Page images
PDF
EPUB

nient 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 authorized 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 thousand ships.

There is another point on which, as both the practice of writers and the judgment of critics seemed 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 preterit. 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 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 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 pro

cause 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 nôtre intelligence."-Contemplation de la Nature, par Bounet. 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.

priety of such expressions there is no doubt. Again, if the infinite 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 sense.

The same rule must be followed when the governing verb is in the preterit; 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 first two instances the infinitive should be in the present tense, and in the third instance in the preterit.

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 irreconcilable 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. Everybody 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 preterperfect of the infinitive to follow the preterit 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.

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 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 preposition 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 thus: "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 participial 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 anything, it proves too much, and, consequently, can be no criterion.

The only other objection mentioned is, that "being observed and being neglected are not nouns." It is acknowledged that, in the common acceptation of the word, they are not nouns, but passive participles; neither is the active participle com

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

monly a noun; neither is the infinitive of the verb active or passive a noun; yet the genius of the tongue permits that all these may be construed as nouns in certain occurrences. The infinitive, in particular, is employed substantively when it is made either the nominative or the regimen of a verb. Now in this way not the infinitive only, but along with it all the words in construction, are understood as one compound noun, as in the examples following: "To love God and our neighbour is a duty incumbent on us all,” and “The Gospel strongly inculcates on us this important lesson, to love God and our neighbour." But in no other situation can such clauses supply the place of nouns. They are never used in construction with other nouns followed by a preposition. The quotation brought from Spenser is, I suspect, a mere Grecism, which was not in his time, more than it is at present, conformable to the English idiom. For is the only preposition that seems ever to have been construed with such clauses, after another verb; and even this usage is now totally laid aside.

I am of opinion, therefore, upon the whole, that as the idiom in question is analogical, supported by good use, and sometimes very expedient, it ought not to be entirely reprobated.

CHAPTER V.

OF THE QUALITIES OF STYLE STRICTLY RHETORICAL.

PURITY, of which I have treated at some length in the two preceding chapters, may justly be denominated grammatical truth. It consisteth in the conformity of the expression to the sentiment which the speaker or the writer intends to convey by it, as moral truth consisteth in the conformity of the sentiment intended to be conveyed to the sentiment actually entertained by the speaker or the writer; and logical truth, as was hinted above, in the conformity of the sentiment to the nature of things. The opposite to logical truth is properly error; to moral truth, a lie; to grammatical truth, a blunder. Now the only standard by which the conformity implied in grammatical truth must be ascertained in every language is, as hath been evinced,* reputable, national, and present use in that language.

But it is with the expression as with the sentiment, it is not enough to the orator that both be true. A sentence may be a just exhibition, according to the rules of the language, of the thought intended to be conveyed by it, and may there

* B. ii., chap. i.

fore, to a mere grammarian, be unexceptionable, which to an orator may appear extremely faulty. It may, nevertheless, be obscure; it may be languid; it may be inelegant; it may be flat; it may be unmusical. It is not ultimately the justness either of the thought or of the expression which is the aim of the orator, but it is a certain effect to be produced in the hearers. This effect as he purposeth to produce in them by means of language, which he makes the instrument of conveying his sentiments into their minds, he must take care, in the first place, that his style be perspicuous, that so he may be sure of being understood. If he would not only inform the understanding, but please the imagination, he must add the charms of vivacity and elegance, corresponding to the two sources from which, as was observed in the beginning of this work,* the merit of an address of this kind results. By vivacity, resemblance is attained; by elegance, dignity of manner; for as to the dignity of the subject itself, or thing imitated, it concerns solely the thought. If he purposes to work upon the passions, his very diction, as well as his sentiments, must be animated. Thus, language and thought, like body and soul, are made to correspond, and the qualities of the one exactly to co-operate with those of the other.

But though the perfection of the body consists, as was formerly observed, in its fitness for serving the purposes of the soul, it is, at the same time, capable of one peculiar excellence as a visible object. The excellence I mean is beauty, which evidently implies more than what results from the fitness of the several organs and members for answering their respective ends. That there is a beauty in the perceived fitness of means to their end, and instruments to their use, is uncontrovertible. All that I contend for here is, that this is not the whole of what is implied in the term beauty. The eyes of one person may be much inferior in this respect to those of another, though equally fit for all the purposes of vision. The like may be said of every other feature. Analogous to this, there is an excellence of which language is susceptible as an audible object, distinct from its aptitude for conveying the sentiments of the orator with light and energy into the minds of the hearers. Now as music is to the ear what beauty is to the eye, I shall, for want of a more proper term, denominate this excellence in style its music, though I acknowledge the word is rarely used with so great latitude.

Thus it appears that, besides purity, which is a quality entirely grammatical, the five simple and original qualities of style, considered as an object to the understanding, the imagination, the passions, and the ear, are perspicuity, vivacity, elegance, animation, and music.

*Book i., chap. i.

+ Book i., chap. iv.

« PreviousContinue »