pe ssoldest"; whereas, "to ham pet pou ssoldest "; (p. 52), " and pe sselt conne"; (p. 241), "pe sselt habbe "; whereas (p. 29), "pou sselt ywyte"; (p. 54), “yef þe wylt"; whereas (p. 101), “yef þou wylt"; (p. 73), “pe woldest pe rapre lete be ulaze quik "; but (p. 146), "pet pou noldest "; (p. 90), "pis pi-self pe mi3t yzy "; but (p. 133), “panne pou mist fruyt gaderi"; further (p. 187), “Vayre zone bi merciuol as pe mist, yef pou hest yno; of guode "; (p. 232), “ do hardeliche alsuo moche ase þe mizt... uor þou ne mizt do no ping"... (p. 224), “pench ase moche ase pe mizt "; (p. 269), “be auenture þe my3t eft by onderuonge." The analogous confusion of pe and pec will occur to every one. Had þu and pe continued in common use, pe would have displaced pu, just as it previously displaced pec.

The modern Quaker thee does not take a verb to correspond. Where the Kentish has pe sselt, pe multipliest, the modern forms are thee shall, thee multiplies. The reason is perhaps twofold. The northern form of the second pers. sing. of verbs (ending in -s) did its share. But the impersonal form of the verb with dative construction was a greater power. Thus the imp. form from P. Plow. already quoted: "If thee wel hadde liked," or Shoreham's "Levedy, the was wel wors."

As to general reasons for the usurpation of nominative functions by the dative case, we have no space here for inquiry. Perhaps we may bring to bear on the question Schleicher's remark at the close of his chapter on the personal pronoun (Comp. 4th ed. p. 641: "Es scheint als ob das deutliche hervortreten der stämme für die I und II person in den sprachen vermieden sei: villeicht haben wir hierin eine art euphemismus zu erkennen, wie ja vilfach in den sprachen eine scheu vor dem nennen des‘ich' und 'du' sich zeigt." Thus one prefers “me seems” to “I see.” We put the personal part in an oblique case, rather than in the nom. But whatever the general reason, the tendency was helped by the analogy of the impersonal verbs in dative construction.

This construction depends entirely on the inflexions. When these become less and less used or understood, which is the case with the progress of English, either the construction itself will drop into disuse, or else it will be otherwise understood. Take the expression "pe bihouep godes helpe." pe is dative, helpe is genitive. But such syntactical relations fall out of use. The common understanding is fain to take pe as a nominative, helpe as direct object of the verb. Thus arises a dative-nominative; so to-day,

ninety-nine people out of a hundred understand me thinks as I think. Only with the second person, however, did this dativenom. take firm hold. There was a tendency to change the case as well as the general construction. An interesting example occurs in Hen. VI, Part II, 3, 2. The king says: "Woe is me for Gloster, wretched man"; whereto the queen replies: "Be woe for me," understanding thou. So O. E. H. p. 31, "3if him is lap," but p. 35,"he is lap," and p. 39, ne beo eow noht lap." Cf. also constructions in Past. Letters, quoted above. The much used impersonal constructions of Early English must have helped largely in the formation of a dative-nom. Mätzner gives a number of these. Thus (Orm. 2050) "pe birrp ec hire taelenn"; (Joh. 16, 7) " éow fremap pæt ic fare"; (Cædm. 3649) "hú þé swefnade," etc. We may find expressions where a dat.-nom is still plainer. Thus Chaucer, Prol. to Wife of Bath's Tale, 329:

Have thou ynough, what thar the recch or care
How merily that other folkes fare?

Frere's Tale, 67:

The thar no more as in this cas travayle.

Better still, Frere's Tale, 103:

If that the happe come into oure schire.

In O. E. H. 195 (On god ureisun, etc.) we have, "pet pe ne wontep." These sound like regular nom. constructions, and were in time so regarded. The verb was put sometimes in second pers. sing., showing that the impersonal construction was forgotten. Instructive here is the reading of the folios in Hamlet, V 2: "Does it not, thinkst thee, stand me now upon," and this is strengthened by the usage of many dialects (as opposed to the usage of Friends), as well as by such expressions as Defoe's "What ailest thee now?" (cf. Minto, Prose Manual, p. 409). Elworthy, in a paper in Trans. Phil. Soc. 1877-9, notes for West Somerset the form "Thee art."

