Chapter CLXXX: Appendix: IV (4)

The foregoing Review of Kirkham's Grammar, was published as an extract from my manuscript, by the editors of the Knickerbocker, in their number for June, 1837. Four months afterwards, with friendships changed, they gave, him the "justice" of appearing in their pages, in a long and virulent article against me and my works, representing me, "with emphatic force," as "_a knave, a liar, and a pedant_." The _enmity_ of that effusion I forgave; because I bore him no personal ill-will, and was not selfish enough to quarrel for my own sake. Its _imbecility_ clearly proved, that in this critique there is nothing _with which he could justly find fault_. Perceiving that no point of this argument could be broken, he _changed the ground_, and satisfied himself with despising, upbraiding, and vilifying the writer. Of what _use_ this was, others may judge.

This extraordinary grammarian survived the publication of my criticism about ten years, and, it is charitably hoped, died happily; while I have had, for a period somewhat longer, all the benefits which his earnest "_castigation_" was fit to confer. It is not perceived, that what was written before these events, should now be altered or suppressed by reason of them. With his pretended "defence," I shall now concern myself no further than simply to deny one remarkable assertion contained in it; which is this--that I, Goold Brown, "at the funeral of Aaron Ely," in 1830, "praised, and _highly_ praised, this self-same Grammar, and declared it to be 'A GOOD WORK!'"--KIRKHAM, _in the Knickerbocker_, Oct., 1837, p. 362. I treated him always courteously, and, on this solemn occasion, walked with him without disputing on grammar; but, if this statement of his has any reasonable foundation, I know not what it is.--G. B. in 1850.

[17] See _Notes to Pope's Dunciad_, Book II, verse 140.

[18] A modern namesake of the Doctor's, the _Rev. David Blair_, has the following conception of the _utility_ of these speculations: "To enable children to comprehend the _abstract idea_ that all the words in a language consist but of _nine kinds_, it will be found useful to explain how _savage tribes_ WHO _having no language_, would first invent one, beginning with interjections and nouns, and proceeding from one part of speech to another, as their introduction might successively be called for by necessity or luxury."--_Blair's Pract. Gram., Pref._, p. vii.

[19] "Interjections, I _shewed_, or passionate exclamations, were the _first elements_ of speech. Men laboured to communicate their feelings to one another, by those expressive cries and gestures which nature taught them."--_Dr. Hugh Blair's Lectures_, p. 57.

[20] "It is certain that the verb was invented before the noun, in all the languages of which a tolerable account has been procured, either in ancient or modern times."--_Dr. Alex. Murray's History of European Languages_, Vol. I, p. 326.

[21] The Greek of this passage, together with a translation not very different from the foregoing, is given as a marginal note, in _Harris's Hermes_, Book III, Chap. 3d.

[22] The Bible does not say positively that there was no diversity of languages _before the flood_; but, since the life-time of Adam extended fifty-six years into that of Lamech, the father of Noah, and two hundred and forty-three into that of Methuselah, the father of Lamech, with both of whom Noah was contemporary nearly six hundred years, it is scarcely possible that there should have occurred any such diversity, either in Noah's day or before, except from some extraordinary cause. Lord Bacon regarded the multiplication of languages at Babel as a general evil, which had had no parallel but in the curse pronounced after Adam's transgression. When "the language of all the earth" was "confounded," Noah was yet alive, and he is computed to have lived 162 years afterwards; but whether in his day, or at how early a period, "grammar" was thought of, as a remedy for this evil, does not appear. Bacon says, "Concerning speech and words, the consideration of them hath produced the science of grammar. For man still striveth to redintegrate himself in those benedictions, of which, by his fault, he hath been deprived; and as he hath striven against the first general curse by the invention of all other arts, so hath he striven to come forth from _the second general curse, which was the confusion of tongues, by the art of grammar_; whereof the use in a mother tongue is small, in a foreign tongue more, but most in such foreign tongues as have ceased to be vulgar tongues, and are turned only to learned tongues."--See _English Journal of Education_, Vol. viii, p. 444.

[23] It should be, "_to all living creatures_;" for each creature had, probably, but one name.--G. Brown.

[24] Some recent German authors of note suppose language to have sprung up among men _of itself_, like spontaneous combustion in oiled cotton; and seem to think, that people of strong feelings and acute minds must necessarily or naturally utter their conceptions by words--and even by words both spoken and written. Frederick Von Schlegel, admitting "the _spontaneous origin_ of language generally," and referring speech to its "_original source_--a deep feeling, and a clear discriminating intelligence," adds: "The oldest system of writing _developed itself_ at the same time, and in the same manner, as the spoken language; not wearing at first the symbolic form, which it subsequently assumed in compliance with the necessities of a less civilized people, but composed of certain signs, which, in accordance with the simplest elements of language, actually conveyed the sentiments of the race of men then existing."--_Millington's Translation of Schlegel's Æsthetic Works_, p. 455.

[25] "Modern Europe owes a principal share of its enlightened and moral state to the restoration of learning: the advantages which have accrued to history, religion, the philosophy of the mind, and the progress of society; the benefits which have resulted from the models of Greek and Roman taste--in short, all that a knowledge of the progress and attainments of man in past ages can bestow on the present, has reached it through the medium of philology."--_Dr. Murray's History of European Languages_, Vol. II, p. 335.

[26] "The idea of God is a development from within, and a matter of faith, not an induction from without, and a matter of proof. When Christianity has developed its correlative principles within us, then we find evidences of its truth everywhere; nature is full of them: but we cannot find them before, simply because we have no eye to find them with."--H. N. HUDSON: _Democratic Review, May_, 1845.

[27] So far as mind, soul, or spirit, is a subject of natural science, (under whatever name,) it may of course be known naturally. To say to what extent theology may be considered a natural science, or how much knowledge of any kind may have been opened to men otherwise than by words, is not now in point. Dr. Campbell says, "Under the general term [_physiology_] I also comprehend _natural theology_ and _psychology_, which, in my opinion, have been most unnaturally disjoined by philosophers. Spirit, which here comprises only the Supreme Being and the human soul, is surely as much included under the notion of natural object as a body is, and is knowable to the philosopher purely in the same way, by observation and experience."--_Philosophy of Rhetoric_, p. 66. It is quite unnecessary for the teacher of languages to lead his pupils into any speculations on this subject. It is equally foreign to the history of grammar and to the philosophy of rhetoric.

[28] "Except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore, if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh, a barbarian; and he that speaketh, shall be a barbarian unto me."--_1 Cor._, xiv. 9, 10, 11. "It is impossible that our knowledge of words should outstrip our knowledge of things. It may, and often doth, come short of it. Words may be remembered as sounds, but [they] cannot be understood as signs, whilst we remain unacquainted with the things signified."--_Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric_, p. 160. "Words can excite only ideas already acquired, and if no previous ideas have been formed, they are mere unmeaning sounds."--_Spurzheim on Education_, p. 200.

[29] Sheridan the elecutionist makes this distinction: "All that passes in the mind of man, may be reduced to two classes, which I call ideas and emotions. By ideas, I mean all thoughts which rise, and pass in succession in the mind. By emotions, all exertions of the mind in arranging, combining, and separating its ideas; as well as the effects produced on all the mind itself by those ideas; from the more violent agitation of the passions, to the calmer feelings produced by the operation of the intellect and the fancy. In short, thought is the object of the one; internal feeling, of the other. That which serves to express the former, I call the language of ideas; and the latter, the language of emotions. Words are the signs of the one: tones, of the other. Without the use of these two sorts of language, it is impossible to communicate through the ear, all that passes in the mind of man."--_Sheridan's Art of Reading; Blair's Lectures_, p. 333.

[30] "Language is _the great instrument_, by which all the faculties of the mind are brought forward, moulded, polished, and exerted."--_Sheridan's Elocution_, p. xiv.

[31] It should be, "_These are_."--G. B.

[32] It should be, "_They fitly represent_."--G. B.

[33] This is badly expressed; for, according to his own deduction, _each part_ has but _one sign_. It should be, "We express _the several parts by as many several signs_."--G. Brown.

[34] It would be better English to say, "the _instruments_ and _the_ signs."--G. Brown.

[35] "Good speakers do not pronounce above three syllables in a second of time; and generally only two and a half, taking in the necessary pauses."--_Steele's Melody of Speech_.

[36] The same idea is also conveyed in the following sentence from Dr. Campbell: "Whatever regards the analysis of the operations of the mind, _which is quicker than lightning in all her energies_, must in a great measure be abstruse and dark."--_Philosophy of Rhetoric_, p. 289. Yet this philosopher has given it as his opinion, "that we really _think by signs_ as well as speak by them."--_Ib._, p. 284. To reconcile these two positions with each other, we must suppose that thinking by signs, or words, is a process infinitely more rapid than speech.

[37] That generalization or abstraction which gives to similar things a common name, is certainly no laborious exercise of intellect; nor does any mind find difficulty in applying such a name to an individual by means of the article. The general sense and the particular are alike easy to the understanding, and I know not whether it is worth while to inquire which is first in order. Dr. Alexander Murray says, "It must be attentively remembered, that all terms run from a general to a particular sense. The work of abstraction, the ascent from individual feelings to classes of these, was finished before terms were invented. Man was silent till he had formed some ideas to communicate; and association of his perceptions soon led him to think and reason in ordinary matters."--_Hist. of European Languages_, Vol. I, p. 94. And, in a note upon this passage, he adds: "This is to be understood of primitive or radical terms. By the assertion that man was silent till he had formed ideas to communicate, is not meant, that any of our species were originally destitute of the natural expressions of feeling or thought. All that it implies, is, that man had been subjected, during an uncertain period of time, to the impressions made on his senses by the material world, before he began to express the natural varieties of these by articulated sounds. * * * * * * Though the abstraction which formed such classes, might be greatly aided or supported by the signs; yet it were absurd to suppose that the sign was invented, till the sense demanded it."--_Ib._, p. 399.

[38] Dr. Alexander Murray too, In accounting for the frequent abbreviation of words, seems to suggest the possibility of giving them the celerity of thought: "Contraction is a change which results from a propensity to make the signs _as rapid as the thoughts_ which they express. Harsh combinations soon suffer contraction. Very long words preserve only the principal, that is, the accented part. If a nation accents its words on the last syllable, the preceding ones will often be short, and liable to contraction. If it follow a contrary practice, the terminations are apt to decay."--History of European Languages, Vol. I, p. 172.

[39] "We cannot form a distinct idea of any moral or intellectual quality, unless we find some trace of it in ourselves."--_Beattie's Moral Science, Part Second, Natural Theology_, Chap. II, No. 424.

[40] "Aristotle tells us that the world is a copy or transcript of those ideas which are in the mind of the first Being, and that those ideas which are in the mind of man, are a transcript of the world. To this we may add, that words are the transcripts of those ideas which are in the mind of man, and that writing or printing _are_ [is] the transcript of words."--_Addison, Spect._, No. 166.

[41] Bolingbroke on Retirement and Study, Letters on History, p. 364.

[42] See this passage in "The Economy of Human Life," p. 105--a work feigned to be a compend of Chinese maxims, but now generally understood to have been written or compiled by _Robert Dodsley_, an eminent and ingenious bookseller in London.

[43] "Those philosophers whose ideas of _being_ and _knowledge_ are derived from body and sensation, have a short method to explain the nature of _Truth_.--It is a _factitious_ thing, made by every man for himself; which comes and goes, just as it is remembered and forgot; which in the order of things makes its appearance _the last_ of all, being not only subsequent to sensible objects, but even to our sensations of them! According to this hypothesis, there are many truths, which have been, and are no longer; others, that will be, and have not been yet; and multitudes, that possibly may never exist at all. But there are other reasoners, who must surely have had very different notions; those, I mean, who represent Truth not as _the last_, but as _the first_ of beings; who call it _immutable, eternal, omnipresent_; attributes that all indicate something more than human."--_Harris's Hermes_, p. 403.

[44] Of the best method of teaching grammar, I shall discourse in an other chapter. That methods radically different must lend to different results, is no more than every intelligent person will suppose. The formation of just methods of instruction, or true systems of science, is work for those minds which are capable of the most accurate and comprehensive views of the things to be taught. He that is capable of "originating and producing" truth, or true "ideas," if any but the Divine Being is so, has surely no need to be trained into such truth by any factitious scheme of education. In all that he thus originates, he is himself a _Novum Organon_ of knowledge, and capable of teaching others, especially those officious men who would help him with their second-hand authorship, and their paltry catechisms of common-places. I allude here to the fundamental principle of what in some books is called "_The Productive System of Instruction_," and to those schemes of grammar which are professedly founded on it. We are told that, "The _leading principle_ of this system, is that which its name indicates--that the child should be regarded not as a mere recipient of the ideas of others, but as an agent _capable of collecting, and originating, and producing_ most of the ideas which are necessary for its education, when presented with the objects or the facts from which they may be derived."--_Smith's New Gram., Pref., p. 5: Amer. Journal of Education, New Series_, Vol. I, No. 6, Art. 1. It ought to be enough for any teacher, or for any writer, if he finds his readers or his pupils ready _recipients_ of the ideas which he aims to convey. What more they know, they can never owe to him, unless they learn it from him against his will; and what they happen to lack, of understanding or believing him, may very possibly be more his fault than theirs.

[45] Lindley Murray, anonymously copying somebody, I know not whom, says: "Words derive their meaning from the consent and practice of those who use them. _There is no necessary connexion between words and ideas_. The association between the sign and the thing signified, is purely arbitrary."--_Octavo Gram._, Vol. i, p. 139. The second assertion here made, is very far from being literally true. However arbitrary may be the use or application of words, their connexion with ideas is so necessary, that they cannot be words without it. Signification, as I shall hereafter prove, is a part of the very essence of a word, the most important element of its nature. And Murray himself says, "The understanding and language have a strict connexion."--_Ib._, Vol. i, p. 356. In this, he changes without amendment the words of Blair: "Logic and rhetoric have here, as in many other cases, a strict connexion."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 120.

[46] "The language which is, at present, spoken throughout Great Britain, is neither the ancient primitive speech of the island, nor derived from it; but is altogether of foreign origin. The language of the first inhabitants of our island, beyond doubt, was the Celtic, or Gælic, common to them with Gaul; from which country, it appears, by many circumstances, that Great Britain was peopled. This Celtic tongue, which is said to be very expressive and copious, and is, probably, one of the most ancient languages in the world, obtained once in most of the western regions of Europe. It was the language of Gaul, of Great Britain, of Ireland, and very probably, of Spain also; till, in the course of those revolutions which by means of the conquests, first, of the Romans, and afterwards, of the northern nations, changed the government, speech, and, in a manner, the whole face of Europe, _this tongue was gradually obliterated_; and now subsists only in the mountains of Wales, in the Highlands of Scotland, and among the wild Irish. For the Irish, the Welsh, and the Erse, are no other than different dialects of the same tongue, the ancient Celtic."--_Blair's Rhetoric_, Lect. IX, p. 85.

[47] With some writers, the _Celtic_ language is _the Welsh_; as may be seen by the following extract: "By this he requires an Impossibility, since much the greater Part of Mankind can by no means spare 10 or 11 Years of their Lives in learning those dead Languages, to arrive at a perfect Knowledge of their own. But by this Gentleman's way of Arguing, we ought not only to be Masters of _Latin_ and _Greek_, but of _Spanish, Italian, High- Dutch, Low-Dutch, French_, the _Old Saxon, Welsh, Runic, Gothic_, and _Islandic_; since much the greater number of Words of common and general Use are derived from _those Tongues_. Nay, by the same way of Reasoning we may prove, that the _Romans_ and _Greeks_ did not understand their own Tongues, because they were not acquainted with _the Welsh, or ancient Celtic_, there being above 620 radical _Greek_ Words derived from _the Celtic_, and of the Latin a much greater Number."--_Preface to Brightland's Grammar_, p. 5.

[48] The author of this specimen, through a solemn and sublime poem in ten books, _generally_ simplified the preterit verb of the second person singular, by omitting the termination _st_ or _est_, whenever his measure did not require the additional syllable. But his tuneless editors have, in many instances, taken the rude liberty both to spoil his versification, and to publish under his name what he did not write. They have given him _bad prosody_, or unutterable _harshness of phraseology_, for the sake of what they conceived to be _grammar_. So _Kirkham_, in copying the foregoing passage, alters it as he will; and alters it _differently_, when he happens to write some part of it twice: as,

"That morning, thou, that _slumberedst_ not before,
Nor _slept_, great Ocean! _laidst_ thy waves at rest,
And _hushed_ thy mighty minstrelsy."--_Kirkham's Elocution_, p. 203.

Again:

"That morning, thou, that _slumberedst_ not before,
Nor _sleptst_, great Ocean, _laidst_ thy waves at rest,
And _hush'dst_ thy mighty minstrelsy."--_Kirkham's Elocution_, p. 44.

[49] _Camenes_, the _Muses_, whom Horace called _Camænæ_. The former is an English plural from the latter, or from the Latin word _camena_, a muse or song. These lines are copied from Dr. Johnson's History of the English Language; their _orthography_ is, in some respects, _too modern_ for the age to which they are assigned.

