That which hath made more writers scrupulous about the first of these applications than about the other two, is, I imagine, the appearance not of the pronoun, but of the substantive verb in the singular adjoined to some term in the plural. In order to avoid this supposed in. congruity, the translators of the Bible have in one place stumbled on a very uncouth expression. "Search the

scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life ; "and they are they which testify of me *.'

In the other applications they have not hesitated to use the indefinite pronoun it, as in this expression: It is I, be not afraid t." Yet the phrase they are they in the first quotation, adopted to prevent the incongruous adjunction of the verb in the singular, and the subsequent noun or pronoun in the plural, is, I suspect, no better English, than the phrase I am I would have been in the second, by which they might have prevented the adjunction not less incongruous of the third person of the verb to the first personal pronoun. If there be any difference in respect of congruity, the former is the less incongruous of the two. The latter never occurs, but in such passages as those above quoted; whereas nothing is commoner than to use the substantive verb as a copula to two nouns differing in number; in which case it generally agrees with the first. "His meat was "locusts and wild honey t," is a sentence which I believe nobody ever suspected to be ungrammatical. Now as every noun may be represented by a pronoun, what is grammatical in those, must, by parity of reason, be grammatical in these also. Had the question been put, “What was his meat?" the answer had undoubtedly been proper, "It was locusts and wild honey." And this is another argument which in my apprehension is decisive.

But "this comes," as Dr Lowth expresseth himself in a similar case, "of forcing the English under "the rules of a foreign language, with which it has

• John ▼ 39.

+ Matt. xiv. 27.

Matt. iii. 4.

"little concern*" A convenient mode of speech which custom hath established, and for which there is pretty frequent occasion, ought not to be hastily given up, especially when the language doth not furnish us with another equally simple and easy to supply its place. I should not have entered so minutely into the defence of a practice sufficiently authorised by use, but in order, if possible, to satisfy those critics, who, though both ingenious and acute, are apt to be rather more scrupulous on the article of language, than the nature of the subject will admit. In every tongue there are real anomalies which have obtained the sanction of custom; for this at most hath been reckoned only dubious. There are particularly some in our own, which have never, as far as I know, been excepted against by any writer, and which, nevertheless, it is much more difficult to reconcile to the syntactic order, than that which I have been now defending. An example of this is the use of the indefinite article, which is naturally singular, before adjectives expressive of number, and joined with substantives in the plural. Such are the phrases following, a few persons, a great many men, a hundred or a thou sand ships.

There is another point, on which, as both the practice of writers, and the judgment of critics, seem to be divided, it may not be improper to make a few remarks. It is the way of using the infinitive after a verb in the preterite. Some will have it that the verb governed ought to be in the past, as well as the verb governing; and others that the infinitive ought to be in what is

• The English hath little or no affinity in structure either to the Latin or to the Greek. It much more resembles the modern European languages, especially the French. Accordingly we find in it an idiom very similar to that which hath been considered above. I do not mean the il y a, because the a is part of an active verb, and the words that follow in the sentence, are its regimen; consequently no agreement in person and number is required. But the idiom to which I allude is the il est, as used in the following sentence, "Il est des animaux "qui semblent reduits au toucher; il en est qui semblent participer a notre intel"ligence." Contemplation de la nature par Bonnet. I am too zealous an advocate for English independency, to look on this argument as conclusive. But I think it more than a sufficient counterpoise to all that can be pleaded on the other side from the syntax of the learned languages.

called the present, but what is in fact indefinite in regard to time. I do not think that on either side the different cases have been distinguished with sufficient accuracy. A very little attention will, I hope, enable us to unravel the difficulty entirely.

