26. But the reader may ask, "What have all these things to do with English

Grammar?" I answer, they help to show us whence and what it is. Some

acquaintance with the history of grammar as a science, as well as some

knowledge of the structure of other languages than our own, is necessary to

him who professes to write for the advancement of this branch of

learning--and for him also who would be a competent judge of what is thus

professed. Grammar must not forget her origin. Criticism must not resign

the protection of letters. The national literature of a country is in the

keeping, not of the people at large, but of authors and teachers. But a

grammarian presumes to be a judge of authorship, and a teacher of teachers;

and is it to the honour of England or America, that in both countries so

many are countenanced in this assumption of place, who can read no language

but their mother tongue? English Grammar is not properly an indigenous

production, either of this country or of Britain; because it is but a

branch of the general science of philology--a new variety, or species,

sprung up from the old stock long ago transplanted from the soil of Greece

and Rome.

27. It is true, indeed, that neither any ancient system of grammatical

instruction nor any grammar of an other language, however contrived, can be

entirely applicable to the present state of our tongue; for languages must

needs differ greatly one from an other, and even that which is called the

same, may come in time to differ greatly from what it once was. But the

general analogies of speech, which are the central principles of grammar,

are but imperfectly seen by the man of one language. On the other hand, it

is possible to know much of those general principles, and yet be very

deficient in what is peculiar to our own tongue. Real improvement in the

grammar of our language, must result from a view that is neither partial

nor superficial. "Time, sorry artist," as was said of old, "makes all he

handles worse." And Lord Bacon, seeming to have this adage in view,

suggests: "If Time of course alter all things to the worse, and Wisdom and

Counsel shall not alter them to the better, what shall be the

end?"--_Bacon's Essays_, p. 64.

28. Hence the need that an able and discreet grammarian should now and then

appear, who with skillful hand can effect those corrections which a change

of fashion or the ignorance of authors may have made necessary; but if he

is properly qualified for his task, he will do all this without a departure

from any of the great principles of Universal Grammar. He will surely be

very far from thinking, with a certain modern author, whom I shall notice

in an other chapter, that, "He is bound to take words and explain them as

he finds them in his day, _without any regard to their ancient construction

and application_."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 28. The whole history of every

word, so far as he can ascertain it, will be the view under which he will

judge of what is right or wrong in the language which he teaches. Etymology

is neither the whole of this view, nor yet to be excluded from it. I concur

not therefore with Dr. Campbell, who, to make out a strong case,

extravagantly says, "It is _never from an attention to etymology_, which

would frequently mislead us, but from custom, the only infallible guide in

this matter, that the meanings of words in present use must be

learnt."--_Philosophy of Rhetoric_, p. 188. Jamieson too, with an

implicitness little to be commended, takes this passage from Campbell; and,

with no other change than that of "_learnt_" to "_learned_" publishes it as

a corollary of his own.--_Grammar of Rhetoric_, p. 42. It is folly to state

for truth what is so obviously wrong. Etymology and custom are seldom at

odds; and where they are so, the latter can hardly be deemed infallible.

CHAPTER II.

OF GRAMMATICAL AUTHORSHIP.

"Respondeo, dupliciter aliquem dici grammaticum, arte et professione.

Grammatici vera arte paucissimi sunt: et hi magna laude digni sunt, ut

patuit: hos non vituperant summi viri; quia ipse Plinius ejusmodi

grammaticus fuit, et de arte grammatica libelos edidit. Et Grellius veræ

grammaticæ fuit diligentissimus doctor; sic et ipse Datus. Alii sunt

grammatici professione, et ii plerumque sunt inceptissimi; quia scribimus

indocti doctique, et indignissimus quisque hanc sibi artem vindicat:----hos

mastigias multis probris docti summo jure insectantur."--DESPAUTER.

_Syntaxis_, fol. 1.

1. It is of primary importance in all discussions and expositions of

doctrines, of any sort, to ascertain well the _principles_ upon which our

reasonings are to be founded, and to see that they be such as are immovably

established in the nature of things; for error in first principles is

fundamental, and he who builds upon an uncertain foundation, incurs at

least a _hazard_ of seeing his edifice overthrown. The lover of _truth_

will be, at all times, diligent to seek it, firm to adhere to it, willing

to submit to it, and ready to promote it; but even the truth may be urged

unseasonably, and important facts are things liable to be misjoined. It is

proper, therefore, for every grammarian gravely to consider, whether and

how far the principles of his philosophy, his politics, his morals, or his

religion, ought to influence, or actually do influence, his theory of

language, and his practical instructions respecting the right use of words.

In practice, grammar is so interwoven with all else that is known,

believed, learned, or spoken of among men, that to determine its own

peculiar principles with due distinctness, seems to be one of the most

difficult points of a grammarian's duty.

2. From misapprehension, narrowness of conception, or improper bias, in

relation to this point, many authors have started wrong; denounced others

with intemperate zeal; departed themselves from sound doctrine; and

produced books which are disgraced not merely by occasional oversights, but

by central and radical errors. Hence, too, have sprung up, in the name of

grammar, many unprofitable discussions, and whimsical systems of teaching,

calculated rather to embarrass than to inform the student. Mere collisions

of opinion, conducted without any acknowledged standard to guide the

judgement, never tend to real improvement. Grammar is unquestionably a

branch of that universal philosophy by which the thoroughly educated mind

is enlightened to see all things aright; for philosophy, in this sense of

the term, is found in everything. Yet, properly speaking, the true

grammarian is not a philosopher, nor can any man strengthen his title to

the former character by claiming the latter; and it is certain, that a most

disheartening proportion of what in our language has been published under

the name of Philosophic Grammar, is equally remote from philosophy, from

grammar, and from common sense.

3. True grammar is founded on the authority of reputable custom; and that

custom, on the use which men make of their reason. The proofs of what is

right are accumulative, and on many points there can be no dispute, because

our proofs from the best usage, are both obvious and innumerable. On the

other hand, the evidence of what is wrong is rather demonstrative; for when

we would expose a particular error, we exhibit it in contrast with the

established principle which it violates. He who formed the erroneous

sentence, has in this case no alternative, but either to acknowledge the

solecism, or to deny the authority of the rule. There are disputable

principles in grammar, as there are moot points in law; but this

circumstance affects no settled usage in either; and every person of sense

and taste will choose to express himself in the way least liable to

censure. All are free indeed from positive constraint on their phraseology;

for we do not speak or write by statutes. But the ground of instruction

assumed in grammar, is similar to that upon which are established the

maxims of _common law_, in jurisprudence. The ultimate principle, then, to

which we appeal, as the only true standard of grammatical propriety, is

that species of custom which critics denominate GOOD USE; that is, present,

reputable, general use.

4. Yet a slight acquaintance with the history of grammar will suffice to

show us, that it is much easier to acknowledge this principle, and to

commend it in words, than to ascertain what it is, and abide by it in

practice. Good use is that which is neither ancient nor recent, neither

local nor foreign, neither vulgar nor pedantic; and it will be found that

no few have in some way or other departed from it, even while they were

pretending to record its dictates. But it is not to be concealed, that in

every living language, it is a matter of much inherent difficulty, to reach

the standard of propriety, where usage is various; and to ascertain with

clearness the decisions of custom, when we descend to minute details. Here

is a field in which whatsoever is achieved by the pioneers of literature,

can be appreciated only by thorough scholars; for the progress of

improvement in any art or science, can be known only to those who can

clearly compare its ruder with its more refined stages; and it often

happens that what is effected with much labour, may be presented in a very

small compass.

5. But the knowledge of grammar may _retrograde_; for whatever loses the

vital principle of renovation and growth, tends to decay. And if mere

copyists, compilers, abridgers, and modifiers, be encouraged as they now

are, it surely will not advance. Style is liable to be antiquated by time,

corrupted by innovation, debased by ignorance, perverted by conceit,

impaired by negligence, and vitiated by caprice. And nothing but the living

spirit of true authorship, and the application of just criticism, can

counteract the natural tendency of these causes. English grammar is still

in its infancy; and even bears, to the imagination of some, the appearance

of a deformed and ugly dwarf among the liberal arts. Treatises are

multiplied almost innumerably, but still the old errors survive. Names are

rapidly added to our list of authors, while little or nothing is done for

the science. Nay, while new blunders have been committed in every new book,

old ones have been allowed to stand as by prescriptive right;. and

positions that were never true, and sentences that were never good English,

have been published and republished under different names, till in our

language grammar has become the most ungrammatical of all studies!

"Imitators generally copy their originals in an inverse ratio of their

merits; that is, by adding as much to their faults, as they lose of their

merits."--KNIGHT, _on the Greek Alphabet_, p. 117.

"Who to the life an exact piece would make,

Must not from others' work a copy take."--_Cowley_.

6. All science is laid in the nature of things; and he only who seeks it

there, can rightly guide others in the paths of knowledge. He alone can

know whether his predecessors went right or wrong, who is capable of a

judgement independent of theirs. But with what shameful servility have many

false or faulty definitions and rules been copied and copied from one

grammar to another, as if authority had canonized their errors, or none had

eyes to see them! Whatsoever is dignified and fair, is also modest and

reasonable; but modesty does not consist in having no opinion of one's own,

nor reason in following with blind partiality the footsteps of others.

Grammar unsupported by authority, is indeed mere fiction. But what apology

is this, for that authorship which has produced so many grammars without

originality? Shall he who cannot write for himself, improve upon him who

can? Shall he who cannot paint, retouch the canvass of Guido? Shall modest

ingenuity be allowed only to imitators and to thieves? How many a prefatory

argument issues virtually in this! It is not deference to merit, but

impudent pretence, practising on the credulity of ignorance! Commonness

alone exempts it from scrutiny, and the success it has, is but the wages of

its own worthlessness! To read and be informed, is to make a proper use of

books for the advancement of learning; but to assume to be an author by

editing mere commonplaces and stolen criticisms, is equally beneath the

ambition of a scholar and the honesty of a man.

"'T is true, the ancients we may rob with ease;

But who with that mean shift himself can please?"

_Sheffield, Duke of Buckingham_.

7. Grammar being a practical art, with the principles of which every

intelligent person is more or less acquainted, it might be expected that a

book written professedly on the subject, should exhibit some evidence of

its author's skill. But it would seem that a multitude of bad or

indifferent writers have judged themselves qualified to teach the art of

speaking and writing well; so that correctness of language and neatness of

style are as rarely to be found in grammars as in other books. Nay, I have

before suggested that in no other science are the principles of good

writing so frequently and so shamefully violated. The code of false grammar

embraced in the following work, will go far to sustain this opinion. There

have been, however, several excellent scholars, who have thought it an

object not unworthy of their talents, to prescribe and elucidate the

principles of English Grammar. But these, with scarcely any exception, have

executed their inadequate designs, not as men engaged in their proper

calling, but as mere literary almoners, descending for a day from their

loftier purposes, to perform a service, needful indeed, and therefore

approved, but very far from supplying all the aid that is requisite to a

thorough knowledge of the subject. Even the most meritorious have left

ample room for improvement, though some have evinced an ability which does

honour to themselves, while it gives cause to regret their lack of an

inducement to greater labour. The mere grammarian can neither aspire to

praise, nor stipulate for a reward; and to those who were best qualified to

write, the subject could offer no adequate motive for diligence.

8. Unlearned men, who neither make, nor can make, any pretensions to a

knowledge of grammar as a study, if they show themselves modest in what

they profess, are by no means to be despised or undervalued for the want of

such knowledge. They are subject to no criticism, till they turn authors

and write for the public. And even then they are to be treated gently, if

they have any thing to communicate, which is worthy to be accepted in a

homely dress. Grammatical inaccuracies are to be kindly excused, in all

those from whom nothing better can be expected; for people are often under

a necessity of appearing as speakers or writers, before they can have

learned to write or speak grammatically. The body is more to be regarded

than raiment; and the substance of an interesting message, may make the

manner of it a little thing. Men of high purposes naturally spurn all that

is comparatively low; or all that may seem nice, overwrought, ostentatious,

or finical. Hence St. Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, suggests that

the design of his preaching might have been defeated, had he affected the

orator, and turned his attention to mere "excellency of speech," or "wisdom

of words." But this view of things presents no more ground for neglecting

grammar, and making coarse and vulgar example our model of speech, than for

neglecting dress, and making baize and rags the fashionable costume. The

same apostle exhorts Timothy to "hold fast the form of sound _words_,"

which he himself had taught him. Nor can it be denied that there is an

obligation resting upon all men, to use speech fairly and understandingly.

But let it be remembered, that all those upon whose opinions or practices I

am disposed to animadvert, are either professed grammarians and

philosophers, or authors who, by extraordinary pretensions, have laid

themselves under special obligations to be accurate in the use of language.

"The _wise in heart_ shall be called prudent; and _the sweetness of the

lips_ increaseth learning."--_Prov._, xvi, 21. "The words of a man's mouth

are as deep waters, and the well-spring of wisdom [is] as a flowing

brook."--_Ib._, xviii, 4. "A fool's mouth is his destruction, and his lips

are the snare of his soul."--_Ib._, xviii, 7.

9. The old maxim recorded by Bacon, "_Loquendum ut vulgus, sentiendum ut

sapientes_,"--"We should speak as the vulgar, but think as the wise," is

not to be taken without some limitation. For whoever literally speaks as

the vulgar, shall offend vastly too much with his tongue, to have either

the understanding of the wise or the purity of the good. In all untrained

and vulgar minds, the ambition of speaking well is but a dormant or very

weak principle. Hence the great mass of uneducated people are lamentably

careless of what they utter, both as to the matter and the manner; and no

few seem naturally prone to the constant imitation of low example, and

some, to the practice of every abuse of which language is susceptible.

