Page images
PDF
EPUB

As the words stand, they imply that 'he had suffered the woodward' (or guardian of the wood), and no other person than the woodward, to use his discretion in the distant woods.' But from the context it is clear that he had suffered the woodward to use his discretion in the distant woods only.' The following arrangement would make the sentence plain :

It was in the distant woods only, that he suffered the woodward to use his discretion. In the groves about his house he allowed no marking-iron but his

own.

436. Gibbon writes:

The province of Gaul seems, and indeed only seems, an exception to this universal toleration.-Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, c. ii.

On this, Mr. Harrison remarks (English Language, p. 337), as the passage stands, it means that Gaul was in reality no exception at all; but that it only seemed an exception, 'whereas Mr. Gibbon means that the sanguinary religious rites of the Gauls, under the Druids, were not tolerated by the Romans, and that the restraint imposed upon the exercise of those rites was the only exception to the toleration which the Roman world freely enjoyed.'

Mr. Harrison has quite mistaken the meaning. Gibbon intends to say that the exception was merely apparent and not real; for the Romans, while abolishing human sacrifices and suppressing the dangerous power of the Druids, allowed the priests themselves, their gods, and their altars, to subsist in peaceful obscurity till the final destruction of Paganism. The whole passage reads thus:

The province of Gaul seems, and indeed only seems, an exception to this universal toleration. Under the specious pretext of abolishing human sacrifices, the emperors Tiberius and Claudius suppressed the dangerous power of the Druids; but the priests themselves, their gods and their altars, subsisted in peaceful obscurity till the final destruction of Paganism.

437. Again Gibbon writes:

Pestilence and famine contributed to fill up the measure of the calamities of Rome. The first could be only

imputed to the just indignation of the gods; but a monopoly of corn, supported by the riches and power of the minister, was considered as the immediate cause of the second.--Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, c. iv.

'According to this form of expression,' says Mr. Harrison, the pestilence could be imputed, and nothing more than imputed, to the just indignation of the gods; whereas Gibbon means to say that the pestilence could not be attributed to the wicked administration of Commodus, but solely and entirely to the just indignation of the gods; only to the just indignation of the gods.'

Here there is no doubt of the meaning. The writer intends to say, that the pestilence could be imputed to the just indignation of the gods, and to that alone. No one would suppose that only is intended to qualify the word imputed; and where there is no possibility of mistake or ambiguity, we ought not to be too severe in our criticism.

438. We observe the following errors in the use of not only:

Addison writes,

By greatness I do not only mean the bulk of any single object, but the largeness of the whole view.— Spectator, No. 412.

Dr. Blair, Rhetoric, Lecture xxi., says that the author intended to refer only to the bulk of a single object;' and he corrects,

I do not mean the bulk of any single object only, but the largeness of a whole view.

439. The adverbial phrase at least is often misplaced. Dr. Blair says,

To support this weighty argument, he enters into a controversy with A. Gellius, in order to prove that Aristotle's Rhetoric was not published, till after Demosthenes had spoken at least his most considerable orations.-Rhetoric, Lecture xxvi.

It is evident that the phrase at least is intended to qualify the words 'most considerable;' and it would have been better to say, had spoken the most considerable at least of his orations.'

[ocr errors]

440. The inconsistent combination of adverbs should be carefully avoided; for almost never it is better to say scarcely ever, or very seldom.

Dr. Blair writes:

It produces that slow Alexandrian air, which is finely suited to a close, and for this reason such lines almost never occur together, but are used in finishing the couplet.-Rhetoric, Lecture xxxviii.

In the following passage we observe an unhappy combination and accumulation of adverbs:

How much soever the reformation of this corrupt and degenerate age is almost utterly to be despaired of, we may yet have a more comfortable prospect of future times. Tillotson, Preface to Sermon, 49.

CHAPTER XIII.

CONJUNCTIONS.

441. A Conjunction, from the Latin con-junctio, signifies a 'joining together,' and the term is applied to a certain class of connective' words. It is agreed that a conjunction joins sentences together; but whether a conjunction may be said to join individual words together, is a disputed point.

The early grammarians, says Sir John Stoddart (Universal Grammar, p. 159), included what we call conjunctions and prepositions under the general name of connective (ovvdeoμos). Subsequent writers, however, thought it would be convenient to separate these two classes of connectives. Hence, they gave to that which shows the relation of word to word the name of preposition; and to that which shows the relation of sentence to sentence the name of conjunction.

