may be said with safety, either that the English modes and tenses have
not been ascertained and understood, or that the best of our writers
have been extremely negligent.
After an attentive and accurate examination of this subject, I
believe I may venture to assert, that nine times out of ten, when the
pretended subjunctive form of the verb is used after a conjunction,
either in the vulgar translation of the Bible, or in our best profane
authors, the sense is actually future, and to render the sentences
complete, it would be necessary to insert _shall_ or _should_.[115]
This will be more obvious by attending to the Latin translation
of the New Testament, where the future is almost always employed
to express the Greek future and aorists. _Igitur si munus tuum
attuleris ad altare_--If thou _bring_ thy gift to the altar; _et illic
memineris_--and there _rememberest_; (what confusion of modes.) If his
son _ask_ bread--_Si filius ejus_ petierit _panem_. And if the house
_be_ worthy--_Et si quidem_ fuerit _domus digna_; and so throughout the
whole New Testament.
Will any person pretend to say that the verbs _bring_, _ask_ and _be_,
in the foregoing passages, are present time; or that _rememberest_ is
not bad English? The elliptical future, _If thou be_, _if he ask_, &c.
is correct English, but should by no means be confounded with the
present tense, which, in English, has but one form.
I do not deny that good authors have used this form, after
conjunctions, in the present time; but I deny that the genius of the
language requires it, that it is agreeable to the ancient or modern
elegant languages, and that it has been or is now the general practice.
With respect to the ancient practice, examples sufficient have been
already produced, to show that authors have considered the present of
the indicative, after conjunctions, denoting uncertainty or doubt, as
at least correct; and the present practice in speaking is wholly on
this side of the argument.
With respect to the Roman and Greek languages, I believe examples
enough may be brought to prove, that the subjunctive mode after the
conditional conjunctions or adverbs, was not generally used, except
when the idea was such as we should express by _may_, _might_,
_should_, _let_, or some other auxiliary before the verb. "Quid est
autem, quod deos _veneremur_ propter admirationem ejus naturæ, in qua
egregium nihil videmus?" "Ut, quos ratio non posset, eos ad officium
religio _duceret_."--Cicero, De nat Deorum, l. I. 42. To render
_veneremur_ and _duceret_ into English, _should_ may be prefixed to
_adore_, and _might_ to _lead_.
At any rate, the conditional conjunctions do not all, nor generally
require the subjunctive mode: "Quæ, _si_ mundus _est_ Deus, quoniam
mundi partes sunt, Dei membra parim ardentia, partim refrigerata
dicenda sunt."--Ibm. 1. I. 10. "_Si_ Di _possunt_ esse sine sensu," &c.
The indicative after this conjunction occurs frequently in the best
Roman authors.
In Greek the case is nearly the same. Several instances of the
indicative after the conditional conjunction ~ei~ (if) have already
been quoted from scripture; and similar instances without number may be
produced from profane writers.
"~Ei oun houtôs echei, ephê, ô Kyre, ti an allo tis kreitton heuroi,
ê pempein eis Persas, kai hama men didaskein autous hoti ei ti
peisontai Mêdoi, eis Persas to deinon hêxei, hama de aitein pleion
strateuma~;"---- Xenoph. de Cyri. Inst. l. 2. p. 80. Lond. Ed.
Here the verb ~echei~ is in the present tense of the indicative, after
a conjunction denoting condition or doubt; "if the affair _is_ so--if
such _is_ the true state of affairs, Cyrus, what better method _can
be taken_ (~heuroi~) than to send to the Persians, and inform them
that _if_ any accident _happen_ to the Medes (so we should render
~peisontai~, which is in the future) calamity will fall upon the
Persians also, and let us ask for a greater force."
In French, the conditional conjunctions do not require the subjunctive
mode. "Si ma prédiction _est_ fausse, vous serez libre de nous immoler
dans trois jours."--Telemaque, liv. 1. "S'il _est_ vrai que vous aimiez
la justice."--Liv. 4. If my prediction _is_ false--if it _is_ true--are
correct modes of speaking in French. No argument therefore in favor of
the use of the English subjunctive, can be drawn from the analogy of
other languages.