[50] The Saxon characters being known nowadays to but very few readers, I have thought proper to substitute for them, in the latter specimens of this chapter, the Roman; and, as the old use of colons and periods for the smallest pauses, is liable to mislead a common observer, the punctuation too has here been modernized.

[51] Essay on Language, by William S. Cardell, New York, 1825, p. 2. This writer was a great admirer of Horne Tooke, from whom he borrowed many of his notions of grammar, but not this extravagance. Speaking of the words _right_ and _just_, the latter says, "They are applicable only to _man; to whom alone language belongs_, and of whose sensations only words are the representatives."--_Diversions of Purley_, Vol. ii, p. 9.

[52] CARDELL: _Both Grammars_, p. 4.

[53] "_Quoties dicimus, toties de nobis judicatur_."--Cicero. "As often as we speak, so often are we judged."

[54] "Nor had he far to seek for the source of our impropriety in the use of words, when he should reflect that the study of our own language, has never been made a part of the education of our youth. Consequently, the use of words is got wholly by chance, according to the company that we keep, or the books that we read." SHERIDAN'S ELOCUTION, _Introd._, p. viii, dated "July 10, 1762," 2d Amer. Ed.

[55] "To Write and Speak correctly, gives a Grace, and gains a favourable Attention to what one has to say: And since 'tis _English_, that an English Gentleman will have constant use of, that is the Language he should chiefly Cultivate, and wherein most care should be taken to polish and perfect his Stile. To speak or write better _Latin_ than _English_, may make a Man be talk'd of, but he would find it more to his purpose to Express himself well in his own Tongue, that he uses every moment, than to have the vain Commendation of others for a very insignificant quality. This I find universally neglected, and no care taken any where to improve Young Men in their own Language, that they may thoroughly understand and be Masters of it. If any one among us have a facility or purity more than ordinary in his Mother Tongue, it is owing to Chance, or his Genius, or any thing, rather than to his Education or any care of his Teacher. To Mind what _English_ his Pupil speaks or writes is below the Dignity of one bred up amongst _Greek_ and _Latin_, though he have but little of them himself. These are the learned Languages fit only for learned Men to meddle with and teach: _English_ is the Language of the illiterate Vulgar."--_Locke, on Education_, p. 339; _Fourth Ed., London_, 1699.

[56] A late author, in apologizing for his choice in publishing a grammar without forms of praxis, (that is, without any provision for a stated application of its principles by the learner,) describes the whole business of _Parsing_ as a "dry and uninteresting recapitulation of the disposal of a few parts of speech, and their _often times told_ positions and influence;" urges "the _unimportance_ of parsing, _generally_;" and represents it to be only "a finical and ostentatious parade of practical pedantry."--_Wright's Philosophical Gram._, pp. 224 and 226. It would be no great mistake to imagine, that _this gentleman's system_ of grammar, applied in any way to practice, could not fail to come under this unflattering description; but, to entertain this notion of parsing in general, is as great an error, as that which some writers have adopted on the other hand, of making this exercise their sole process of inculcation, and supposing it may profitably supersede both the usual arrangement of the principles of grammar and the practice of explaining them by definitions. It is asserted in Parkhurst's "English Grammar for Beginners, on the Inductive Method of Instruction," that, "to teach the child a definition at the outset, is beginning at the _wrong end_;" that, "with respect to all that goes under the name of etymology in grammar, it is learned chiefly by practice in parsing, and scarcely at all by the aid of definitions."-- _Preface_, pp. 5 and 6.

[57] Hesitation in speech may arise from very different causes. If we do not consider this, our efforts to remove it may make it worse. In most instances, however, it may be overcome by proper treatment, "Stammering," says a late author, "is occasioned by an _over-effort to articulate_; for when the mind of the speaker is so occupied with his subject as not to allow him to reflect upon his defect, he will talk without difficulty. All stammerers can sing, owing to the continuous sound, and the slight manner in which the consonants are touched in singing; so a drunken man can run, though he cannot walk or stand still."--_Gardiner's Music of Nature_, p. 30.

"To think rightly, is of knowledge; to speak fluently, is of nature;
To read with profit, is of care; but to write aptly, is of practice."
_Book of Thoughts_, p. 140.

[58] "There is nothing more becoming [to] a _Gentleman_, or more useful in all the occurrences of life, than to be able, on any occasion, to speak well, and to the purpose."--_Locke, on Education_, §171. "But yet, I think I may ask my reader, whether he doth not know a great many, who live upon their estates, and so, with the name, should have the qualities of Gentlemen, who cannot so much as tell a story as they should; much less speak clearly and persuasively in any business. This I think not to be so much their fault, as the fault of their education.--They have been taught _Rhetoric_, but yet never taught how to express themselves handsomely with their tongues or pens in the language they are always to use; as if the names of the figures that embellish the discourses of those who understood the art of speaking, were the very art and skill of speaking well. _This, as all other things of practice, is to be learned, not by a few, or a great many rules given; but by_ EXERCISE _and_ APPLICATION _according to_ GOOD RULES, _or rather_ PATTERNS, _till habits are got, and a facility of doing it well_."--_Ib._, §189. The forms of parsing and correcting which the following work supplies, are "_patterns_," for the performance of these practical "_exercises_;" and _such patterns_ as ought to be implicitly followed, by every one who means to be a ready and correct speaker on these subjects.

[59] The principal claimants of "the Inductive Method" of Grammar, are Richard W. Green, Roswell C. Smith, John L. Parkhurst, Dyor H. Sanborn, Bradford Frazee, and, Solomon Barrett, Jr.; a set of writers, differing indeed in their qualifications, but in general not a little deficient in what constitutes an accurate grammarian.

[60] William C. Woodbridge edited the Journal, and probably wrote the article, from which the author of "English Grammar on the Productive System" took his "_Preface_."

