Chapter I: Of Concord (2)

Priestley has remarked that the pronouns _whoever_ and _whosoever_
have sometimes a double construction. He gives the two following
examples. “Elizabeth publicly threatened that she would have
the head of whoever had advised it.”--_Hume._ “He offered a
great recompense to whomsoever would help him to a sight of
him.”--_Hume._ Though the learned author seems to admit both
these modes of construction, we apprehend that only one of them
is grammatical. It has been just now observed that the antecedent
is often understood to the relative _who_, and to the compounds
_whoever_ and _whosoever_. If the antecedent be supplied, it will
be found that the construction is not arbitrary, as Priestley
supposes, but definite and fixed. The first sentence is correct.
“She would have the head of him, or them, whoever had advised,”
the relative being the nominative to the verb. “He offered a
great recompense to him, or them, whosoever should help him.”
_Whomsoever_ is a solecism: though close to the preposition _to_,
it is not under its government. (_See the following rules._)

RULE X.--If no nominative intervene between the relative and the verb, the relative shall be the nominative to the verb, as, “Solomon, who was the son of David, built the temple of Jerusalem.” Here _who_ is the nominative to the verb _was_.

RULE XI.--But, if a nominative intervene between the relative and the verb, the relative shall be under the government of the preposition going before, or the noun or verb following, as, “God, whom we worship, is the Lord, by whose gift we live, and by whom all things were made.” In the first relative clause, where _we_ is the intervening nominative, the relative is in the objective case, and governed by the verb following: in the second clause, where the intervening nominative is likewise _we_, the relative is in the genitive case, and governed by the noun following, thus, “by whose gift,” or “by the gift of whom;” and in the third clause, where _things_ is the intervening nominative, the relative is in the objective case, and governed by the preposition.

_Note_ 1.--The case of the relative may always be ascertained
by repeating the antecedent, and arranging the clause in the
natural order, thus, “the city, which is called Rome, was founded
by Romulus,” _i.e._ “the city, which city is called Rome.” The
antecedent repeated is the nominative to the verb _is_, _which_
therefore agrees with it in case. “God, who sees all things, will
punish the wicked,” _i.e._ “God, which God sees all things;” the
relative, therefore, is the nominative to the verb _sees_, that
is, it is in the same case in which the antecedent would be put,
if again expressed. “Solomon, whom David loved, was the wisest of
princes.” Here, if we arrange the relative clause in the natural
order, beginning with the nominative and the verb, it will run
thus, “David loved whom,” an expression analogous to “David loved
him,” or “David loved which Solomon.” Many solecisms in the
construction of the relative would be easily avoided, by a little
attention to the natural arrangement. Thus, instead of committing
the error involved in the following examples, “The philosopher, who
he saw to be a man of profound knowledge,” “’Twas my brother, who
you met with,” “I was a stranger to the person, who I spoke to,”
we should be led by the natural order to the correct phraseology;
“he saw whom,” “you met with whom,” “I spoke to whom.” It is to be
observed, however, that, though the personal pronouns, when under
the government of a verb, may either precede or follow it, the
relative in the same state of government must invariably go before
it.

_Note_ 2.--The relatives _who_ and _which_ are often understood,
especially in colloquial language: “The friend I visited yesterday
is dead to-day,” _i.e._ “the friend whom I visited yesterday is
dead to-day.”

_Note_ 3.--After a comparative, both relative and antecedent are
often understood. “The damage was far greater than he knew.” Here
there is a comparison of two objects, the damage suffered, and
the damage known; but only one is expressed. The sentence, if
the ellipsis were supplied, would run thus, “The damage was far
greater, than what,” or “that, which he knew.”

_Note_ 4.--There are a few cases, which are considered by some
distinguished critics and grammarians, as requiring the use of
_that_ in preference to the pronouns _who_ and _which_.

1st. After superlatives the pronoun _that_ is generally used, as,
“The wisest man, that ever lived, is liable to error.”

2ndly. After the word _same_, _that_ is generally used, as, “he
is the same man, that you saw yesterday.” But, if a preposition
should precede the relative, one of the other two pronouns must be
employed, the pronoun _that_ not admitting a preposition prefixed
to it, as, “he is the same man, with whom you were acquainted.”
It is remarkable, however, that when the arrangement is somewhat
changed, the word _that_ admits the preposition, as, “he is the
same man, that you were acquainted with.”

3rdly. _That_ is used after _who_, taken interrogatively, as, “Who,
that has the spirit of a man, would suffer himself to be thus
degraded?”

4thly. When persons and things are referred to, as, “the _men_
and _things_, _that_ he hath studied, have not contributed to the
improvement of his morals.”

RULE XII.--An active transitive verb governs the accusative or objective case, as,

“He teaches me.”
“We honour him.”

_Note_ 1.--As examples of transgression against this
rule, we may adduce the following: “_Who_ do I love so
much?”--_Shakspeare._ “_Who_ should I meet the other day, but my
old friend?”--_Spectator._ “Those, _who_ he thought true to his
party.”--_Clarendon._

_Note_ 2. As substantives have no objective case, the subject
or object of the energy or affection is distinguished by its
place, which is after the verb, as “Achilles slew Hector,” where
_Achilles_, the agent, precedes, and _Hector_, the subject of the
action, follows the verb. Reverse this order, and the meaning is
reversed, as “Hector slew Achilles.” Where the proper arrangement
is not observed, ambiguity or misconstruction is frequently
produced. Thus, when Pope says, Odyss. xix.

“And thus the son the fervent sire address’d,”

it may be asked, did the son address the sire, or the sire address
the son? A little attention would have prevented the ambiguity. If
the sire addressed the son, the line should run thus,

“And thus his son the fervent sire address’d.”