[ocr errors]

Harris expressly says (Hermes, ii. 2), the conjunction connects not words, but sentences;' and other grammarians have concluded that a preposition connects words; a conjunction connects propositions.'

Horne Tooke objects, that there are cases in which the words, commonly called conjunctions, do not connect sentences, or show any relation between them: as, 'Two and two make

four.' 'John and Jane are a handsome couple.' He asks does two make four? Is John a couple? See Diversions of Purley, i. 209, 210.

442. Again, in this sentence, 'All men are black or white,' we cannot say that it is compounded of 'All men are black, or all men are white.' The meaning is not that all men are of one colour,' but that, 'If a man is not black, he is white; if he is not white, he is black.'

Sir John Stoddart's reply to this objection is not satisfactory. He contends that the conjunction varies the assertion, and does potentially, if not actually, combine different sentences. For example, in such a sentence as this: 'I bought a book for two and sixpence,' he argues that the purchaser did employ two shillings in buying, and he did employ sixpence in buying. So that if the meaning were fully developed, it would be, 'I bought a book for two shillings and I bought a book for sixpence.'

This is very far-fetched. Why, 'I bought the book for half-a-crown; and if we choose to call half-a-crown 'two and sixpence,' that does not divide one sentence into two. But Sir John Stoddart is not quite satisfied with his own theory; for he adds:

'Nevertheless, if any one contend that the word and in the above sentences does simply and solely connect together the nouns, then we say it must in such cases be called a preposition; but this will in no degree alter its property or character as a conjunction, when it is really employed to connect sentences.' Universal Grammar, p. 160.

443. This suggestion, that under certain circumstances and must be called a preposition, may be contrasted with Mr. Cobbett's notion that with has sometimes the force of a conjunction. He thinks (Grammar, § 246) that when with means along with, together with, in company with, it is nearly the same as and. Hence he would say, 'He, with his brothers, are able to do much.' 'If,' says he, 'the pronoun be used instead of brothers, it will be in the objective case: แ "He, with them, are able to do much." But this is no impediment to the including of the noun (represented by them) in the nominative. With, which is a preposition, takes the objective case after it; but if the persons, or things, represented by the words coming after the preposition, form part of the actors in a sentence, the understood nouns make part of the nominatives. "The bag,

M

166

66

with the guineas and dollars in it, were stolen;" for if we say was stolen," it is possible for us to mean that the bag only was stolen. Sobriety with great industry and talent, enable a man to perform great deeds," and not enables; for sobriety alone would not enable a man to do great things.'

444. Here we observe a confusion of form and meaning. As a general rule, a subject-nominative in the singular must have a predicate-verb in the singular. Any number of nouns, under government of the preposition with, cannot discharge the function of subject-nominatives. Even if these nouns represent persons, that makes no difference; because they are not formally stated as nominatives. The use of the objective in the phrase with them, when a pronoun is substituted for the noun, evidently suggests a doubt to Mr. Cobbett's mind; but he has recourse to the artifice of 'understanding,' and he says that the understood nouns make part of the nominatives.' The brothers may have been actors in the work, but to maintain that they form part of the actors in the sentence' is quite wrong. He confounds the actors in a work with the subjectnominatives in a sentence, the meaning with the grammatical form. The sentence should be, 'He, with his brothers, is able to do much.'

[ocr errors]

'The bag with the guineas and dollars in it was stolen' is equivalent to 'the bag containing guineas and dollars was stolen.' To allege that this construction might imply that 'the bag only was stolen' is a piece of special pleading.

445. Horne Tooke confounds the origin of conjunctions with their function in a sentence; and because all conjunctions may, as he thinks, be etymologically traced to other kinds of words, he denies them to be a separate sort of words or Part of Speech.

[ocr errors]

First of all, he endeavours to show that if and an, which have been called conditional conjunctions, are merely the original imperatives of the verbs gifan to give,' and annan 'to grant. Then he says that those words which are called conditional conjunctions are to be accounted for in all languages, in the same manner as he has accounted for if and an. Not, indeed, that they must all mean precisely give and grant; but that they have some equivalent meaning, such as, be it, suppose, &c. Hence he discards all supposed mystery, not only about these conditionals, but about all those words called conjunctions of sentences. He denies them to be a separate sort of words; and he contends, that the peculiar signification of each must be traced among other parts of speech, by the help of the particular etymology of each respective language. 'In short,' he says, there is not such a thing as a conjunction in any language, which may not, by a skilful herald, be traced down to its own family and origin.'-Diversions of Purley, pp. 109–126.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »