FOOTNOTES:
[85] It is a dispute among grammarians, whether the interjection is a part of speech; and the question, like many others upon similar subjects, has employed more learning than common sense. The simple truth is this; the involuntary sounds produced by a sudden passion, are the language of nature which is subject only to nature's rules. They are, in some degree, similar among all nations. They do not belong to a grammatical treatise, any more than the looks of fear, surprise or any other passion. The words, ah me! oh me! are mere exclamations, as are bless me! my gracious! and numberless other sounds, which are uttered without any precise meaning, and are not reduceable to any rules.
[86] See Dr. Edwards on the Mohegan tongue. New Haven. 1788.
[87] While is an old Saxon noun, signifying time; and it is still used in the same sense, one while, all this while. Adown is of uncertain origin. The Saxon aduna cannot easily be explained. Above is from an old word, signifying head. Among is from the Saxon gemengan to mix. The etymology of the others is obvious.
[88] It has been remarked that y and g are gutturals which bear nearly the same affinity to each other as b and p. Thus it happens that we find in old writings a y in many words where g is now used; as ayen, ayenst, for again, against. Thus bayonet is pronounced bagonet.
[89] Four hundred years ago, the purest author wrote sen or sin which is now deemed vulgar:
"Sin thou art rightful juge, how may it be,
That thou wolt soffren innocence to spill,
And wicked folk to regne in prosperitee?"
Chaucer, Cant. Tales. 5234.
[90] Out was originally a verb. So in the first line of the celebrated Chevy Chace,
"The Persé owt of Northombarlande,
And a vow to God made he," &c.
I have, in one or two instances, observed the use of it still among the lower classes of people, in this country; and I find outed in some good writers, as late as Charles I.
[91] Mr. Horne remarks that the French word mais was formerly used in the sense of more, or bot. The English word more was formerly often spelt mo.
"Telle me anon withouten wordes mo."
Chaucer, Prol. to Cant. Tales, 810.
Is it not possible that mo or more and the French mais may be radically the same word?
The following passage will confirm the foregoing explanation of beutan. It is taken from the Saxon version of the Gospels.—— Luke, chap. 1. v. 74. of the original.
"Hæt we butan ege of ure feonda handa alysede, him theowrian."
This version of the Gospels was doubtless as early as the tenth or eleventh century. In Wickliff's version, made about three centuries later, the passage stands thus: "That we without drede, delyvered fro the hand of oure enemyes, serve to him." Where we find butan and without are synonimous.
The word bot or bote is still retained in the law language, as fire-bote, house-bote; where it is equivalent to enough or sufficiency.
[92] So in Mandeville's works. "And right as the schip men taken here avys here, and govern hem be the lode sterre, right so don schip men bezonde the parties, be the sterre of the Southe, the which apperethe not to us."
[93] The French oui is said to be a derivative or participle of the verb ouir to hear. The mode of assent therefore is by the word heard; as what you say is heard; a mode equally expressive with the English.
[94] It is most probable that many of the English words beginning with wh are from the same original as the Latin qui, quæ, quod; and both coeval with the Greek. Qui and who; quod and what; are from the same root, and a blending of the Greek και ο and και οτι. This supposition is strongly supported by the ancient Scotch orthography of what, where, &c. which was quhat, quhar.
[95] The termination ly, from liche, added to adjectives, forms the part of speech called adverbs; as great, greatly; gracious, graciously. But when this termination is added to a noun, it forms an adjective, as God, Godly; heaven, heavenly; and these words are also used adverbially; for they will not admit the addition of another ly. Godlily, which has been sometimes used, that is, Godlikelike, and other similar words, are not admissible, on any principle whatever.
[96] Do and to are undoubtedly from the same root; d and t being convertible letters.
[97] This word is not used in modern French; but its derivatives, avitailler, avitaillment, &c. are still retained.
[98] Correspondence, letter 53.
[99] Some of these articles, in other languages, have names in the singular number, as in Latin, forceps, pincers; forfex, sheers or scissors; follis, bellows. In French, souflet is singular, and pincettes, plural. A bellows is sometimes heard in English, and is perfectly correct.
[100] Will the same authority justify our farmers in prefixing pair to a sett of bars, and other people, in prefixing it to stairs, when there are five or six of the former, and perhaps twenty of the latter? A pair of bars, a pair of stairs, in strictness of speech, are very absurd phrases; but perhaps it is better to admit such anomalies, than attempt to change universal and immemorial practice.
[101] "The King of England's court, toto nempe illi aggregato. The King of England, tamquam uni substantivo potponitur litera formativa s."——Wallis.
[102] Second part of the Grammatical Institute. Tit. Notes.
[103] Chaucer's Works, Glossary, p. 151.