If the son addressed the sire,

“And thus the son his fervent sire address’d.”

_Note_ 3.--An active intransitive verb sometimes governs the
objective case of a noun, of the same or a kindred signification,
as, “Let us run the race, which is set before us.” “If any man
see his brother sin a sin, which is not unto death.”--_Bible._
The latter verb, however, though thus used, must not be employed
in a transitive sense. It is an error, therefore, to say, “What
have I sinned?”--_Bible._ It should be, “How?” or “In what?” Some
intransitive verbs also, when used in a reflex sense, are joined
to an objective case, as, “Then having shown his wounds, he’d sit
him down.”--_Home’s Douglas._ This is a poetic licence, which, in a
prose writer, would not be tolerated, unless in colloquial and very
familiar language.

_Note_ 4.--The objective case should not, if possible, be separated
from its verb. This rule is violated in the following sentence:
“Becket could not better discover, than by attacking so powerful an
interest, his resolution to maintain,” &c.--_Hume._ The regimen is
here unnecessarily, and very inelegantly, separated from its verb.

RULE XIII.--Verbs signifying to ask, teach, offer, promise, pay, tell, allow, deny, and some others of like signification, are sometimes, especially in colloquial language, followed in the passive voice by an objective case.

_Note_ 1.--This rule seems to have escaped the attention of all our
English grammarians, except Priestley, who observes, “that in some
familiar phrases, the subject and object of our affirmation seem
to be transposed.” This idiom, except in a very few instances, is
not to be found in Latin, though it occurs pretty often in Greek:
it therefore particularly merits the attention of the junior Latin
scholar, lest in his Anglo-Latin translations it should betray him
into an egregious solecism. “He allowed me great liberty,” turned
passively, in concurrence with the Latin idiom, “great liberty
was allowed me.” But we say also in English, “I was allowed great
liberty.” “He promised (to) me a ship in five days,” passively, “a
ship was promised me,” and “I was promised _her_ in five days.”
“She would not accept the jewels, though they were offered to her
by her mother,” or, “though she was offered _them_ by her mother.”

_Note_ 2.--After verbs of _giving_, _telling_, _sending_,
_promising_, _offering_, and others of like signification, the
thing is very generally placed before the person. In the time of
Swift and Addison this rule was not uniformly observed. We find
authors of that period saying indiscriminately, “Give it us,”
and “Give us it;” “Tell him it,” and “Tell it him;” “He promised
me it,” and “He promised it me.” In Scotland these two modes of
expression still obtain. In England they are now reduced under one
general rule. We say, “Give it me,” “Tell it him,” “He sent it us.”

RULE XIV.--The verb _to be_ has the same case after it as it has before it, thus denoting that the subjects are identical, or that the one term is the predicate of the other, as, “It is he,” “You believed it to be him.” In the former example, _it_ is the nominative to the verb, the nominative case _he_ therefore follows the verb. In the latter, _it_ is the regimen of the verb _believed_, the verb _to be_ is therefore followed by the objective case.

_Note_ 1.--This rule is violated in such examples as “it is _me_,”
“it was _him_,” “I believed it to be _he_,” “_whom_ do men say that
I am?” In the last example, the natural arrangement is, “men say
that I am whom,” where, contrary to the rule, the nominative _I_
precedes, and the objective case _whom_ follows the verb.

_Note_ 2.--Priestley has asked, “Who would not say, ‘If it be me,’
rather than ‘If it be I?’” Our ears are certainly more familiar
with the former than with the latter phraseology, and those who
consult the ear only, may prefer it: but, where no advantage is
gained by a departure from analogy, every deviation is at once idle
and reprehensible.

_Note_ 3.--The verb _to be_ is called by logicians the _copula_, as
connecting the subject with the predicate. Thus, when we say, “he
is wise,” “they are learned,” _he_ and _they_ are the subjects;
_wise_ and _learned_ the predicates. Now, it particularly deserves
the attention of the classical scholar, that in English almost
any verb may be used as a _copula_. This circumstance is the more
worthy of his notice, as a conformity to the Latin idiom may lead
him to reject expressions, which are unexceptionable, and to adopt
others not strictly correct[125]. Thus we say, “it tastes good,”
“he strikes hard,” “I remember right,” “he feels sick;” “we came
late,” “they rise early,” “he drinks deep.” I am aware that the
words _late_, _early_, are in such examples considered as adverbs.
It appears to me they are adjectives,--that the idiom is truly
English, and that all these expressions are perfectly analogous.

RULE XV.--When two verbs come together, the attribute signified by the one verb being the subject or object of the action, energy, or affection expressed by the other, the former is governed in the infinitive mood, as, “he taught me to read,” “I knew him to be.”

_Note_ 1.--The infinitive thus frequently supplies the place of an
objective case after the verb, as it often stands for a nominative
before it, as, “he loves to study,” or “he loves study.”

_Note_ 2.--In such examples as, “I read to learn,” where the latter
phrase, though in the same form as _to study_, in the preceding
example, has, notwithstanding, a different meaning, and cannot be
resolved like it into “I read learning,” in such examples, as Tooke
justly observes, the preposition _for_ denoting the object, and
equivalent to _pour_ in French, is understood, as, “I read for to
learn.” Our southern neighbours indeed, in these examples, never
omit the casual term; and Trusler has not improperly observed,
that, when the verb does not express the certain and immediate
effect, but something remote and contingent, the words _in order
to_, which are nearly equivalent to _for_, may be pertinently
introduced as, “in order to acquire fame, men encounter the
greatest dangers.”