[61] Many other grammars, later than Murray's, have been published, some in England, some in America, and some in both countries; and among these there are, I think, a few in which a little improvement has been made, in the methods prescribed for the exercises of parsing and correcting. In most, however, _nothing of the kind has been attempted_. And, of the formularies which have been given, the best that I have seen, are still miserably defective, and worthy of all the censure that is expressed in the paragraph above; while others, that appear in works not entirely destitute of merit, are absolutely _much worse_ than Murray's, and worthy to condemn to a speedy oblivion the books in which they are printed. In lieu of forms of expression, clear, orderly, accurate, and full; such as a young parser might profitably imitate; such as an experienced one would be sure to approve; what have we? A chaos of half-formed sentences, for the ignorant pupil to flounder in; an infinite abyss of blunders, which a world of criticism could not fully expose! See, for example, the seven pages of parsing, in the neat little book entitled, "A Practical Grammar of the English Language, by the Rev. David Blair: Seventh Edition: London, 1815:" pp. 49 to 57. I cannot consent to quote more than one short paragraph of the miserable jumble which these pages contain. Yet the author is evidently a man of learning, and capable of writing well on some subjects, if not on this. "Bless the Lord, O my soul!" Form: "_Bless_, a verb, (repeat 97); active (repeat 99); active voice (102); _infinitive mood_ (107); _third person, soul being the nominative_ (118); present tense (111); conjugate the verb after the pattern (129); its object is Lord (99)."--_Blair's Gram._, p. 50. Of the paragraphs referred to, I must take some notice: "107. The _imperative_ mood commands or orders or intreats."--_Ib._, p. 19. "118. The _second person_ is always the pronoun _thou_ or _you_ in the singular, and _ye_ or _you_ in the plural."--_Ib._, p. 21. "111. The _imperative_ mood has no distinction of tense: and the _infinitive_ has no distinction of persons."--_Ib._, p. 20. Now the author should have said: "_Bless_ is a redundant active-transitive verb, from _bless, blessed_ or _blest, blessing, blessed_ or _blest_; found in the _imperative_ mood, present tense, _second_ person, and singular number:" and, if he meant to parse the word _syntactically_, he should have added: "and agrees with its nominative _thou_ understood; according to the rule which says, 'Every finite verb must agree with its subject or nominative, in person and number.' Because the meaning is--_Bless thou_ the Lord." This is the whole story. But, in the form above, several things are false; many, superfluous; some, deficient; several, misplaced; nothing, right. Not much better are the models furnished by _Kirkham, Smith, Lennie, Bullions_, and other late authors.

[62] Of Dr. Bullions's forms of parsing, as exhibited in his English Grammar, which is a modification of Lennie's Grammar, it is difficult to say, whether they are most remarkable for their deficiencies, their redundancies, or their contrariety to other teachings of the same author or authors. Both Lennie and Bullions adopt the rule, that, "An _ellipsis_ is _not allowable_ when it would obscure the sentence, weaken its force, or be attended with an impropriety."--_L._, p. 91; _B._, p. 130. And the latter strengthens this doctrine with several additional observations, the first of which reads thus: "In general, _no word should be omitted_ that is necessary to the _full and correct construction_, or even _harmony_ of a sentence."--_Bullions, E. Gr._, 130. Now the parsing above alluded to, has been thought particularly commendable for its _brevity_--a quality certainly desirable, so far as it consists with the end of parsing, or with the more needful properties of a good style, clearness, accuracy, ease, and elegance. But, if the foregoing rule and observation are true, the models furnished by these writers are not commendably brief, but miserably defective. Their brevity is, in fact, such as renders them all _bad English_; and not only so, it makes them obviously inadequate to their purpose, as bringing into use but a part of the principles which the learner had studied. It consists only in the omission of what ought to have been inserted. For example, this short line, "_I lean upon the Lord_," is parsed by both of these gentlemen thus: "_I, the first personal_ pronoun, masculine, or feminine, singular, _the_ nominative--_lean_, a verb, _neuter_, first person singular, present, indicative--_upon_, a preposition--_the_, an article, the definite--_Lord_, a noun, masculine, singular, the objective, (governed by _upon_.)"--_Lennie's Principles of English Gram._, p. 51; _Bullions's_, 74. This is a little sample of their etymological parsing, in which exercise they generally omit not only all the definitions or "reasons" of the various terms applied, but also all the following particulars: first, the verb _is_, and certain _definitives_ and _connectives_, which are "necessary to the full and correct construction" of their sentences; secondly, the distinction of nouns as _proper_ or _common_; thirdly, the _person_ of nouns, _first, second_, or _third_; fourthly, the words, _number, gender_, and _case_, which are necessary to the sense and construction of certain words used; fifthly, the distinction of adjectives as belonging to _different classes_; sixthly, the division of verbs as being _regular_ or _irregular, redundant_ or _defective_; seventhly, sometimes, (Lennie excepted,) the division of verbs as _active, passive_, or _neuter_; eighthly, the words _mood_ and _tense_, which Bullions, on page 131, pronounces "quite unnecessary," and inserts in his own formule on page 132; ninthly, the distinction of adverbs as expressing _time, place, degree_, or _manner_; tenthly, the distinction of conjunctions as _copulative_ or disjunctive; lastly, the distinction of interjections as indicating _different emotions_. All these things does their completest specimen of etymological parsing lack, while it is grossly encumbered with parentheses of syntax, which "_must be omitted_ till the pupil get the _rules_ of syntax."--Lennie, p. 51. It is also vitiated with several absurdities, contradictions, and improper changes of expression: as, "_His, the third personal pronoun_;" (B., p. 23;)--"_me, the first personal pronoun_;" (_Id._, 74;)--"_A_, The indefinite article;" (_Id._, 73;)--"_a_, an article, the indefinite;" (_Id._, 74;)--"When the _verb is passive_, parse thus: '_A verb active_, in the passive voice, _regular, irregular_,' &c."--_Bullions_, p. 131. In stead of teaching sufficiently, as elements of etymological parsing, the definitions which belong to this exercise, and then dismissing them for the principles of syntax, Dr. Bullions encumbers his method of syntactical parsing with such a series of etymological questions and answers as cannot but make it one of the slowest, longest, and most tiresome ever invented. He thinks that the pupil, after parsing any word syntactically, "_should be requested to assign a reason for every thing contained in his statement!_"--_Principles of E. Grammar_, p. 131. And the teacher is to ask questions as numerous as the reasons! Such is the parsing of a text-book which has been pronounced "superior to any other, for use in our common schools"--"a _complete_ grammar of the language, and _available for every purpose_ for which Mr. Brown's can possibly be used."--_Ralph K. Finch's Report_, p, 12.

