FOOTNOTES
[1] “And I persecuted this way unto the death.” Acts xxii. 4. The Apostle does not mean any particular sort of death, but death in general: the Definite Article therefore is improperly used. It ought to be unto death, without any Article: agreeably to the Original, αχρι θανατου.
“When He the Spirit of Truth is come, he will guide you into all Truth.” John xvi. 13. That is, according to this Translation, into all Truth whatsoever, into Truth of all kinds: very different from the meaning of the Evangelist, and from the Original, εις πασαν την αληθειαν, into all the Truth; that is, into all Evangelical Truth.
“Truly this was the Son of God.” Matt. xxvii. 54. and Mark xv. 39. This Translation supposes, that the Roman Centurion had a proper and adequate notion of the character of Jesus, as the Son of God in a peculiar and incommunicable sense: whereas, it is probable, both from the circumstances of the History, and from the expression of the Original, (ὑιος Θεου, a Son of God, not ὁ υιος, the Son) that he only meant to acknowledge him to be an extraordinary person, and more than a mere man; according to his own notion of Sons of Gods in the Pagan Theology. This is also more agreeable to St. Luke’s account of the same confession of the Centurion: “Certainly this was δικαιος, a righteous man;” not ὁ Δικαιος, the Just One. The same may be observed of Nebuchadnezzar’s words, Dan. iii. 25.—“And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God:” it ought to be by the Indefinite Article, like a Son of God: ὁμοια ὑιῳ Θεου, as Theodotion very properly renders it: that is, like an Angel; according to Nebuchadnezzar’s own account of it in the 28th verse: “Blessed be God, who hath sent his Angel, and delivered his servants.” See also Luke xix. 9.
These Remarks may serve to shew the great importance of the proper use of the Article; the near affinity there is between the Greek Article, and the English Definite Article; and the excellence of the English Language in this respect, which by means of its two Articles does most precisely determine the extent of signification of Common Names: whereas the Greek has only one Article, and it has puzzled all the Grammarians to reduce the use of that to any clear and certain rules.
[2] “A good character should not be rested in as an end, but employed as a means of doing still farther good.” Atterbury’s Sermons. Ought it not to be a mean?
[3] “About an eight days:” that is, a space of eight days. Luke ix. 28. But the expression is obsolete, or at least vulgar; and we may add likewise improper: for the number eight has not been reduced by use and convenience into one collective and compact idea, like a hundred, and a thousand; each of which, like a dozen, or a score, we are accustomed equally to consider on certain occasions as a simple Unity.
[4] And antiently, eyen, shoen, housen, hosen; so likewise antiently sowen, cowen, now always pronounced and written swine, kine.
[5] In the German the vowels a, o, u, of monosyllable Nouns are generally in the Plural changed into diphthongs with an e: as der hand, the hand, die hände; der hut, the hat, die hüte; der knopff, the button, (or knop) die knöpffe; &c.
[6] These are directly from the Saxon: mus, mys; lus, lys; toth, teth; fot, fet; gos, ges.
[7] “Lingua Anglorum hodierna avitæ Saxonicæ formam in plerisque orationis partibus etiamnum retinet. Nam quoad particulas casuales, quorundam casuum terminationes, conjugationes verborum, verbum substantivum, formam passivæ vocis, pronomina, participia, conjunctiones, & præpositiones omnes; denique quoad idiomata, phrasiumque maximam partem, etiam nunc Saxonicus est Anglorum sermo.” Hickes. Thesaur. Lingg. Septent. Præf. p. vi. To which may be added the Degrees of comparison, the form of which is the very same in the English as in the Saxon.
[8] “Christ his sake,” in our Liturgy, is a mistake, either of the Printers, or of the Compilers.⸺“My paper is the Ulysses his bow, in which every man of wit or learning may try his strength.” Addison, Guardian Nᵒ 98. This is no slip of Mr. Addison’s pen: he gives us his opinion upon this point very explicitly in another place. “The same single letter [s] on many occasions does the office of a whole word, and represents the his and her of our forefathers.” Addison, Spect. Nᵒ 135. The latter instance might have shewn him, how groundless this notion is: for it is not easy to conceive, how the letter s added to a Feminine Noun should represent the word her; any more than it should the word their, added to a Plural Noun: as, “the children’s bread.” But the direct derivation of this Case from the Saxon Genitive Case is sufficient of itself to decide this matter.
“At his command th’ uprooted hills retir’d
Each to his place: they heard his voice and went
Obsequious: Heaven his wonted face renew’d,
And with fresh flowrets hill and valley smil’d.”
Milton, P. L. B. vi.
“Was I deceiv’d, or did a sable Cloud
Turn forth her silver lining on the Night?”
Milton, Comus.
“Go to your Natural Religion: lay before her Mahomet and his disciples arrayed in armour and in blood:⸺shew her the cities which he set in flames; the countries which he ravaged:⸺when she has viewed him in this scene, carry her into his retirements; shew her the Prophet’s chamber, his concubines and his wives:⸺when she is tired with this prospect, then shew her the Blessed Jesus.—” See the whole passage in the conclusion of Bp Sherlock’s 9th Sermon, Vol. I.
In these beautiful passages, as in the English if you put it and its instead of his, she, her, you destroy the images, and reduce, what was before highly Poetical and Rhetorical, to mere prose and common discourse; so if you render them into another language, Greek, Latin, French, Italian, or German, in which Hill, Heaven, Cloud, Religion, are constantly Masculine, or Feminine, or Neuter, respectively, you make the images obscure and doubtful, and in proportion diminish their beauty.
This excellent remark is Mr. Harris’s, Hermes, p. 58.
[10] Some Writers have used Ye as the Objective Case Plural of the Pronoun of the Second Person; very improperly and ungrammatically.
“But Tyrants dread ye, lest your just decree
Transfer the pow’r, and set the people free.”
Prior.
“His wrath, which one day will destroy ye both.”
Milton, P. L. ii. 734.
Dr. Bently has corrected this mistake, which is probably an error of the Press, or of the Editor of whom he talks so much. But he has done it, without taking the least notice of the matter, or assuming any merit to himself from an emendation, which is one of the very few that are really such in his whole performance.
[11] The Neuter Pronoun of the Third Person had formerly no variation of Cases. Instead of the Possessive its they used his, which is now appropriated to the Masculine. “Learning hath his infancy, when it is but beginning, and almost childish; then his youth, when it is luxuriant and juvenile; then his strength of years, when it is solid and reduced; and lastly his old age, when it waxeth dry and exhaust.” Bacon, Essay 58. In this example his is evidently used as the Possessive Case of it: but what shall we say to the following, where her is applied in the same manner, and seems to make a strange confusion of Gender? “He that pricketh the heart maketh it to shew her knowledge.” Ecclus. xxii. 19.