_Note_ 3.--The verbs to _bid_, _dare_, _need_, _make_, _see_,
_hear_, _feel_, _let_, are not followed by the sign of the
infinitive, as, “He bade me go,” “I saw him do it.” It is to be
observed, however, that in the language of Scripture the verb
“to make” is often followed by _to_, as, “He maketh his sun _to_
rise.” The verb “to dare,” for “to challenge,” or “to defy,” is
also construed with _to_, “I dare thee but _to_ breathe upon my
love.”--_Shakspeare._

_Note_ 4.--Nouns, adjectives, and participles, are often followed
by an infinitive, as, “your _desire to improve_ will ultimately
contribute to your happiness.” “Good men are _desirous to do_ good.”

_Note_ 5.--As the proper tense of the subsequent or secondary
verb has, in certain cases, been a subject of dispute, it may be
necessary to observe, that, when the simple attribute, or merely
the primary idea expressed by the subsequent verb, is intended
to be signified, it should then be put in the present tense: but
when the idea of perfection or completion is combined with the
primary idea, the subsequent verb should have that form, which
is termed the perfect of the infinitive. Or, perhaps, this rule
may, more intelligibly to the scholar, though less correctly, be
thus expressed, that when the action or state, denoted by the
subsequent verb, is contemporary with that of the primary verb,
then the secondary verb must be put in the present tense; but when
the action or state is prior to that expressed by the secondary
verb, the latter must be put in the preterite tense. Usage, indeed,
and the opinions of grammarians, are divided on this subject. But
when nothing but usage can be pleaded in favour of one phraseology,
and when reason concurs with usage to recommend another, it will
not be questioned that the latter deserves the preference. Thus,
we should say, “I expected to see you,” and not “I expected to
have seen you;” because either the expectation and the seeing must
be regarded as contemporary, or the former must be considered as
prior to the latter. But why, it may be asked, must the seeing
be considered as contemporary with the expectation? Might not
the former have been anterior to the latter? This is certainly
possible; I may see a friend before I expect him. But though the
sight, abstractedly considered, may precede the expectation, it
cannot possibly, as an object of expectation, be prior to it. The
idea involves absurdity, equal and analogous to the assertion, that
the paper, on which I write, existed as an object of my perception,
previously to my perceiving it. Agreeably to the second form of
the rule here given, we find that the Latins very generally used
the present of the infinitive, to express an action or state
contemporary with the attribute of the primary verb. Thus, _dixit
me scribere_, “he said that I wrote,” or “was writing,” that is, at
the time of his saying so: _dixit me scripsisse_, “he said that I
had written.”

I have observed, that, when the simple attribute denoted by the
subsequent verb is implied, we should use the present of the
infinitive. This phraseology should not only be used in all cases,
where contemporary actions or states are to be signified, but
may also be sometimes employed, where the secondary verb denotes
something posterior to what is implied by the first. For though in
no instance, where the simple action or state is to be expressed,
should we use the sign of past or future time, yet for obvious
reasons we may, and often do, employ the present infinitive,
or simple name, to denote what is future, when the primary verb
necessarily implies the futurity of its object. Thus, instead of
saying, “he promised that he would pay,” where the constructive
sign of futurity is used to denote the posteriority of the payment,
we often say, “he promised to pay,” employing the present tense,
synonymous with the simple name, as, “he promised payment.” The
Latins also, though they almost universally, unless in colloquial
language, preferred the former mode of expression, sometimes
adopted the latter, as, _denegavit se dare_.--_Plaut._ _Jusjurandum
pollicitus est dare._--_Id._ “He refused to give,” “he promised to
give,” or “he promised giving,” the secondary verb expressing the
act simply, and the time being necessarily implied.

_Note_ 6.--The infinitive mood is sometimes used in an absolute
or independent sense, as, “to speak the truth, we are all liable
to error.” “Not to trespass on your time, I will briefly explain
the whole affair,” that is, “that I may speak,” “that I may not
trespass.”

RULE XVI.--The imperative, agreeably to the general rule, agrees with its nominative, as,

“Love thou;” “listen ye,” or “you.”

_Note_ 1.--The imperative is frequently used, without its subject,
that is, the nominative being suppressed, but the person or persons
being perfectly understood. “And Samuel said to the people, Fear
not,” _i.e._ “Fear ye not.”

_Note_ 2.--It is employed in the same way, in an absolute sense,
without its subject. “Our ideas are movements of the nerves of
sense, as of the optic nerve, in recollecting visible ideas,
_suppose_ of a triangular piece of ivory.”--_Darwin._ I agree with
Webster in thinking, that there is “a peculiar felicity” in such
absolute forms of expression, the verb being thus applicable to any
of the three persons, thus, “I may suppose,” “you may suppose,”
“one may suppose.”

RULE XVII.--Participles are construed as the verbs to which they belong, as,

“_Teaching us_ to deny ungodliness.”

_Note_ 1.--The imperfect participle is frequently used like a
substantive, and is, in such examples, of the same import with the
infinitive of the verb; as, “they love reading,” _i.e._ “they love
to read.” In some examples it becomes a real noun, and has a plural
number, as, _the outgoings of the morning_.

_Note_ 2.--Lowth contends that, when the imperfect participle
of a transitive verb is not preceded by the definite article,
it properly governs the objective case, and is analogous to the
Latin gerund, as, “much advantage will be derived from observing
this rule;” in which example, _this rule_ is the regimen of the
participle _observing_; and that, when the definite article
precedes the participle, it becomes then a pure noun, and,
therefore, cannot have the regimen of a verb. He therefore condemns
this expression, “by the sending them the light of thy holy
Spirit.” Some of our grammarians consider Lowth, in this instance,
as fastidiously critical; but to me he appears chargeable with
error. Let us examine the reasons, which the author adduces in
support of his opinion.