Hence, as every scholar knows, the least scrupulous of our lexicographers

notice many terms but to censure them as "_low_," and omit many more as

being beneath their notice. Vulgarity of language, then, ever has been, and

ever must be, repudiated by grammarians. Yet we have had pretenders to

grammar, who could court the favour of the vulgar, though at the expense of

all the daughters of Mnemosyne.

10. Hence the enormous insult to learning and the learned, conveyed in the

following scornful quotations: "Grammarians, go to your _tailors_ and

_shoemakers_, and learn from them the _rational_ art of constructing your

grammars!"--_Neef's Method of Education_, p. 62. "From a labyrinth without

a clew, in which the _most enlightened scholars_ of Europe have mazed

themselves and misguided others, the author ventures to turn

aside."--_Cardell's Gram._, 12mo, p. 15. Again: "The _nations_ of

_unlettered men_ so adapted their language to philosophic truth, that all

physical and intellectual research can find no essential rule to reject or

change."--_Ibid._, p. 91. I have shown that "the nations of unlettered men"

are among that portion of the earth's population, upon whose language the

genius of grammar has never yet condescended to look down! That people who

make no pretensions to learning, can furnish better models or instructions

than "the most enlightened scholars," is an opinion which ought not to be

disturbed by argument.

11. I regret to say, that even Dr. Webster, with all his obligations and

pretensions to literature, has well-nigh taken ground with Neef and

Cardell, as above cited; and has not forborne to throw contempt, even on

grammar as such, and on men of letters indiscriminately, by supposing the

true principles of every language to be best observed and kept by the

illiterate. What marvel then, that all his multifarious grammars of the

English language are despised? Having suggested that the learned must

follow the practice of the populace, because they cannot control it, he

adds: "Men of letters may revolt at this suggestion, but if they will

attend to the history of our language, they will find the fact to be as

here stated. It is commonly supposed that the tendency of this practice of

unlettered men is _to corrupt the language_. But the fact is directly the

reverse. I am prepared to prove, were it consistent with the nature of this

work, that nineteen-twentieths of _all the corruptions_ of our language,

for five hundred years past, have been introduced by _authors_--men who

have made alterations in particular idioms _which they did not understand_.

The same remark is applicable to the _orthography_ and _pronunciation_. The

tendency of unlettered men is to _uniformity_--to _analogy_; and so strong

is this disposition, that the common people have actually converted some of

our irregular verbs into regular ones. It is to unlettered people that we

owe the disuse of _holpen, bounden, sitten_, and the use of the regular

participles, _swelled, helped, worked_, in place of the ancient ones. This

popular tendency is not to be contemned and disregarded, as some of the

learned affect to do;[3] for it is governed by _the natural, primary

principles of all languages_, to which we owe all their regularity and all

their melody; viz., a love of uniformity in words of a like character, and

a preference of an easy natural pronunciation, and a desire to express the

most ideas with the smallest number of words and syllables. It is a

fortunate thing for language, that these natural principles generally

prevail over arbitrary and artificial rules."--_Webster's Philosophical

Gram._, p. 119; _Improved Gram._, p. 78. So much for _unlettered

erudition!_

12. If every thing that has been taught under the name of grammar, is to be

considered as belonging to the science, it will be impossible ever to

determine in what estimation the study of it ought to be held; for all that

has ever been urged either for or against it, may, upon such a principle,

be _proved_ by reference to different authorities and irreconcilable

opinions. But all who are studious to know, and content to follow, _the

fashion_ established by the concurrent authority of _the learned_,[4] may

at least have some standard to refer to; and if a grammarian's rules be

based upon this authority, it must be considered the exclusive privilege

of the unlearned to despise them--as it is of the unbred, to contemn the

rules of civility. But who shall determine whether the doctrines contained

in any given treatise are, or are not, based upon such authority? Who shall

decide whether the contributions which any individual may make to our

grammatical code, are, or are not, consonant with the best usage? For this,

there is no tribunal but the mass of readers, of whom few perhaps are very

competent judges. And here an author's reputation for erudition and

judgement, may be available to him: it is the public voice in his favour.

Yet every man is at liberty to form his own opinion, and to alter it

whenever better knowledge leads him to think differently.

13. But the great misfortune is, that they who need instruction, are not

qualified to choose their instructor; and many who must make this choice

for their children, have no adequate means of ascertaining either the

qualifications of such as offer themselves, or the comparative merits of

the different methods by which they profess to teach. Hence this great

branch of learning, in itself too comprehensive for the genius or the life

of any one man, has ever been open to as various and worthless a set of

quacks and plagiaries as have ever figured in any other. There always have

been some who knew this, and there may be many who know it now; but the

credulity and ignorance which expose so great a majority of mankind to

deception and error, are not likely to be soon obviated. With every

individual who is so fortunate as to receive any of the benefits of

intellectual culture, the whole process of education must begin anew; and,

by all that sober minds can credit, the vision of human perfectibility is

far enough from any national consummation.

14. Whatever any may think of their own ability, or however some might

flout to find their errors censured or their pretensions disallowed;

whatever improvement may actually have been made, or however fondly we may

listen to boasts and felicitations on that topic; it is presumed, that the

general ignorance on the subject of grammar, as above stated, is too

obvious to be denied. What then is the remedy? and to whom must our appeal

be made? Knowledge cannot be imposed by power, nor is there any domination

in the republic of letters. The remedy lies solely in that zeal which can

provoke to a generous emulation in the cause of literature; and the appeal,

which has recourse to the learning of the learned, and to the common sense

of all, must be pressed home to conviction, till every false doctrine stand

refuted, and every weak pretender exposed or neglected. Then shall Science

honour them that honour her; and all her triumphs be told, all her

instructions be delivered, in "sound speech that cannot be condemned."

15. A generous man is not unwilling to be corrected, and a just one cannot

but desire to be set right in all things. Even over noisy gainsayers, a

calm and dignified exhibition of true docrine [sic--KTH], has often more

influence than ever openly appears. I have even seen the author of a faulty

grammar heap upon his corrector more scorn and personal abuse than would

fill a large newspaper, and immediately afterwards, in a new edition of his

book, renounce the errors which had been pointed out to him, stealing the

very language of his amendments from the man whom he had so grossly

vilified! It is true that grammarians have ever disputed, and often with

more acrimony than discretion. Those who, in elementary treatises, have

meddled much with philological controversy, have well illustrated the

couplet of Denham: "The tree of knowledge, blasted by disputes, Produces

sapless leaves in stead of fruits."

16. Thus, then, as I have before suggested, we find among writers on

grammar two numerous classes of authors, who have fallen into opposite

errors, perhaps equally reprehensible; the visionaries, and the copyists.

The former have ventured upon too much originality, the latter have

attempted too little. "The science of philology," says Dr. Alexander

Murray, "is not a frivolous study, fit to be conducted by ignorant pedants

or visionary enthusiasts. It requires more qualifications to succeed in it,

than are usually united in those who pursue it:--a sound penetrating

judgement; habits of calm philosophical induction; an erudition various,

extensive, and accurate; and a mind likewise, that can direct the knowledge

expressed in words, to illustrate the nature of the signs which convey

it."--_Murray's History of European Languages_, Vol. ii, p. 333.

17. They who set aside the authority of custom, and judge every thing to be

ungrammatical which appears to them to be unphilosophical, render the whole

ground forever disputable, and weary themselves in beating the air. So

various have been the notions of this sort of critics, that it would be

difficult to mention an opinion not found in some of their books. Amidst

this rage for speculation on a subject purely practical, various attempts

have been made, to overthrow that system of instruction, which long use has

rendered venerable, and long experience proved to be useful. But it is

manifestly much easier to raise even plausible objections against this

system, than to invent an other less objectionable. Such attempts have

generally met the reception they deserved. Their history will give no

encouragement to future innovators.

18. Again: While some have thus wasted their energies in eccentric flights,

vainly supposing that the learning of ages would give place to their

whimsical theories; others, with more success, not better deserved, have

multiplied grammars almost innumerably, by abridging or modifying the books

they had used in childhood. So that they who are at all acquainted with the

origin and character of the various compends thus introduced into our

schools, cannot but desire to see them all displaced by some abler and

better work, more honourable to its author and more useful to the public,

more intelligible to students and more helpful to teachers. Books

professedly published for the advancement of knowledge, are very frequently

to be reckoned, among its greatest impediments; for the interests of

learning are no less injured by whimsical doctrines, than the rights of

authorship by plagiarism. Too many of our grammars, profitable only to

their makers and venders, are like weights attached to the heels of Hermes.

It is discouraging to know the history of this science. But the

multiplicity of treatises already in use, is a reason, not for silence, but

for offering more. For, as Lord Bacon observes, the number of ill-written

books is not to be diminished by ceasing to write, but by writing others

which, like Aaron's serpent, shall swallow up the spurious.[5]

19. I have said that some grammars have too much originality, and others

too little. It may be added, that not a few are chargeable with both these

faults at once. They are original, or at least anonymous, where there

should have been given other authority than that of the compiler's name;

and they are copies, or, at best, poor imitations, where the author should

have shown himself capable of writing in a good style of his own. What then

is the middle ground for the true grammarian? What is the kind, and what

the degree, of originality, which are to be commended in works of this

sort? In the first place, a grammarian must be a writer, an author, a man

who observes and thinks for himself; and not a mere compiler, abridger,

modifier, copyist, or plagiarist. Grammar is not the only subject upon

which we allow no man to innovate in doctrine; why, then, should it be the

only one upon which a man may make it a merit, to work up silently into a

book of his own, the best materials found among the instructions of his

predecessors and rivals? Some definitions and rules, which in the lapse of

time and by frequency of use have become a sort of public property, the

grammarian may perhaps be allowed to use at his pleasure; yet even upon

these a man of any genius will be apt to set some impress peculiar to

himself. But the doctrines of his work ought, in general, to be expressed

in his own language, and illustrated by that of others. With respect to

quotation, he has all the liberty of other writers, and no more; for, if a

grammarian makes "use of his predecessors' labours," why should any one

think with Murray, "it is scarcely necessary to apologize for" this, "or

for _omitting_ to _insert_ their names?"--_Introd. to L. Murray's Gram._,

8vo, p. 7.

20. The author of this volume would here take the liberty briefly to refer

to his own procedure. His knowledge of what is _technical_ in grammar, was

of course chiefly derived from the writings of other grammarians; and to

their concurrent opinions and practices, he has always had great respect;

yet, in truth, not a line has he ever copied from any of them with a design

to save the labour of composition. For, not to compile an English grammar

from others already extant, but to compose one more directly from the

sources of the art, was the task which he at first proposed to himself. Nor

is there in all the present volume a single sentence, not regularly quoted,

the authorship of which he supposes may now be ascribed to an other more

properly than to himself. Where either authority or acknowledgement was

requisite, names have been inserted. In the doctrinal parts of the volume,

not only quotations from others, but most examples made for the occasion,

are marked with guillemets, to distinguish them from the main text; while,

to almost every thing which is really taken from any other known writer, a

name or reference is added. For those citations, however, which there was

occasion to repeat in different parts of the work, a single reference has

sometimes been thought sufficient. This remark refers chiefly to the

corrections in the Key, the references being given in the Exercises.

21. Though the theme is not one on which a man may hope to write well with

little reflection, it is true that the parts of this treatise which have

cost the author the most labour, are those which "consist chiefly of

materials selected from the writings of others." These, however, are not

the didactical portions of the book, but the proofs and examples; which,

according to the custom of the ancient grammarians, ought to be taken from

other authors. But so much have the makers of our modern grammars been

allowed to presume upon the respect and acquiescence of their readers, that

the ancient exactness on this point would often appear pedantic. Many

phrases and sentences, either original with the writer, or common to

everybody, will therefore be found among the illustrations of the following

work; for it was not supposed that any reader would demand for every thing

of this kind the authority of some great name. Anonymous examples are

sufficient to elucidate principles, if not to establish them; and

elucidation is often the sole purpose for which an example is needed.

22. It is obvious enough, that no writer on grammar has any right to

propose himself as authority for what he teaches; for every language, being

the common property of all who use it, ought to be carefully guarded

against the caprices of individuals; and especially against that

presumption which might attempt to impose erroneous or arbitrary

definitions and rules. "Since the matter of which we are treating," says

the philologist of Salamanca, "is to be verified, first by reason, and then

by testimony and usage, none ought to wonder if we sometimes deviate from

the track of great men; for, with whatever authority any grammarian may

weigh with me, unless he shall have confirmed his assertions by reason, and

also by examples, he shall win no confidence in respect to grammar. For, as

Seneca says, Epistle 95, 'Grammarians are the _guardians_, not the

_authors_, of language.'"--_Sanctii Minerva_, Lib. ii, Cap. 2. Yet, as what

is intuitively seen to be true or false, is already sufficiently proved or

detected, many points in grammar need nothing more than to be clearly

stated and illustrated; nay, it would seem an injurious reflection on the

understanding of the reader, to accumulate proofs of what cannot but be

evident to all who speak the language.