Let us begin with the simplest case, the infinitive after the present of the indicative. When the infinitive is expressive of what is conceived to be either future in regard to the verb in the present, or contemporary, the infinitive ought to be in the present. Thus, "I intend "to write to my father to-morrow.” "He seems to be

66

a man of letters." In the first example the verb to write, expresses what is future in respect of the verb intend. In the second the verb to be expresses what is equally present with the verb seems. About the propriety of such expressions there is no doubt. Again, if the infinitive after the verb in the present, be intended to express what must have been antecedent to that which is expressed by the governing verb, the infinitive must be in the preterperfect, even though the other verb be in the present. Thus, "From his conversation he appears to have studied Homer with great care and judgment." To use the present in this case, and say, "He appears to study Homer"-would overturn the

66

sense.

The same rule must be followed when the governing verb is in the preterite; for let it be observed, that it is the tense of the governing verb only that marks the absolute time; the tense of the verb governed marks solely its relative time with respect to the other. Thus I should say, "I always intended to write to my father, "though I have not yet done it." "He seemed to be a man of letters." "From a conversation I once had "with him, he appeared to have studied Homer with great care and judgment." Propriety plainly requires, that in the two first instances the infinitive should be in the present tense, and in the third instance, in the preterite.

66

66

Priestley has not expressed himself on this subject with precision. I found him better than I expected to find

him, is the only proper analogical expression. Expected to have found him, is irreconcileable alike to grammar and to sense. Indeed all verbs expressive of hope, desire, intention, or command, must invariably be followed by the present and not the perfect of the infinitive. Every body would perceive an error in this expression : "It is long since I commanded him to have done it." Yet expected to have found is no better. It is as clear that the finding must be posterior to the expectation, as that the obedience must be posterior to the command. But though the anonymous remarker formerly quoted is in the right as to the particular expressions criticised by him, he decides too generally, and seems to have imagined that in no case ought the the preterperfect of the infinitive, to follow the preterite of the indicative. If this was his opinion, he was egregiously mistaken. It is however agreed on both sides, that, in order to express the past with the defective verb ought, we must use the perfect of the infinitive, and say for example, "he ought to have done it ;" this in that verb being the only possible way of distinguishing the past from the present.

66

There is only one other observation of Dr Lowth, on which, before I conclude this article, I must beg leave to offer some remarks. "Phrases like the following, though very common, are improper: Much depends upon the "rule's being observed; and error will be the consequence of its being neglected. For here is a noun "and a pronoun representing it, each in the possessive case, that is, under government of another noun, but "without 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*." For my part, notwithstanding what is here very speciously urged, I am not satisfied that there is any fault in the phrases censured. They appear to me to be perfectly in the idiom of our tongue, and such as on some occasions could not

* Introduction, &c. Sentences, Note on the 6th Phrase.

easily be avoided, unless by recurring to circumlocution, an expedient which invariably tends to enervate the expression. But let us examine the matter more nearly.

This author admits that the active participle may be employed as a noun, and has given some excellent directions regarding the manner in which it ought to be construed, that the proper distinction may be preserved between the noun and the gerund. Phrases like these, therefore, he would have admitted as unexceptionable, "Much depends upon their observing of the rule, and "error will be the consequence of their neglecting of it." Now, though I allow both the modes of expression to be good, I think the first simpler and better than the second. Let us consider whether the former be liable to any objections, which do not equally affect the latter.

One principal objection to the first is, "You cannot supply the place of the possessive case by the preposi"tion of before the noun or pronoun." Right; but before you draw any conclusion from this circumstance, try whether it will not equally affect both expressions; for if it does, both are on this account to be rejected, or neither. In the first, the sentence will be made to run this, "Much depends upon the being observed of the "rule, and error will be the consequence of the being "neglected of it." Very bad without question. In the second, thus," Much depends upon the observing of them "of the rule, and error will be the consequence of the neglecting of them of it." Still worse. But it may be thought that as, in the last example, the participal noun gets a double regimen, this occasions all the impropriety and confusion. I shall therefore make the experiment, on a more simple sentence. "Much will depend on your pupil's composing, but more on his reading frequently." Would it be English to say, " Much will depend on the composing of your pupil, but more on the reading of "him frequently?" No certainly. If this argument then prove any thing, it proves too much, and consequently can be no criterion.

66

The only other objection mentioned is, that being observed and being neglected, are not nouns. It is acknowledged