The English Language Part 120

B.; and, next, a comment, by the editor, signed J. C. H. (Julius Charles Hare). The _usus ethicus_ of the future is due to Archdeacon Hare; the question being brought in incidentally and by way of ill.u.s.tration.

The subject of the original paper was the nature of the so-called second aorists, second futures, and preterite middles. These were held to be no separate tenses, but irregular forms of the same tense. Undoubtedly this has long been an opinion amongst scholars; and the writer of the comments is quite right in stating that it is no novelty to the learned world. I think, however, that in putting this forward as the chief point in the original paper, he does the author somewhat less than justice. His merit, in my eyes, seems to consist, not in showing that real forms of the _aoristus secundus_, _futurum secundum_, and _praeteritum medium_ were either rare or equivocal (this having been done before), but in ill.u.s.trating his point from the English language; in showing that between double forms like [Greek: sunelechthen] and [Greek: sunelegen], and double forms like _hang_ and _hanged_, there was only a difference in degree (if there was that), not of kind; and, finally, in enouncing the very legitimate inference, that either we had two preterites, or that the Greeks had only one. "Now, if the circ.u.mstances of the Greek and English, in regard to these two tenses, are so precisely parallel, a simple and obvious inquiry arises, Which are in the right, the Greek grammarians or our own?

For either ours must be wrong in not having fitted up for our verb the framework of a first and second preterite, teaching the pupil to say, 1st pret. _I finded_, 2d pret. _I found_; 1st pret. _I glided_, 2d pret. _I glode_: or the others must be so in teaching the learner to imagine two aorists for [Greek: heurisko], as, aor. 1, [Greek: heuresa], aor. 2, [Greek: heuron]; or for [Greek: akouo], aor. 1, [Greek: ekousa], aor. 2, [Greek: ekoon]."--p. 198.

The inference is, that of the two languages it is the English that is in the right. Now the following remarks, in the comment, upon this inference are a step in the wrong direction:--"The comparison, I grant, is perfectly just; but is it a just inference from that comparison, that we ought to alter the system of our Greek grammars, which has been drawn up at the cost of so much learning and thought, for the sake of adapting it to the system, if system it can be called, of our own grammars, which are seldom remarkable for anything else than their slovenliness, their ignorance, and their presumption? Is the higher to be brought down to the level of the baser? is Apollo to be drest out in a coat and waistcoat? Rather might it be deemed advisable to remodel the system of our own grammars."

This, whether right or wrong as a broad a.s.sertion, was, in the case in hand, irrelevant. No _general_ superiority had been claimed for the English grammars. For all that had been stated in the original paper they might, as compared with the Greek and Latin, be wrong in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. All that was claimed for them was that they were right in the present instance; just as for a clock that stands may be claimed the credit of being right once in every twelve hours. That the inference in favour of altering the _system_ of the Greek grammars is illegitimate is most undeniably true; but then it is an inference of the critic's not of the author's. As the ill.u.s.tration in question has always seemed to me of great value,--although it may easily be less original than I imagine,--I have gone thus far towards putting it in a proper light.

Taking up the question where it is left by the two writers in question, we find that the difficulties of the so-called _second_ tenses in Greek are met by reducing them to the same tense in different conjugations; and, according to the current views of grammarians, this is a point gained. Is it so really? Is it not rather the subst.i.tution of one difficulty for another? A second conjugation is a second mode of expressing the same idea, and a second tense is no more. Real criticism is as unwilling to multiply the one as the other. Furthermore, the tendency of English criticism is towards the very doctrines which the Greek grammarian wishes to get rid of.

_We_ have the difficulty of a second conjugation: but, on the other hand, instead of four past tenses (an imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, and aorist), we have only one (the aorist). Now, when we find that good reasons can be given for supposing that the strong preterite in the Gothic languages was once a reduplicate perfect, we are at liberty to suppose that what is now the same tense under two forms, was, originally, different tenses. Hence, in English, we avoid the difficulty of a second conjugation by the very same process which we eschew in Greek; viz., the a.s.sumption of a second _tense_. But this we can do, as we have a tense to spare.

Will any process reconcile this conflict of difficulties? I submit to scholars the following hypotheses:--

1. That the _true_ second future in Greek (_i.e._, the future of verbs with a liquid as a characteristic) is a variety of the _present_, formed by accentuating the last syllable; just as _I beat you_=_I will beat you_.