But this subjunctive form is not agreeable to the structure of the
language. It has been demonstrated that our conjunctions are mostly old
Saxon verbs in the imperative mode. Let us resolve some sentences where
the subjunctive form is used; for example, the passages before quoted.
"If he _have_ any knowlege of actual existence, he must be
satisfied."----Priestley's Letters.
Resolved--"He have any knowlege of actual existence, (if) give that, he
must be satisfied." Is this English?
"If thou be the son of God, command that these stones be made
bread."----Matth. iv. 3.
Resolved--"Thou be the son God, give that, command," &c.
"Tho he slay me, yet will I trust in him."
Resolved--"He slay me, grant it, yet will I trust in him."
This is the literal construction of those sentences; the two first are
present time, the last, which is future, is merely elliptical.
If therefore, _I be_, _he have_, are good English in the present tense
of the indicative, the foregoing are correct expressions; if not,
they are incorrect; for every such conditional sentence is resolvable
into two or more declaratory phrases. Let us substitute the Latin
derivative, which precisely answers to _if_, viz. _suppose_; thus, in
place of "if thou be the son of God," write, "_suppose_ thou be the
son of God," does not every ear acknowlege the impropriety? The only
difference between the two expressions is this; _if_ is a _Saxon_ verb
in the imperative mode, and _suppose_, a _Latin_ one in the same mode.
With respect to _be_, it may be said very justly, that it was anciently
used after the conjunctions in almost all cases. But it must be
observed also, it was used _without_ the conjunctions. Be, from the
Saxon _beon_, is the true radical verb, still preserved in the German,
_Ich bin_, I be, _du bist_, thou beest, in the indicative. The old
English writers employed _be_ in the same mode and tense.
"O, there _be_ players that I have seen play."----Shakesp. Hamlet to
the Players.
"They that _be_ drunken, are drunken in the night."----1 Thess. v. 7.
"As we _be_ slanderously reported."----Rom. iii. 8.
The common people in New England still employ _be_ in the present tense
of the indicative, except in the third person. They almost universally
say, _I be_, _we be_, _you be_, and _they be_. While _be_ remained
the proper substantive verb in the indicative, it was very correctly
employed after the conjunctions, _If he be_, _tho he be_, but when,
_am_, _are_, _art_ and _is_ were substituted in the indicative, they
should likewise have been employed in the subjunctive; for the latter
is resolvable into the former.
From the facts produced, and the remarks made, we may draw the
following conclusions; that the distinction made by grammarians between
the present tense of the indicative and subjunctive mode in English, is
not well founded; that it is not warranted by the construction of the
language, nor by the analogy of other languages; that the expressions
commonly supposed to be in the present tense of the subjunctive, are
mostly in fact an elliptical form of the future in the indicative,
and that the present translation of the Bible cannot be vindicated on
any other supposition; that the present practice, both in speaking
and writing, is generally in favor of the indicative after the
conjunctions; and consequently, that the arrangement of the verbs by
Lowth and his followers, is calculated to lead both foreigners and
natives into error.
I have been more particular upon this article, because the Scotch
writers, many of whom stand among the first authors of the British
nation, follow the usual grammatical division of verbs, and thus write
a stile not conformed to the present practice of speaking.
In the use of what is called the _imperfect_ tense, after the
conjunctions, there is something peculiar, which has not yet been
sufficiently explained. On examination it will probably be found that
custom has established one singular distinction in the sense of verbs
in different tenses, a knowlege of which is necessary to enable us
to speak and write with precision. This distinction will readily be
understood by a few examples.
A servant calls on me for a book, which his master would borrow. If I
am uncertain whether I have that book or not, I reply in this manner;
"If the book _is_ in my library, or if I _have_ the book, your master
shall be welcome to the use of it."
But if I am certain I do not possess the book, the reply is different;
"I have not the book you mention; if I _had_, it should be at your
master's service."
Both these forms of speaking are correct; but the question is, what
is the difference? It cannot be in _time_; for both refer to the
same. The ideas both respect present time; "If I _have_ it _now_, it
_shall_ be at your master's service"--"If I _had_ it _now_, it _should_
be." The distinction in the meaning is universally understood, and
is simply this; the first expresses _uncertainty_; the last implies
_certainty_, but in a peculiar manner; for an affirmative sentence
implies a positive negation; and a negative sentence implies a positive
affirmation. Thus, _if I had the book_, implies a positive denial of
having it; _if I had not the book_, implies that I have it: And both
speak of possessing or not possessing it at this _present_ time.