“Oft have I seen a timely-parted ghost,
Of ashy semblance, meagre, pale, and bloodless,
Being all descended to the lab’ring heart,
Who, in the conflict that it holds with death,
Attracts the same for aidance ’gainst the enemy.”
Shakespear.
If the Poet had said he instead of it, he would have avoided a confusion of Genders, and happily compleated the spirited and elegant Prosopopœia, begun by the Personal Relative who. The Neuter Relative which would have made the sentence more strictly grammatical, but at the same time more prosaic.
[12] So the Saxon Ic hath the Possessive Case Min; Thu, Possessive Thin; He, Possessive His: from which our Possessive Cases of the same Pronouns are taken without alteration. To the Saxon Possessive Cases hire, ure, eower, hira, (that is, her’s, our’s, your’s, their’s) we have added the s, the Characteristic of the Possessive Case of Nouns. Or our’s, your’s, are directly from the Saxon ures, eoweres; the Possessive Case of the Pronominal Adjectives ure, eower; that is, our, your.
[13] Whose is by some authors made the Possessive Case of which, and applied to things as well as persons; I think, improperly.
“The question, whose solution I require,
Is, what the sex of women most desire.”
Dryden.
“Is there any other doctrine, whose followers are punished?” Addison.
[14] So the Saxon hwa hath the Possessive Case hwæs. Note, that the Saxons rightly placed the Aspirate before the w: as we now pronounce it. This will be evident to any one that shall consider in what manner he pronounces the words what, when; that is, hoo-àt, hoo-èn.
[15] Adjectives are very improperly called Nouns; for they are not the Names of things. The Adjectives good, white, are applied to the Nouns man, snow, to express the Qualities belonging to those Subjects; but the Names of those Qualities in the Abstract, (that is, considered in themselves, and without being attributed to any Subject) are goodness, whiteness; and these are Nouns, or Substantives.
[16] The Double Superlative most highest is a Phrase peculiar to the Old Vulgar Translation of the Psalms, where it acquires a singular propriety from the Subject to which it is applied, the Supreme Being, who is higher than the highest.
[17] “Lesser, says Mr. Johnson, is a barbarous corruption of Less, formed by the vulgar from the habit of terminating comparisons in er.”
“Attend to what a lesser Muse indites.”
Addis.
Worser sounds much more barbarous, only because it has not been so frequently used:
“A dreadful quiet felt, and worser far
Than arms, a sullen interval of war.”
Dryden.
[18] A greater variety of endings to distinguish the Persons in the Verb is not necessary; as the Verb is always attended with the Personal Pronoun, wherever an ambiguity would otherwise arise. For the same reason the Plural termination in en, they loven, they weren, which was formerly in use, hath been long obsolete.
[19] Thou, in the Polite, and even in the Familiar Style, is disused, and the Plural You is employed instead of it: we say You have, not Thou hast. Tho’ in this case we apply You to a single Person, yet the Verb too must agree with it in the Plural Number: it must necessarily be You have, not You hast. You was, the Second Person Plural of the Pronoun placed in agreement with the First or Third Person Singular of the Verb, is an enormous Solecism: and yet Authors of the first rank have inadvertently fallen into it. “Knowing that you was my old master’s good friend.” Addison, Spect. No 517. “Would to God you was within her reach.” Lord Bolingbroke to Swift, Letter 46. “If you was here.” Ditto, Letter 47. “I am just now as well, as when you was here.” Pope to Swift, P. S. to Letter 56. On the contrary the Solemn Style admits not of You for a Single Person. This hath led Mr. Pope into a great impropriety in the beginning of his Messiah:
“O Thou my voice inspire
Who touch’d Isaiah’s hallow’d lips with fire!”
The Solemnity of the Style would not admit of You for Thou in the Pronoun; nor the measure of the Verse touchedst, or didst touch, in the Verb; as it indispensably ought to be, in the one, or the other of these two forms: You who touched; or Thou who touchedst, or didst touch. Again:
“Just of thy word, in every thought sincere,
Who knew no wish but what the world might hear.”
Pope, Epitaph.
It ought to be your in the first line, or knewest in the second.
[20] This Participle represents the action as complete and finished; and, being subjoined to the Auxiliary to have, constitutes the Perfect Time: I call it therefore the Perfect Participle. The same subjoined to the Auxiliary to be, constitutes the Passive Verb; and in that state, or when used without the Auxiliary in a passive sense, is called the Passive Participle.
“Before the sun,
Before the heav’ns thou wert.”
Milton.
“Remember what thou wert.”
Dryden.
“I knew thou wert not slow to hear.”
Addison.
“Thou who of old wert sent to Israel’s court.”
Prior.
“All this thou wert.”⸺
Pope.
Shall we in deference to these great authorities allow wert to be the same with wast, and common to the Indicative and Subjunctive Mode? or rather abide by the practice of our best antient writers; the propriety of the language, which requires, as far as may be, distinct forms for different Modes; and the analogy of formation in each Mode; I was, Thou wast; I were, Thou wert? all which conspire to make wert peculiar to the Subjunctive Mode.
[22] Note, that the Imperfect and Perfect Times are here put together. And it is to be observed, that in the Subjunctive Mode, the event being spoken of under a condition, or supposition, or in the form of a wish, and therefore as doubtful and contingent, the Verb itself in the Present, and the Auxiliary both of the Present and Past Imperfect Times, often carry with them somewhat of a Future sense: as, “If he come to-morrow, I may speak to him:” ⸺ “If he should, or would, come to-morrow, I might, would, could, or should, speak to him.” Observe also, that the Auxiliary should in the Imperfect Times is used to express the Present, as well as the Past; as, “It is my desire, that he should [now] come;” as well as, “It was my desire that he should [then] come.” So that in this Mode the precise Time of the Verb is very much determined by the nature and drift of the Sentence.
⸺“Perdition catch my soul
But I do love thee!—”
⸺“This to me
In dreadful secrecy impart they did.”
Shakespear.
“Die he certainly did.”
Sherlock, Vol. 1. Disc. 7.
“Yes, I did love her:” that is, at that time, or once; intimating a negation, or doubt, of present love.
“The Lord called Samuel: and he ran unto Eli, and said, Here am I, for thou calledst me.⸺And the Lord called yet again, Samuel. And Samuel arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I, for thou didst call me.” 1 Sam. iii. 4-6.
[24] This distinction was not observed formerly as to the word shall, which was used in the Second and Third Persons to express simply the Event. So likewise should was used, where we now make use of would. See the Vulgar Translation of the Bible.
[25] Bishop Wilkins gives the following elegant investigation of the Modes in his Real Character, Part iii. Chap. 5.
“To shew in what manner the Subject is to be joined with his Predicate, the Copula between them is affected with a Particle, which from the use of it is called Modus, the manner or Mode.
Now the Subject and Predicate may be joined together either Simply, or with some kind of Limitation; and accordingly these Modes are Primary or Secondary.
