nient mode of fpeech which custom hath established, and for which there is pretty frequent occafion, ought not to be haftily given up, efpes cially when the language doth not furnish us with another equally fimple and easy to supply its place. I fhould not have entered fo minutely into the defence of a practice fufficiently authorifed by use, but in order, if poffible, to fatisfy those critics, who though both ingenious and acute, are apt to be rather more fcrupulous on the article of language, than the nature of the fubject will admit. In every tongue there are real anomalies which have obtained the fanction of cuftom; for this at moft hath been reckoned only dubious. There are particularly fome in our own, which have never, as far as I know, been excepted againft by any writer, and which,

we find in it an idiom very fimilar to that which hath been confidered 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; confequently no agreement in perfon and number is required. But the idiom to which I allude is the' il eft, as used in the following fentence, “ Il est des animaux qui "femblent reduits au toucher; il en eft 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 conclufive. But I think it more than a fufficient counterpoife to all that can be pleaded on the other fide from the fyntax of the learned languages.

Kk 4

never

nevertheless, it is much more difficult to reconcile to the fyntactic order, than that which I have been now defending. An example of this is the use of the indefinite article, which is naturally fingular, before adjectives expreffive of number, and joined with fubftantives in the plural. Such are the phrafes following, a few perfons, 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, feem to be divided, it may not be improper to make a few remarks. It is the way of ufing the infinitive after a verb in the preterit. Some will have it that the verb governed ought to be in the paft, as well as the verb governing; and others that the infinitive ought to be in what is called the prefent, but what is in fact indefinite in regard to time. I do not think that on either fide the different cafes have been diftinguifhed with fufficient accuracy. A very little attention will, I hope, enable us to unravel the difficulty entirely.

LET us begin with the fimpleft case, the infinitive after the prefent of the indicative. When

the

86

the infinitive is expreffive of what is conceived to be either future in regard to the verb in the prefent, or contemporary, the infinitive ought to be in the present. Thus, "I intend to write to my father to-morrow." "He feems to be a "man of letters." In the first example the verb to write, expreffes what is future in refpect of the verb intend. In the fecond the verb to be expreffes what is equally prefent with the verb feems. About the propriety of fuch expreffions there is no doubt. Again, if the infinitive after the verb in the prefent, be intended to exprefs what must have been antecedent to that which is expreffed by the governing verb, the infinitive must be in the preterperfect, even though the other verb be in the prefent. Thus, "From "his converfation he appears to have ftudied "Homer with great care and judgment." To use the present in this cafe, and fay, • He appears to study Homer"-would overturn the fense.

THE fame rule must be followed when the governing verb is in the preterit; for let it be obferved, that it is the tenfe of the governing verb only that marks the absolute time; the tense of the

verb

verb governed marks folely 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 feemed to be "a man of letters." "From a converfation I "once had with him, he appeared to have ftudied "Homer with great care and judgment." Propriety plainly requires that in the two firft inftances the infinitive should be in the prefent tenfe, and in the third inftance, in the preterit.

PRIESTLEY has not expreffed himself on this fubject with precifion. I found him better than I expected to find him, is the only proper analogical expreffion. Expected to have found him, is irreconcilable alike to grammar and to fenfe. Indeed all verbs expreffive of hope, defire, intention, or command, muft invariably be followed by the present and not the perfect of the infinitive. Every body would perceive an error in this expreffion: "It is long fince 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 pofterior to the command. But though the anonymous remarker formerly quot

ed

ed is in the right as to the particular expreffions criticised by him, he decides too generally, and feems 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 fides, that, in order to exprefs the past with the defective verb ought, we must use the perfect of the infinitive, and fay for example, "he ought to have done it," this in that verb being the only poffible way of diftinguishing the paft from the present.

THERE is only one other obfervation of Dr. Lowth, on which, before I conclude this article, I must beg leave to offer fome remarks. "Phrafes "like the following, though very common, are

66

improper: Much depends upon the rule's be

ing obferved; and error will be the confequence "of its being neglected. For here is a noun and "a pronoun reprefenting it, each in the pof"feffive cafe, that is, under government of ano"ther noun, but without other noun to govern "it: for being obferved, and being neglected, are "not nouns: nor can you fupply the place of "the poffeffive cafe by the prepofition of before

"the