2. That this accent effects a change on the quant.i.ty and nature of the vowel of the penultimate.

3. That the second aorist is an _imperfect_ formed from this secondary present.

4. That the so-called perfect middle is a similar perfect active.

[62] Transactions of Philological Society. No. 90, Jan. 25, 1850.

[63] Notwithstanding the extent to which a relative may take the appearance of conjunction, there is always one unequivocal method of deciding its true nature. The relative is always a _part_ of the second proposition. A conjunction is _no part_ of either.

[64] Unless another view be taken of the construction, and it be argued that [Greek: edoke] is, etymologically speaking, no aorist but a perfect.

In form, it is almost as much one tense as another. If it wants the reduplication of the perfect, it has the perfect characteristic [kappa], to the exclusion of the aorist [sigma]; and thus far the evidence is equal.

The persons, however, are more aorist than perfect. For one of Mathiae's aorists ([Greek: metheke]) a still better case might be made, showing it to be, even in etymology, more perfect than aorist.

[Greek: Kteinei me chrusou, ton talaiporon, charin]

[Greek: Xenos patroios, kai ktanon es oidm' halos]

[Greek: Methech', hin' autos chruson en domois echei.]

[Greek: Keimai d' ep' aktais.]

Eur. _Hec._

[65] It is almost unnecessary to state that the sentence quoted in the text is really a beautiful couplet of Withers's poetry _transposed_. It was advisable to do this, for the sake of guarding against the effect of the rhyme. To have written,

What care I how fair she _is_ If she be not fair to me?

would have made the grammar seem worse than it really was, by disappointing the reader of a rhyme. On the other hand, to have written,

What care I how fair she _were_, If she were not kind as _fair_?

would have made the grammar seem better than it really was, by supplying one.

[66] In the first edition of the present work I inaccurately stated that _neither_ should take a plural and _either_ a singular verb; adding that "in predicating something concerning _neither you nor I_, a negative a.s.sertion is made concerning _both_. In predicating something concerning _either you or I_, a positive a.s.sertion is made concerning _one of two_."

This Mr. Connon (p. 129) has truly stated to be at variance with the principles laid down by me elsewhere.

[67] Latin Prose Composition, p. 123.

[68] Quoted from Guest's English Rhythms.

[69] To the definition in the text, words like _old_ and _bold_ form no exception. At the first view it may be objected that in words like _old_ there is no part preceding the vowel. Compared, however, with _bold_, the negation of that part const.i.tutes a difference. The same applies to words like _go_ and _lo_, where the negation of a part following the vowel is a point of ident.i.ty. Furthermore, I may observe, that the word _part_ is used in the singular number. The a.s.sertion is not that every individual sound preceding the vowel must be different, but that the aggregate of them must be so. Hence, _pray_ and _bray_ (where the _r_ is common to both forms) form as true a rhyme as _bray_ and _play_, where all the sounds preceding _a_, differ.

[70] For _prosopa_. The Greek has been transliterated into English for the sake of showing the effect of the accents more conveniently.

[71] For the sake of showing the extent to which the _accentual element_ must be recognised in the cla.s.sical metres, I reprint the following paper On the Doctrine of the Caesura in the Greek senarius, from the Transactions of the Philological Society, June 23, 1843:--

"In respect to the caesura of the Greek tragic senarius, the rules, as laid down by Porson in the Supplement to his Preface to the Hecuba, and as recognized, more or less, by the English school of critics, seem capable of a more general expression, and, at the same time, liable to certain limitations in regard to fact. This becomes apparent when we investigate the principle that serves as the foundation to these rules; in other words, when we exhibit the _rationale_, or doctrine, of the caesura in question. At this we can arrive by taking cognizance of a second element of metre beyond that of quant.i.ty.

"It is a.s.sumed that the element in metre which goes, in works of different writers, under the name of ictus metricus, or of arsis, is the same as accent, _in the sense of that word in English_. It is this that const.i.tutes the difference between words like _trant_ and _resume_, or _survey_ and _survey_; or (to take more convenient examples) between the word _August_, used as the name of a month, and _august_, used as an adjective. Without inquiring how far this coincides with the accent and accentuation of the cla.s.sical grammarians, it may be stated that, in the forthcoming pages, arsis, ictus metricus, and accent (_in the English sense of the word_), mean one and the same thing. With this view of the arsis, or ictus, we may ask how far, in each particular foot of the senarius, it coincides with the quant.i.ty.