23. Among men of the same profession, there is an unavoidable rivalry, so

far as they become competitors for the same prize; but in competition there

is nothing dishonourable, while excellence alone obtains distinction, and

no advantage is sought by unfair means. It is evident that we ought to

account him the best grammarian, who has the most completely executed the

worthiest design. But no worthy design can need a false apology; and it is

worse than idle to prevaricate. That is but a spurious modesty, which

prompts a man to disclaim in one way what he assumes in an other--or to

underrate the duties of his office, that he may boast of having "done all

that could reasonably be expected." Whoever professes to have improved the

science of English grammar, must claim to know more of the matter than the

generality of English grammarians; and he who begins with saying, that

"little can be expected" from the office he assumes, must be wrongfully

contradicted, when he is held to have done much. Neither the ordinary power

of speech, nor even the ability to write respectably on common topics,

makes a man a critic among critics, or enables him to judge of literary

merit. And if, by virtue of these qualifications alone, a man will become a

grammarian or a connoisseur, he can hold the rank only by courtesy--a

courtesy which is content to degrade the character, that his inferior

pretensions may be accepted and honoured under the name.

24. By the force of a late popular example, still too widely influential,

grammatical authorship has been reduced, in the view of many, to little or

nothing more than a mere serving-up of materials anonymously borrowed; and,

what is most remarkable, even for an indifferent performance of this low

office, not only unnamed reviewers, but several writers of note, have not

scrupled to bestow the highest praise of grammatical excellence! And thus

the palm of superior skill in grammar, has been borne away by a _professed

compiler_; who had so mean an opinion of what his theme required, as to

deny it even the common courtesies of compilation! What marvel is it, that,

under the wing of such authority, many writers have since sprung up, to

improve upon this most happy design; while all who were competent to the

task, have been discouraged from attempting any thing like a complete

grammar of our language? What motive shall excite a man to long-continued

diligence, where such notions prevail as give mastership no hope of

preference, and where the praise of his ingenuity and the reward of his

labour must needs be inconsiderable, till some honoured compiler usurp them

both, and bring his "most useful matter" before the world under better

auspices? If the love of learning supply such a motive, who that has

generously yielded to the impulse, will not now, like Johnson, feel himself

reduced to an "humble drudge"--or, like Perizonius, apologize for the

apparent folly of devoting his time to such a subject as grammar?

25. The first edition of the "Institutes of English Grammar," the doctrinal

parts of which are embraced in the present more copious work, was published

in the year 1823; since which time, (within the space of twelve years,)

about forty new compends, mostly professing to be abstracts of _Murray_,

with improvements, have been added to our list of English grammars. The

author has examined as many as thirty of them, and seen advertisements of

perhaps a dozen more. Being various in character, they will of course be

variously estimated; but, so far as he can judge, they are, without

exception, works of little or no real merit, and not likely to be much

patronized or long preserved from oblivion. For which reason, he would have

been inclined entirely to disregard the petty depredations which the

writers of several of them have committed upon his earlier text, were it

not possible, that by such a frittering-away of his work, he himself might

one day seem to some to have copied that from others which was first taken

from him. Trusting to make it manifest to men of learning, that in the

production of the books which bear his name, far more has been done for the

grammar of our language than any single hand had before achieved within the

scope of practical philology, and that with perfect fairness towards other

writers; he cannot but feel a wish that the integrity of his text should be

preserved, whatever else may befall; and that the multitude of scribblers

who judge it so needful to remodel Murray's defective compilation, would

forbear to publish under his name or their own what they find only in the

following pages.

26. The mere rivalry of their authorship is no subject of concern; but it

is enough for any ingenuous man to have toiled for years in solitude to

complete a work of public utility, without entering a warfare for life to

defend and preserve it. Accidental coincidences in books are unfrequent,

and not often such as to excite the suspicion of the most sensitive. But,

though the criteria of plagiarism are neither obscure nor disputable, it is

not easy, in this beaten track of literature, for persons of little reading

to know what is, or is not, original. Dates must be accurately observed;

and a multitude of minute things must be minutely compared. And who will

undertake such a task but he that is personally interested? Of the

thousands who are forced into the paths of learning, few ever care to know,

by what pioneer, or with what labour, their way was cast up for them. And

even of those who are honestly engaged in teaching, not many are adequate

judges of the comparative merits of the great number of books on this

subject. The common notions of mankind conform more easily to fashion than

to truth; and even of some things within their reach, the majority seem

contend to take their opinions upon trust. Hence, it is vain to expect that

that which is intrinsically best, will be everywhere preferred; or that

which is meritoriously elaborate, adequately appreciated. But common sense

might dictate, that learning is not encouraged or respected by those who,

for the making of books, prefer a pair of scissors to the pen.

27. The fortune of a grammar is not always an accurate test of its merits.

The goddess of the plenteous horn stands blindfold yet upon the floating

prow; and, under her capricious favour, any pirate-craft, ill stowed with

plunder, may sometimes speed as well, as barges richly laden from the

golden mines of science. Far more are now afloat, and more are stranded on

dry shelves, than can be here reported. But what this work contains, is

candidly designed to qualify the reader to be himself a judge of what it

_should_ contain; and I will hope, so ample a report as this, being thought

sufficient, will also meet his approbation. The favour of one discerning

mind that comprehends my subject, is worth intrinsically more than that of

half the nation: I mean, of course, the half of whom my gentle reader is

not one.

"They praise and they admire they know not what,

And know not whom, but as one leads the other."--_Milton_.

CHAPTER III.

OF GRAMMATICAL SUCCESS AND FAME.

"Non is ego sum, cui aut jucundum, aut adeo opus sit, de aliis detrahere,

et hac viâ ad famara contendere. Melioribus artibus laudem parare didici.

Itaque non libenter dico, quod præsens institutum dicere cogit."--Jo.

AUGUSTI ERNESTI _Præf. ad Græcum Lexicon_, p. vii.

1. The real history of grammar is little known; and many erroneous

impressions are entertained concerning it: because the story of the systems

most generally received has never been fully told; and that of a multitude

now gone to oblivion was never worth telling. In the distribution of

grammatical fame, which has chiefly been made by the hand of interest, we

have had a strange illustration of the saying: "Unto every one that hath

shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him that hath not,

shall be taken away even that which he hath." Some whom fortune has made

popular, have been greatly overrated, if learning and talent are to be

taken into the account; since it is manifest, that with no extraordinary

claims to either, they have taken the very foremost rank among grammarians,

and thrown the learning and talents of others into the shade, or made them

tributary to their own success and popularity.

2. It is an ungrateful task to correct public opinion by showing the

injustice of praise. Fame, though it may have been both unexpected and

undeserved, is apt to be claimed and valued as part and parcel of a man's

good name; and the dissenting critic, though ever-so candid, is liable to

be thought an envious detractor. It would seem in general most prudent to

leave mankind to find out for themselves how far any commendation bestowed

on individuals is inconsistent with truth. But, be it remembered, that

celebrity is not a virtue; nor, on the other hand, is experience the

cheapest of teachers. A good man may not have done all things ably and

well; and it is certainly no small mistake to estimate his character by the

current value of his copy-rights. Criticism may destroy the reputation of a

book, and not be inconsistent with a cordial respect for the private worth

of its author. The reader will not be likely to be displeased with what is

to be stated in this chapter, if he can believe, that no man's merit as a

writer, may well be enhanced by ascribing to him that which he himself, for

the protection of his own honour, has been constrained to disclaim. He

cannot suppose that too much is alleged, if he will admit that a

grammarian's fame should be thought safe enough in his _own keeping_. Are

authors apt to undervalue their own performances? Or because proprietors

and publishers may profit by the credit of a book, shall it be thought

illiberal to criticise it? Is the author himself to be disbelieved, that

the extravagant praises bestowed upon him may be justified? "Superlative

commendation," says Dillwyn, "is near akin to _detraction_." (See his

_Reflections_, p. 22.) Let him, therefore, who will charge detraction upon

me, first understand wherein it consists. I shall criticise, freely, both

the works of the living, and the doctrines of those who, to us, live only

in their works; and if any man dislike this freedom, let him rebuke it,

showing wherein it is wrong or unfair. The amiable author just quoted, says

again: "Praise has so often proved an _impostor_, that it would be well,

wherever we meet with it, to treat it as a vagrant."--_Ib._, p. 100. I go

not so far as this; but that eulogy which one knows to be false, he cannot

but reckon impertinent.

3. Few writers on grammar have been more noted than WILLIAM LILY and

LINDLEY MURRAY. Others have left better monuments of their learning and

talents, but none perhaps have had greater success and fame. The Latin

grammar which was for a long time most popular in England, has commonly

been ascribed to the one; and what the Imperial Review, in 1805, pronounced

"the best English grammar, beyond all comparison, that has yet appeared,"

was compiled by the other. And doubtless they have both been rightly judged

to excel the generality of those which they were intended to supersede; and

both, in their day, may have been highly serviceable to the cause of

learning. For all excellence is but comparative; and to grant them this

superiority, is neither to prefer them now, nor to justify the praise which

has been bestowed upon their authorship. As the science of grammar can

never be taught without a book, or properly taught by any book which is not

itself grammatical, it is of some importance both to teachers and to

students, to make choice of the best. Knowledge will not advance where

grammars hold rank by prescription. Yet it is possible that many, in

learning to write and speak, may have derived no inconsiderable benefit

from a book that is neither accurate nor complete.

4. With respect to time, these two grammarians were three centuries apart;

during which period, the English language received its most classical

refinement, and the relative estimation of the two studies, Latin and

English grammar, became in a great measure reversed. Lily was an

Englishman, born at Odiham,[6] in Hampshire, in 1466. When he had arrived

at manhood, he went on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem; and while abroad studied

some time at Rome, and also at Paris. On his return he was thought one of

the most accomplished scholars in England. In 1510, Dr. John Colet, dean of

St. Paul's church, in London, appointed him the first high master of St.

Paul's School, then recently founded by this gentleman's munificence. In

this situation, Lily appears to have taught with great credit to himself

till 1522, when he died of the plague, at the age of 56. For the use of

this school, he wrote and published certain parts of the grammar which has

since borne his name. Of the authorship of this work many curious

particulars are stated in the preface by John Ward, which may be seen in

the edition of 1793. Lily had able rivals, as well as learned coadjutors

and friends. By the aid of the latter, he took precedence of the former;

and his publications, though not voluminous, soon gained a general

popularity. So that when an arbitrary king saw fit to silence competition

among the philologists, by becoming himself, as Sir Thomas Elliott says,

"the chiefe authour and setter-forth of an introduction into grammar, for

the childrene of his lovynge subjects," Lily's Grammar was preferred for

the basis of the standard. Hence, after the publishing of it became a

privilege patented by the crown, the book appears to have been honoured

with a royal title, and to have been familiarly called King Henry's

Grammar.

5. Prefixed to this book, there appears a very ancient epistle to the

reader, which while it shows the reasons for this royal interference with

grammar, shows also, what is worthy of remembrance, that guarded and

maintained as it was, even royal interference was here ineffectual to its

purpose. It neither produced uniformity in the methods of teaching, nor,

even for instruction in a dead language, entirely prevented the old manual

from becoming diverse in its different editions. The style also may serve

to illustrate what I have elsewhere said about the duties of a modern

grammarian. "As for the diversitie of grammars, it is well and profitably

taken awaie by the King's Majesties wisdome; who, foreseeing the

inconvenience, and favorably providing the remedie, caused one kind of

grammar by sundry learned men to be diligently drawn, and so to be set out,

only every where to be taught, for the use of learners, and for the hurt in

changing of schoolemaisters." That is, to prevent the injury which

schoolmasters were doing by a whimsical choice, or frequent changing, of

grammars. But, says the letter, "The varietie of teaching is divers yet,

and alwaies will be; for that every schoolemaister liketh that he knoweth,

and seeth not the use of that he knoweth not; and therefore judgeth that

the most sufficient waie, which he seeth to be the readiest meane, and

perfectest kinde, to bring a learner to have a thorough knowledge therein."

The only remedy for such an evil then is, to teach those who are to be

teachers, and to desert all who, for any whim of their own, desert sound

doctrine.

6. But, to return. A law was made in England by Henry the Eighth,

commanding Lily's Grammar only, (or that which has commonly been quoted as

Lily's,) to be everywhere adopted and taught, as the common standard of

grammatical instruction.[7] Being long kept in force by means of a special

inquiry, directed to be made by the bishops at their stated visitations,

this law, for three hundred years, imposed the book on all the established

schools of the realm. Yet it is certain, that about one half of what has

thus gone under the name of Lily, ("because," says one of the patentees,

"he had _so considerable a hand_ in the composition,") was written by Dr.

Colet, by Erasmus, or by others who improved the work after Lily's death.

And of the other half, it has been incidentally asserted in history, that

neither the scheme nor the text was original. The Printer's Grammar,

London, 1787, speaking of the art of type-foundery, says: "The Italians in

a short time brought it to _that_ perfection, that in the beginning of the

year 1474, they cast a letter not much inferior to the best types of the

present age; as may be seen in a Latin Grammar, written by Omnibonus

Leonicenus, and printed at Padua on the 14th of January, 1474; _from whom

our grammarian, Lily, has taken the entire scheme of his Grammar, and

transcribed the greatest part thereof, without paying any regard to the

memory of this author_." The historian then proceeds to speak about types.

See also the same thing in the History of Printing, 8vo, London, 1770. This

is the grammar which bears upon its title page: "_Quam solam Regia Majestas

in omnibus scholis docendam prcæcipit_."

7. Murray was an intelligent and very worthy man, to whose various labours

in the compilation of books our schools are under many obligations. But in

original thought and critical skill he fell far below most of "the authors

to whom," he confesses, "the grammatical part of his compilation is

_principally indebted for its materials_; namely, Harris, Johnson, Lowth,

Priestley, Beattie, Sheridan, Walker, Coote, Blair, and

Campbell."--_Introd. to Lindley Murray's Gram._, p. 7. It is certain and

evident that he entered upon his task with a very insufficient preparation.

