English Grammar, Historical and Analytical

as possible, to draw all things to one.' It seems at least probable that, in an age eminently scientific, general literature may echo tones first heard in lectures on science; for we know that formerly, in a time remarkable for a superabundance of poetry, the prose of the period was to a great extent written in a poetical style. In that time-the latter half of the sixteenth century—one style of prose, greatly admired, had the exuberant diction then admired in verse. In the next century, BARROW had among his cotemporaries nine or ten authors whose style was, like his own, synthetic; but they were not his imitators. Their style was closely associated with their own favourite studies, and was a characteristic of their time, when those studies were greatly prevalent. There was in the eighteenth century a widespread tendency to diminish the amount of all that had been based on authority, and, cotemporaneous with that tendency, there was an increase of neatness and elegance in writing prose. There was less to be said, and accordingly it was said more readily. The English style of that time was imitated by several German authors. In the nineteenth century, the short sentences of our analytic prose are cotemporaneous with our widespread 'rudiments of popular science.' These words denote, of course, nothing more than such 'rudiments of science' as may be readily and commonly understood. Science has two circles, an inner and an outer. Words spoken in the former are in the latter vaguely echoed, but their tendency is to some extent apprehended. Imitation follows; and the style well adapted to topics strictly scientific is made wearisome when its echoes are heard almost everywhere. In a word, the analytic style that rightly belongs to science has, to a considerable extent, affected the style of our modern general literature. Other causes of alteration might be noticed, but of modern innovations the chief is an affectation of scientific precision.

Constructions of sentences and uses of words are from time to time affected by alterations of fashion, while all that in our syntax is permanent is based on the habits and traditions of general literature. The term general, as here employed, should be defined. It might be rather narrowly defined as a term applied to the collected prose writings of such authors as these:-DRYDEN, ADDISON, GOLDSMITH, SOUTHEY, and MACAULAY. But this term 'general,' as applied to literature, should be more liberally defined; accordingly, an attempt is here made to give the wider definition required. All the people speaking one tongue may, with regard to their lan

guage, be divided into three classes. The first is the large class, having no literary culture. Their words, including many old forms, are often interesting, but their syntax does not show the freedom and variety of English. On the other hand, there is a comparatively small class of writers on science. They have their own special vocabularies, while they employ to a considerable extent the syntax of general literature; but their writings, when strictly scientific, do not show the freedom and variety of English. Its wealth of words and its rules of syntax are shown by our best writers in general literature, and this, liberally defined, includes such writings as the following:-poetry, imaginative prose, readable histories and biographies, well-written accounts of voyages and travels, and the essays and reviews contained in several excellent journals, literary and political, having a wide circulation. These writings, taken altogether, form the body of our general literature. With regard to language, the main tendency of this literature is conciliatory, connecting the past with the present, and the language of culture with interests as wide as society itself. Literary culture is thus made in several important respects conservative. Writers die, but their best works live, and in these writings old words, phrases, and modes of construction are preserved. Thus the conservative power of literature resists, to a considerable extent, the influence of that mutability to which every living tongue is liable. But however durable the forms of literary culture, the destiny of a living tongue is mutability. Forms of speech have not the durability of those sculptured in marble. While we are writing of certain constructions, they are becoming more and more obsolete, and the outlines we would faithfully portray are fading away while we are looking at them. All that an historical and inductive writer on syntax can do is to define forms comparatively permanent, and draw, between the old and the new, some lines of demarcation. Books called monuments' grow old in style, though not in substance. The Bible of the seventeenth century had even then an antique tone, and for its interpretation the aid of a special annotated vocabulary is now required.

The facts already noticed indicate not only the general design of the syntax following, but also the subdued tones of several assertions given in the shape of 'rules.' The treatment of syntax is here inductive, and its 'rules' are therefore comparatively few; but examples and special observations of facts are proportionately numerous. The authorities referred to are

not reasonings, but facts, and these are found in general literature. It is everywhere taken for granted that our best anthors, though here and there careless, have on the whole written good English. They are our teachers. A grammarian's highest aim is to make clear, by means of analysis and classification, the constructions that our best writers have made comparatively permanent. These are our rules of syn

tax.