In this inquiry, the first and most pertinent question is, does
usage justify the opinion of the author? He acknowledges the
contrary: he even admits that there is not a single writer who
does not violate this rule. Were it necessary, indeed, after
this concession, it would be easy to evince, that not only our
translators of the Bible, whose authority surely is of great
weight, but also other writers of the highest eminence, employ the
phraseology which he condemns.

Again. Does the distinction, which he wishes to establish, favour
perspicuity? The very reverse appears to me to be the case; for he
admits an identity of sense in two distinct phraseologies, which
are incontestably, in many instances, susceptible of different
meanings. And, though this ambiguity may not be involved in every
example, we have surely good reasons for repudiating a phraseology
which may, in any instance, be liable to misconstruction. We are to
prescribe, not what may be perspicuous in some instances, but what
must be intelligible in all.

Lowth says, that we may express the sentiment, either by inserting
the article before the participle and the preposition after it, or
by the omission of both; in other words, that these phraseologies
are equivalent. Thus, according to him, we may say either, “_by
sending_ his Son into the world,” or “by the sending _of_ his Son.”
Here, perhaps, the meaning is sufficiently clear, whichsoever of
these forms of expression be adopted. But let us take another
example, as, “he expressed the pleasure he had, in hearing the
philosopher.” Now, according to Lowth, we may also say, “he
expressed the pleasure he had, in the hearing of the philosopher.”
Is there no difference of sentiment here? Are these expressions
equivalent? The contrary must be obvious to the most inattentive
reader. According to the former phraseology, the philosopher was
heard--he is represented as passive; agreeably to the latter, he
was active--he heard.

Again. “When the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, because of the
provoking of his sons and daughters.” Our translators have
correctly exhibited the sentiment. The sons and daughters had given
offence; they had provoked the Deity. But, if Lowth’s opinion be
correct, the expression might be “because of provoking his sons and
daughters;” a phrase which evidently conveys a very different idea.

Again. When it is said, “at the hearing of the ear, they will
believe,” is this expression convertible, without violating the
sense, into, “at hearing the ear they will believe?” Many more
examples might be produced to prove that these phraseologies, which
Lowth considers of the same import, are by no means equivalent. It
appears, then, that perspicuity is not consulted by adopting this
rule.

Again. He considers the participle, with a preposition before it,
as correspondent to the Latin gerund, and therefore governing
an objective case; but the participle preceded by an article,
he considers as a substantive, and therefore incapable of any
regimen. Now, as the author reasons from one language to another,
we may pertinently ask, is not the Latin gerund a noun, a verbal
substantive, not only having the form, and the inflexions of a
noun, but governed like it, by nouns, adjectives, verbs, and
prepositions, itself likewise governing the case of its verb? This
position, were this the place for it, we could easily prove,
notwithstanding the objections which Scioppius, Vossius, with some
other grammarians, have alleged against it. Nay, whatever theory
be adopted respecting the nature of the gerund, there cannot exist
a doubt, that, in the early ages of Roman literature, the verbal
nouns in _io_ governed an accusative, like the verbs whence they
were derived. _Quid tibi curatio est hanc rem_, is one example from
Plautus out of many, which might be produced[126]. That the supines
also were, in truth, substantives admitting a regimen, is equally
clear: _Difficile dictu_ was originally _difficile in dictu_; and
_misit oratum opem_, _misit ad oratum opem_. Nor can the structure
of the future infinitive passive be so satisfactorily resolved,
notwithstanding a few repugnant examples, as on this supposition:
_Dixit libros lectum iri_ is resolved into _dixit (id) iri ad
lectum libros_, where _libros_ is the regimen of the verbal noun
_lectum_.

Thus it is evident, that the Latin gerunds, supines, and verbal
nouns in _io_, though in form and inflexion substantives, governed
an accusative case. It matters not, indeed, to the point in
question, what was the practice of the ancients in this respect;
nor should I, therefore, have dwelt so long on this subject, did I
not conceive, that the very authority to which Dr. Lowth seems to
appeal, militates against him; and that the very language, to which
in this, as in most other cases, he strives to assimilate ours, had
nouns governing cases, like the verbs from which they came.

From the preceding observations, I think it must appear, that the
rule given by Dr. Lowth, is neither sanctioned by general usage,
nor friendly to perspicuity; while the violation of it is perfectly
reconcilable with the practice of the Roman writers, if their
authority can, in this question, be deemed of any value.

Having attempted to prove the invalidity of Lowth’s argument,
and the impropriety of his rule, as establishing an identity of
meaning, where a difference must exist, I would submit to the
candid and judicious critic the following remarks.

The participle in _ing_ has either an active or passive
signification; its import must, therefore, be determined by the
judgment of the reader, or by explanatory adjections. Whatever,
then, is calculated to remove all misconstruction, and to render
its import clear and unequivocal, merits attention. Consistently,
then, with some of the examples already adduced, I am inclined to
suggest, that, when the noun, connected with the participle, is
active or doing something, the preposition should be inserted, as,
“in the hearing of the philosopher,” that is, _the philosopher
hearing_; and that, when the noun represents the subject of an
action, or what is suffering, the preposition should be omitted,
as, “in hearing the philosopher,” or _the philosopher being heard_.
An attention to this rule will, I conceive, in most cases prevent
ambiguity.

If it should be said that I have admitted Lowth’s phraseologies,
I answer, it is true; but with this difference, that he considers
them as equivalent, and I as diametrically opposite. I observe,
likewise, that, though I prefer the suppression of the article when
the participle is not followed by _of_, and its insertion when
it is followed by the preposition, it is not because I perceive
any impropriety in the other phraseology, but because, since the
publication of Lowth’s Grammar, it has been less employed; and
because also it less forcibly marks the distinction, which I
have recommended. That it has the sanction of good authority, is
unquestionable; and that it is not inconsistent with analogy, will
still further appear from the following note.

