This work begins with a treatise on the origin, growth and relations of the English language, which might well form the introductory chapter to any brief work on English literature. In a few words the story of our language is told from the 5th century when the Angles, Saxons and Jutes landed in England to the present time. The fact may also be noted that the author in his treatment of the alphabet, of nouns, and of pronouns, has departed slightly from the "old order of things," and avoided some errors made by other grammarians.
The remainder of the book abounds in many errors and contains very little worthy of commendation. The Parts of Speech are defined inductively, and this "Induction," which generally occupies pages of preparatory explanation, leaves the pupil in such a state of bewilderment that he does not recognize the proposition when it is reached. It is to be regretted that the verb should ever have received such treatment as it has here. The disposition of the Moods is almost shocking. The much-mooted "Potential" Mood with its 'may,' 'can,' 'must,' 'might,' 'could,' 'would,' or 'should,' is given special stress, while the Subjunctive is utterly rejected on the following grounds: (1) "There is no peculiar form for it; (2) there is no peculiar meaning for it, it being indicative or potential in meaning according as it has the indicative or potential form."
The first objection is frivolous from the fact that in modern English other parts of speech are open to the same criticism. The author himself tells us the word 'that' may be either a relative or a demonstrative pronoun; yet is not the form the same? The second objection is likewise groundless. [See article "Subjunctive Mood," p. 104, Archive.]
The absurdity of a Potential Mood is well shown by the following from Mason: "The so-called Potential Mood is the product of a series of blunders and misconceptions, and has been discarded by all the best authorities. 'I can write' or 'I must write' is not a mood at all in the sense in which 'I write,' 'I should write,' or 'Write [thou],' is a mood. If you take a subject (say 'John'), and a verb (say 'write'), when the Indicative, Subjunctive, or Imperative Mood is used, the act of writing predicated of John in some manner, affirmatively or negatively, as matter of fact, as matter of conception, or as matter of volition. But if we say 'John can write,' or 'John must write,' we predicate of John not writing, but the ability to write, or the obligation to write, which is a totally different affair. Nobody thinks of giving the name 'Potential Mood' to such combinations as 'Scribere possum,' 'Ich kann schreiben,' or 'Je puis écrire.' Its retention in English grammar is anomalous and absurd."
The Why of Methodism. By Daniel Dorchester, D. D., New York. Phillips and Hunt, pp., 182, 16m. 1887.
This work is the expansion of a line of thought set forth by Dr. Dorchester in a sermon preached at Chlemsford, Mass., in response to the Unitarian minister at that place, who challenged the doctrines of all other denominations. The author discusses the origin, character, influence and polity of the Methodist Church, then adds some practical lessons drawn from what precedes, and gives a table showing the numerical standing of the church up to within the last half decade. To the whole is added an ample index, thus making the book useful for reference. To those who desire to arrive at a concise concept of Methodism, we can confidently say read it and keep it for reference. The printer has also done his duty and the volume presents a very attractive appearance.
Read the interesting article on the life of Darwin, in the April number of the Atlantic Monthly.