The same distinction runs thro all the verbs in the language. A
man, shut up in an interior apartment, would say to his friend,
"_if it rains_ you cannot go home." This would denote the speaker's
uncertainty. But on coming to the door and ascertaining the fact, he
would say, "_if it rain__ed_, you should not go;" or, "_if it did not
rain_, you might go." Can these verbs be in _past_ time? By no means;
_if it did not rain now, you could go_, is present, for the present
existence of the fact prevents the man from going.
These forms of speech are established by unanimous consent in practice.
"It remaineth that they who have wives, be as tho they _had_ none,
and they that weep, as tho they _wept_ not; and they that rejoice, as
tho they _rejoiced_ not; and they that buy, as tho they _possessed_
not."----1 Cor. vii. 29, 30.[116]
"Nay, and the villains march wide betwixt the legs, as if they _had_
gyves on."----1 Henry IV.
"We have not these antiquities; and if _we had_ them, they would add to
our uncertainty."----Bolingbroke on Hist. let. 3.
"Whereas, _had_ I (if I had) still the same woods to range in, which I
once _had_, when I was a fox hunter, I should not resign my manhood
for a maintenance."----Spect. No. 14.
"I confess I have not great taste for poetry; but if _I had_, I am apt
to believe I should read none but Mr. Pope's."[117]---- Shenstone on
Men and Manners.
Whatever these verbs may be in declaratory phrases, yet after the
conditional conjunctions _if_ and _tho_, they often express present
ideas, as in the foregoing examples. In such cases, this form of the
verb may be denominated the _hypothetical_ present tense. This would
distinguish it from the same form, when it expresses uncertainty in the
past time; for this circumstance must not be passed without notice.
Thus, "If he _had_ letters by the last mail," denotes the speaker's
uncertainty as to a past fact or event. But, "if _he had_ a book, he
would lend it," denotes a present certainty that he has it not. The
times referred to are wholly distinct.
As the practice of all writers and good speakers, and even of the
vulgar, is nearly uniform in the distinction here mentioned, it is
needless to produce more examples for illustration. One verb however
deserves a separate consideration; which is _be_. In the use of this
verb in the hypothetical sense, there is a difference between good
authors and common parlance; the first write _were_, but most people in
conversation say, _was_. Thus,
"Every rich man has usually some sly way of jesting, which would make
no great figure, _were_ he not rich."----Spect. No. 2.
"He will often argue, that if this part of our trade _were_ well
cultivated, we should gain from one nation," &c.---- Same.
"_Were_ I (if I were) a father, I should take a particular care to
preserve my children from these little horrors of imagination."----
Same, No. 12.
"Nor think, tho men _were_ none,
That heaven would want spectators, God want praise."
Milton, P. L.
"What then he _was_, oh, _were_ your Nestor now."
Pope, Iliad, b. 7. 189.
"Yes, if the nature of a clock _were_ to speak, not strike."----Ben
Johnson.
"Where the poor knave erroneously believes,
If he _were_ rich, he would build churches, or
Do such mad things."----Same.
_Were_, in these examples, is the same hypothetical present tense just
described, having not the least reference to the past.[118] But in
conversation, we generally hear _was_; "if I _was_ in his place;" "if
he _was_ here _now_," &c. and I observe that modern writers are copying
the general practice.
"If I _was_ not afraid of being thought to refine too much."--Boling.
Refl. on Exile.
Both these forms have such authorities to support them, that neither
can be considered as wholly incorrect; they are both English. But
custom will eventually establish the latter, _was_, as the hypothetical
form of the substantive verb. It is now almost universally used, except
in books; and the tide of general practice is irresistible.
The following examples will illustrate what has been advanced.
_Present time. Affirmative._
If he _has_ or _is_--denotes uncertainty. If he _had_ or _were_ or
_was_--denote certainty that he has not, or is not.
_Negative._
If he _has_ not or _is_ not--uncertainty. If he _had_ not, _were_ not
or _was_ not--certainty that he has or is.