But there are other forms, e. g. thee are (addressed to one person), a compromise between sing. and plur. sometimes heard. The most remarkable case I ever observed was where a lady, not a Friend, extended to several visitors, who were of that sect, an invitation as follows: "Won't thee all walk into this room?"

The "ethical dative," finally, did its part to help the dat.-nom. We know how familiar the former was in O. E. poetry. Thus

III.-PARTICIPIAL PERIPHRASES IN ATTIC PROSE.

Not infrequently in classic Greek we find the combination of a participle with eîvai or yiyveobai used when a finite form of the verb represented by the participle might rather have been expected. Such phenomena have nowhere received, I believe, any exhaustive treatment, so that the force of these periphrases has not been clearly determined, much less have the limits of these combinations been fixed either for the whole range of classic Greek or for individual authors. It is true the subject has been incidentally treated in the grammars and commentaries, but such treatment has been based on a range of examples at once too wide and too narrow, and without regard to the very different categories under which they fall. In consequence the deductions are uniformly loose and inadequate, sometimes erroneous and contradictory.' Those who see 1 Kühner (II, §353, 3) says: "Um dem Prädikate ein grösseres Gewicht zu geben, zerlegt die Sprache zuweilen den einfachen Verbal-ausdruck desselben in das Partizip und die Kopula eiva." Again, "Häufig ist sie auch in der Attischen Prosa wenn eine Handlung als bleibender Zustand bezeichnet werden soll." He also notes the frequency in Plato of xwv eivai. (He should rather have said eiva xwv, 23 cases against 10.) Bernhardy, on the other hand (Syntax, p. 334), considers such expressions are "ohne eine gewählteren Sinn (wie die Lateinische Formel dieser Art) oder den Ausdruck der Dauer den man in einzelnen Phrasen, worunter das Platonische iorìv xov, zuweilen beabsichtigte. Aber ein v neben Participien vermied man als zwecklose Härte und so erkennt man in solchen Stellungen nicht sowohl die participiale als adjective Bedeutung." Krüger (§56) cites indiscriminately a number of examples without offering any explanation. Madvig (I quote from the English translation) says: Some few present participles, viz., dɩapépwr, ἔχων with an adverb, προσήκων, πρέπων, δέον, ἐξόν, συμφέρον, sometimes occur as adjective predicate nouns, with eiμí, or yiyvouai, occasionally also others in connection with an actual adjective." Again, "A participle of the present or aorist with eiui, as a periphrasis of the simple tense of the verb (in like manner as the partic. pf. under certain circumstances is joined to eiu) is a poetical licence of not very frequent occurrence; in the prose passages where it does occur there is apt to be a certain emphasis in the several and distinct expression of the action (the partic.) and its existence (eiui)." Classen, in his Thucyd. (Anhang, Bk. I, 1, 1) draws attention to the different character of these combinations according to the position of ɛivaɩ, and observes that only adjectivized participles are used in this way in Thucydides.

periphrastic forms are wont to 3. with the scholia thereon, and to απίσει τὸ ἄνθρωπος ὑγιαίνων ἐστὶν ἢ τὸ ἄνσεμνων τοῦ ἄνθρωπος βαδίζει ἢ τέμνει. From the point of view of formal rse as made up of classes, and every members of one class with memat he say militate against the existne in the two forms of expression. In →sh such a difference for Attic Prose' sin use of such combinations.

as thoroughly a verb as the indicative, -ple is distinguished as to function akes subsidiary and not principal pree exceptional exor, it is used merely to

and in only one case (the adjectivized end it compared. As a verb then it has con, activity, and is distinguished from ssing the manifestation of an action or ..er. of its making subsidiary predications, ... which hold subsidiary relations in a que cases, and so is declined. Thus ve, it is the form selected whenever it is

in an adjective relation; but its new sed by the article or by rs (indefinite .: s completely changed. τοὺς ἐπαινουμένους évous differ widely, as in English the no means the same in "The misleadis opinion" and "The argument misleadon." Now in periphrases, such as dúor parallel phenomenon; the participle holds belongs to an adjective or noun, and, since cation, the participle must here lack the ...d be closely approximated to an adjective.

based on a collection of the cases in the Attic Orators. des and the spurious works of Demosthenes and most the few spurious pieces in Teubner's 6th vol.; and The case of the latter I have used the collections made by krig, vai three books without being able to add anything to them. tint cited in commentaries and elsewhere from Xen. fall easily -regarios established for these writers.