The Primary Modes are called by Grammarians Indicative and Imperative.
When the matter is declared to be so, or at least when it seems in the Speaker’s power to have it be so, as the bare union of Subject and Predicate would import, then the Copula is nakedly expressed without any variation: and this manner of expressing it is called the Indicative Mode.
When it is neither declared to be so, nor seems immediately in the Speaker’s power to have it so; then he can do no more in words but make out the expression of his will to him that hath the thing in his power; namely to
| his | { | Superior | } | by | { | Petition, | } |
| { | Equal | } | { | Persuasion, | } | ||
| { | Inferior | } | { | Command. | } |
And the manner of these affecting the Copula, (Be it so, or, let it be so,) is called the Imperative Mode; of which there are these three varieties very fit to be distinctly provided for. As for that other use of the Imperative Mode, when it signifies Permission; this may be sufficiently expressed by the Secondary Mode of Liberty; You may do it.
The Secondary Modes are such, as, when the Copula is affected with any of them, make the Sentence to be (as the Logicians call it) a Modal Proposition.
This happens, when the matter in discourse, namely, the being, or doing, or suffering of a thing, is considered, not simply by itself, but gradually in its causes, from which it proceeds contingently, or necessarily.
Then a thing seems to be left Contingent, when the Speaker expresses only the Possibility of it, or his own Liberty to it.
1. The Possibility of a thing depends upon the power of its cause; and may be expressed
| when | { | Absolute | } | by the Particle | { | Can, |
| { | Conditional | } | { | Could. |
2. The Liberty of a thing depends upon a freedom from all obstacles either within or without, and is usually expressed in our language
| when | { | Absolute | } | by the Particle | { | May, |
| { | Conditional | } | { | Might. |
Then a thing seems to be of Necessity, when the Speaker expresseth the resolution of his own will, or some other obligation upon him from without.
3. The Inclination of the Will is expressed,
| if | { | Absolute | } | by the Particle | { | Will, |
| { | Conditional | } | { | Would. |
4. The Necessity of a thing from some external Obligation, whether Natural, or Moral, which we call Duty, is expressed,
| if | { | Absolute | } | by the Particle | { | Must, ought, shall; |
| { | Conditional | } | { | Must, ought, should.” |
See also Hermes, Book I. Chap. viii.
[26] I doubt much of the propriety of the following examples: “The rules of our holy Religion, from which we are infinitely swerved.” Tillotson, Vol. I. Serm. 27. “The whole obligation of that law and covenant, which God made with the Jews, was also ceased.” Ib. Vol. II. Serm. 52. “Whose number was now amounted to three hundred.” Swift, Contests and Dissensions, Chap. 3. Neuter Verbs are sometimes employed very improperly as Actives: “I think, it by no means a fit and decent thing to vie Charities, and to erect the reputation of one upon the ruins of another.” Atterbury, Vol. I. Serm. 2.
[27] These two have also beaten and bursten in the Participle; and in that form they belong to the Third Class of Irregulars.
[28] The Verbs marked thus throughout the three Classes of Irregulars, have the Regular as well as the Irregular form in use.
[29] This Verb in the Past Time and Participle is pronounced short; read, red, red; like lead, led, led; and perhaps ought to be written in this manner: our antient writers spelt it redde.
[30] They follow the Saxon rule: “Verbs which in the Infinitive end in dan and tan,” (that is, in English, d and t; for an is only the Characteristic termination of the Saxon Infinitive;) “in the Preterit and Participle Preterit commonly for the sake of better sound throw away the final ed; as beot, afed, (both in the Preterit and Participle Preterit) for beoted, afeded; from beotan, afedan.” Hickes, Grammat. Saxon, cap. 9. So the same Verbs in English, beat, fed, instead of beated, feeded.
[31] When en follows a Vowel or Liquid the e is dropt: so drawn, slayn, (or slain,) are instead of drawen, slayen; so likewise known, born, are for knowen, boren, in the Saxon cnawen, boren: and so of the rest.
[32] This Verb is also formed like those of i long into i short; Write, writ, written; and by Contraction writ in the Participle, but, I think, improperly.
[33] Frequent mistakes are made in the formation of the Participle of this Verb. The analogy plainly requires sitten; which was formerly in use: “The army having sitten there so long:”⸺“Which was enough to make him stir, that would not have sitten still, though Hanibal had been quiet.” Raleigh. “That no Parliament should be dissolved, till it had sitten five months.” Hobbes, Hist. of Civil Wars, p. 257. But it is now almost wholly disused, the form of the Past Time sat, having taken its place. Dr. Middleton hath with great propriety restored the true Participle:⸺“To have sitten on the heads of the Apostles:”⸺“to have sitten upon each of them.” Works, Vol. II. p. 30. “Blessed is the man,⸺that hath not sat in the seat of the scornful.” Ps. i. 1. The old Editions have sit; which may be perhaps allowed as a Contraction of sitten. “And when he was set, his disciples came unto him:” καθισαντος αυτου. Matt. v. 1.⸺“who is set on the right hand;”⸺“and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God:” in both places εκαθισεν. Heb. viii. 1. & xii. 2. Set can be no part of the Verb to sit. If it belongs to the Verb to set, the Translation in these passages is wrong: for to set signifies to place, but without any designation of the posture of the person placed; which is a circumstance of importance expressed by the original.
[34] This Neuter Verb is frequently confounded with the Verb Active to lay, [that is, to put, or place;] which is Regular, and has in the Past Time and Participle layed, or laid.
[35] “Thus having chosed each other.⸺” Clarendon, Hist. Vol. III. p. 797. 8ᵛᵒ. Improperly.
[36] That is, as a bird, volare; whereas to flee signifies fugere, as from an enemy. This seems to be the proper distinction between to fly, and to flee; which in the Present Time are very often confounded. Our Translation of the Bible is not quite free from this mistake. It hath flee for volare in perhaps seven or eight places out of a great number; but never fly for fugere.
[37] Essay xxix.
[38] The whole number of Verbs in the English language, Regular and Irregular, Simple and Compounded, taken together, is about 4300. See Dr. Ward’s Essays on the English Language; the Catalogue of English Verbs.
⸺“He would have spoke.”
Milton, P. L. x. 517.
“Words interwove with sighs found out their way.”
P. L. i. 621.
“And to his faithful servant hath in place
Bore witness gloriously.”—Samson Ag. ℣. 1752.
“And envious darkness, ere they could return,
Had stole them from me.”—Comus, ℣. 195.
Here it is observable, that the Author’s MS. and the First Edition have it stolne.
⸺“And in triumph had rode.”
P. R. iii. 36.
⸺“I have chose
This perfect man.”⸺
P. R. i. 165.
⸺“The fragrant brier was wove between.”
Dryden, Fables.
“Then finish what you have began,
But scribble faster, if you can.”