[63] There are many other critics, besides Murray and Alger, who seem not to have observed the import of _after_ and _before_ in connexion with the tenses. Dr. Bullions, on page 139th of his English Grammar, copied the foregoing example from Lennie, who took it from Murray. Even Richard Hiley, and William Harvey Wells, grammarians of more than ordinary tact, have been obviously misled by the false criticism above cited. One of Hiley's Rules of Syntax, with its illustration, stands thus: "In _the use of the different tenses_, we must particularly _observe to use that tense_ which clearly and properly conveys the sense intended; thus, instead of saying, 'After I _visited_ Europe, I returned to America;' we should say, 'After I _had visited_ Europe, I returned to America."--_Hiley's Gram._, p. 90. Upon this he thought it needful to comment thus: "'After I _visited_ Europe, I returned to America;' _this sentence is incorrect_; _visited_ ought to be _had visited_, because the action _implied_ by the verb _visited_ WAS COMPLETED _before_ the other past action _returned_."--_Ib._, p. 91. See nearly the same thing in _Wells's School Grammar, 1st Edition_, p. 151; but his later editions are wisely altered. Since "_visited_ and _was completed_" are of the same tense, the argument from the latter, if it proves any thing, proves the former to be _right_, and the proposed change needless, or perhaps worse than needless. "I _visited_ Europe _before_ I _returned_ to America," or, "I _visited_ Europe, _and afterwards returned_ to America," is good English, and not to be improved by any change of tense; yet here too we see the _visiting_ "_was completed before_" the return, or HAD BEEN COMPLETED _at the time_ of the return. I say, "The Pluperfect Tense is that which expresses what _had taken_ place _at_ some past time mentioned: as, 'I _had seen_ him, _when_ I met you.'" Murray says, "The Pluperfect Tense represents a _thing_ not only as past, but also as prior to some _other point of time_ specified in the sentence: as, I _had finished_ my letter _before_ he arrived." Hiley says, "The _Past-Perfect_ expresses an action or event which _was past before_ some _other past action or event_ mentioned in the sentence, _and to which_ it refers; as, I _had finished_ my lessons _before_ he came." With this, Wells appears to concur, his example being similar. It seems to me, that these last two definitions, and their example too, are bad; because by the help of _before_ or _after_, "_the past before the past_" _may_ be clearly expressed by the _simple past tense_: as, "I _finished_ my letter _before_ he _arrived_."--"I _finished_ my lessons _before_ he _came_." "He _arrived_ soon _after_ I _finished_ the letter."--"Soon _after_ it _was completed_, he _came in_."

[64] Samuel Kirkham, whose grammar is briefly described in the third chapter of this introduction, boldly lays the blame of all his philological faults, upon our noble _language itself_; and even conceives, that a well-written and faultless grammar cannot be a good one, because it will not accord with that reasonless jumble which he takes every existing language to be! How diligently he laboured to perfect his work, and with what zeal for truth and accuracy, may be guessed from the following citation: "The truth is, after all _which_ can be done to render the definitions and rules of grammar comprehensive and accurate, they will still be found, when critically examined by men of learning and science, _more_ or _less_ exceptionable. _These exceptions and imperfections_ are the unavoidable consequence of the _imperfections of the language_. Language as well as every thing else _of human invention_, will always be _imperfect_. Consequently, a perfect system of grammatical principles, _would not suit it_. A perfect grammar will not be produced, until some perfect being writes it for a perfect language; and a perfect language will not be constructed, until _some super-human agency_ is employed in its production. All grammatical principles and systems which are not _perfect_ are _exceptionable_."--_Kirkham's Grammar_, p. 66. The unplausible sophistry of these strange remarks, and the palliation they afford to the multitudinous defects of the book which contains them, may be left, without further comment, to the judgement of the reader.

[65] The phrase _complex ideas_, or _compound ideas_, has been used for the notions which we have of things consisting of different parts, or having various properties, so as to embrace some sort of plurality: thus our ideas of _all bodies_ and _classes of things_ are said to be complex or compound. _Simple ideas_ are those in which the mind discovers no parts or plurality: such are the ideas of _heat, cold, blueness, redness, pleasure, pain, volition_, &c. But some writers have contended, that the _composition of ideas_ is a fiction; and that all the complexity, in any case, consists only in the use of a _general term_ in lieu of many particular ones. Locke is on one side of this debate, Horne Tooke, on the other.

[66] Dilworth appears to have had a true _idea_ of the thing, but he does not express it as a definition; "Q. Is _an_ Unit of one, a Number? A. _An_ Unit is a number, _because it may properly answer the question how many!_"--_Schoolmaster's Assistant_, p. 2. A number in arithmetic, and a number in grammar, are totally different things. The _plural_ number, as _men_ or _horses_, does not tell _how many_; nor does the word _singular_ mean _one_, as the author of a recent grammar says it does. The _plural_ number is _one_ number, but it is not _the singular_. "The _Productive System_" teaches thus: "What does the word _singular_ mean? It means _one_."--Smith's New Gram., p. 7.