[104] The Editor of Chaucer's Works before mentioned, remarks, "that a, in composition with words of Saxon original, is an abbreviation of as or of, at, on or in; and often a corruption of the prepositive particle ge or y." According to this writer, a is any thing and every thing; it has so many derivations and uses, that it has no certain derivation or meaning at all. In the phrase a coming, a seems now to be a mere expletive; but otherwise a, one, and an have the same meaning in all cases.
[105] Lowth's Introduction. Tit. verb.
[106] Run, like many other verbs, may be used either transitively or intransitively. Simply to run, is intransitive; to run a horse, transitive.
[107] Lowth observes a distinction between the verb to will, and the auxiliary, will; the first being regularly inflected. I will, thou willest, he wills, and the latter, I will, thou will, he will. But altho this distinction actually exists in modern practice, yet the words are, in both cases, the same—derived from the same root, and still retaining nearly the same meaning.
[108] If I were, thou wert, he were, in the present hypothetical tense of the subjunctive mode, are not used in the indicative.
[109] It has been before observed, that the common people have not wholly lost this pronunciation, woll, to this day.
[110] See the second part of the Grammatical Institute. Appendix.
[111] It must be remembered that be is the old original substantive verb, and belongs to the indicative. Am and art are of later introduction into English.
[112] Lowth's Introduction, p. 39. Note.
[113] "The present tense in English hath often the sense of the future; as when do you go out of town? I go tomorrow: that is, when will you, shall you go? I shall go. If you do well, that is, shall do well, you will be rewarded: As soon as, or when you come there; that is, shall come, turn on your right hand: With these forms of speaking, the verb is always placed in the future in Latin, Greek and Hebrew."——Bayley's Intro. to Lan. Lit. and Phil. 99.
This critical writer has explained this mode of speaking with accuracy; but it would be more correct to call this form of the verb, an elliptical future, than to say, the present tense has the sense of the future.
[114] So in the law stile. "If a man die intestate;" "if a man die seised of an estate in fee;" "if Titius enfeoff Gaius," &c. are future; and in most such phrases used in translations from the Latin and French, the verbs in the original are future. But in law the same form is used in the present very frequently, agreeable to the ancient practice. The reason may be, the convenience and necessity of copying words and phrases with great exactness. But Blackstone, the most accurate and elegant law writer, uses the other form, "if a man has heirs;" "if a good or valuable consideration appears;" and too often, when the sense requires the future. He generally gives be its subjunctive form, as it is called, and most other verbs the indicative.
[115] In some instances, the time is present, and the ellipsis may be supplied by may or some other auxiliary.
[116] In the original, the participle of the present time is employed: ἱνα και εχοντες γυναικας, ὡς μη εχοντες; and so in the other instances. The Greek is correct; "those having wives as not having them." The translation is agreeable enough to the English idiom; but the verbs represent the present time.]
[117] A similar use of the verb occurs after wish; "I wish I had my estate now in possession;" this would be expressed in Latin. Utinam me habere, using the present of the infinitive, or Utinam ut haberem; but this Imperfect tense of the Subjunctive, both in Latin and French, is used to convey the same ideas as English verbs after if; if I had, si haberem, si j'aurois, and whatever may be the name annexed to this form of the verb, it cannot, in the foregoing sense, have any reference to past time.
The common phrases, I had rather, he had better, are said to be a corruption of I would rather, he would better, rapidly pronounced, I'd rather. I am not satisfied that this is a just account of their origin; would will not supply the place of had in all cases. At any rate, the phrases have become good English.
[118] The following translation of a passage in Cicero is directly in point. "Vivo tamen in ea ambitione et labore tanquam id, quod non postulo, expectem."——Cicero ad Quintum. 2. 15.
"I live still in such a course of ambition and fatigue, as if I were expecting what I do not really desire."——Middleton, Life of Cicero, vol. 2. p. 97.
Here tanquam expectem are rendered very justly, "as if I were expecting;" now, in present time, agreeable to the original. The words carry a negative: if I were expecting, implying, that I do not expect.
[119] This tense is not admitted to be good English; yet is often used in speaking; the have being contracted or corrupted into a, had a written, if he had a received.
[120] We have derived our substantive verb from two radical verbs; beon, whence come the English be, and the German bist; and weorthan, to be or become, fieri; from which probably, the Danes have their varer, and the English their were.
[121] The great source of these errors is this: Grammarians have considered that as a conjunction, and supposed that "conjunctions couple like cases and modes;" a Latin rule that does not always hold in English. But Mr. Horne Tooke has clearly proved the word that to be always a relative pronoun: It always relates to a word or sentence; and the reason why grammarians have called it a conjunction, may be this; they could not find any word to govern it as a relative, and therefore did not know what to do with it. But it is in fact a relative word, thus, "two men have made a discovery;" this is one assertion. What discovery? "that or this is the discovery;" the word that carrying the force of a complete affirmation; "there was a God." Here we see the absurdity of Swift's declaration and the common notions of a subjunctive mode. There is no subjunctive; in strictness of speech, all sentences are resolvable into distinct declaratory phrases. "There is a God;" "two young men have discovered that;" so the sentence should be written to show the true construction.