Dryden, Poems, Vol. 2. p. 172.
“Have sprang.”
Atterbury, Vol. 1. Serm. 4.
“Had spake”⸺“had began.”⸺Clarendon, Contin. Hist. p. 40, & 120. “The men begun to embellish themselves.” Addison, Spect. Nᵒ 434.
“Rapt into future times the bard begun.”
Pope, Messiah.
And without the necessity of rhyme:
“A second deluge learning thus o’er-run,
And the Monks finish’d what the Goths begun.”
Essay on Criticism.
“Repeats you verses wrote on glasses.”
Prior.
“Mr. Misson has wrote.”—Addison, Preface to his Travels. “He could only command his voice, broke with sighs and sobbings, so far as to bid her proceed.” Addison, Spect. Nᵒ 164.
“No civil broils have since his death arose.”
Dryden, on O. Cromwell.
“Illustrious virtues, who by turns have rose.”
Prior.
⸺“Had not arose.” Swift, Tale of a Tub, Sect. x. and Battle of Books: and Bolingbroke, Letter to Wyndham, p. 233.⸺“This nimble operator will have stole it.” Tale of a Tub, Sect. x. “Some philosophers have mistook.” Ibid. Sect. ix.
⸺“Silence
Was took ere she was ware.”
Milton, Comus.
“Into these common places look,
Which from great authors I have took.”
Prior, Alma.
“A free Constitution, when it has been shook by the iniquity of former administrations.” Lord Bolingbroke, Patriot King, p. 111.⸺“Too strong to be shook by his enemies.” Atterbury. “But there was now an accident fell out.”⸺Clarendon, Contin. p. 292.
⸺“Ev’n there he should have fell.”
Prior, Solomon.
“Sure some disaster has befell:
Speak, Nurse; I hope the Boy is well.”
Gay, Fables.
[40] “Was the easilier persuaded.”—Raleigh. “The things highliest important to the growing age.” Lord Shaftesbury, Letter to Lord Molesworth. Improperly, for more easily, most highly.
[41] The Conjunction because used to express the motive or end, is either improper or obsolete: as, “The multitude rebuked them, because they should hold their peace.” Matt. xx. 31. “It is the case of some, to contrive false periods of business, because they may seem men of dispatch.” Bacon, Essay xxv. We should now make use of that.
[42] “He caused all persons, whom he knew had, or he thought might have, spoken to him, to be apprehended.” Clarendon, Vol. III. p. 618. 8ᵛᵒ. It ought to be who, the Nominative Case to had; not whom, as if it were the Objective Case governed by knew.
“Scotland and Thee did each in other live.”
Dryden, Poems, Vol. II. p. 220.
It ought to be Thou.
“But Thou false Arcite never shall obtain
Thy bad pretence.”⸺
Dryden, Fables.
“That Thou might fortune to thy side engage.”
Prior.
It ought to be shalt, mightest. The mistake seems to be owing to the confounding of Thou and You as equivalent in every respect; whereas one is Singular, the other Plural. See above, p. 48. “Great pains has [have] been taken.” Pope, P. S. to the Odyssey. “I have considered, what have [hath] been said on both sides in this controversy.” Tillotson, Vol. I. Serm. 27.
“Tell who loves who; what favours some partake,
And who is jilted for another’s sake.”
Dryden, Juvenal, Sat. vi.
“Those, who he thought true to his party.” Clarendon, Hist. Vol. I. p. 667. 8ᵛᵒ. “Who should I meet the other night, but my old friend?” Spect. Nᵒ 32. “Who should I see in the lid of it, but the Doctor?” Addison, Spect. Nᵒ 57. “He knows, who it is proper to expose foremost.” Swift, Tale of a Tub, Conclusion. It ought in all these places to be whom.
[45] “And restores to his Island that tranquillity and repose, to which they had been strangers during his absence.” Pope, Dissertation prefixed to the Odyssey. Island is not a Noun of Multitude: it ought to be, his people; or, it had been a stranger. “What reason have the Church of Rome to talk of modesty in this case?” Tillotson, Vol. I. Serm. 49. “All the virtues of mankind are to be counted upon a few fingers, but his follies and vices are innumerable.” Swift, Preface to Tale of a Tub. Is not mankind in this place a Noun of Multitude, and such as requires the Pronoun refering to it to be in the Plural Number, their?
[46] “Whom do men say, that I am?⸺But whom say ye, that I am?” Matt. xvi. 13, 15. So likewise Mark viii. 27, 29. Luke ix. 18, 20. “Whom think ye, that I am?” Acts xiii. 25. It ought in all these places to be who; which is not governed by the Verb say or think, but by the Verb am: or agrees in Case with the Pronoun I. If the Verb were in the Infinitive Mode, it would require the Objective Case of the Relative, agreeing with the Pronoun me: “Whom think ye, or do ye think, me to be?”
⸺“To that, which once was thee.”
Prior.
It ought to be, which was thou; or, which thou wast.
[47] On which place says Dr. Bentley, “The Context demands that it be,⸺Him descending, Illo descendente.” But him is not the Ablative Case, for the English knows no such Case; nor does him without a Preposition on any occasion answer to the Latin Ablative illo. I might with better reason contend, that it ought to be “his descending,” because it is in Greek αυτου καταβαινοντος in the Genitive; and it would be as good Grammar, and as proper English. This comes of forcing the English under the rules of a foreign Language, with which it has little concern: and this ugly and deformed fault, to use his own expression, Bentley has endeavoured to impose upon Milton in several places: see P. L. vii. 15. ix. 829, 883, 1147. x. 267, 1001. On the other hand, where Milton has been really guilty of this fault, he, very inconsistently with himself, corrects him, and sets him right. His Latin Grammar Rules were happily out of his head, and by a kind of vernacular instinct (so, I imagine, he would call it) he perceived that his Author was wrong.
“For only in destroying I find ease
To my relentless thoughts; and, him destroy’d,
Or won to what may work his utter loss,
For whom all this was made, all this will soon
Follow, as to him link’d in weal or woe.”
P. L. ix. 129.
It ought to be, “he destroy’d,” that is, “he being destroy’d.” Bentley corrects it, “and man destroy’d.”
Archbishop Tillotson has fallen into the same mistake: “Solomon was of this mind; and I make no doubt, but he made as wise and true Proverbs as any body has done since: Him only excepted, who was a much greater and wiser man than Solomon.” Vol. I. Ser. 53.
[48] “To see so many to make so little conscience of so great a sin.” Tillotson, Vol. I. Serm. 22. “It cannot but be a delightful spectacle to God and Angels to see a young person, besieged by powerful temptations on either side, to acquit himself gloriously, and resolutely to hold out against the most violent assaults: to behold one in the prime and flower of his age, that is courted by pleasures and honours, by the devil and all the bewitching vanities of the world, to reject all these, and to cleave stedfastly unto God.” Ib. Serm. 54. The impropriety of the Phrases distinguished by Italic Characters is evident.