[67] It is truly astonishing that so great a majority of our grammarians could have been so blindly misled, as they have been, in this matter; and the more so, because a very good definition of a Letter was both published and republished, about the time at which Lowth's first appeared: viz., "What is a letter? A Letter is the Sign, Mark, or Character of a simple or uncompounded Sound. Are Letters Sounds? No. Letters are only the Signs or Symbols of Sounds, not the Sounds themselves."--_The British Grammar_, p. 3. See the very same words on the second page of _Buchanan's "English Syntax_," a work which was published as early as 1767.

[68] In Murray's octavo Grammar, this word is _the_ in the first chapter, and _their_ in the second; in the duodecimo, it is _their_ in both places.

[69] "The _definitions_ and the _rules_ throughout the Grammar, are expressed with neatness and perspicuity. They are as short and comprehensive as the nature of the subject would admit: and they are well adapted both to the understanding and the memory of young persons."--_Life of L. Murray_, p. 245. "It may truly be said that the language in every part of the work, is simple, correct, and perspicuous."--_Ib._, p. 246.

[70] For this definition, see _Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 40; _Duodecimo_, 41; _Smaller Gram._, 18; _Alger's_, 18; _Bacon's_, 15; _Frost's_, 8, _Ingersoll's_, 17; _A Teacher's_, 8; _Maltby's_, 14; _T. H. Miller's_, 20; _Pond's_, 18; _S. Putnam's_, 15; _Russell's_, 11; _Merchant's Murray_, 25; and _Worcester's Univ. and Crit. Dictionary_. Many other grammarians have attempted to define number; with what success a few examples will show: (1.) "Number is the distinction of one from many."--_W. Allen's Gram._, p. 40; _Merchant's School Gram._, 28; _Greenleaf's_, 22; _Nutting's_, 17; _Picket's_, 19; _D. Adams's_, 31. (2.) "Number is the distinction of one from more."--_Fisher's Gram._, 51; _Alden's_, 7. (3.) "Number is the distinction of one from several or many."--_Coar's Gram._, p. 24. (4.) "Number is the distinction of one from more than one."--_Sanborn's Gram._, p. 24; _J. Flint's_, 27; _Wells's, 52_. (5.) "Number is the distinction of one from more than one, or many."--_Grant's Latin Gram._, p. 7. (6.) "What is number? Number is the Distinction of one, from two, or many."--_British Gram._, p. 89; _Buchanan's_, 16. (7.) "You inquire, 'What is number?' Merely this: _the distinction_ of one from two, or many. Greek substantives have _three_ numbers."--_Bucke's Classical Gram._, p. 38. All these authors say, that, in English, "there are _two numbers_, the singular and the plural." According to their explanations, then, we have _two "distinctions of one from two, several, more, or many;"_ and the Greeks, by adding a dual number, have _three_! Which, then, of the two or three modifications or forms, do they mean, when they say, "Number is _the distinction_" &c.? Or, if none of them, _what else_ is meant? All these definitions had their origin in an old Latin one, which, although it is somewhat better, makes doubtful logic in its application: "NUMERUS est, unius et multorum distinctio. Numeri _igitur_ sunt _duo_; Singularis et Pluralis."-- _Ruddiman's Gram._, p. 21. This means: (8.) "Number is a distinction of one and many. The numbers _therefore_ are _two_; the Singular and the Plural." But we have yet other examples: as, (9.) "Number is the distinction of _objects_, as one or more."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 39. "The _distinction_ of _objects_ as _one_," is very much like "_the consideration_ of _an object_ as _more than one_." (10.) "Number distinguishes _objects_ as _one_ or more."--_Cooper's Murray_, p. 21; _Practical Gram._, p. 18. That is, number makes the plural to be either plural or singular for distinction's sake! (11.) "Number is the distinction of _nouns_ with regard to the _objects_ signified, _as one_ or more."--_Fisk's Murray_, p. 19. Here, too, number has "regard" to the same confusion: while, by a gross error, its "distinction" is confined to "_nouns_" only! (12.) "Number is _that property_ of a _noun_ by which it expresses _one_ or _more_ than one."--_Bullions's E. Gram._, p. 12; _Analyt. Gram._, 25. Here again number is improperly limited to "_a noun_;" and is said to be one sign of two, or either of two, incompatible ideas! (13.) "Number shows _how many_ are meant, whether one or more."--_Smith's new Gram._, p. 45. This is not a _definition_, but a false assertion, in which Smith again confounds arithmetic with grammar! _Wheat_ and _oats_ are of different numbers; but neither of these numbers "means _a sum that may be counted_," or really "shows _how many_ are meant." So of "_Man_ in general, _Horses_ in general, &c."--_Brightland's Gram._, p. 77. (14.) "Number is _the difference_ in a _noun or pronoun_, to denote either a single thing or more than one."--_Davenport's Gram._, p. 14. This excludes the numbers of a _verb_, and makes the singular and the plural to be essentially one thing. (15.) "Number is a modification of nouns and verbs, &c. according as the thing spoken of is represented, as, _one_ or _more_, with regard to number."--_Burn's Gram._, p. 32. This also has many faults, which I leave to the discernment of the reader. (16.) "What is number? Number _shows the distinction_ of one from many."--_Wilcox's Gram._, p. 6. This is no answer to the question asked; besides, it is obviously worse than the first form, which has "_is_," for "_shows_." (17.) "What is Number? It is _the_ representation of _objects_ with respect to singleness, or plurality." --_O. B. Peirce's Gram._, p. 34. If there are two numbers, they are neither of them properly described in this definition, or in any of the preceding ones. There is a gross misconception, in taking each or either of them to be an alternate representation of two incompatible ideas. And this sort of error is far from being confined to the present subject; it runs through a vast number of the various definitions contained in our grammars. (18.) "_Number_ is _the inflection_ of a _noun_, to indicate _one object or more than one_. Or, _Number_ is _the expression_ of unity or of more than unity."--_Hiley's Gram._, p. 14. How hard this author laboured to _think what number is_, and could not! (19.) "Number is the distinction of _unity and plurality_."--_Hart's E. Gram._, p. 40, Why say, "_distinction_;" the numbers, or _distinctions_, being two? (20.) "Number is _the capacity of nouns_ to represent either one or more than one object."--_Barrett's Revised Gram._, p. 40. (21.) "Number is _a property_ of _the noun which_ denotes _one_ or _more_ than one."--_Weld's Gram._, 2d Ed., p. 55. (22.) "Number is _a property_ of the _noun or pronoun_ [,] _by which it_ denotes _one, or more_ than one."--_Weld's Gram., Abridged Ed._, p. 49. (23.) "Number is _the property_ that distinguishes _one from more_ than one."--_Weld's Gram., Improved Ed._, p. 60. This, of course, excludes the plural. (24.) "Number is _a modification of nouns_ to denote whether one object is meant, or more than one."--_Butler's Gram._, p. 19. (25.) "Number is _that modification_ of the _Noun_ which distinguishes one from more than one."--_Spencer's Gram._, p. 26. Now, it is plain, that not one of these twenty-five definitions comports with the idea that the singular is one number and the plural an other! Not one of them exhibits any tolerable approach to accuracy, either of thought or of expression! Many of the grammarians have not attempted any definition of _number_, or of _the numbers_, though they speak of both the singular and the plural, and perhaps sometimes apply the term _number_ to _the distinction_ which is _in each_: for it is the property of the singular number, to distinguish unity from plurality: and of the plural, to distinguish plurality from unity. Among the authors who are thus silent, are Lily, Colet, Brightland, Harris, Lowth, Ash, Priestly, Bicknell, Adam, Gould, Harrison, Comly, Jaudon, Webster, Webber, Churchill, Staniford, Lennie, Dalton, Blair, Cobbett, Cobb, A. Flint, Felch, Guy, Hall, and S. W. Clark. Adam and Gould, however, in explaining the properties of _verbs_, say: "_Number_ marks _how many_ we suppose to be, to act, or to suffer."--_A._, 80; _G._, 78.