Two brief examples of induction are given here. (1.) The old preposition anént is fallen into disuse, and one of several substitutes is the phrase as to. Is it correct? Reasonings can say nothing here, but references to many authors will show that the phrase is often used. (2.) Where an adjective-clause begins with which, the antecedent should be a word, and should not be remote. Otherwise a false reference may appear. Ex. I allude to the article "BLIND," in the Encyclopædia Britannica, published at Edinburgh in 1783, which was written by him.'MACKENZIE, Life of Blacklock. Is the rule absolute? Almost; but the following excerpt may be noticed:- Throughout the whole of those lives [of English Poets] there appears an assumption of superiority in the biographer over the subjects of his labours, which diminishes the idea of their talents.'-RoscoE, Life of Pope.

It has been said English Syntax should be inductively studied. This remark does not imply that induction is the sole basis of knowledge. If such a thesis could be maintained, this would not be its place; for that thesis is general. Here the special subject is English Syntax, and respecting this alone the proposition is submitted, that rules should be founded on many concordant examples. There are 'rules' not generally observed, 'rules' not confirmed by respectable evidences, and 'rules' of which good authors have apparently known little or nothing. [See $58.] On the other hand, there are seen in literature constructions of which little is said in our numerous 'rules.' These observations lead to such conclusions as the following:-that many examples should be given, that these should be classified, so that they may be readily found, and that rules should serve as symbols of many concordant examples. One apparent objection may be named. There are classed with good authors several who knew methodically little or nothing of syntax; indeed, they wrote well because their genius was not confined within the bounds of very strict rules. As verse has been well written by men who did not study rules of prosody, so prose has been well written by men who hardly ever thought of syntax. It is obviously true; but if urged here as an objection, it is quite out of place. Its opposite would be a general thesis, to the effect

that all knowledge must be acquired by studying rules. Here that notion is not for a moment entertained. Again and again it has been refuted. There are, of course, errors to be found in our best writers; but in many respects their modes of construction are cognate and concordant. Yet it is not to be supposed that their concords have always been studied. That notion, shown to be false by the theory and history of poetry and music, is also refuted by the history of literature.

Reading is the best method of studying syntax. But there are certain aids that may be supplied in a treatise on Grammar. Examples found scattered in many books may be collected and classified. Our knowledge of liberties allowed by traditional usage will guard us against pedantry, and the observance of a few good rules will make our confidence secure. Inquirers will find here in fairly selected examples answers that cannot be always well given in the shape of concise rules; they will find, above all, that tame formality is a thing not cognate with the genius of our literature. On the whole, our best authors have respected traditional order, while they have also loved freedom.

An eclectic list of prose writers is appended, but is not intended to represent all the wealth of our literature. The general aim is to name writers in all departments of general literature, and to indicate the times to which their works severally belong. Their traits of style are mostly noticed only so far as to point out one formal trait in each instance; but here and there an asterisk follows the name of a writer whose style has often been called admirable. The list contains the names of several authors rightly called 'great;' but it is not to be understood that writers not named in this place are therefore regarded as having inferior claims. The date preceding an author's name shows the year of his birth, and the date following shows the year of his decease. The abbreviations used are, of course, not intended to show the best traits of the writers named, but have meanings closely restricted. o indicates nothing more than the fact that many sentences comparatively short may be readily found in the writer's prose; s indicates that long periods, or long sentences, occur, and v that many short sentences are connected with others more extended. The abbreviation [trans.] shows that a work is a translation. After each author's name a specimen or a collection of his writings is named. In one place [?] indicates a doubt respecting the authorship of a tract. [Am.] shows that certain books belong to American literature.

PROSE WRITERS.

ca. 1300 SIR JOHN MANDEVILLE | ca. 1372 |

JOHN WYCLIFFE

ca. 1410 SIR JOHN FORTESCUE

The Holy