_First Foot._--In the first place of a tragic senarius it is a matter of indifference whether the arsis fall on the first or second syllable; that is, it is a matter of indifference whether the foot be sounded as _trant_ or as _resume_, as _August_ or as _august_. In the following lines the words [Greek: heko], [Greek: palai], [Greek: eiper], [Greek: tinas], may be p.r.o.nounced either as [Greek: he'ko], [Greek: pa'lai], [Greek: ei'per], [Greek: ti'nas], or as [Greek: heko'], [Greek: palai'], [Greek: eiper'], [Greek: tina's], without any detriment to the character of the line wherein they occur.

[Greek: He'ko nekron keuthmona kai skotou pulas.]

[Greek: Pa'lai kunegetounta kai metroumenon.]

[Greek: Ei'per dikaios esth' emos ta patrothen.]

[Greek: Ti'nas poth' hedras tasde moi thoazete.]

or,

[Greek: Heko' nekron keuthmona kai skotou pulas.]

[Greek: Palai' kunegetounta kai metroumenon.]

[Greek: Eiper' dikaios esth' emos ta patrothen.]

[Greek: Tina's poth' hedras tasde moi thoazete.]

_Second Foot._--In the second place, it is also a matter of indifference whether the foot be sounded as _August_ or as _august_. In the first of the four lines quoted above we may say either [Greek: ne'kron] or [Greek: nekro'n], without violating the rhythm of the verse.

_Third Foot._--In this part of the senarius it is no longer a matter of indifference whether the foot be sounded as _August_ or as _august_; that is, it is no longer a matter of indifference whether the arsis and the quant.i.ty coincide. In the circ.u.mstance that the last syllable of the third foot _must_ be accented (in the English sense of the word), taken along with a second fact, soon about to be exhibited, lies the doctrine of the penthimimer and hepthimimer caesuras.

The proof of the coincidence between the arsis and the quant.i.ty in the third foot is derived partly from _a posteriori_, partly from _a priori_ evidence.

1. In the Supplices of aeschylus, the Persae, and the Bacchae, three dramas where licences in regard to metre are pre-eminently common, the number of lines wherein the sixth syllable (_i. e._, the last half of the third foot) is without an arsis, is at the highest sixteen, at the lowest five; whilst in the remainder of the extant dramas the proportion is undoubtedly smaller.

2. In all lines where the sixth syllable is dest.i.tute of ictus, the iambic character is violated: as

[Greek: Threken perasa'ntes mogis polloi ponoi.]

[Greek: Duoin gerontoi'n de strategeitai phuge.]

These are facts which may be verified either by referring to the tragedians, or by constructing senarii like the lines last quoted. The only difficulty that occurs arises in determining, in a dead language like the Greek, the absence or presence of the arsis. In this matter the writer had satisfied himself of the truth of the two following propositions:--1. That the accentuation of the grammarians denotes some modification of p.r.o.nunciation other than that which const.i.tutes the difference between _August_ and _august_; since, if it were not so, the word [Greek: angelon]

would be sounded like _merrily_, and the word [Greek: angelon] like _disable_; which is improbable, 2. That the arsis lies upon radical rather than inflectional syllables, and out of two inflectional syllables upon the first rather than the second; as [Greek: ble'p-o, bleps-a's-a], not [Greek: blep-o', bleps-as-a']. The evidence upon these points is derived from the structure of language in general. The _onus probandi_ lies with the author who presumes an arsis (accent in the English sense) on a _non_-radical syllable. Doubts, however, as to the p.r.o.nunciation of certain words, leave the precise number of lines violating the rule given above undetermined. It is considered sufficient to show that wherever they occur the iambic character is violated.

The circ.u.mstance, however, of the last half of the third foot requiring an arsis, brings us only half way towards the doctrine of the caesura. With this must be combined a second fact, arising out of the const.i.tution of the Greek language in respect to its accent. In accordance with the views just exhibited, the author conceives that no Greek word has an arsis upon the last syllable, except in the three following cases:--

1. Monosyllables, not enc.l.i.tic; as [Greek: spho'n, pa's, chtho'n, dmo's, no'n, nu'n], &c.

2. Circ.u.mflex futures; as [Greek: nemo', temo'], &c.