[49] Το γαρ θελειν παρακειται μοι, το δε κατεργαζεσθαι το καλον ουχ ευρισχω. Rom. vii. 18.
[50] Προς το θεαθηναι τοις ανθρωποις. Matt. xxiii. 5. The following sentences seem defective either in the construction, or the order of the words: “Why do ye that, which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?⸺The shew bread, which is not lawful to eat, but for the priests alone.” Luke vi. 2, 4. The Construction may be rectified by supplying it; “which it is not lawful to do; which it is not lawful to eat:” or the order of the words in this manner; “to do which, to eat which, is not lawful:” where the Infinitive to do, to eat, does the office of the Nominative Case, and the Relative which is in the Objective Case.
[51] “I am not like other men, to envy the talents I cannot reach.” Tale of a Tub, Preface. An improper use of the Infinitive.
[52] This Rule arises from the nature and idiom of our Language, and from as plain a principle as any on which it is founded: namely, that a word which has the Article before it, and a Noun, with the Possessive Preposition of, after it, must be a Noun; and if a Noun, it ought to follow the Construction of a Noun, and not have the Regimen of a Verb. It is the Participial Termination of this sort of words that is apt to deceive us, and make us treat them as if they were of an amphibious species, partly Nouns, and partly Verbs. I believe there are hardly any of our Writers, who have not fallen into this inaccuracy. That it is such, will perhaps more clearly appear, if we examine and resolve one or two examples in this kind.
“God, who didst teach the hearts of thy faithful people, by the sending to them the light of thy Holy Spirit:⸺” Collect, Whitsunday. Sending is in this place a Noun; for it is accompanied with the Article: nevertheless it is also a Transitive Verb, for it governs the Noun light in the Objective Case: but this is inconsistent; let it be either the one or the other, and abide by its proper Construction. That these Participial Words are sometimes real Nouns is undeniable; for they have a Plural Number as such: as, “the outgoings of the morning.” The Sending is the same with the Mission; which necessarily requires the Preposition of after it, to mark the relation between it and the light; the mission of the light; and so, the sending of the light. The Phrase would be proper either way, by keeping to the Construction of the Noun, by the sending of the light; or of the Participle, or Gerund, by sending the light.
Again:⸺“Sent to prepare the way of thy Son our Saviour, by preaching of Repentance:⸺” Collect, St. John Baptist. Here the Participle, or Gerund, hath as improperly the Preposition of after it; and so is deprived of its Verbal Regimen, by which as a Transitive it would govern the Noun Repentance in the Objective Case. Besides, the Phrase is rendered obscure and ambiguous: for the obvious meaning of it in its present form is, “by preaching concerning or on the Subject of Repentance;” whereas the sense intended is, “by publishing the Covenant of Repentance, and declaring Repentance to be a condition of acceptance with God.” The Phrase would have been perfectly right and determinate to this sense either way; by the Noun, by the preaching of repentance; or by the Participle, by preaching repentance.
[53] These are the three Primary Modes, or manners of expressing our thoughts concerning the being, doing, or suffering of a thing. If it comes within our knowledge, we explain it, or make a declaration of it; if we are ignorant or doubtful of it, we make an inquiry about it; if it is not immediately in our power, we express our desire or will concerning it. In Theory therefore the Interrogative form seems to have as good a Title to a Mode of its own, as either of the other two; but Practice has determined it otherwise; and has in all the Languages, with which we are most acquainted, supplied the place of an Interrogative Mode, either by Particles of Interrogation, or by a peculiar order of the words in the sentence. If it be true, as I have somewhere read, that the Modes of the Verbs are more numerous in the Lapland Tongue than in any other, possibly the Laplanders may be provided with an Interrogative Mode.
“The burning lever not deludes his pains.”
Dryden, Ovid. Metam. B. xii.
“I hope, my Lord, said he, I not offend.”
Dryden, Fables.
These examples make the impropriety of placing the Adverb not before the Verb very evident.
[55] “Did he not fear the Lord, and besought the Lord, and the Lord repented him of the evil, which he had pronounced against them?” Jer. xxvi. 19. Here the Interrogative and Explicative forms are confounded. It ought to be, “Did he not fear the Lord, and beseech the Lord? and did not the Lord repent him of the evil,⸺?” See likewise Matt. xviii. 12.
“For ever in this humble cell
Let Thee and I, my fair one, dwell.”
Prior.
It ought to be Me.
[57] It is not easy to give particular rules for the management of the Modes and Times of Verbs with respect to one another, so that they may be proper and consistent: nor would it be of much use; for the best rule that can be given is this very general one, To observe what the sense necessarily requires. But it may be of use to consider one or two examples, that seem faulty in these respects, and to examine where the fault lies.
“Some who the depths of eloquence have found,
In that unnavigable Stream were drown’d.”
Dryden, Juv. Sat. x.
The event mentioned in the first line is plainly prior in time to that mentioned in the second; this is subsequent to that, and a consequence of it. The first event is mentioned in the Present Perfect Time; it is present and compleated; “they have [now] found the depths of eloquence.” The second event is expressed in the Past Indefinite Time; it is past and gone, but, when it happened, uncertain: “they were drown’d.” We observed, that the last mentioned event is subsequent to the first: but how can the Past Time be subsequent to the Present? It therefore ought to be in the second line are drown’d, in the Present Perfect, which is consistent with the same Time in the first line: or in the first line had found in the Past Perfect, which would be consistent with the Past Indefinite in the second line.⸺There seems to be a fault of the like nature in the following passage:
“But oh! ’twas little that her life
O’er earth and waters bears thy fame:”⸺
Prior.
It ought to be bore in the second line.
Again;
“Him portion’d maids, apprentic’d orphans blest,
The young who labour, and the old who rest.”
Pope, Moral Ep. iii. 267.
The Verb in the first line ought to be in the same Time with those in the last.
“Had their records been delivered down in the vulgar tongue,⸺they could not now be understood, unless by Antiquaries, who made it their study to expound them.” Swift, Letter, on the English Tongue. Here the latter part of the sentence depends intirely on the Supposition expressed in the former, “of their records being delivered down in the vulgar tongue:” therefore made in the Indicative Mode, which implies no supposition, and in the Past Indefinite Time, is improper: it would be much better in the Past Definite, had made; but indeed ought to be in the Subjunctive Mode, Present or Past Time, should make, or should have made.