_Past time. Affirm._
If he _had_ or _was_ yesterday--uncertainty. If he _had_ have,[119] or
_had_ been yesterday--certainty that he _had_ not, or _was_ not.
_Negative._
If he _had_ or _was_ not--uncertainty. If he _had_ not have, or _had_
not been--certainty that he had or was.[120]
I cannot close my remarks on the tenses of the English verb, without
noticing a common error, which must have sprung from inattention, and
is perhaps too general now to admit of correction. It is the use of
the past tense after another verb or _that_, when the sense requires a
change of tenses. Thus,
"Suppose I were to say, that to every art there _was_ a system of such
various and well approved principles."----Harris.
The first part of the sentence is hypothetical, _suppose I were to
say_; but the last becomes declaratory under the supposition, and
therefore the form of the verb should be changed to the present,
indicative, _that to every art there is a system_: For it must be
remarked that when the English speak of general existence, they use the
present time; as, truth _is_ great above all things; the scriptures
_are_ a rule of faith; the heavens _display_ the glory of the Lord. The
past or the future, in such cases, would be highly improper. Hence the
absurdity of the passage just quoted; the supposition is that every art
_has_ (generally--at all times) a system of principles.
"If the taxes laid by government _were_ the only ones we _had_ to pay."
The author's meaning is, "the only taxes we _have_ to pay;" and he
was probably led into the mistake by not understanding the preceding
hypothetical verb, _were_, which actually speaks of the present time
conditionally.
The error will be more striking in the following passages.
"If an atheist would well consider the arguments in this book, he would
confess there _was_ a God."
There _was_ a God! And why not confess that there _is_ a God? The
writer did not consider that the first part of the sentence is
_conditional_, and that the last ought to be _declaratory_ of a fact
always existing.
"Two young men have made a discovery that there _was_ a God."----
Swift's Arg. against Abolishing Christianity.
A curious discovery indeed! Were the Dean still alive, he might find
there _is_ a great inaccuracy in that passage of his works.
"Yet were we to use the same word, where the figure _was_ manifest, we
should use the preposition _from_."----Priestley, Gram. p. 158.
Here is the same error, and the author may live to correct it.
But of all this class of mistakes, the following is the most palpable.
"I am determined to live, as if there _was_ a _future_ life."----
Hammon, quoted by Price and Priestley.
Hammon is an atheist, and it would require the same abilities to
reconcile the two words _was future_, as to reconcile his principles
with the common sense of mankind.[121]
The following passage, from _Gregory's Comparative View of the State
and Faculties of Man_, is remarkable for this error.
"Men have been taught that they _did_ (do) God acceptable service,
by abstracting themselves from all the duties they _owed_ (owe) to
society; and by inflicting on themselves the severest tortures which
nature can support. They have been taught that it _was_ (is) their
duty," &c.
"And yet one would think that this _was_ the principal use of the study
of history."----Bolingbroke on Hist. letter 3.
A similar fault occurs in one of Mrs. Thale's letters to Dr. Johnson,
Aug. 9, 1775.
"--Yet I have always found the best supplement for talk _was_ writing."
So in Blackstone's Commentaries, book 1. chap. 7.
"It was observed in a former chapter, that one of the principal
bulwarks of civil liberty, or, in other words, of the British
constitution, _was_ the limitation of the king's prerogative."
The observation had been made in time past, but respecting a fact that
exists _now_, and at all times while the British constitution exists.
The sentence therefore should run thus; "it _was_ observed that one
principal bulwark of civil liberty, _is_ the limitation of the king's
prerogative."
No fault is more common; we every day hear such expressions as these;
"If I thought it _was_ so;" "suppose I should say she _was_ handsome;"
"I did not think it _was_ so late," &c. _Was_, in the first and last
examples, should be the infinitive, _to be_; and in the second, the
present time, _is_. Had proper attention been paid to our language, so
many palpable mistakes would not have crept into practice, and into
the most correct and elegant writings. Dr. Reid is perhaps the only
writer who has generally avoided this error.
The Greek and Roman writers were not guilty of such mistakes. Either
the varieties of inflection in their languages, or superior care in the
writers, made them attentive to the nice distinctions of time. In the
following passage, the translators of the Bible, by adhering closely to
the original, have avoided the common error before mentioned.