[122] A passage in Dr. Middleton's Life of Cicero, is remarkably accurate; "The celebrated orator, L. Cassius, died of the same disease (the pleurisy,) which might probably be then, as I was told in Rome it is now, the peculiar distemper of the place." Was refers to time completely past; but is declares a fact that exists generally, at all times; the verb is therefore in the present tense, or as Harris terms it,[123] the aorist of the present. So also in Dr. Reid's Essays, vol. 1. p. 18. "Those philosophers held, that there are three first principles of all things;" which is correct English. "Aristotle thought every object of human understanding enters at first by the senses."—Page 110. The following passage is equally correct. "There is a courage depending on nerves and blood, which was improved to the highest pitch among the Greeks."——Gillies, Hist. of Greece, vol. 1. p. 248. This courage is derived from the constitution of the human body; it exists therefore at all times; and had our author said, "there was a courage depending on nerves and blood, which the Greeks improved to the highest pitch," the sense would have been left imperfect. Here then we see the indefinite use of this form of the present tense; for were the verb is, in the foregoing example, limited to time now present, it would make the author write nonsense; it being absurd to say, "the Greeks 2000 years ago improved a courage which exists only at the present time." So that verbs, in the present tense, express facts that have an uninterrupted existence in past, present, and future time.
[123] Hermes, page 123.
[124] Previous may be vindicated on another principle; viz. by considering it as qualifying the whole subsequent member of the sentence. "The resolutions of Congress could not be enforced by legal penalties; this fact was previous to the establishment," &c. But the other is the real construction.
[DISSERTATION V.]
Of the Construction of English Verse.—Pauses.—Expression.—Of reading Verse.
Of the CONSTRUCTION of ENGLISH VERSE.
As poetry has ever been numbered among the fine arts, and has employed the pens of the first geniuses in all nations, an investigation of the subject must be gratifying to readers of taste. And it must be the more agreeable, as it has been much neglected, and the nature and construction of English verse have frequently been misunderstood.
Most prosodians who have treated particularly of this subject, have been guilty of a fundamental error, in considering the movement of English verse as depending on long and short syllables, formed by long and short vowels. This hypothesis has led them into capital mistakes. The truth is, many of those syllables which are considered as long in verse, are formed by the shortest vowels in the language; as strength, health, grand. The doctrine, that long vowels are requisite to form long syllables in poetry, is at length exploded, and the principles which regulate the movement of our verse, are explained; viz. accent and emphasis. Every emphatical word, and every accented syllable, will form what is called in verse, a long syllable. The unaccented syllables, and unemphatical monosyllabic words, are considered as short syllables.
But there are two kinds of emphasis; a natural emphasis, which arises from the importance of the idea conveyed by a word; and an accidental emphasis, which arises from the importance of a word in a particular situation.
The first or natural emphasis belongs to all nouns, verbs, participles and adjectives, and requires no elevation of voice; as,
"Not half so swift the trembling doves can fly."
The last or accidental emphasis is laid on a word when it has some particular meaning, and when the force of a sentence depends on it; this therefore requires an elevation of voice; as,
"Perdition catch my soul—but I do love thee."
So far the prosody of the English language seems to be settled; but the rules laid down for the construction of verse, seem to have been imperfect and disputed.
Writers have generally supposed that our heroic verse consists of five feet, all pure Iambics, except the first foot, which they allow may be a Trochee. In consequence of this opinion, they have expunged letters from words which were necessary; and curtailed feet in such a manner as to disfigure the beauty of printing, and in many instances, destroyed the harmony of our best poetry.
The truth is, so far is our heroic verse from being confined to the Iambic measure, that it admits of eight feet, and in some instances of nine. I will not perplex my readers with a number of hard names, but proceed to explain the several feet, and show in what places of the line they are admissible.
An Iambic foot, which is the ground of English numbers, consists of two syllables, the first short and the second long. This foot is admitted into every place of the line. Example, all Iambics.
"Whĕre slāves ŏnce mōre thĕir nātĭve lānd bĕhōld,
Nŏ fiēnds tŏrmēnt, nŏ chrīstiăns thīrst, fŏr gōld."
Pope.
The Trochee is a foot consisting of two syllables, the first long and the second short. Example.
"Wārms ĭn the sun, refreshes in the breeze,
Glows in the stars, and blossoms in the trees."