_Note_ 3.--The participle in _ing_ is construed like a noun,
governing the genitive case, and, at the same time, having the
regimen of its proper verb, as, “Much depends on Richard’s
observing the rule, and error will be the consequence of his
neglecting it.” In this example, the words _Richard’s_ and _his_
are in the genitive case, governed by the participles _observing_
and _neglecting_, while these participles, having here every
character of a noun, admit the objective case. This form of
expression has been received as unexceptionable; the following
phraseology, however, has been censured, though, in truth,
precisely analogous to the one now exemplified: “Much depends on
the rule’s being observed, and error will be the consequence of
its being neglected.” “Here,” said a certain writer, “is a noun
with a pronoun representing it, each in the possessive case, that
is, under the government of another noun, but without any other
noun to govern it; for _being observed_ and _being neglected_ are
not nouns, nor can you supply the place of the possessive case by
the preposition _of_, before the noun or pronoun.”

I concur with Dr. Campbell, who has examined this objection, in
thinking, that the expression is not only sanctioned by good usage,
but is also agreeable to analogy, and preventive of circumlocution.
The objector, indeed, does not seem to have been aware, that his
opinion is at variance with itself; and that the reason, which he
assigns for rejecting this phraseology, would, with equal force,
conclude against another mode of expression, which he himself
approves. For he would have no objection to say, “Much depends on
his observing the rule, and error will be the consequence of his
neglecting it.” Now let us try whether this sentence be not liable
to the same objection as the other. In the former, he says, you
cannot possibly supply the place of the possessive case, by the
preposition _of_ before the noun or pronoun. This is true; for it
would not be English to say, “Much depends on the being observed of
the rule; and error will be the consequence of the being neglected
of it.” But will his own approved phraseology admit this? Let us
see; “Much depends on the observing of him of the rule, and error
will be the consequence of the neglecting of him of it.” Were
the example simpler, the argument would be equally strong; as,
“Much depends on your pupil’s composing, but more on his reading
frequently.” This sentence, the author alluded to, would have
approved. Let us try if it can be resolved by _of_: “Much depends
on the composing of your pupil, but more on the reading of him
frequently.”

The author’s argument, then, if it prove anything, proves too much;
it cannot, therefore, have any weight.

In addition to these observations, I would remark, that the
writer’s argument involves another inconsistency. He admits that
the participle in _ing_ may be thus construed; for he approves
the phrases, “his observing the rule,” and “his neglecting it.”
Why then does he reject “his being” and “its being?” for the past
or perfect participles _observed_ and _neglected_ have no share
in the government, _rule’s_ and _it’s_ being under the regimen of
the participle in _ing_. In fact, then, the phrase seems no more
objectionable than “his being a great man did not make him a happy
man;” which our author would admit to be wholly unexceptionable.

Some late writers, reasoning doubtless on a principle similar to
that, the absurdity of which we have been attempting to expose,
have discarded a phraseology which appears unobjectionable, and
substituted one which seems less correct. Many writers, instead
of saying, “his being smitten with the love of Orestilla was the
cause of his murdering his son,” would say, “he being smitten with
the love of Orestilla was the cause.” This seems to me an idle
affectation of the Latin idiom, less precise than the common mode
of expression, and less consonant with the genius of our language.
For, ask what was the cause; and, according to this phraseology,
the answer must be _he_; whereas the meaning is, that not _he_, but
_his being smitten_, was the cause of his murder.

“This jealousy accounts for Hall charging the Duke of Gloucester
with the murder of Prince Edward.” “This,” says Mr. Baker, very
justly, “is, in my opinion, a very uncouth way of speaking, though
much used by ignorant people, and often affected by those who are
not ignorant.” The writer should have said, “for Hall’s charging.”
“His words being applicable to the common mistake of our age
induce me to transcribe them.” Here I agree with the same writer
in thinking, that it would be better to consider _words_ as in
the genitive case plural, governed by the participle, as _Hall’s_
in the preceding example, and join _his words’ being applicable_,
equivalent to _the applicability of his words_, with the verb
singular; thus, “his words’ being applicable to the common mistake
of our age, induces me to transcribe them.” A ridiculous partiality
in favour of the Latin idiom, which in this case is not so correct
as our own, not exhibiting the sentiment with equal precision, has
given birth to this phraseology, which in many cases conveys not
the intended idea. For, as Priestley remarks, if it is said, “What
think you of my horse’s running to-day?” it is implied, that the
horse did actually run. If it is said, “What think you of my horse
running to-day?” it is intended to ask, whether it be proper for my
horse to run to-day. This distinction, though frequently neglected,
deserves attention; for it is obvious, that ambiguity may arise
from using the latter only of these phraseologies, to express both
meanings.

_Note_ 4.--This participle is sometimes used absolutely, in the
same manner as the infinitive mood, as, “this conduct, _viewing
it in the most favourable light_, reflects discredit on his
character.” Here the participle is made absolute, and is equivalent
to the infinitive in that state, as, “to view it in the most
favourable light.” Both these modes of expression are resolvable,
either by the hypothetical, or the perfective conjunctions; thus,
“if we view it in the most favourable light.” “To confess the
truth, I have no merit in the case;” _i.e._ “that I may confess.”

RULE XVIII.--A noun or pronoun joined to a participle, its case being dependent on no word in the sentence, is put in the nominative.

_Note_ 1.--This rule will be perfectly understood by the classical
scholar, when we say, that the absolute case in English is the
nominative. Thus, “We being exceedingly tossed the next day, they
lightened the ship.” The pronoun of the first person, joined to the
participle, _being_, is neither the nominative to any verb, nor is
it connected with any word, of which it can be the regimen. It is
therefore put in the nominative case.

