the problem in question it is
necessary to remark--
1. That, the correctness or incorrectness of the English pronunciation of
the dead languages has nothing to do with the matter. Whether we read Homer
exactly, as Homer would read his own immortal poems, or whether we read
them in such a way as would be unintelligible to Homer reappearing upon
earth, is perfectly indifferent.