Pope.
The Trochee is not admissible into the second place of the line; but in the third and fourth it may have beauty, when it creates a correspondence between the sound and sense.
"Eve rightly call'd mōthĕr of all mankind."
"And staggered by the stroke, drōps thĕ large ox."
The Spondee is a foot consisting of two long syllables. This may be used in any place of the line.
1. "Gōod līfe be now my task, my doubts are done."
Dryden.
2. "As some lōne moūntain's monstrous growth he stood."
Pope.
But it has a greater beauty, when preceded by a Trochee.
"Lōad thĕ tāll bārk and launch into the main."
3. "The mountain goats cāme bōunding o'er the lawn."
4. "He spoke, and speaking in prōud trīumph spread,
The long contended honors of her head."
Pope.
5. "Singed are his brows, the scorching lids grōw blāck."
Pope.
The Pyrrhic is a foot of two short syllables; it is graceful in the first and fourth places, and is admissible into the second and third.
1. "Nŏr ĭn the helpless orphan dread a foe."
Pope.
2. ——"On they move,
Indissŏlŭbly firm."——Milton.
3. "The two extremes appear like man and wife,
Coupled togethĕr fŏr the sake of strife."
Churchill.
But this foot is most graceful in the fourth place.
"The dying gales that pant ŭpŏn the trees."
"To farthest shores the ambrosial spirit flies,
Sweet to the world and gratefŭl tŏ the skies."
The Amphibrach is a foot of three syllables, the first and third short, and the second long. It is used in heroic verse only when we take the liberty to add a short syllable to a line.
"The piece you say is incorrect, wh̆y tāke ĭt,
I'm all submission, what you'd have ĭt, māke ĭt."
This foot is hardly admissible in the solemn or sublime stile. Pope has indeed admitted it into his Essay on Man:
"What can ennoble sots or slaves ŏr cōwărds,
Alas! not all the blood of all thĕ Hōwărds."
Again:
"To sigh for ribbands, if thou art sŏ sīll̆y,
Mark how they grace Lord Umbra or Sĭr Bīll̆y."
But these lines are of the high burlesque kind, and in this stile the Amphibrach closes lines with great beauty.
The Tribrach is a foot of three syllables, all short; and it may be used in the third and fourth places.
"And rolls impetŭoŭs tŏ the subject plain."
Or thus:
"And thunders down impetŭoŭs tŏ the plain."
The Dactyl, a foot of three syllables, the first long and the two last short, is used principally in the first place in the line.
"Fūrĭoŭs he spoke, the angry chief replied."
"Mūrmŭrĭng, and with him fled the shades of night."
The Anapæst, a foot consisting of three syllables, the two first short and the last long, is admissible into every place of the line.
"Căn ă bōsŏm sŏ gēntlĕ rĕmāin,
Unmoved when her Corydon sighs?
Will a nymph that is fond of the plains,
These plains and these valleys despise?
Dear regions of silence and shade,
Soft scenes of contentment and ease,
Where I could have pleasingly stay'd,
If ought in her absence could please."
The trissyllabic feet have suffered most by the general ignorance of critics; most of them have been mutilated by apostrophes, in order to reduce them to the Iambic measure.
Thus in the line before repeated,
"Murmuring, and with him fled the shades of night,"
we find the word in the copy reduced to two syllables, murm'ring, and the beauty of the Dactyl is destroyed.
Thus in the following:
"On every side with shadowy squadrons deep,"
by apostrophizing every and shadowy, the line loses its harmony. The same remark applies to the following:
"And hosts infuriate shake the shudd'ring plain."
"But fashion so directs, and moderns raise
On fashion's mould'ring base, their transient praise."
Churchill.
Poetic lines which abound with these trissyllabic feet, are the most flowing and melodious of any in the language; and yet the poets themselves, or their printers, murder them with numberless unnecessary contractions.
It requires but little judgement and an ear indifferently accurate, to distinguish the contractions which are necessary, from those which are needless and injurious to the versification. In the following passage we find examples of both.
"She went from op'ra, park, assembly, play,
To morning walks and pray'rs three times a day;
To part her time 'twixt reading and bohea,
To muse and spill her solitary tea;
Or o'er cold coffee trifle with the spoon,
Count the slow clock, and dine exact at noon;
Divert her eyes with pictures in the fire,
Hum half a tune, tell stories to the 'squire;
Up to her godly garret after sev'n,
There starve and pray, for that's the way to heav'n."
Pope's Epistles.
Here e in opera ought not to be apostrophized, for such a contraction reduces an Amphibrachic foot to an Iambic. The words prayers, seven and heaven need not the apostrophe of e; for it makes no difference in the pronunciation. But the contraction of over and betwixt is necessary; for without it the measure would be imperfect.