_Note_ 2.--This rule is violated in such examples as the following,
“Solomon made as wise proverbs as anybody has done, _him_ only
excepted, who was a much wiser man than Solomon.”--_Tillotson._

“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,”--_Milton._

This seems to be the only example in which the poet has
transgressed this rule; and in several instances, in which he has
observed it, Bentley would erroneously substitute the objective
case.

RULE XIX.--Prepositions are joined with the objective case, or govern nouns and pronouns in the accusative, as, “he ran to me,” “he was loved by us.”

_Note_ 1.--This rule is violated in such expressions as these, “Who
servest thou under?” “Who do you speak to?” for the syntactical
arrangement is, “thou servest under who?” “thou speakest to who?”
instead of “under whom?” “to whom?”

_Note_ 2.--The preposition is frequently separated from its
regimen, as, “Horace is an author, whom I am much delighted with,”
_i.e._ “with whom I am much delighted.”

_Note_ 3.--The prepositions _to_ and _for_ are often understood,
as, “he gave me a book,” “he told me the news:” _i.e._ “he gave to
me,” “he told to me.”

Lowth has, indeed, observed, that in such examples, the pronouns,
_me_, _thee_, &c., may be considered to be in the dative case,
as, in truth, they are in Saxon the datives of their respective
pronouns, and in their form include _to_, as, “woe is to me.” This
phrase, he observes, is pure Saxon, the same as, “wae is me,” in
which _me_ is a dative case.

The preposition _by_ is also, in a few colloquial expressions,
omitted, as, “he went across the bridge,” “he crossed the bridge,”
for “he crossed (the river) by the bridge.”

_Note_ 4.--A preposition, following a verb, constituting with
it what has been termed a compound active verb, is sometimes
suppressed. We say, “he hoped for a reward,” “you wondered at
his courage.” Addison, Steele, and Johnson, with several other
reputable writers, say, “It is to be hoped,” instead of “to
be hoped for;” and Johnson very generally says, “It is not to
be wondered,” for “not to be wondered at.” The latter form of
expression seems to have been adopted, in order to avoid the abrupt
and inelegant conclusion of the clause, especially when followed by
the word _that_.

_Note_ 5.--The prepositions _in_, _on_, _for_, and _from_, are
often understood before nouns of time and place; thus, “this day,”
“next month,” “last year,” are often used elliptically for “on
this day,” “in next month,” “in last year.” We say, also, “He was
banished England,” _i.e._ “_from_ England.”

Care, however, should be taken that the omission create no
ambiguity. If we say, “He was deaf some years before he died,”
referring to a temporary deafness, and a point of time at which it
occurred, the expression is not improper, though the meaning might
be more clearly expressed; but if we intend to signify a continued
deafness, we ought to say, “for” or “during some years.”

_Note_ 6.--The preposition is improperly omitted in the following
line of Pope’s:

“And virgins smiled at what they blush’d before.”

It should be, according to the rules of syntax, “smiled at what
they blushed at before,” both verbs requiring _at_ after them,
thus, “they smiled at that, at which they blushed before.”

_Note_ 7.--Prepositions should be placed as near as possible to
each of the words, whose relation they express. The following
sentence from Hume is, in this respect, faulty: “The ignorance
of the age in mechanical arts, rendered the progress very slow
of this new invention.” It should be, “the progress of this new
invention.” The following sentence from Johnson, is, for the same
reason, chargeable with faulty arrangement: “The country first
dawned, that illuminated the world, and beyond which the arts
cannot be traced of civil society or domestic life.”--_Rasselas._
It should be, “the arts of civil society or domestic life cannot be
traced.” Priestley has censured the following clause from Harris,
“being in no sense capable of either intention or remission.” If
it be considered, however, that the word _either_ properly means
“the one or the other,” and in truth denotes the subject, being,
therefore, in strict propriety, the regimen of the preposition, the
arrangement of Harris, though now not so common as the other, will
not appear exceptionable. Nay, whatever may be the future decision
of usage, that great arbitress of all language, (for at present she
is divided,) Harris’s arrangement seems more conformable to the
strict meaning of the words, as well as to Priestley’s own rule,
than that, which the latter recommends; thus, “capable of either
(_i.e._ of the one or of the other), intension, or remission.”

RULE XX.--Adverbs have no government.

_Note_ 1.--They are sometimes improperly used for adjectives, as,
“After those wars of which they hoped for a soon and prosperous
issue.”--_Sidney._ “A soon issue” is not English; an adverb
cannot agree with a substantive; it should be “a speedy and
prosperous issue.” Such expressions likewise as the following,
though not destitute of authority, are exceedingly inelegant, and
irreconcilable with analogy: “the then ministry,” for “the ministry
of that time;” “the above discourse,” for “the preceding discourse.”

_Note_ 2.--They are sometimes used like substantives, as, “a little
while,” for “in a little time,” or “for a little time.” “Worth
while,” “some how,” “any how,” “any where,” are examples of the
same kind.

_Note_ 3.--The adverbs _whence_, _thence_, _hence_, are equivalent
to, “from which place,” “from that place,” “from this place;” _from
whence_, _from thence_, _from hence_, are therefore chargeable with
redundancy.

_Note_ 4.--_Never_ is sometimes erroneously used for _ever_, as,
“they might be extirpated, were they never so many.” It should be,
“ever so many,” _i.e._ “how many soever.” “Who will not hearken to
the voice of the charmer, charm he _never_ so sweetly.” It should
be, “_ever_ so sweetly;” _i.e._ “however sweetly,” or “how sweetly
soever.”