His biography, which was commenced by himself and completed by one of his

most partial friends, informs us, that, "Grammar did not particularly

engage his attention, until a short time previous to the publication of his

first work on that subject;" that, "His Grammar, as it appeared in the

first edition, was completed in rather less than a year;" that, "It was

begun in the spring of 1794, and published in the spring of 1795--though he

had an intervening illness, which, for several weeks, stopped the progress

of the work;" and that, "The Exercises and Key were also composed in about

a year."--_Life of L. Murray_, p. 188. From the very first sentence of his

book, it appears that he entertained but a low and most erroneous idea of

the duties of that sort of character in which he was about to come before

the public.[8] He improperly imagined, as many others have done, that

"little can be expected" from a modern grammarian, or (as he chose to

express it) "from a _new compilation_, besides a careful selection of the

most useful matter, and some degree of improvement in the mode of adapting

it to the understanding, and the gradual progress of learners."--_Introd.

to L. Murray's Gram._; 8vo, p. 5; 12mo, p. 3. As if, to be master of his

own art--to think and write well himself, were no part of a grammarian's

business! And again, as if the jewels of scholarship, thus carefully

selected, could need a burnish or a foil from other hands than those which

fashioned them!

8. Murray's general idea of the doctrines of grammar was judicious. He

attempted no broad innovation on what had been previously taught; for he

had neither the vanity to suppose he could give currency to novelties, nor

the folly to waste his time in labours utterly nugatory. By turning his own

abilities to their best account, he seems to have done much to promote and

facilitate the study of our language. But his notion of grammatical

authorship, cuts off from it all pretence to literary merit, for the sake

of doing good; and, taken in any other sense than as a forced apology for

his own assumptions, his language on this point is highly injurious towards

the very authors whom he copied. To justify himself, he ungenerously places

them, in common with others, under a degrading necessity which no able

grammarian ever felt, and which every man of genius or learning must

repudiate. If none of our older grammars disprove his assertion, it is time

to have a new one that will; for, to expect the perfection of grammar from

him who cannot treat the subject in a style at once original and pure, is

absurd. He says, "The greater part of an English grammar _must necessarily

be a compilation _;" and adds, with reference to his own, "originality

belongs to but a small portion of it. This I have acknowledged; and I trust

_this acknowledgement_ will protect me from all attacks, grounded on any

supposed unjust and irregular assumptions." This quotation is from a letter

addressed by Murray to his American publishers, in 1811, after they had

informed him of certain complaints respecting the liberties which he had

taken in his work. See "_The Friend_," Vol. iii, p. 34.

9. The acknowledgement on which he thus relies, does not appear to have

been made, till his grammar had gone through several editions. It was,

however, at some period, introduced into his short preface, or

"Introduction," in the following well-meant but singularly sophistical

terms: "In _a work_ which professes itself to be a _compilation_, and

which, _from the nature and design of it_, must consist chiefly of

materials selected from the writings of others, _it is scarcely necessary

to apologise_ for the use which the Compiler has made of his predecessors'

labours, or for _omitting to insert_ their names. _From the alterations_

which have been frequently made in the sentiments and the language, to suit

the connexion, and to adapt them to the particular purposes for which they

are introduced; and, in many instances, _from the uncertainty to whom_ the

passages originally belonged, the insertion of names _could seldom be made

with propriety_. But if this could have been generally done, a work of this

nature _would derive no advantage from it_, equal to the inconvenience of

crowding the pages with a repetition of names and references. It is.

however, proper to acknowledge, in general terms, that the authors to whom

the grammatical part of this compilation is principally indebted for its

materials, are Harris, Johnson, Lowth, Priestley, Beattie, Sheridan,

Walker, and Coote."--_Introd.; Duodecimo Gram._, p. 4; _Octavo_, p. 7.

10. The fallacy, or absurdity, of this language sprung from necessity. An

impossible case was to be made out. For compilation, though ever so fair,

is not grammatical authorship. But some of the commenders of Murray have

not only professed themselves satisfied with this general acknowledgement,

but have found in it a candour and a liberality, a modesty and a

diffidence, which, as they allege, ought to protect him from all

animadversion. Are they friends to learning? Let them calmly consider what

I reluctantly offer for its defence and promotion. In one of the

recommendations appended to Murray's grammars, it _is_ said, "They have

nearly superseded every thing else of the kind, by concentrating the

remarks of the best authors on the subject." But, in truth, with several

of the best English grammars published previously to his own, Murray

appears to have been totally unacquainted. The chief, if not the only

school grammars which were largely copied by him, were Lowth's and

Priestley's, though others perhaps may have shared the fate of these in

being "superseded" by his. It may be seen by inspection, that in copying

these two authors, the compiler, agreeably to what he says above, omitted

all names and references--even such as they had scrupulously inserted: and,

at the outset, assumed to be himself the sole authority for all his

doctrines and illustrations; satisfying his own mind with making, some

years afterwards, that general apology which we are now criticising. For if

he so mutilated and altered the passages which he adopted, as to make it

improper to add the names of their authors, upon what other authority than

his own do they rest? But if, on the other hand, he generally copied

without alteration; his examples are still anonymous, while his first

reason for leaving them so, is plainly destroyed: because his position is

thus far contradicted by the fact.

11. In his later editions, however, there are two opinions which the

compiler thought proper to support by regular quotations; and, now and

then, in other instances, the name of an author appears. The two positions

thus distinguished, are these: _First_, That the noun _means_ is

necessarily singular as well as plural, so that one cannot with propriety

use the singular form, _mean_, to signify that by which an end is attained;

_Second_, That the subjective mood, to which he himself had previously

given all the tenses without inflection, is not different in form from the

indicative, except in the present tense. With regard to the later point, I

have shown, in its proper place, that he taught erroneously, both before

and after he changed his opinion; and concerning the former, the most that

can be proved by quotation, is, that both _mean_ and _means_ for the

singular number, long have been, and still are, in good use, or sanctioned

by many elegant writers; so that either form may yet be considered

grammatical, though the irregular can claim to be so, only when it is used

in this particular sense. As to his second reason for the suppression of

names, to wit, "the _uncertainty to whom_ the passages originally

belonged,"--to make the most of it, it is but partial and relative; and,

surely, no other grammar ever before so multiplied the difficulty in the

eyes of teachers, and so widened the field for commonplace authorship, as

has the compilation in question. The origin of a sentiment or passage may

be uncertain to one man, and perfectly well known to an other. The

embarrassment which a _compiler_ may happen to find from this source, is

worthy of little sympathy. For he cannot but know from what work he is

taking any particular sentence or paragraph, and those parts of a

_grammar_, which are new to the eye of a great grammarian, may very well be

credited to him who claims to have written the book. I have thus disposed

of his second reason for the omission of names and references, in

compilations of grammar.

12. There remains one more: "A work of this nature _would derive no

advantage from it_, equal to the inconvenience of crowding the pages with a

repetition of names and references." With regard to a small work, in which

the matter is to be very closely condensed, this argument has considerable

force. But Murray has in general allowed himself very ample room,

especially in his two octavoes. In these, and for the most part also in his

duodecimoes, all needful references might easily have been added without

increasing the size of his volumes, or injuring their appearance. In nine

cases out of ten, the names would only have been occupied what is now blank

space. It is to be remembered, that these books do not differ much, except

in quantity of paper. His octavo Grammar is but little more than a reprint,

in a larger type, of the duodecimo Grammar, together with his Exercises and

Key. The demand for this expensive publication has been comparatively

small; and it is chiefly to the others, that the author owes his popularity

as a grammarian. As to the advantage which Murray or his work might have

derived from an adherence on his part to the usual custom of compilers,

_that_ may be variously estimated. The remarks of the best grammarians or

the sentiments of the best authors, are hardly to be thought the more

worthy of acceptance, for being concentrated in such a manner as to merge

their authenticity in the fame of the copyist. Let me not be understood to

suggest that this good man sought popularity at the expense of others; for

I do not believe that either fame or interest was his motive. But the right

of authors to the credit of their writings, is a delicate point; and,

surely, his example would have been worthier of imitation, had he left no

ground for the foregoing objections, and carefully barred the way to any

such interference.

13. But let the first sentence of this apology be now

considered. It is here suggested, that because this work is a compilation,

even such an acknowledgement as the author makes, is "scarcely necessary."

This is too much to say. Yet one may readily admit, that a compilation,

"from the nature and design of it, must consist chiefly"--nay,

_wholly_--"of materials selected from the writings of others." But what

able grammarian would ever willingly throw himself upon the horns of such a

dilemma! The nature and design _of a book_, whatever they may be, are

matters for which the author alone is answerable; but the nature and design

_of grammar_, are no less repugnant to the strain of this apology, than to

the vast number of errors and defects which were overlooked by Murray in

his work of compilation. It is the express purpose of this practical

science, to enable a man to write well himself. He that cannot do this,

exhibits no excess of modesty when he claims to have "done all that could

reasonably be expected in a work of this nature."--_L. Murray's Gram.,

Introd._, p. 9. He that sees with other men's eyes, is peculiarly liable to

errors and inconsistencies: uniformity is seldom found in patchwork, or

accuracy in secondhand literature. Correctness of language is in the mind,

rather than in the hand or the tongue; and, in order to secure it, some

originality of thought is necessary. A delineation from new surveys is not

the less original because the same region has been sketched before; and how

can he be the ablest of surveyors, who, through lack of skill or industry,

does little more than transcribe the field-notes and copy the projections

of his predecessors?

14. This author's oversights are numerous. There is no part of the volume

more accurate than that which he literally copied from Lowth. To the Short

Introduction alone, he was indebted for more than a hundred and twenty

paragraphs; and even in these there are many things obviously erroneous.

Many of the best practical notes were taken from Priestley; yet it was he,

at whose doctrines were pointed most of those "positions and discussions,"

which alone the author claims as original. To some of these reasonings,

however, his own alterations may have given rise; for, where he "persuades

himself he is not destitute of originality," he is often arguing against

the text of his own earlier editions. Webster's well-known complaints of

Murray's unfairness, had a far better cause than requital; for there was no

generosity in ascribing them to peevishness, though the passages in

question were not worth copying. On perspicuity and accuracy, about sixty

pages were extracted from Blair; and it requires no great critical acumen

to discover, that they are miserably deficient in both. On the law of

language, there are fifteen pages from Campbell; which, with a few

exceptions, are well written. The rules for spelling are the same as

Walker's: the third one, however, is a gross blunder; and the fourth, a,

needless repetition.

15. Were this a place for minute criticism, blemishes almost innumerable

might be pointed out. It might easily be shown that almost every rule laid

down in the book for the observance of the learner, was repeatedly violated

by the hand of the master. Nor is there among all those who have since

abridged or modified the work, an abler grammarian than he who compiled it.

Who will pretend that Flint, Alden, Comly, Jaudon, Russell, Bacon, Lyon,

Miller, Alger, Maltby, Ingersoll, Fisk, Greenleaf, Merchant, Kirkham,

Cooper, R. G. Greene, Woodworth, Smith, or Frost, has exhibited greater

skill? It is curious to observe, how frequently a grammatical blunder

committed by Murray, or some one of his predecessors, has escaped the

notice of all these, as well as of many others who have found it easier to

copy him than to write for themselves. No man professing to have copied and

improved Murray, can rationally be supposed to have greatly excelled him;

for to pretend to have produced an _improved copy of a compilation_, is to

claim a sort of authorship, even inferior to his, and utterly unworthy of

any man who is able to prescribe and elucidate the principles of English

grammar.

16. But Murray's grammatical works, being extolled in the reviews, and made

common stock in trade,--being published, both in England and in America, by

booksellers of the most extensive correspondence, and highly commended even

by those who were most interested in the sale of them,--have been eminently

successful with the public; and in the opinion of the world, success is the

strongest proof of merit. Nor has the force of this argument been

overlooked by those who have written in aid of his popularity. It is the

strong point in most of the commendations which have been bestowed upon

Murray as a grammarian. A recent eulogist computes, that, "at least five

millions of copies of his various school-books have been printed;"

particularly commends him for his "candour and liberality towards rival

authors;" avers that, "he went on, examining and correcting his Grammar,

through all its forty editions, till he brought it to a degree of

perfection which will render it as permanent as the English language

itself;" censures (and not without reason) the "presumption" of those

"superficial critics" who have attempted to amend the work, and usurp his

honours; and, regarding the compiler's confession of his indebtedness to

others, but as a mark of "his exemplary diffidence of his own merits,"

adds, (in very bad English,) "Perhaps there never was an author whose

success and fame were more _unexpected by himself than Lindley

Murray_."--_The Friend_, Vol. iii, p. 33.

17. In a New-York edition of Murray's Grammar, printed in 1812, there was

inserted a "Caution to the Public," by Collins & Co., his American

correspondents and publishers, in which are set forth the unparalleled

success and merit of the work, "as it came _in purity_ from the pen of the

author;" with an earnest remonstrance against the several _revised

editions_ which had appeared at Boston, Philadelphia, and other places, and

against the unwarrantable liberties taken by American teachers, in altering

the work, under pretence of improving it. In this article it is stated,

"that _the whole_ of these mutilated editions _have been seen_ and examined

by Lindley Murray himself, and that they, have met with _his decided

disapprobation_. Every rational mind," continue these gentlemen, "will

agree with him, that, 'the _rights of living authors_, and the _interests

of science and literature_, demand the abolition of this _ungenerous

practice_.'" (See this also in _Murray's Key_, 12mo, N. Y., 1811, p. iii.)

Here, then, we have the feeling and opinion of Murray himself, upon this

tender point of right. Here we see the tables turned, and other men judging

it "scarcely necessary to apologize for the use which _they have made_ of

their predecessors' labours."

