scruples, we shall find there an equal repugnancy to all the applications above rehearsed.*

But, to clear up this matter as much as possible, I shall recur to some remarks of the last mentioned critic, concerning the significations and the uses of the neuter it. "The pronoun it,” he tells us, "is sometimes employed to express; first, the subject of any inquiry or discourse; secondly, the state or condition of any thing or person: thirdly, the thing, whatever it be, that is the cause of any effect or event, or any person considered merely as a cause, without regard to proper personality." In illustration of the third use, he quotes these words,

You heard her say herself, it was not I-
'Twas I that kill'd her.†

The observations of this author concerning the neuter pronoun are, as far as they go, unexceptionable. He ought to have added to the word personality, in the third use, the words gender or number. The example which he hath given shows that there is no more regard to gender than to personality; and that there ought to be no more regard to number than to either of the former, may be evinced from the considerations following.

When a personal pronoun must be used indefinitely, as in asking a question whereof the subject is unknown, there is a necessity of using one person for all the persons, one gender for all the genders, and one number for both numbers. Now in English, custom hath consigned to this indefinite use, the third person, the neuter gender, and the singular number. Accordingly, in asking a question, nobody censures this use of the pronoun, as in the interrogation, Who is it? Yet by the answer it may be found to be I, or he, one or many. But whatever be the answer, if the question be proper, it is proper to begin the answer by expressing the subject of inquiry in the same indefinite manner wherein it was expressed in the question. The words it is are consequently pertinent here, whatever be the words which ought to follow, whether I or he, we or they. Nay, this way of beginning the answer by the same indefinite expression of the subject that was used in the question, is the only method authorized in the language, for connecting these two together, and showing that what is asserted is an answer to the question asked. And if there be nothing faulty in the expression, when it is an answer to a question actually proposed, there can be no fault in it, where no question is proposed. For every answer, that is not a bare assent or denial, ought, independently of the question, to contain a proposition grammatically enunciated; and every affirmation or negation ought to be so enunciated, as that it might be an answer to a question. Thus by a very simple sorites it can be proved, that if the pronoun it may be used indefinitely in one case, it may in every case. Nor is it possi

vos.

* In Latin id fuit ille would be as gross a solecism, as id fuit ego, or id fuit

† Shakspeare.

In this observation I find I have the concurrence of Dr. Priestley.

ble to conceive even the shadow of a reason, why one number may not as well serve indefinitely for both numbers as one person for all the persons, and one gender for all the genders.

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 incongruity, 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." 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," 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 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 authorized by use, but in order, if possible to satisfy those critics, who, though both ingenious and acute, are

† Matt. xiv. 27.

Matt. iii. 4.

* John v. 39. § 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 ya, 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 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.

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 judgement 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 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 judgement." 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 judgement." Propriety plainly requires, that in the two first 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. 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 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, ought to have done it ;" this in that verb being the only possible way of distinguishing the past from the present.

"he

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 he 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

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

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 any thing, 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 commonly 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.