_Note_ 5.--_Ever_ is likewise sometimes improperly used for
_never_, as, “I seldom or ever see him now.” It should be, “seldom
or _never_,” the speaker intending to say, “that rarely, or rather
at no time, does he see him now;” not “rarely,” or “at any time.”

_Note_ 6.--Priestley remarks, that the French always place their
adverbs immediately after their verbs, which order, he observes,
by no means suits the English idiom. “His government gave courage
to the English barons to carry farther their opposition.”--_Hume._
It would be better, “to carry their opposition farther.” “Edward
obtained a dispensation from his oath, which the barons had
compelled Gaveston to take, that he would abjure for ever the
realm;” better “the realm for ever.”

_Note_ 7.--The adverb is generally placed between the auxiliary
verb and the participle, as, “this is perfectly understood.” When
there are more auxiliaries than one, the same author observes, that
the adverb should be placed after the first. This rule, however,
is by no means universally followed; for many of our best writers
employ a different arrangement, and, I think, with great propriety;
as, “this will be perfectly understood,” where the adverb follows
both auxiliaries. The place of the adverb may, in general, be
ascertained, by considering what word it is intended to qualify:
and, in the last example, it should be closely connected with
_understood_. But more on this subject in the following note.

_Note_ 8.--The adverb, as its name imports, is generally placed
close to the word, which it modifies or affects: its force,
therefore, very much depends upon its position. Inattention to
the proper collocation of adverbs is frequently the cause of much
obscurity and misconception. To this inattention we may ascribe
the ambiguity in the following sentence: “He was not honoured
with this reward, but with the approbation of the people.” This
sentence may imply, either that he was honoured with this reward,
not without the approbation of the people; or that he was not
honoured with this reward, but was honoured with the approbation
of the people. The latter is the meaning intended. It should
therefore be, “he was honoured, not with this reward, but with the
approbation of the people.” By this arrangement the sentiment is
correctly exhibited--the two subjects, reward and approbation, are
perspicuously contrasted, and while the former is negatived, the
latter is affirmed[127].

_Note_ 9.--Lowth observes that “the adverb should be for the
most part placed before adjectives, and after verbs;” thus, “he
was excessively modest,” “he fought bravely.” This is, indeed,
the general arrangement; but it admits many exceptions. In no
case are writers so apt to err as in the position of the word
_only_. Its place, in my opinion, is after the substantive to
which it refers, or which it exclusively implies, and before the
attributive. In the following sentence of Steele’s, the collocation
is faulty: “The bridegroom sits with an aspect which intimates
his thoughts were not only entertained with the joys with which
he was surrounded, but also with a noble gratitude, and divine
pleasure.” This collocation of the two adverbs implies that his
thoughts were something more than entertained: whereas it is the
author’s intention to say, that his thoughts were entertained with
something more than joys. The sentence, therefore, should proceed
thus: “The bridegroom sits with an aspect, which intimates, that
his thoughts were entertained not with the joys only, with which
he was surrounded, but also with a noble gratitude and divine
pleasure.”[128]

When Addison says (_Spec._ No. 412), “By greatness I do not only
mean the bulk of any single object, but the largeness of a whole
view,” the question naturally occurs, what does he more than mean?
It is evident that, agreeably to this arrangement, the adverb
refers to _mean_, exclusively of all other attributes or actions,
and being prefaced by a negative, implies “that he does something
more than mean.” In this criticism I concur with Blair, who has
expressed his disapprobation of this arrangement.

Had he, as the same author observes, placed the adverb after
_bulk_, it would have still been wrong. For if he had said, “I
do not mean the bulk only,” then the adverb, following a noun
substantive, must refer to it exclusively of every other, and the
clause being negative, the question would be, what does he mean
more than the bulk? Is it the colour, the beauty, or what else?

Now, as Mr. Addison intended to say that he did not mean one
thing, the word _only_ should have followed the name of that
thing, whether its designation was simple or complex. He should,
therefore, have said, “the bulk of any single object only, but the
largeness of a whole view.” According to this arrangement, the word
_only_ refers, as it ought, to “the bulk of any single object” as
one idea; and the question occurs, what does he mean more than
the bulk of any single object? to which the answer follows, “the
largeness of a whole view.” It may, however, at the same time be
observed that, consistently with the practice of some of our best
writers, who place the adverb before its subject, there seems no
impropriety here in saying, “I do not mean only,” _i.e._ “one
thing,” “the bulk of a single object, but the largeness of a whole
view.”