18. It is really remarkable to find an author and his admirers so much at

variance, as are Murray and his commenders, in relation to his grammatical

authorship; and yet, under what circumstances could men have stronger

desires to avoid apparent contradiction? They, on the one side, claim for

him the highest degree of merit as a grammarian; and continue to applaud

his works as if nothing more could be desired in the study of English

grammar--a branch of learning which some of them are willing emphatically

to call "_his_ science." He, on the contrary, to avert the charge of

plagiarism, disclaims almost every thing in which any degree of literary

merit consists; supposes it impossible to write an English grammar the

greater part of which is not a "compilation;" acknowledges that originality

belongs to but a small part of his own; trusts that such a general

acknowledgement will protect him from all censure; suppresses the names of

other writers, and leaves his examples to rest solely on his own authority;

and, "contented with the great respectability of his private character and

station, is satisfied with being _useful_ as an author."--_The Friend_,

Vol. iii, p. 33. By the high praises bestowed upon his works, his own voice

is overborne: the trumpet of fame has drowned it. His liberal authorship is

profitable in trade, and interest has power to swell and prolong the

strain.

19. The name and character of Lindley Murray are too venerable to allow us

to approach even the errors of his grammars, without some recognition of

the respect due to his personal virtues and benevolent intentions. For the

private virtues of Murray, I entertain as cordial a respect as any other

man. Nothing is argued against these, even if it be proved that causes

independent of true literary merit have given him his great and unexpected

fame as a grammarian. It is not intended by the introduction of these

notices, to impute to him any thing more or less than what his own words

plainly imply; except those inaccuracies and deficiencies which still

disgrace his work as a literary performance, and which of course he did not

discover. He himself knew that he had not brought the book to such

perfection as has been ascribed to it; for, by way of apology for his

frequent alterations, he says, "Works of this nature admit of repeated

improvements; and are, perhaps, never complete." Necessity has urged this

reasoning upon me. I am as far from any invidious feeling, or any sordid

motive, as was Lindley Murray. But it is due to truth, to correct erroneous

impressions; and, in order to obtain from some an impartial examination of

the following pages, it seemed necessary first to convince them, _that it

is possible_ to compose a better grammar than Murray's, without being

particularly indebted to him. If this treatise is not such, a great deal of

time has been thrown away upon a useless project; and if it is, the

achievement is no fit subject for either pride or envy. It differs from

his, and from all the pretended amendments of his, as a new map, drawn from

actual and minute surveys, differs from an old one, compiled chiefly from

others still older and confessedly still more imperfect. The region and the

scope are essentially the same; the tracing and the colouring are more

original; and (if the reader can pardon the suggestion) perhaps more

accurate and vivid.

20. He who makes a new grammar, does nothing for the advancement of

learning, unless his performance excel all earlier ones designed for the

same purpose; and nothing for his own honour, unless such excellence result

from the exercise of his own ingenuity and taste. A good style naturally

commends itself to every reader--even to him who cannot tell why it is

worthy of preference. Hence there is reason to believe, that the true

principles of practical grammar, deduced from custom and sanctioned by

time, will never be generally superseded by any thing which individual

caprice may substitute. In the republic of letters, there will always be

some who can distinguish merit; and it is impossible that these should ever

be converted to any whimsical theory of language, which goes to make void

the learning of past ages. There will always be some who can discern the

difference between originality of style, and innovation in

doctrine,--between a due regard to the opinions of others, and an actual

usurpation of their text; and it is incredible that these should ever be

satisfied with any mere compilation of grammar, or with any such authorship

as either confesses or betrays the writer's own incompetence. For it is not

true, that, "an English grammar must necessarily be," in any considerable

degree, if at all, "a compilation;" nay, on such a theme, and in "the

grammatical part" of the work, all compilation beyond a fair use of

authorities regularly quoted, or of materials either voluntarily furnished

or free to all, most unavoidably implies--not conscious "ability,"

generously doing honour to rival merit--nor "exemplary diffidence,"

modestly veiling its own--but inadequate skill and inferior talents,

bribing the public by the spoils of genius, and seeking precedence by such

means as not even the purest desire of doing good can justify.

21. Among the professed copiers of Murray, there is not one to whom the

foregoing remarks do not apply, as forcibly as to him. For no one of them

all has attempted any thing more honourable to himself, or more beneficial

to the public, than what their master had before achieved; nor is there any

one, who, with the same disinterestedness, has guarded his design from the

imputation of a pecuniary motive. It is comical to observe what they say in

their prefaces. Between praise to sustain their choice of a model, and

blame to make room for their pretended amendments, they are often placed in

as awkward a dilemma, as that which was contrived when grammar was

identified with compilation. I should have much to say, were I to show them

all in their true light.[9] Few of them have had such success as to be

worthy of notice here; but the names of many will find frequent place in my

code of false grammar. The one who seems to be now taking the lead in fame

and revenue, filled with glad wonder at his own popularity, is SAMUEL

KIRKHAM. Upon this gentleman's performance, I shall therefore bestow a few

brief observations. If I do not overrate this author's literary importance,

a fair exhibition of the character of his grammar, may be made an

instructive lesson to some of our modern literati. The book is a striking

sample of a numerous species.

22. Kirkham's treatise is entitled, "English Grammar _in familiar

Lectures_, accompanied by a _Compendium_;" that is, by a folded sheet. Of

this work, of which I have recently seen copies purporting to be of the

"SIXTY-SEVENTH EDITION," and others again of the "HUNDRED AND FIFTH

EDITION," each published at Baltimore in 1835, I can give no earlier

account, than what may be derived from the "SECOND EDITION, enlarged and

much improved," which was published at Harrisburg in 1825. The preface,

which appears to have been written for his _first_ edition, is dated,

"Fredericktown, Md., August 22, 1823." In it, there is no recognition of

any obligation to Murray, or to any other grammarian in particular; but

with the modest assumption, that the style of the "best philologists,"

needed to be retouched, the book is presented to the world under the

following pretensions:

"The author of this production has endeavoured to condense _all the most

important subject-matter of the whole science_, and present it in so small

a compass that the learner can become familiarly acquainted with it in a

_short time_. He makes but small pretensions to originality in theoretical

matter. Most of the principles laid down, have been selected from our _best

modern philologists_. If his work is entitled to any degree of _merit_, it

is not on account of a judicious selection of principles and rules, but for

the easy mode adopted of communicating _these_ to the mind of the

learner."--_Kirkham's Grammar_, 1825, p. 10.

23. It will be found on examination, that what this author regarded as

_"all the most important subject-matter of the whole science" of grammar_,

included nothing more than the most common elements of the orthography,

etymology, and syntax, of the English tongue--beyond which his scholarship

appears not to have extended. Whatsoever relates to derivation, to the

sounds of the letters, to prosody, (as punctuation, utterance, figures,

versification, and poetic diction,) found no place in his "comprehensive

system of grammar;" nor do his later editions treat any of these things

amply or well. In short, he treats nothing well; for he is a bad writer.

Commencing his career of authorship under circumstances the most

forbidding, yet receiving encouragement from commendations bestowed in

pity, he proceeded, like a man of business, to profit mainly by the chance;

and, without ever acquiring either the feelings or the habits of a scholar,

soon learned by experience that, "It is much better to _write_ than [to]

_starve_."--_Kirkham's Gram., Stereotyped_, p. 89. It is cruel in any man,

to look narrowly into the faults of an author who peddles a school-book for

bread. The starveling wretch whose defence and plea are poverty and

sickness, demands, and must have, in the name of humanity, an immunity from

criticism, if not the patronage of the public. Far be it from me, to notice

any such character, except with kindness and charity. Nor need I be told,

that tenderness is due to the "young;" or that noble results sometimes

follow unhopeful beginnings. These things are understood and duly

appreciated. The gentleman was young once, even as he says; and I, his

equal in years, was then, in authorship, as young--though, it were to be

hoped, not quite so immature. But, as circumstances alter cases, so time

and chance alter circumstances. Under no circumstances, however, can the

artifices of quackery be thought excusable in him who claims to be the very

greatest of modern grammarians. The niche that in the temple of learning

belongs to any individual, can be no other than that which his own labours

have purchased: here, his _own merit_ alone must be his pedestal. If this

critical sketch be unimpeachably _just_, its publication requires no

further warrant. The correction has been forborne, till the subject of it

has become rich, and popular, and proud; proud enough at least to have

published his utter contempt for me and all my works. Yet not for this do I

judge him worthy of notice here, but merely as an apt example of some men's

grammatical success and fame. The ways and means to these grand results are

what I purpose now to consider.

24. The common supposition, that the world is steadily advancing in

knowledge and improvement, would seem to imply, that the man who could

plausibly boast of being the most successful and most popular grammarian of

the nineteenth century, cannot but be a scholar of such merit as to deserve

some place, if not in the general literary history of his age, at least in

the particular history of the science which he teaches. It will presently

be seen that the author of "English Grammar in Familiar Lectures," boasts

of a degree of success and popularity, which, in this age of the world, has

no parallel. It is not intended on my part, to dispute any of his

assertions on these points; but rather to take it for granted, that in

reputation and revenue he is altogether as preëminent as he pretends to be.

The character of his alleged _improvements_, however, I shall inspect with

the eyes of one who means to know the certainty for himself; and, in this

item of literary history, the reader shall see, in some sort, _what profit_

there is in grammar. Is the common language of two of the largest and most

enlightened nations on earth so little understood, and its true grammar so

little known or appreciated, that one of the most unscholarly and

incompetent of all pretenders to grammar can have found means to outrival

all the grammarians who have preceded him? Have plagiarism and quackery

become the only means of success in philology? Are there now instances to

which an intelligent critic may point, and say, "This man, or that, though

he can scarcely write a page of good English, has patched up a grammar, by

the help of Murray's text only, and thereby made himself rich?" Is there

such a charm in the name of _Murray_, and the word _improvement_, that by

these two implements alone, the obscurest of men, or the absurdest of

teachers, may work his passage to fame; and then, perchance, by contrast of

circumstances, grow conceited and arrogant, from the fortune of the

undertaking? Let us see what we can find in Kirkham's Grammar, which will

go to answer these questions.

25. Take first from one page of his "hundred and fifth edition," a few

brief quotations, as a sample of his thoughts and style:

"They, however, who introduce _usages which depart from the analogy and

philosophy_ of a language, _are conspicuous_ among the number of those who

_form that language_, and have power to control it." "PRINCIPLE.--A

principle in grammar is a _peculiar construction_ of the language,

sanctioned by good usage." "DEFINITION.--A definition in grammar is a

_principle_ of language expressed in a _definite form_." "RULE.--A rule

describes _the peculiar construction_ or circumstantial relation of words,

_which_ custom has established for our observance."--_Kirkham's Grammar_,

page 18.

Now, as "a rule describes a peculiar construction," and "a principle is a

peculiar construction," and "a definition is a principle;" how, according

to this grammarian, do a principle, a definition, and a rule, differ each

from the others? From the rote here imposed, it is certainly not easier

for the learner to conceive of all these things _distinctly_, than it is to

understand how a departure from philosophy may make a man deservedly

"_conspicuous_." It were easy to multiply examples like these, showing the

work to be deficient in clearness, the first requisite of style.

26. The following passages may serve as a specimen of the gentleman's

taste, and grammatical accuracy; in one of which, he supposes the neuter

verb _is_ to express an _action_, and every _honest man_ to be _long since

dead!_ So it stands in all his editions. Did his praisers think so too?

"It is correct to say, _The man eats, he eats_; but we cannot say, _The man

dog eats, he dog eats_. Why not? Because the man _is here represented_ as

the possessor, and dog, the property, or thing possessed; and the genius of

our language requires, that when we add _to the possessor_, the _thing_

which _he_ is represented as possessing, _the possessor_ shall take a

particular form to show ITS case, or relation to the property."--_Ib._, p.

52.

THE PRESENT TENSE.--"This tense is sometimes applied to represent the

_actions_ of persons _long since dead_; as, 'Seneca _reasons_ and

_moralizes_ well; An HONEST MAN IS the noblest work of God.'"--_Ib._, p.

138.

PARTICIPLES.--"The term _Participle_ comes from the Latin word

_participio_,[10] which signifies to _partake_."--"Participles are formed

by adding to the verb the termination _ing, ed_, or _en_. _Ing_ signifies

the same thing as the noun _being_. When _postfixed_ to the _noun-state_ of

the verb, the _compound word_ thus formed expresses a continued state of

the _verbal denotement_. It implies that what is meant by the verb, is

_being_ continued."--_Ib._, p. 78. "All participles _are compound_ in their

meaning and office."--_Ib._, p. 79.

VERBS.--"Verbs express, not only _the state_ or _manner of being_, but,

likewise, all the different _actions_ and _movements_ of all creatures and

things, whether animate or inanimate."--_Ib._, p. 62. "It can be easily

shown, that from the noun and verb, all the other parts of speech have

sprung. Nay, more. _They_ may even be reduced to _one_. _Verbs do not, in

reality, express actions_; but they are intrinsically _the mere_ NAMES _of

actions_."--_Ib._, p. 37.

PHILOSOPHICAL GRAMMAR.--"I have thought proper to intersperse through the

pages of this work, under the head of '_Philosophical Notes_,' an entire

system of grammatical principles, as deduced from what _appears[11] to me_

to be the _most rational and consistent_ philosophical investigations."--

_Ib._, p. 36. "Johnson, and Blair, and Lowth, _would have been laughed at_,

had they essayed to thrust _any thing like our_ modernized philosophical

grammar _down the throats of their cotemporaries_."--_Ib._, p. 143.