[58] “By this means thou shalt have no portion on this side the river.” Ezra, iv. 16. “It renders us careless of approving ourselves to God by religious duties, and by that means securing the continuance of his goodness.” Atterbury, Sermons. Ought it not to be, by these means, by those means? or by this mean, by that mean, in the singular number? as it is used by Hooker, Sidney, Shakespear, &c. “I have not wept this forty years.” Dryden. “I am not recommending these kind of sufferings to your liking.” Bishop Sherlock, Disc. Vol. II. p. 267. So the Pronoun must agree with its Noun: in which respect let the following example be considered. “It is an unanswerable argument of a very refined age, the wonderful Civilities that have passed between the nation of authors and those of readers.” Swift, Tale of a Tub, Sect. x. As to these wonderful Civilities, one might say, that “they are an unanswerable argument, &c.” but as the Sentence stands at present it is not easy to reconcile it to any grammatical propriety. “A person whom all the world allows to be so much your betters.” Swift, Battle of Books. And the Phrase which occurs in the following examples, tho’ pretty common and authorised by Custom, yet seems to be somewhat defective in the same way:
“’Tis these that early taint the female soul.”
Pope.
“’Tis they that give the great Atrides’ spoils;
’Tis they that still renew Ulysses’ toils.”
Prior.
[59] “Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of his goodness to give you safe deliverance, and hath preserved you in the great danger of Childbirth:”⸺Liturgy. The Verb hath preserved hath here no Nominative Case; for it cannot be properly supplied by the preceding word God, which is in the Objective Case. It ought to be, “and He hath preserved you;” or rather, “and to preserve you.” Some of our best Writers have frequently fallen into this, which I take to be no small inaccuracy: I shall therefore add some more examples of it, by way of admonition; inferring in each within Crotchets, the Nominative Case that is deficient, and that must necessarily be supplied to support the proper Construction of the Sentence. “If the calm, in which he was born, and [which] lasted so long, had continued.” Clarendon, Life, p. 43. “The Remonstrance he had lately received from the House of Commons, and [which] was dispersed throughout the Kingdom.” Clarendon, Hist. Vol. I. p. 366. 8ᵛᵒ. “These we have extracted from an Historian of undoubted credit, a reverend bishop, the learned Paulus Jovius; and [they] are the same that were practised under the pontificate of Leo X.” Pope, Works, Vol. VI. p. 301. “A cloud gathering in the North; which we have helped to raise, and [which] may quickly break in a storm upon our heads.” Swift, Conduct of the Allies. “A man, whose inclinations led him to be corrupt, and [who] had great abilities to manage and multiply and defend his corruptions.” Gulliver, Part I. Chap. vi. “My Master likewise mentioned another quality, which his servants had discovered in many Yahoos, and [which] to him was wholly unaccountable.” Gulliver, Part IV. Chap. vii. “This I filled with the feathers of several birds I had taken with springes made of Yahoos hairs, and [which] were excellent food.” Ibid. Chap. x. “Osyris, whom the Grecians call Dionysius, and [who] is the same with Bacchus.” Swift, Mechan. Oper. of the Spirit, Sect. ii.
[60] “Which rule, if it had been observed, a neighbouring Prince would have wanted a great deal of that incense, which hath been offered up to him by his adorers.” Atterbury, Vol. I. Serm. 1. The Pronoun it is here the Nominative Case to the Verb observed; and which rule is left by itself, a Nominative Case without any Verb following it. This manner of expression, however improper, is very common. It ought to be, “If this rule had been observed, &c.”
[61] Adjectives are sometimes employed as Adverbs; improperly, and not agreeably to the Genius of the English Language. As, “extreme elaborate:” Dryden, Essay on Dram. Poet. “marvellous graceful:” Clarendon, Life, p. 18. “extreme unwilling;” “extreme subject:” Swift, Tale of a Tub, and Battle of Books. “I shall endeavour to live hereafter suitable to a man in my station.” Addison, Spect. Nᵒ 530. “Homer describes this river agreeable to the vulgar reading.” Pope, Note on Iliad, ii. v. 1032. So exceeding, for exceedingly, however improper, occurs frequently in the Vulgar Translation of the Bible, and has obtained in common discourse. “We should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world.” Tit. ii. 12.
“O Liberty, Thou Goddess heavenly bright.”
Addison.
On the other hand an Adverb is improperly used as an Adjective in the following passage: “We may cast in such seeds and principles, as we judge most likely to take soonest and deepest root.” Tillotson, Vol. I. Serm. 52.
[62] “How much soever the Reformation of this corrupt and degenerate Age is almost utterly to be despaired of, we may yet have a more comfortable prospect of future times.” Tillotson, Vol. I. Pref. to Serm. 49. The first part of this Sentence abounds with Adverbs, and those such as are hardly consistent with one another.
[63] “We are still much at a loss, who civil power belongs to.” Locke. It ought to be whom.
[64] Pope, Preface to his Poems.
[65] With in composition retains the signification, which it hath among others in the Saxon, of from and against: as to withhold, to withstand. So also for has a negative signification from the Saxon: as, to forbid, forbeodan; to forget, forgitan.
[66] Examples of impropriety in the use of the Preposition in Phrases of this kind: “Your character, which I, or any other writer, may now value ourselves by [upon] drawing.” Swift, Letter on the English Tongue. “You have bestowed your favours to [upon] the most deserving persons.” Ibid. “Upon such occasions as fell into [under] their cognisance,” Swift, Contests and Dissensions &c. Chap. 3. “That variety of factions into [in] which we are still engaged.” Ibid. Chap. 5. “The utmost extent of power pretended [to] by the Commons.” Ibid. Chap. 3.⸺“Accused the ministers for [of] betraying the Dutch.” Swift, Four last years of the Queen, Book ii. “Ovid, whom you accuse for [of] luxuriancy of verse.” Dryden, on Dram. Poesy. “Neither the one nor the other shall make me swerve out of [from] the path, which I have traced to myself.” Bolingbroke, Letter to Wyndham, p. 252. “They are now reconciled by a zeal for their cause to what they could not be prompted [to] by a concern for their beauty.” Addison, Spect. Nᵒ 81. “If policy can prevail upon [over] force.” Addison, Travels, p. 62. “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” Matt. xxiii. 24. διυλιζοντες, “which strain out, or take a gnat out of the liquor by straining it:” the impropriety of the Preposition has wholly destroyed the meaning of the Phrase. Observe also, that the Noun generally requires after it the same Preposition as the Verb from which it is formed: “It was perfectly in compliance to [with] some persons, for whose opinion I have great deference.” Swift, Pref. to Temple’s Memoirs. “Not from any personal hatred to them, but in justification to [of] the best of Queens.” Swift, Examiner, Nᵒ 23. In the last example, the Verb being Transitive and requiring the Objective Case, the Noun formed from it seems to require the Possessive Case, or its Preposition, after it. Or perhaps he meant to say, “in justice to the best of Queens.” “No discouragement for the authors to proceed.” Tale of a Tub, Preface. “A strict observance after times and fashions.” Ibid. Sect. ii. So the Noun Aversion, (that is, a turning away,) requires the Preposition from after it; and does not properly admit of to, for, or towards, which are often used with it.