“The perfidious voice of flattery reminded him,” says Gibbon, “that
by exploits of the same nature, by the defeat of the Nemean lion,
and the slaughter of the wild boar of Erymanthus, the Grecian
Hercules had acquired a place among the gods, and an immortal
memory among men.” “_They only_ forgot to observe that, in the
first ages of society, a successful war against savage animals is
one of the most beneficial labours of heroism.” In the beginning
of the latter sentence the adverb _only_ is misplaced. As it
stands, the meaning is that they were the only persons who forgot:
it should be “_only_ they forgot to observe;” _i.e._ “one thing
they forgot,” namely, “to observe.” To this erroneous collocation
in Gibbon, I shall oppose a similar example from Pope, in which
the adverb is correctly placed. In a letter to Hughes, speaking
of the compliments which this gentleman had paid to him on his
translation of Homer, he acquaints him, that he should be ashamed
to attempt returning these compliments; one thing, however, he
would observe, namely, that he esteemed Mr. Hughes too much not to
be pleased with the compliments which he had received from him. His
words, therefore, are, “I should be ashamed to offer at saying
any of those civil things, in return to your obliging compliments,
in regard to my translation of Homer: _only_ I have too great a
value for you not to be pleased with them;” where the word _only_
introduces the clause, and is equivalent to “one thing is true,”
or “thus much (_tantum_), I say, I have too great a value,” &c.
Here it is obvious that the adverb, as it precedes the pronoun,
does not refer to it; and that Mr. Pope’s collocation of it is
perfectly correct, to express the sentiment, which he intended. Had
he said, “I only,” the adverb would have referred to the pronoun,
and implied that he was the only person who valued. Had he intended
to say, that he merely entertained an esteem for him, but could not
manifest it, then the presence of the auxiliary would have been
necessary, and he would have expressed himself thus, “I do only
entertain too great an esteem for you;” that is, “I do only (one
thing) entertain too great an esteem.” Had he said, “I have only
too great a value for you,” it would be properly opposed to, “and
not too little.” Had he said, “I have too great a value only,” then
_value_ would be contrasted with some other sentiment, as when one
says, he “has wealth only, but not virtue,” for example, or any
other acquirement. As a violation of this rule, I adduce also the
following expression of a reviewer. “We only discharge our duty
to the public;” a declaration which, strictly interpreted, means
“we are the only persons who discharge.” It should be, “we do only
(one thing) discharge our duty;” for the writer intended to say,
that he did nothing but discharge his duty to the public[129].
In justification of such inaccuracies, it is impertinent to
plead, that a little attention will prevent misconception. It is
the business of every author to guard his reader, as far as the
language in which he writes will permit, from the possibility of
misconstruction, and to render that attention to the language
unnecessary. Quintilian’s maxim cannot be too often repeated to
those who, by such apologies, attempt to defend any avoidable
ambiguity[130].

The following sentence is justly censured by Blair, and also by
Baker, in his “Remarks.” “Theism,” says Shaftesbury, “can only be
opposed to polytheism or atheism.” He ought to have said, observes
Baker, “Theism can be opposed only to polytheism or atheism.”
Dr. Blair concurs in opinion with the remarker. I am inclined,
however, to differ from both; and think, that the sentence should
run thus: “Theism can be opposed to polytheism only, or atheism;”
where the adverb _only_ refers to the noun immediately preceding,
and is understood to the other, implying, that these two systems
of belief are the only creeds to which theism can be opposed. If
this be not the proper arrangement, it is obvious, that no definite
rule can be given on the subject. For, if the adverb may be placed
either before or after the substantive, to which it refers, then
precision becomes impossible, and we may say, “_he only_” or “_only
he_” to express the same sentiment; which collocations, I have
already shown, denote ideas materially different. But, if there
be a definite and precise rule for the position of this word, and
if the sense be different, according to the collocation of the
adverb, then I think it will appear, that it ought to be subjoined
to the substantive or pronoun to which it refers; and this opinion
is supported by the authority of Blair himself, in the examples
which I have just now adduced. For why, unless on this principle,
does he contend that the word _only_ should be placed after _the
bulk of a single object_? If the adverb then be, in this example,
rightly placed after the substantive or complex name, to which it
refers, it ought to have the same position assigned to it in every
similar instance. That the adverb, in the last example, refers to
“polytheism,” there can be no question; it should therefore follow,
and not precede, it.

I am well aware, that many examples may be produced, wherein, with
an arrangement different from that here recommended, the sense
would, notwithstanding, be perfectly clear; and, perhaps, Blair’s
collocation, in the last example, may be adduced as an instance.
But when a rule, conducive to perspicuity, is once established,
every unnecessary deviation from it should be studiously avoided,
or, at least, not wantonly adopted.

The sentence, as it stands in Shaftesbury, implies that theism is
capable of nothing, but of being opposed to polytheism, or atheism;
“Theism can only (one thing, namely) be opposed to polytheism or
atheism;” where it is evident that _only_ refers to _be opposed_,
agreeably to the rule now given. In the same manner, if I say, “he
was only great,” it is implied, that he was nothing but great, the
adverb being placed before the attributive, to which it refers.
Hence the question naturally is, what was he not besides? The
answer may be, “not good,” “not wise,” “not learned.” Were the
adverb placed after the pronoun, it would imply, that “he was the
only person who was great.”[131]

I am perfectly aware, that the rule here given will not, in all
cases, preclude ambiguity; but whenever it becomes doubtful,
whether the adverb is intended to affect the preceding substantive,
or the following attributive, a different form of expression may be
adopted, and the use of the auxiliary, along with the principal
verb, will, in many instances, ensure perspicuity. This expedient,
however, cannot always be employed. If we say, “The manufacturer
only was prosperous,” it may be uncertain, whether the adverb is to
restrict the predicate “prosperous” to the manufacturer, implying
that he was the only prosperous man, or to the verb expressing past
time, signifying that he was then, but is not now prosperous. If
the former be the meaning intended, we may say, “he was the only
prosperous man;” if the latter, we may say, “the manufacturer was
once,” or “was then, the only prosperous man.”

It would have contributed much to perspicuity, if authors had
adopted one uniform practice, placing the adverb constantly,
either before or after its subject, whether a substantive or an
attributive[132]. But, where usage is so divided, and where
the adoption of a new and general rule would be now liable to
insuperable objections, all that can be successfully attempted is,
in accommodation to existing circumstances, to reduce the evil
within narrow limits, if we cannot, by any precise rule, entirely
remove it. With this view we would recommend, that when the adverb
refers not to a word, but to a sentence or clause, it be placed
at the beginning of that sentence or clause; where it refers to
a predicate, it precede the predicating term; and when it has a
reference to a subject, it follow its name or description. An
observation, however, already made, may be here repeated, namely,
that in the last case, a different collocation may often be adopted
without the risk of ambiguity, and even with advantage to the
structure of the sentence.