Is it not a pity, that "more than one hundred thousand children and youth"

should be daily poring over language and logic like this?

27. For the sake of those who happily remain ignorant of this successful

empiricism, it is desirable that the record and exposition of it be made

brief. There is little danger that it will long survive its author. But the

present subjects of it are sufficiently numerous to deserve some pity. The

following is a sample of the gentleman's method of achieving what he both

justly and exultingly supposes, that Johnson, or Blair, or Lowth, could not

have effected. He scoffs at his own grave instructions, as if they had been

the production of some _other_ impostor. Can the fact be credited, that in

the following instances, he speaks of _what he himself teaches_?--of what

he seriously pronounces _"most rational and consistent?"_--of what is part

and parcel of that philosophy of his, which he declares, "will _in general

be found to accord_ with the _practical theory_ embraced in the body of his

work?"--See _Kirkham's Gram._, p. 36.

"Call this '_philosophical parsing_, on reasoning principles, according to

the original laws of nature and of thought,' and _the pill will be

swallowed_, by pedants and their dupes, with the greatest ease

imaginable."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 144. "For the _satisfaction_ of those

teachers who prefer it, and _for their adoption, too_, a modernized

philosophical theory of the moods and tenses is here presented. If it is

not quite so convenient and useful as the old one, they need not hesitate

to adopt it. It has the advantage of being _new_; and, moreover, it sounds

_large_, and will make the _commonalty stare_. Let it be distinctly

understood that you teach '[_Kirkham's_] _philosophical grammar_, founded

on reason and common sense,' and you will pass for a very learned man, and

make all the good housewives wonder at the rapid march of intellect, and

the vast improvements of the age."--_Ib._, p. 141.

28. The _pretty promises_ with which these "Familiar Lectures" abound, are

also worthy to be noticed here, as being among the peculiar attractions of

the performance. The following may serve as a specimen:

"If you _proceed according to my instructions_, you will be sure to acquire

a practical knowledge of Grammar in _a short time_."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p.

49. "If you have sufficient _resolution to do this_, you will, in a short

time, _perfectly understand_ the nature and office of the different parts

of speech, their various properties and relations, and the rules of syntax

that apply to them; _and, in a few weeks_, be able to speak and write

accurately."--_Ib._, p. 62. "You will please to turn back and read over

again _the whole five lectures_. You must exercise _a little_

patience."--_Ib._, p. 82. "By studying these lectures with attention, you

will acquire _more grammatical_ knowledge in three months, than is commonly

obtained in _two years_."--_Ib._, p. 82. "I will conduct you _so smoothly

through the moods and tenses_, and the conjugation of verbs, that, instead

of finding yourself involved in obscurities and deep intricacies, you will

scarcely find _an obstruction to impede your progress_."--_Ib._, p. 133.

"The supposed Herculean task of learning to conjugate verbs, will be

transformed into _a few hours of pleasant pastime_."--_Ib._, p. 142. "_By

examining carefully_ the conjugation of the verb through this mood, you

will find it _very easy_."--_Ib._, p. 147. "By pursuing the following

direction, you can, _in a very short time_, learn to conjugate any

verb."--_Ib._, p. 147. "Although this mode of procedure _may, at first,

appear to be laborious_, yet, as it is necessary, I trust you will not

hesitate to adopt it. _My confidence in your perseverance_, induces me to

recommend _any course_ which I know will tend to facilitate your

progress."--_Ib._, p. 148.

29. The grand boast of this author is, that he _has succeeded_ in "pleasing

himself and the public." He trusts to have "gained the latter point," to so

great an extent, and with such security of tenure, that henceforth no man

can safely question _the merit_ of his performance. Happy mortal! to whom

that success which is the ground of his pride, is also the glittering ægis

of his sure defence! To this he points with exultation and self-applause,

as if the prosperity of the wicked, or the popularity of an imposture, had

never yet been heard of in this clever world![12] Upon what merit this

success has been founded, my readers may judge, when I shall have finished

this slight review of his work. Probably no other grammar was ever so

industriously spread. Such was the author's perseverance in his measures to

increase the demand for his book, that even the attainment of such accuracy

as he was capable of, was less a subject of concern. For in an article

designed "to ward off some of the arrows of criticism,"--an advertisement

which, from the eleventh to the "one hundred and fifth edition," has been

promising "to the _publick another and a better_ edition,"--he plainly

offers this urgent engagement, as "an apology for its defects:"

"The author is apprehensive that his work is _not yet as_ accurate and as

much simplified as it _may be_. If, however, the disadvantages of lingering

under a broken constitution, and of being able to devote to this subject

_only a small portion of his time_, snatched from the _active pursuits of a

business life_, (active as far as imperfect health permits him to be,) are

any apology for his defects, he hopes that the candid will set down _the

apology to his credit_.--Not that he would beg a truce with the gentlemen

_criticks_ and reviewers. Any compromise with them would betray a want of

_self-confidence_ and _moral courage_, which he would by no means, be

willing to avow."--_Kirkham's Gram._, (Adv. of 1829,) p. 7.

30. Now, to this painful struggle, this active contention between business

and the vapours, let all _credit_ be given, and all _sympathy_ be added;

but, as an aid to the studies of healthy children, what better is the book,

for any forbearance or favour that may have been won by this apology? It

is well known, that, till _phrenology_ became the common talk, the author's

principal business was, to commend his own method of teaching _grammar_,

and to turn this publication to profit. This honourable industry, aided, as

himself suggests, by "not much _less_ than one thousand written

recommendations," is said to have wrought for him, in a very few years, a

degree of success and fame, at which both the eulogists of Murray and the

friends of English grammar may hang their heads. As to a "_compromise_"

with any critic or reviewer whom he cannot bribe, it is enough to say of

that, it is morally impossible. Nor was it necessary for such an author to

throw the gauntlet, to prove himself not lacking in "_self-confidence_." He

can show his "_moral courage_," only by daring do right.

31. In 1829, after his book had gone through ten editions, and the demand

for it had become so great as "to call forth twenty thousand copies during

the year," the prudent author, intending to veer his course according to

the _trade-wind_, thought it expedient to retract his former

acknowledgement to "our best modern philologists," and to profess himself a

modifier of the Great Compiler's code. Where then holds the anchor of his

praise? Let the reader say, after weighing and comparing his various

pretensions:

"Aware that there is, in the _publick_ mind, a strong predilection for the

doctrines contained in Mr. Murray's grammar, he has thought proper, not

merely from motives of policy, but from choice, _to select his principles

chiefly from that work_; and, moreover, to adopt, as far as consistent with

his own views, _the language of that eminent philologist_. In no instance

has he varied from him, unless he conceived that, in so doing, _some

practical advantage_ would be gained. He hopes, _therefore_, to escape the

censure so frequently and so justly awarded to those _unfortunate

innovators_ who have not scrupled to alter, mutilate, and torture the text

of that able writer, merely to gratify an itching propensity to figure in

the world _as authors_, and gain an ephemeral popularity by arrogating to

themselves _the credit due to another_." [13]--_Kirkham's Gram._, 1829, p.

10.

32. Now these statements are either true or false; and I know not on which

supposition they are most creditable to the writer. Had any Roman

grammatist thus profited by the name of Varro or Quintilian, he would have

been filled with constant dread of somewhere meeting the injured author's

frowning shade! Surely, among the professed admirers of Murray, no other

man, whether innovator or copyist, unfortunate or successful, is at all to

be compared to this gentleman for the audacity with which he has "not

scrupled to alter, mutilate, and torture, the text of that able writer."

Murray simply intended to do good, and good that might descend to

posterity; and this just and generous intention goes far to excuse even his

errors. But Kirkham, speaking of posterity, scruples not to disavow and to

renounce all care for them, or for any thing which a coming age may think

of his character: saying,

"My pretensions reach not so far. To the _present generation only_, I

present my claims. Should it lend me a listening ear, and grant me its

suffrages, _the height of my ambition_ will be attained."--_Advertisement,

in his Elocution_, p. 346.

His whole design is, therefore, upon the very face of it, a paltry scheme

of present income. And, seeing his entered classes of boys and girls must

soon have done with him, he has doubtless acted wisely, and quite in

accordance with his own interest, to have made all possible haste in his

career.

33. Being no rival with him in this race, and having no personal quarrel

with him on any account, I would, for his sake, fain rejoice at his

success, and withhold my criticisms; because he is said to have been

liberal with his gains, and because he has not, like some others, copied me

instead of Murray. But the vindication of a greatly injured and perverted

science, constrains me to say, on this occasion, that pretensions less

consistent with themselves, or less sustained by taste and scholarship,

have seldom, if ever, been promulgated in the name of grammar. I have,

certainly, no intention to say more than is due to the uninformed and

misguided. For some who are ungenerous and prejudiced themselves, will not

be unwilling to think me so; and even this freedom, backed and guarded as

it is by facts and proofs irrefragable, may still be ingeniously ascribed

to an ill motive. To two thirds of the community, one grammar is just as

good as an other; because they neither know, nor wish to know, more than

may be learned from the very worst. An honest expression of sentiment

against abuses of a literary nature, is little the fashion of these times;

and the good people who purchase books upon the recommendations of others,

may be slow to believe there is no merit where so much has been attributed.

But facts may well be credited, in opposition to courteous flattery, when

there are the author's own words and works to vouch for them in the face of

day. Though a thousand of our great men may have helped a copier's weak

copyist to take "some practical advantage" of the world's credulity, it is

safe to aver, in the face of dignity still greater, that testimonials more

fallacious have seldom mocked the cause of learning. They did not read his

book.

34. Notwithstanding the author's change in his professions, the work is now

essentially the same as it was at first; except that its errors and

contradictions have been greatly multiplied, by the addition of new matter

inconsistent with the old. He evidently cares not what doctrines he

teaches, or whose; but, as various theories are noised abroad, seizes upon

different opinions, and mixes them together, that his books may contain

something to suit all parties. "_A System of Philosophical Grammar_,"

though but an idle speculation, even in his own account, and doubly absurd

in him, as being flatly contradictory to his main text, has been thought

worthy of insertion. And what his title-page denominates "_A New System of

Punctuation_," though mostly in the very words of Murray, was next invented

to supply a deficiency which he at length discovered. To admit these, and

some other additions, the "comprehensive system-of grammar" was gradually

extended from 144 small duodecimo pages, to 228 of the ordinary size. And,

in this compass, it was finally stereotyped in 1829; so that the

ninety-four editions published since, have nothing new for history.

35. But the publication of an other work designed for schools, "_An Essay

an Elocution_" shows the progress of the author's mind. Nothing can be more

radically opposite, than are some of the elementary doctrines which this

gentleman is now teaching; nothing, more strangely inconsistent, than are

some of his declarations and professions. For instance: "A consonant is a

letter that cannot be perfectly sounded without the help of a

vowel."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 19. Again: "A consonant is not only capable

of being perfectly sounded without the help of a vowel, but, moreover, of

forming, like a vowel, a separate syllable."--_Kirkham's Elocution_, p. 32.

Take a second example. He makes "ADJECTIVE PRONOUNS" a _prominent division_

and _leading title_, in treating of the pronouns proper; defines the term

in a manner peculiar to himself; prefers and uses it in all his parsing;

and yet, by the third sentence of the story, the learner is conducted to

this just conclusion: "Hence, such a thing as an _adjective-pronoun_ cannot

exist."--_Grammar_, p. 105. Once more. Upon his own rules, or such as he

had borrowed, he comments thus, and comments _truly_, because he had either

written them badly or made an ill choice: "But some of these rules are

foolish, trifling, and unimportant."--_Elocution_, p. 97. Again: "Rules 10

and 11, rest on a sandy foundation. They appear not to be based on the

principles of the language."--_Grammar_, p. 59. These are but specimens of

his own frequent testimony against himself! Nor shall he find refuge in the

impudent falsehood, that the things which I quote as his, are not his

own.[14] These contradictory texts, and scores of others which might be

added to them, are as rightfully his own, as any doctrine he has ever yet

inculcated. But, upon the credulity of ignorance, his high-sounding

certificates and unbounded boasting can impose any thing. They overrule all

in favour of cue of the worst grammars extant;--of which he says, "it is

now studied by more than one hundred thousand children and youth; and is

more extensively used than _all other English grammars_ published in the

United States."--_Elocution_, p. 347. The booksellers say, he receives from

his publishers _ten cents a copy_, on this work, and that he reports the

sale of _sixty thousand copies per annum_. Such has of late been his public

boast. I have once had the story from his own lips, and of course

congratulated him, though I dislike the book. Six thousand dollars a year,

on this most miserable modification of Lindley Murray's Grammar! Be it

so--or double, if he and the public please. Murray had so little

originality in his work, or so little selfishness in his design, that he

would not take any thing; and his may ultimately prove the better bargain.