[71] These are the parts of speech in some late grammars; as, Barrett's, of 1854, Butler's, Covell's, Day's, Frazee's, Fowle's New, Spear's, Weld's, Wells's, and the Well-wishers'. In Frost's Practical Grammar, the words of the language are said to be "divided into _eight_ classes," and the names are given thus: "_Noun, Article, Pronoun, Verb, Adverb, Preposition, Conjunction, and Interjection_."--P. 29. But the author afterwards treats of the _Adjective_, between the _Article_ and the _Pronoun_, just as if he had forgotten to name it, and could not count nine with accuracy! In Perley's Grammar, the parts of speech are a different eight: namely, "_Nouns, Adjectives, Verbs, Adverbs, Prepositions, Conjunctions, Interjections_, and _Particles_!"--P. 8. S. W. Clark has Priestley's classes, but calls Interjections "Exclamations."

[72] Felton, who is confessedly a modifier of Murray, claims as a merit, "_the rejection of several useless parts of speech_" yet acknowledges "_nine_," and treats of _ten_; "viz., _Nouns, Pronouns, Verbs, Participles, Prepositions, Adjectives_, [Articles,] _Adverbs, Conjunctions, Exclamations_."--_O. C. Felton's Gram._ p. 5, and p. 9.

[73] Quintilian is at fault here; for, in some of his writings, if not generally, Aristotle recognized _four_ parts of speech; namely, verbs, nouns, conjunctions, and articles. See _Aristot. de Poetica_, Cap. xx.

[74] "As there are ten different characters or figures in arithmetic to represent all possible quantities, there are also ten kinds of words or parts of speech to represent all possible sentences: viz.: article, noun, adjective, pronoun, verb, participle, adverb, preposition, conjunction, interjection."--_Chauvier's Punctuation_, p. 104.

[75] _The Friend_, 1829, Vol. ii, p. 117.

[76] _The Friend_, Vol. ii, p. 105.

[77] See the Preface to my Compendious English Grammar in the American editions of _the Treasury of Knowledge_, Vol. i, p. 8.

[78] Some say that Brightland himself was the writer of this grammar; but to suppose him the sole author, hardly comports with its dedication to the Queen, by her "most Obedient and Dutiful _Subjects_, the _Authors_;" or with the manner in which these are spoken of, in the following lines, by the laureate:

"Then say what Thanks, what Praises must attend
_The Gen'rous Wits_, who thus could condescend!
Skill, that to Art's sublimest Orb can reach,
Employ'd its humble Elements to Teach!
Yet worthily Esteem'd, because we know
To raise _Their_ Country's Fame _they_ stoop'd so low."--TATE.

[79] Dr. Campbell, in his Philosophy of Rhetoric, page 158th, makes a difficulty respecting the meaning of this passage: cites it as an instance of the misapplication of the term _grammar_; and supposes the writer's notion of the thing to have been, "of grammar in the abstract, _an_ universal archetype by which the particular grammars of all different tongues ought to be regulated." And adds, "If this was his meaning, I cannot say whether he is in the right or in the wrong, in this accusation. I acknowledge myself to be entirely ignorant of this ideal grammar." It would be more fair to suppose that Dr. Swift meant by "_grammar_" the rules and principles according to which the English language ought to be spoken and written; and, (as I shall hereafter show,) it is no great hyperbole to affirm, that every part of the code--nay, well-nigh every one of these rules and principles--is, in many instances, violated, if not by what may be called _the language itself_, at least by those speakers and writers who are under the strongest obligations to know and observe its true use.

[80] The phrase "_of any_" is here erroneous. These words ought to have been omitted; or the author should have said--"the least valuable of _all_ his productions."

[81] This word _latter_ should have been _last_; for _three_ works are here spoken of.