[67] These are much disused in common discourse, and are retained only in the Solemn, or Formulary Style. “They [our Authors] have of late, ’tis true, reformed in some measure the gouty joints and darning-work of whereunto’s, whereby’s, thereof’s, therewith’s, and the rest of this kind; by which complicated periods are so curiously strung, or hook’d on, one to another, after the long-spun manner of the bar or pulpit.” Lord Shaftesbury, Miscel. V.
[68] Or in these and the like Phrases, may not me, thee, him, her, us, which in Saxon are the Dative Cases of their respective Pronouns, be considered as still continuing such in the English, and including in their very form the force of the Prepositions to and for? There are certainly some other Phrases, which are to be resolved in this manner: “Wo is me!” The Phrase is pure Saxon; “wa is me:” me is the Dative Case; in English, with the Preposition to me. So, “methinks;” Saxon, “me thincth,” εμοι δοκει. “O well is thee!” Psal. cxxviii. 2. “Wel is him that ther mai be.” Anglo-Saxon Poem in Hickes’s Thesaur. Vol. I. p. 231. “Well is him, that dwelleth with a wife of understanding.”⸺“Well is him, that hath found prudence.” Ecclus. xxv. 8, 9. The Translator thought to correct his phrase afterward, and so hath made it neither Saxon nor English: “Well is he, that is defended from it.” Ecclus. xxviii. 19. “Wo worth the day!” Ezek. xxx. 2. that is, Wo be to the day. The word worth is not the Adjective, but the Saxon Verb weorthan, or worthan, fieri, to be, to become; which is often used by Chaucer, and is still retained as an Auxiliary Verb in the German Language.
[69] That has been used in the same manner, as including the Relative which; but it is either improper, or obsolete: as, “To consider advisedly of that is moved.” Bacon, Essay xxii. “She appeared not to wish that without doubt she would have been very glad of.” Clarendon, Hist. Vol. II. p. 363. 8ᵛᵒ. “We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen.” John iii. 11.
[70] “Who, instead of going about doing good, they are perpetually intent upon doing mischief.” Tillotson, Vol. I. Serm. 18. The Nominative Case they in this sentence is superfluous; it was expressed before in the Relative who.
[71] “I am the Lord, that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone:”⸺Isaiah xliv. 24. Thus far is right: the Lord in the third Person is the Antecedent, and the Verb agrees with the Relative in the third Person: “I am the Lord, which Lord, or He that, maketh all things.” It would have been equally right, if I had been made the Antecedent, and the Relative and the Verb had agreed with it in the First Person: “I am the Lord, that make all things.” But when it follows, “that spreadeth abroad the heavens by myself;” there arises a confusion of Persons, and a manifest Solecism.
“Thou great first Cause, least understood!
Who all my sense confin’d
To know but this, that Thou art good,
And that myself am blind:
Yet gave me in this dark estate,” &c.
Pope, Universal Prayer.
It ought to be confinedst, or didst confine; gavest, or didst give; &c. in the second Person. See above, p. 48. Note.
“Abuse on all he lov’d, or lov’d him, spread.”
Pope, Epist. to Arbuthnot.
That is, “all whom he lov’d, or who lov’d him:” or to make it more easy by supplying a Relative that has no variation of Cases, “all that he lov’d, or that lov’d him.” The Construction is hazardous, and hardly justifiable, even in Poetry. “In the temper of mind he was then.” Addison, Spect. Nᵒ 549. “In the posture I lay.” Swift, Gulliver, Part 1. Chap. 1. In these and the like Phrases, which are very common, there is an Ellipsis both of the Relative and the Preposition; which were much better supplied: “In the temper of mind in which he was then:” “In the posture in which I lay.” In general, the omission of the Relative seems to be too much indulged in the familiar style; it is ungraceful in the serious; and of whatever kind the style be, it is apt to be attended with obscurity and ambiguity.
[73] The Connective parts of Sentences are of all others the most important, and require the most care and attention: for it is by these chiefly that the train of thought, the course of reasoning, and the whole progress of the mind in continued discourse of all kinds, is laid open; and on the right use of these the perspicuity, that is, the first and greatest beauty, of style principally depends. Relatives and Conjunctions are the instruments of Connection in discourse: it may be of use to point out some of the most common inaccuracies, that writers are apt to fall into with respect to them; and a few examples of faults may perhaps be more instructive, than any rules of propriety that can be given. Here therefore shall be added some further examples of inaccuracies in the use of Relatives.
The Relative placed before the Antecedent: Example; “The bodies, which we daily handle, make us perceive, that whilst they remain between them, they do by an insurmountable force hinder the approach of our hands that press them.” Locke, Essay, B. 2. C. 4. §. 1. Here the sense is suspended, and the sentence is unintelligible, till you get to the end of it: there is no Antecedent, to which the Relative them can be referred, but bodies; but, “whilst the bodies remain between the bodies,” makes no sense at all. When you get to hands, the difficulty is cleared up, the sense helping out the Construction: yet there still remains an ambiguity in the Relatives they, them, which in number and gender are equally applicable to bodies or hands; this, tho’ it may not here be the occasion of much obscurity, which is commonly the effect of it, yet is always disagreeable and inelegant: as in the following examples.
“Men look with an evil eye upon the good that is in others; and think, that their reputation obscures them; and that their commendable qualities do stand in their light: and therefore they do what they can to cast a cloud over them, that the bright shining of their virtues may not obscure them.” Tillotson, Vol. I. Serm. 42.
“The Earl of Falmouth and Mr. Coventry were rivals who should have most influence with the Duke, who loved the Earl best, but thought the other the wiser man, who supported Pen, who disobliged all the Courtiers, even against the Earl, who contemned Pen as a fellow of no sense.” Clarendon, Cont. p. 264.
But the following Sentence cannot possibly be understood without a careful recollection of circumstances through some pages preceding.
“All which, with the King’s and Queen’s so ample promises to him [the Treasurer] so few hours before the conferring the place on another, and the Duke of York’s manner of receiving him [the Treasurer,] after he [the Chancellor] had been shut up with him [the Duke,] as he [the Treasurer] was informed, might very well excuse him [the Treasurer] for thinking he [the Chancellor] had some share in the affront he [the Treasurer] had undergone.” Clarendon, Cont. p. 296.
“Breaking a Constitution by the very same errors, that so many have been broke before.” Swift, Contests and Dissensions, &c. Chap. 5. Here the Relative is employed not only to represent the Antecedent Noun the errors, but likewise the Preposition by prefixed to it. It ought to be, “the same errors, by which so many have been broken before.”
Again: “⸺An Undertaking; which, although it has failed, (partly &c, and partly &c,) is no objection at all to an Enterprize so well concerted, and with such fair probability of success.” Swift, Conduct of the Allies. That is, “Which Undertaking is no objection to an Enterprize so well concerted;” that is, “to itself:” he means, “the failing of which is no objection at all to it.”