36. A man may boast and bless himself as he pleases, his fortune, surely,

can never be worthy of an other's envy, so long as he finds it inadequate

to his own great merits, and unworthy of his own poor gratitude. As a

grammarian, Kirkham claims to be second only to Lindley Murray; and says,

"Since the days of Lowth, no other work on grammar, Murray's only excepted,

has been so favourably received by the _publick_ as his own. As a proof of

this, he would mention, that within the last six years it has passed

through _fifty_ editions."--_Preface to Elocution_, p. 12. And, at the same

time, and in the same preface, he complains, that, "Of all the labours done

under the sun, the labours _of the pen_ meet with the poorest

reward."--_Ibid._, p. 5. This too clearly favours the report, that his

books were not written by himself, but by others whom he hired. Possibly,

the anonymous helper may here have penned, not his employer's feeling, but

a line of his own experience. But I choose to ascribe the passage to the

professed author, and to hold him answerable for the inconsistency. Willing

to illustrate by the best and fairest examples these fruitful means of

grammatical fame, I am glad of his present success, which, through this

record, shall become yet more famous. It is the only thing which makes him

worthy of the notice here taken of him. But I cannot sympathize with his

complaint, because he never sought any but "the poorest reward;" and more

than all he sought, he found. In his last "Address to Teachers," he says,

"He may doubtless be permitted emphatically to say with Prospero, '_Your

breath has filled my sails_.'"--_Elocution_, p. 18. If this boasting has

any truth in it, he ought to be satisfied. But it is written, "He that

loveth silver, shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he that loveth

abundance, with increase." Let him remember this.[15] He now announces

three or four other works as forthcoming shortly. What these will achieve,

the world will see. But I must confine myself to the Grammar.

37. In this volume, scarcely any thing is found where it might be expected.

"The author," as he tells us in his preface, "has not followed the common

'artificial and unnatural arrangement adopted by most of his predecessors;'

_yet he_ has endeavoured to pursue a more judicious one, namely, '_the

order of the understanding_.'"--_Grammar_, p. 12. But if this is the order

of his understanding, he is greatly to be pitied. A book more confused in

its plan, more wanting in method, more imperfect in distinctness of parts,

more deficient in symmetry, or more difficult of reference, shall not

easily be found in stereotype. Let the reader try to follow us here. Bating

twelve pages at the beginning, occupied by the title, recommendations,

advertisement, contents, preface, hints to teachers, and advice to

lecturers; and fifty-four at the end, embracing syntax, orthography,

orthoëpy, provincialisms, prosody, punctuation, versification, rhetoric,

figures of speech, and a Key, all in the sequence here given; the work

consists of fourteen chapters of grammar, absurdly called "Familiar

Lectures." The first treats of sundries, under half a dozen titles, but

chiefly of Orthography; and the last is three pages and a half, of the most

common remarks, on Derivation. In the remaining twelve, the Etymology and

Syntax of the ten parts of speech are commingled; and an attempt is made,

to teach simultaneously all that the author judged important in either.

Hence he gives us, in a strange congeries, rules, remarks, illustrations,

false syntax, systematic parsing, exercises in parsing, two different

orders of notes, three different orders of questions, and a variety of

other titles merely occasional. All these things, being additional to his

main text, are to be connected, in the mind of the learner, with the parts

of speech successively, in some new and inexplicable catenation found only

in the arrangement of the lectures. The author himself could not see

through the chaos. He accordingly made his table of contents a mere meagre

alphabetical index. Having once attempted in vain to explain the order of

his instructions, he actually gave the matter up in despair!

38. In length, these pretended lectures vary, from three or four pages, to

eight-and-thirty. Their subjects run thus: 1. Language, Grammar,

Orthography; 2. Nouns and Verbs; 3. Articles; 4. Adjectives; 5.

Participles; 6. Adverbs; 7. Prepositions; 8. Pronouns; 9. Conjunctions; 10.

Interjections and Nouns; 11. Moods and Tenses; 12. Irregular Verbs; 13.

Auxiliary, Passive, and Defective Verbs; 14. Derivation. Which, now, is

"more judicious," such confusion as this, or the arrangement which has been

common from time immemorial? Who that has any respect for the human

intellect, or whose powers of mind deserve any in return, will avouch this

jumble to be "the order of the understanding?" Are the methods of science

to be accounted mere hinderances to instruction? Has grammar really been

made easy by this confounding of its parts? Or are we lured by the name,

"_Familiar Lectures_,"--a term manifestly adopted as a mere decoy, and,

with respect to the work itself, totally inappropriate? If these chapters

have ever been actually delivered as a series of lectures, the reader must

have been employed on some occasions eight or ten times as long as on

others! "People," says Dr. Johnson, "have now-a-days got a strange opinion

that every thing should be taught by _lectures_. Now, I cannot see that

lectures can do so much good as a private reading of the books from which

the lectures are taken. I know of nothing that can be best taught by

lectures, except where experiments are to be shown. You may teach chymistry

by lectures--you _might_ teach the making of shoes by lectures."

--_Boswell's Life of Johnson_.

39. With singular ignorance and untruth, this gentleman claims to have

invented a better method of analysis than had ever been practised before.

Of other grammars, his preface avers, "They have _all overlooked_ what the

author considers a very important object; namely, _a systematick order of

parsing_."--_Grammar_, p. 9. And, in his "Hints to Teachers," presenting

himself as a model, and his book as a paragon, he says: "By pursuing this

system, he can, with less labour, advance a pupil _farther_ in the

practical knowledge of this _abstruse science_, in _two months_, than he

could in _one year_, when he taught in the _old way_."--_Grammar_, p. 12.

What his "_old way_" was, does not appear. Doubtless something sufficiently

bad. And as to his new way, I shall hereafter have occasion to show that

_that_ is sufficiently bad also. But to this gasconade the simple-minded

have given credit--because the author showed certificates that testified to

his great success, and called him "amiable and modest!" But who can look

into the book, or into the writer's pretensions in regard to his

predecessors, and conceive the merit which has made him--"preëminent by so

much odds?" Was Murray less praiseworthy, less amiable, or less modest? In

illustration of my topic, and for the sake of literary justice, I have

selected that honoured "_Compiler_" to show the abuses of praise; let the

history of this his vaunting _modifier_ cap the climax of vanity. In

general, his amendments of "that eminent philologist," are not more

skillful than the following touch upon an eminent dramatist; and here, it

is plain, he has mistaken two nouns for adjectives, and converted into bad

English a beautiful passage, the sentiment of which is worthy of an

_author's_ recollection:

"The evil _deed_ or _deeds_ that men do, _lives_ after them;

The good _deed_ or _deeds is_ oft interred with their bones." [16]

_Kirkham's Grammar_, p. 75.

40. Lord Bacon observes, "Nothing is thought so easy a request to a great

person as his letter; and yet, if it be not in a good cause, it is so much

out of his reputation." It is to this mischievous facility of

recommendation, this prostituted influence of great names, that the

inconvenient diversity of school-books, and the continued use of bad ones,

are in a great measure to be attributed. It belongs to those who understand

the subjects of which authors profess to treat, to judge fairly and fully

of their works, and then to let the _reasons_ of their judgement be known.

For no one will question the fact, that a vast number of the school-books

now in use are either egregious plagiarisms or productions of no

comparative merit. And, what is still more surprising and monstrous,

presidents, governors, senators, and judges; professors, doctors,

clergymen, and lawyers; a host of titled connoisseurs; with incredible

facility lend their names, not only to works of inferior merit, but to the

vilest thefts, and the wildest absurdities, palmed off upon their own and

the public credulity, under pretence of improvement. The man who thus

prefixes his letter of recommendation to an ill-written book, publishes,

out of mere courtesy, a direct impeachment of his own scholarship or

integrity. Yet, how often have we seen the honours of a high office, or

even of a worthy name, prostituted to give a temporary or local currency to

a book which it would disgrace any man of letters to quote! With such

encouragement, nonsense wrestles for the seat of learning, exploded errors

are republished as novelties, original writers are plundered by dunces, and

men that understand nothing well, profess to teach all sciences!

41. All praise of excellence must needs be comparative, because the thing

itself is so. To excel in grammar, is but to know better than others

wherein grammatical excellence consists. Hence there is no fixed point of

perfection beyond which such learning may not be carried. The limit to

improvement is not so much in the nature of the subject, as in the powers

of the mind, and in the inducements to exert them upon a theme so humble

and so uninviting. Dr. Johnson suggests, in his masterly preface, "that a

whole life cannot be spent upon syntax and etymology, and that even a whole

life would not be sufficient." Who then will suppose, in the face of such

facts and confessions as have been exhibited, that either in the faulty

publications of Murray, or among the various modifications of them by other

hands we have any such work as deserves to be made a permanent standard of

instruction in English grammar? With great sacrifices, both of pleasure and

of interest, I have humbly endeavoured to supply this desideratum; and it

remains for other men to determine, and other times to know, what place

shall be given to these my labours, in the general story of this branch of

learning. Intending to develop not only the principles but also the history

of grammar, I could not but speak of its authors. The writer who looks

broadly at the past and the present, to give sound instruction to the

future, must not judge of men by their shadows. If the truth, honestly

told, diminish the stature of some, it does it merely by clearing the sight

of the beholder. Real greatness cannot suffer loss by the dissipating of a

vapour. If reputation has been raised upon the mist of ignorance, who but

the builder shall lament its overthrow? If the works of grammarians are

often ungrammatical, whose fault is this but their own? If _all_

grammatical fame is little in itself, how can the abatement of what is

undeserved of it be much? If the errors of some have long been tolerated,

what right of the critic has been lost by nonuser? If the interests of

Science have been sacrificed to Mammon, what rebuke can do injustice to the

craft? Nay, let the broad-axe of the critic hew up to the line, till every

beam in her temple be smooth and straight. For, "certainly, next to

commending good writers, the greatest service to learning is, to expose the

bad, who can only in that way be made of any use to it." [17] And if, among

the makers of grammars, the scribblings of some, and the filchings of

others, are discreditable alike to themselves and to their theme, let the

reader consider, how great must be the intrinsic worth of that study which

still maintains its credit in spite of all these abuses!

CHAPTER IV.

OF THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE.

"Tot fallaciis obrutum, tot hallucinationibus demersum, tot adhuc tenebris

circumfusum studium hocce mihi visum est, ut nihil satis tuto in hac

materia præstari posse arbitratus sim, nisi nova quadam arte critica

præmissa."--SCIPIO MAFFEIUS: _Cassiod. Complexiones_, p. xxx.

1. The origin of things is, for many reasons, a peculiarly interesting

point in their history. Among those who have thought fit to inquire into

the prime origin of speech, it has been matter of dispute, whether we ought

to consider it a special gift from Heaven, or an acquisition of industry--a

natural endowment, or an artificial invention. Nor is any thing that has

ever yet been said upon it, sufficient to set the question permanently at

rest. That there is in some words, and perhaps in some of every language, a

natural connexion between the sounds uttered and the things signified,

cannot be denied; yet, on the other hand, there is, in the use of words in

general, so much to which nature affords no clew or index, that this whole

process of communicating thought by speech, seems to be artificial. Under

an other head, I have already cited from Sanctius some opinions of the

ancient grammarians and philosophers on this point. With the reasoning of

that zealous instructor, the following sentence from Dr. Blair very

obviously accords: "To suppose words invented, or names given to things, in

a manner purely arbitrary, without any ground or reason, is to suppose an

effect without a cause. There must have always been some motive which led

to the assignation of one name rather than an other."--_Rhet._, Lect. vi,

p. 55.

2. But, in their endeavours to explain the origin and early progress of

language, several learned men, among whom is this celebrated lecturer, have

needlessly perplexed both themselves and their readers, with sundry

questions, assumptions, and reasonings, which are manifestly contrary to

what has been made known to us on the best of all authority. What signifies

it[18] for a man to tell us how nations rude and barbarous invented

interjections first,[19] and then nouns, and then verbs,[20] and finally

the other parts of speech; when he himself confesses that he does not know

whether language "can be considered a human invention at all;" and when he

believed, or ought to have believed, that the speech of the first man,

though probably augmented by those who afterwards used it, was,

essentially, the one language of the earth for more than eighteen

centuries? The task of inventing a language _de novo_, could surely have

fallen upon no man but Adam; and he, in the garden of Paradise, had

doubtless some aids and facilities not common to every wild man of the

woods.

3. The learned Doctor was equally puzzled to conceive, "either how society

could form itself, previously to language, or how words could rise into a

language, previously to society formed."--_Blair's Rhet._, Lect. vi, p. 54.

This too was but an idle perplexity, though thousands have gravely pored

over it since, as a part of the study of rhetoric; for, if neither could be

previous to the other, they must have sprung up simultaneously. And it is a

sort of slander upon our prime ancestor, to suggest, that, because he was

"_the first_," he must have been "_the rudest_" of his race; and that,

"consequently, those first rudiments of speech," which alone the

supposition allows to him or to his family, "must have been poor and

narrow."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 54. It is far more reasonable to think, with

a later author, that, "Adam had an insight into natural things far beyond

the acutest philosopher, as may be gathered from his giving of names to all

creatures, according to their different constitutions."--_Robinson's

Scripture Characters_, p. 4.

4. But Dr. Blair is not alone in the view which he here takes. The same

thing has bean suggested by other learned men. Thus Dr. James P. Wilson, of

Philadelphia, in an octavo published in 1817, says: "It is difficult to

discern how communities could have existed without language, and equally so

to discover how language could have obtained, in a peopled world, prior to

society."--_Wilson's Essay on Gram._, p. 1. I know not how so many

professed Christians, and some of them teachers of religion too, with the

Bible in their hands, can reason upon this subject as they do. We find

them, in their speculations, conspiring to represent primeval man, to use

their own words, as a "_savage_, whose 'howl at the appearance of danger,

and whose exclamations of joy at the sight of his prey, reiterated, or

varied with the change of objects, were probably the origin of

language.'--_Booth's Analytical Dictionary_. In the dawn of society, ages

may have passed away, with little more converse than what these efforts

would produce."--_Gardiner's Music of Nature_, p. 31. Here Gardiner quotes

Booth with approbation, and the latter, like Wilson, may have borrowed his

ideas from Blair. Thus are we taught by a multitude of guessers, grave,

learned, and oracular, that the last of the ten parts of speech was in fact

the first: "_Interjections_ are exceedingly interesting in one respect.