"I _knew_ thee that thou art an hard man."--Matth. xxv. 24. "~Egnôn
hoti sklêros ei anthrôpos~;" literally, _having
known_ that thou _art_ an hard man. So also ver. 26, "Thou wicked and
slothful servant, thou _knewest_ that I _reap_, where I sowed not;"
"~êdeis hoti therizô~." Had these passages been translated into the
careless stile of modern conversation, and even of many excellent
writings, they would have stood thus--"I knew thee that thou _wast_
an hard man"--"thou knewest that I _reaped_ where I sow not." But the
general character and conduct of the person mentioned in this parable,
are supposed to exist at all times while he is living; and this general
nature of the fact requires the verb to be in the present time. To
confirm this remark let the sentences be inverted; "thou art an hard
man, I knew thee to be such, or I knew it." "I reap where I sowed not,
thou knewest that." This is an indubitable evidence of the accuracy of
the translation.[122]
An inversion of the order of the sentence in the passages first
quoted, will show the common error in a most striking light.
"There _was_ a God, two young men have made that discovery." "Men _did_
God acceptable service, by abstracting themselves, &c. they have been
taught this; it _was_ their duty, they have been taught this." "The
taxes we _had_ to pay to government, if these were the only ones."
This will not make sense to a man who _has_ taxes _still_ to pay; the
writer's _had to pay_ will not discharge the public debt. But it is
unnecessary to multiply examples and arguments; the reader must be
already convinced that these errors exist, and that I ought not to have
been the first to notice them.
Sometimes this hypothetical tense is used with an infinitive for the
future. In the following passage it seems to be correct.
"I wish I _were_ to go to the Elysian fields, when I die, and then I
should not care if I _were_ to leave the world tomorrow."----Pope.
But the following are hardly vindicable.
"Suppose they _marched_ up to our mines with a numerous army, how could
they subsist for want of provision."----Moyle, Diss. on the Rev. of
Athens.
"If they _foraged_ in small parties."----Same.
The sense is future, and therefore _should march_, _should forage_,
would have been more correct.
"I should not act the part of an impartial spectator, if I _dedicated_
the following papers to one who is not of the most consummate and
acknowleged merit."----Spect. Dedic.
_If I should dedicate_, would have been more accurate.
A similar fault occurs in the following passage.
"If nature _thunder'd_ in his opening ears,
And _stunn'd_ him with the music of the spheres."
Pope, Essay on Man.
If nature _should thunder_ and _stun_ him, is the meaning.
There is another article that deserves to be mentioned; which is, the
use of a verb after _as_ or _than_, apparently without a nominative.
"This unlimited power is what the best legislators of all ages have
endeavored to deposit in such hands, as _would preserve_ the people
from rapine."----Swift, vol. 2. Contests, &c.
"_Would preserve_" seems to have no nominative, for _hands_ cannot be
inserted without changing the form of the sentence; _in those hands
which would preserve_.
"A hypocrite hath so many things to attend to, _as make_ his life a
very perplexed and intricate thing."----Tillotson.
This mode of expression is however well established and occasions no
obscurity. The truth is, _as_ is an article or relative equivalent to
_that_ or _which_; and the criticisms of Lowth on the conjunctions,
where he condemns the use of _as_ and _so_ in a number of instances,
prove that he knew nothing about the true meaning of these words. See
Diversions of Purley, page 283.
Another form of expression, peculiar to our language, is the
_participial noun_, a word derived from a verb, and having the
properties, both of a verb and a noun; as, "I heard of _his acquiring_
a large estate." _Acquiring_ here expresses the _act done_, the
acquisition; yet governs the following objective case, _estate_. When
a noun precedes the participle, it takes the sign of the possessive,
"I heard of a _man's acquiring_ an estate." This is the genuin English
idiom; and yet modern writers very improperly omit the sign of the
possessive, as, I heard of a _man acquiring_ an estate. This omission
often changes the sense of the phrase or leaves it ambiguous.
The omission of the sign of the possessive in the following example is
a very great fault.
"Of a general or public act, the courts of law are bound to take notice
judicially and _ex officio_, without the _statute being_ particularly
pleaded."----Blackstone Comment. vol. 1. p. 86.