[74] In the following instances the Conjunction that seems to be improperly accompanied with the Subjunctive Mode: “I cannot but bewail, that no famous modern have ever yet attempted⸺.” Swift, Tale of a Tub, Sect. v.
“So much she fears for William’s life,
That Mary’s fate she dare not mourn.”
Prior.
[75] “You are a much greater loser than me by his death.” Swift to Pope, Letter 63.
“And tho’ by heav’n’s severe decree
She suffers hourly more than me.”
Swift to Stella.
“We contributed a third more than the Dutch, who were obliged to the same proportion more than us.” Swift, Conduct of the Allies.
“King Charles, and more than him, the Duke, and the Popish Faction, were at liberty to form new schemes.” Lord Bolingbroke, Diss. on Parties, Letter 3.
“A Poem, which is good in itself, cannot lose any thing of its real value, though it should appear not to be the work of so eminent an author, as him, to whom it was first imputed.” Congreve, Pref. to Homer’s Hymn to Venus.
“If the King give us leave, you or I may as lawfully preach, as them that do.” Hobbes, Hist. of Civil Wars, p. 62.
“The sun upon the calmest sea
Appears not half so bright as Thee.”
Prior.
“Then finish dear Chloe this Pastoral war,
And let us like Horace and Lydia agree:
For thou art a Girl as much brighter than her,
As he was a Poet sublimer than me.”
Prior.
In these passages it ought to be, I, We, He, They, Thou, She, reflectively. Perhaps the following example may admit of a doubt, whether it be properly expressed or not:
“The Lover got a woman of greater fortune than her he had miss’d.” Addison, Guardian Nᵒ 9. Let us try it by the Rule given above; and see, whether some correction will not be necessary, when the parts of the Sentence, which are understood, come to be supplied: “The lover got a woman of a greater fortune, than She [was, whom] he had miss’d.”
“Nor hope to be myself less miserable
By what I seek, but others to make such
As I.”
Milton, P. L. ix. 126.
“The Syntax, says Dr. Bentley, requires, make such as me.” On the contrary, the Syntax necessarily requires, “make such as I:” for it is not, “I hope to make others such, as to make me:” the Pronoun is not governed by the Verb make, but is the Nominative Case to the Verb am understood: “to make others such as I am.”
[76] “But it is reason, the memory of their virtues remaine to their posterity.” Bacon, Essay xiv. In this, and many the like Phrases, the Conjunction were much better inserted: “that the memory, &c.”
[77] Never so⸺This Phrase, says Mr. Johnson, is justly accused of Solecism. It should be, ever so wisely; that is, how wisely soever.
[78] I have been the more particular in noting the proper uses of these Conjunctions, because they occur very frequently, and, as it was observed before of Connective words in general, are of great importance with respect to the clearness and beauty of style. I may add too, because mistakes in the use of them are very common; as it will appear by the following Examples.
Neither is sometimes supposed to be included in its correspondent nor:
“Simois, nor Xanthus shall be wanting there.”
Dryden.
⸺ “That all the application he could make, nor the King’s own interposition, could prevail with Her Majesty.” Clarendon, Hist. Vol. III. p. 179. Sometimes to be supplied by a subsequent Negative: “His rule holdeth still, that nature, nor the engagement of words, are not so forcible as custom.” Bacon, Essay xxxix. “The King nor the Queen were not at all deceived.” Clarendon, Hist. Vol. II. p. 363. These forms of expression seem both of them equally improper.
So ⸺, as, was used by the Writers of the last Century, to express a Consequence, instead of So ⸺, that: Examples; “The relations are so uncertain, as [that] they require a great deal of examination.” Bacon, Nat. Hist. “So as [that] it is a hard calumny to affirm, ⸺.” Temple. “This computation being so easy and trivial, as [that] it is a shame to mention it.” Swift, Conduct of the Allies. “That the Spaniards were so violently affected to the House of Austria, as [that] the whole kingdom would revolt.” Ibid. Swift, I believe, is the last of our good Writers, who has frequently used this manner of expression: it seems improper, and is deservedly grown obsolete.
As instead of that, in another manner: “If a man have that penetration of judgement, as [that] he can discern what things are to be laid open.” Bacon, Essay vi. “It is the nature of extreme self-lovers, as [that] they will set an house on fire, and it were but to roast their eggs.” Id. Essay xxiii. “They would have given him such satisfaction in other particulars, as [that] a full and happy peace must have ensued.” Clarendon, Vol. III. p. 214. “We should sufficiently weigh the objects of our hope; whether they be such, as [that] we may reasonably expect from them what they propose in their fruition; and whether they are such, as we are pretty sure of attaining.” Addison, Spect. Nᵒ 535. “France was then disposed to conclude a peace upon such conditions, as [that] it was not worth the life of a granadier to refuse them.” Swift, Four last years of the Queen, B. ii.
As instead of the Relative that, or which: “The Duke had not behaved with that loyalty, as [which] he ought to have done.” Clarendon, Hist. Vol. II. p. 460. “⸺ With those thoughts as [which] might contribute to their honour.” Ibid. p. 565. “In the order, as they lie in his Preface.” Middleton, Works Vol. III p. 8. It ought to be, either, “in order, as they lie;” or, “in the order, in which they lie.” “Securing to yourselves a succession of able and worthy men, as [which] may adorn this place.” Atterbury, Sermons, Vol. IV. 12.
The Relative that instead of as: “Such sharp replies, that [as] cost him his life in few months after.” Clarendon, Hist. Vol. III. p. 179.
The Relative who ⸺, instead of as: “There was no man so sanguine, who did not apprehend some ill consequence from the late change.” Swift, Examiner Nᵒ 24. It ought to be, either, “so sanguine, as not to apprehend, ⸺” or, “There was no man, how sanguine soever, who did not apprehend.”
As improperly omitted: “They are so bold [as] to pronounce ⸺.” Swift, Tale of a Tub, Sect. vii.
Too ⸺, that, improperly used as Correspondent Conjunctions: “Whose Characters are too profligate, that the managing of them should be of any consequence.” Swift, Examiner Nᵒ 24. And, too ⸺, than: “You that are a step higher than a Philosopher, a Divine; yet have too much grace and wit than to be a Bishop.” Pope to Swift, Letter 80. So ⸺, but: “If the appointing and apportioning of penalties to crimes be not so properly a consideration of justice, but rather [as] of prudence in the Lawgiver.” Tillotson, Vol. I. Serm. 35. And to conclude with an example, in which, whatever may be thought of the accuracy of the expression, the justness of the observation will be acknowledged; which may serve also as an apology for this and many of the preceding Notes: “No errors are so trivial, but they deserve to be mended.” Pope to Steele, Letter 6.
[79] “Ah me!” seems to be a phrase of the same nature with “Wo is me!”; for the resolution of which see above [p. 132. Note.]