They are, there can be little doubt, _the oldest words_ in all languages;

and may be considered the elements of speech."--_Bucke's Classical Gram._,

p. 78. On this point, however, Dr. Blair seems not to be quite consistent

with himself: "Those exclamations, therefore, which by grammarians are

called _interjections_, uttered in a strong and passionate manner, were,

_beyond doubt_, the first elements or beginnings of speech."--_Rhet._,

Lect. vi, p. 55. "The _names_ of sensible objects were, _in all languages_,

the words most early introduced."--_Rhet._, Lect. xiv, p. 135. "The _names

of sensible objects_," says Murray too, "were the words most early

introduced."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 336. Bat what says the Bible?

5. Revelation informs us that our first progenitor was not only endowed

with the faculty of speech, but, as it would appear, actually incited by

the Deity to exert that faculty in giving _names_ to the objects by which

he was surrounded. "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of

the field and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam, to see

what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature,

that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the

fowls of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was

not found a help meet for him."--_Gen._, ii, 19, 20. This account of the

first naming of the other creatures by man, is apparently a parenthesis in

the story of the creation of woman, with which the second chapter of

Genesis concludes. But, in the preceding chapter, the Deity is represented

not only as calling all things into existence _by his Word_; but as

_speaking to the first human pair_, with reference to their increase in the

earth, and to their dominion over it, and over all the living creatures

formed to inhabit it. So that the order of the events cannot be clearly

inferred from the order of the narration. The manner of this communication

to man, may also be a subject of doubt. Whether it was, or was not, made by

a voice of words, may be questioned. But, surely, that Being who, in

creating the world and its inhabitants, manifested his own infinite wisdom,

eternal power, and godhead, does not lack words, or any other means of

signification, if he will use them. And, in the inspired record of his work

in the beginning, he is certainly represented, not only as naming all

things imperatively, when he spoke them into being, but as expressly

calling the light _Day_, the darkness _Night_, the firmament _Heaven_, the

dry land _Earth_, and the gatherings of the mighty waters _Seas_.

6. Dr. Thomas Hartwell Horne, in commending a work by Dr. Ellis, concerning

the origin of human wisdom and understanding, says: "It shows

satisfactorily, that religion _and language_ entered the world by divine

revelation, without the aid of which, man had not been a rational or

religious creature."--_Study of the Scriptures_, Vol. i, p. 4. "Plato

attributes the primitive words of the _first language_ to a divine origin;"

and Dr. Wilson remarks, "The transition from silence to speech, implies an

effort of the understanding too great for man."--_Essay on Gram._, p. 1.

Dr. Beattie says, "Mankind must have spoken in all ages, the young

constantly learning to speak by imitating those who were older; and, if so,

our first parents must have received this art, as well as some others, by

inspiration."--_Moral Science_, p. 27. Horne Tooke says, "I imagine that it

is, _in some measure_, with the vehicle of our thoughts, as with the

vehicles for our bodies. Necessity produced both."--_Diversions of Purley_,

Vol. i, p. 20. Again: "Language, it is true, _is an art_, and a glorious

one; whose influence extends over all the others, and in which finally all

science whatever must centre: but an art _springing from necessity_, and

originally invented by artless men, who did not sit down like philosophers

to invent it."--_Ib._, Vol. i, p. 259.

7. Milton imagines Adam's first knowledge of speech, to have sprung from

the hearing of his own voice; and that voice to have been raised,

instinctively, or spontaneously, in an animated inquiry concerning his own

origin--an inquiry in which he addresses to unintelligent objects, and

inferior creatures, such questions as the Deity alone could answer:

"Myself I then perused, and limb by limb

Surveyed, and sometimes went, and sometimes ran

With supple joints, as lively vigor led:

But who I was, or where, or from what cause,

Knew not; _to speak I tried, and forthwith spake;

My tongue obeyed, and readily could name

Whatever I saw_. 'Thou Sun,' said I, 'fair light,

And thou enlightened Earth, so fresh and gay,

Ye Hills and Dales, ye Rivers, Woods, and Plains;

And ye that live and move, fair Creatures! tell,

Tell, if ye saw, how came I thus, how here?

Not of myself; by some great Maker then,

In goodness and in power preëminent:

Tell me how I may know him, how adore,

From whom I have that thus I move and live,

And feel that I am happier than I know.'"

_Paradise Lost_, Book viii, l. 267.

But, to the imagination of a poet, a freedom is allowed, which belongs not

to philosophy. We have not always the means of knowing how far he

_literally_ believes what he states.

8. My own opinion is, that language is partly natural and partly

artificial. And, as the following quotation from the Greek of Ammonius will

serve in some degree to illustrate it, I present the passage in English for

the consideration of those who may prefer ancient to modern speculations:

"In the same manner, therefore, as mere motion is from nature, but dancing

is something positive; and as wood exists in nature, but a door is

something positive; so is the mere utterance of vocal sound founded in

nature, but the signification of ideas by nouns or verbs is something

positive. And hence it is, that, as to the simple power of producing vocal

sound--which is as it were the organ or instrument of the soul's faculties

of knowledge or volition--as to this vocal power, I say, man seems to

possess it from nature, in like manner as irrational animals; but as to the

power of using significantly nouns or verbs, or sentences combining these,

(which are not natural but positive,) this he possesses by way of peculiar

eminence; because he alone of all mortal beings partakes of a soul which

can move itself, and operate to the production of arts. So that, even in

the utterance of sounds, the inventive power of the mind is discerned; as

the various elegant compositions, both in metre, and without metre,

abundantly prove."--_Ammon. de Interpr._, p. 51.[21]

9. Man was made for society; and from the first period of human existence

the race were social. Monkish seclusion is manifestly unnatural; and the

wild independence of the savage, is properly denominated a state of nature,

only in contradistinction to that state in which the arts are cultivated.

But to civilized life, or even to that which is in any degree social,

language is absolutely necessary. There is therefore no danger that the

language of any nation shall fall into disuse, till the people by whom it

is spoken, shall either adopt some other, or become themselves extinct.

When the latter event occurs, as is the case with the ancient Hebrew,

Greek, and Latin, the language, if preserved at all from oblivion, becomes

the more permanent; because the causes which are constantly tending to

improve or deteriorate every living language, have ceased to operate upon

those which are learned only from ancient books. The inflections which now

compose the declensions and conjugations of the dead languages, and which

indeed have ever constituted the peculiar characteristics of those forms of

speech, must remain forever as they are.

10. When a nation changes, its

language, as did our forefathers in Britain, producing by a gradual

amalgamation of materials drawn from various tongues a new one differing

from all, the first stages of its grammar will of course be chaotic and

rude. Uniformity springs from the steady application of rules; and polish

is the work of taste and refinement. We may easily err by following the

example of our early writers with more reverence than judgement; nor is it

possible for us to do justice to the grammarians, whether early or late,

without a knowledge both of the history and of the present state of the

science which they profess to teach. I therefore think it proper rapidly to

glance at many things remote indeed in time, yet nearer to my present

purpose, and abundantly more worthy of the student's consideration, than a

thousand matters which are taught for grammar by the authors of treatises

professedly elementary.

11. As we have already seen, some have supposed that the formation of the

first language must have been very slow and gradual. But of this they offer

no proof, and from the pen of inspiration we seem to have testimony against

it. Did Adam give names to all the creatures about him, and then allow

those names to be immediately forgotten? Did not both he and his family

continually use his original nouns in their social intercourse? and how

could they use them, without other parts of speech to form them into

sentences? Nay, do we not know from the Bible, that on several occasions

our prime ancestor expressed himself like an intelligent man, and used all

the parts of speech which are now considered _necessary_? What did he say,

when his fit partner, the fairest and loveliest work of God, was presented

to him? "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be

called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." And again: Had he not

other words than nouns, when he made answer concerning his transgression:

"I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked;

and I hid myself?" What is it, then, but a groundless assumption, to make

him and his immediate descendants ignorant savages, and to affirm, with Dr.

Blair, that "their speech must have been poor and narrow?" It is not

possible now to ascertain what degree of perfection the oral communication

of the first age exhibited. But, as languages are now known to improve in

proportion to the improvement of society in civilization and intelligence,

and as we cannot reasonably suppose the first inhabitants of the earth to

have been savages, it seems, I think, a plausible conjecture, that the

primeval tongue was at least sufficient for all the ordinary intercourse of

civilized men, living in the simple manner ascribed to our early ancestors

in Scripture; and that, in many instances, human speech subsequently

declined far below its original standard.

12. At any rate, let it be remembered that the first language spoken on

earth, whatever it was, originated in Eden before the fall; that this "one

language," which all men understood until the dispersion, is to be traced,

not to the cries of savage hunters, echoed through the wilds and glades

where Nimrod planted Babel, but to that eastern garden of God's own

planting, wherein grew "every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good

for food;" to that paradise into which the Lord God put the new-created

man, "to dress it and to keep it." It was here that Adam and his partner

learned to speak, while yet they stood blameless and blessed, entire and

wanting nothing; free in the exercise of perfect faculties of body and

mind, capable of acquiring knowledge through observation and experience,

and also favoured with immediate communications with their Maker. Yet Adam,

having nothing which he did not receive, could not originally bring any

real knowledge into the world with him, any more than men do now: this, in

whatever degree attained, must be, and must always have been, either an

acquisition of reason, or a revelation from God. And, according to the

understanding of some, even in the beginning, "That was not first which is

spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is

spiritual."--_1 Cor., xv, 46_. That is, the spirit of Christ, the second

Adam, was bestowed on the first Adam, after his creation, as the life and

the light of the immortal soul. For, "In _Him_ was life, and the life was

the light of men," a life which our first parents forfeited and lost on the

day of their transgression. "It was undoubtedly in the light of this pure

influence that Adam had such an intuitive discerning of the creation, as

enabled him to give names to all creatures according to their several

natures."--_Phipps, on Man_, p. 4. A lapse from all this favour, into

conscious guilt and misery; a knowledge of good withdrawn, and of evil made

too sure; followed the first transgression. Abandoned then in great measure

by superhuman aid, and left to contend with foes without and foes within,

mankind became what history and observation prove them to have been; and

henceforth, by painful experience, and careful research, and cautious

faith, and humble docility, must they gather the fruits of _knowledge_; by

a vain desire and false conceit of which, they had forfeited the tree of

life. So runs the story

"Of man's first disobedience, and the fruit

Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste

Brought death into the world, and all our wo,

With loss of Eden, till one greater Man

Restore us, and regain the blissful seat."

13. The analogy of words in the different languages now known, has been

thought by many to be sufficiently frequent and clear to suggest the idea

of their common origin. Their differences are indeed great; but perhaps not

greater, than the differences in the several races of men, all of whom, as

revelation teaches, sprung from one common stock. From the same source we

learn, that, till the year of the world 1844, "The whole earth was of one

language, and of one speech."--_Gen._, xi, 1.[22] At that period, the whole

world of mankind consisted only of the descendants of the eight souls who

had been saved in the ark, and so many of the eight as had survived the

flood one hundred and eighty-eight years. Then occurred that remarkable

intervention of the Deity, in which he was pleased to confound their

language; so that they could not understand one an other's speech, and were

consequently scattered abroad upon the face of the earth. This, however, in

the opinion of many learned men, does not prove the immediate formation of

any new languages.

14. But, whether new languages were thus immediately formed or not, the

event, in all probability, laid the foundation for that diversity which

subsequently obtained among the languages of the different nations which

sprung from the dispersion; and hence it may be regarded as the remote

cause of the differences which now exist. But for the immediate origin of

the peculiar characteristical differences which distinguish the various

languages now known, we are not able with much certainty to account. Nor is

there even much plausibility in the speculations of those grammarians who

have attempted to explain the order and manner in which the declensions,

the moods, the tenses, or other leading features of the languages, were

first introduced. They came into use before they could be generally known,

and the partial introduction of them could seldom with propriety be made a

subject of instruction or record, even if there were letters and learning

at hand to do them this honour. And it is better to be content with

ignorance, than to form such conjectures as imply any thing that is absurd

or impossible. For instance: Neilson's Theory of the Moods, published in

the Classical Journal of 1819, though it exhibits ingenuity and learning,

is liable to this strong objection; that it proceeds on the supposition,

that the moods of English verbs, and of several other derivative tongues,

were invented in a certain order by persons, not speaking a language

learned chiefly from their fathers, but uttering a new one as necessity

prompted. But when or where, since the building of Babel, has this ever

happened? That no dates are given, or places mentioned, the reader regrets,

but he cannot marvel.

15. By what successive changes, our words in general, and especially the

minor parts of speech, have become what we now find them, and what is their

original and proper signification according to their derivation, the

etymologist may often show to our entire satisfaction. Every word must have

had its particular origin and history; and he who in such things can

explain with certainty what is not commonly known, may do some service to

science. But even here the utility of his curious inquiries may be

overrated; and whenever, for the sake of some favourite theory, he ventures

into the regions of conjecture, or allows himself to be seduced from the

path of practical instruction, his errors are obstinate, and his guidance

is peculiarly deceptive. Men fond of such speculations, and able to

support them with some show of learning, have done more to unsettle the

science of grammar, and to divert ingenious teachers from the best methods

of instruction, than all other visionaries put together. Etymological

inquiries are important, and I do not mean to censure or discourage them,

merely as such; but the folly of supposing that in our language words must

needs be of the same class, or part of speech, as that to which they may be

traced in an other, deserves to be rebuked. The words _the_ and _an_ may be

articles in English, though obviously traceable to something else in Saxon;

and a learned man may, in my opinion, be better employed, than in

contending that _if, though_, and _although_, are not conjunctions, but

verbs!