Chapter 7

"And if my schemeprospers, with joy I'll confess,What a whimsical trifle produced our success."

The idea is, "if my schemeshallprosper;" and this is obvious by the subsequentpart of the sentence, where the future is employed, "with joyI'llconfess."

"If Punchgrowsextravagant, I shall reprimand him very freely; if the stagebecomesa nursery of folly and impertinence, I shall not be afraid to animadvert upon it."——Spect. No. 35.

These should have beengroworshould grow;becomeorshould become.

"If any thingoffers(shall offer) from Dublin, that may serve either to satisfy or divert you, I will not fail," &c.—— Swift's Corresp. letter 2.

In the following passage, the same writer is much more correct.

"If any one matter in itprove(that is,shall prove) false, what do you think will become of the paper?"——Letter 8.

But the use of the future for the present is much more frequent.

"If reverence, gratitude, obedience and confidencebeour duty."——Priestley, let. 7 to a Phil. Unbeliever.

"If hehaveany knowlege of actual existence, he must be satisfied."——Same, letter 8.

The author doubtless intended these sentences to be strictly grammatical, by placing the verbs in the present tense of the subjunctive. But in the first example,beis wrong even on Lowth's principles. The rule of the Bishop, with respect to the use of the indicative and subjunctive modes, is this: That when something conditional, hypothetical, or doubtful, is expressed, the verb should be in the subjunctive mode; but when the fact is certain, or taken for granted, the verb should be in the indicative. He gives for examples of the former, several passages from scripture: "If thoubethe son of God." Matth. iv. 3. "Tho heslayme, yet will I trust in him." Job xiii. 15. "Unless hewashhis flesh." Lev. xxii. 6. "No power except itweregiven from above." John xix. 11. "Whether itwereI or they, so we preach." 1 Cor. xv. 11. "The subjunctive in these instances," says the Bishop, "implies something contingent or doubtful; the indicative would express a more absolute and determinate sense." To illustrate the latter part of his rule, he quotes a passage from Atterbury's Sermons. "Tho heweredivinely inspired, and spake therefore as the oracles of God, with supreme authority; tho hewereendued with supernatural powers," &c.That our Savior was divinely inspired, and endued with supernatural powers, are positions that are here taken for granted, as admitting not of the least doubt; they would therefore have been better expressed in the indicative mode; "tho hewasdivinely inspired," &c. Even on these principles, the verb in the first example from Priestley, just quoted, should have been in the indicative; for there is no doubt that reverence, gratitude, &c.areour duty to the Supreme Being.

But I apprehend, that however just Lowth's distinction between the modes, may have formerly been, it is not warranted by the present idiom of the language. Indeed I cannot think the rule just. In thefirst,fourthandfifthexamples quoted by the Bishop, the indicative might be substituted for the subjunctive, and the passages rendered more correct, according to the present practice of speaking and writing. "If thouartthe son of God." "No power except itwasgiven from above." "Whether itwasI, or they, so we preach." Every English ear must acknowlege that these expressions are more agreeable to our present practice, than those employed bythe translators of the Bible, and they convey an idea of condition or doubt, as fully as the other form. But why did the translators deviate from the original? In the Greek, the verbs, in the two first examples, are in the indicative mode; and in the last, the verb is not expressed. Ει υιος ει του Θεου, literally, If thouartthe son of God. Ουκ εχεις εξουσιαν ουδεμιαν κατ' εμου, ει μη ην σοι δεδομενον ανωθεν; literally, Thou hast no power (or authority) against me, except itwasgiven thee from above. In the last instance the verb is omitted; Ειτε δε εγω, ειτε εκεινοι; Whether I or they. In these instances therefore the translators of the Bible, and Bishop Lowth have evidently mistaken the true structure of the English verbs. The translators deviated from the original Greek, in changing the modes; and the Bishop has taken their error, as the foundation of a distinction which does not exist in the language. The indicative mode is employed to express conditional ideas, more frequently than the subjunctive, even by the best English writers. Take the following examples.

"And if the same accidentisable to restore them to us."——Bolingbroke, Reflec. on Exile.

"If this being, the immediate maker of the universe,hasnot existed from all eternity, he must have derived his being and power from one who has."——Priestley, let. 4 to Phil. Unb.

"If thereisone, I shall make two in the company."——Merry Wives of Windsor, act 3. sc.II.

"If thoulovestme thenSteal forth thy father's house tomorrow night."

Midsum. Night's Dream, act 1. s. 2.

"If thoubeest[111]Stephano, touch me and speak to me;If thoubeestTrinculo, come forth."

Tempest, act 2. s. 3.

"If thouartany thing besides a name."

Cowley's Request.

"For if helivesthat hath you doen despight."

Spenser's Fairy Queen, book 2. chap. 1.

"If any oneimagines."——Moyle.

"Why did Caligula wish that the people had but one neck, that he might strike it off at a blow, if their welfarewasthus reciprocal."——Sidney on Gov. sect. 5.

"If Governmentsareconstituted."——Sidney.

"Well, keep your own heart, if silenceisbest,Tho a woman, for once, I'll in ignorance rest."

Haley's Happy Prescription.

"If shehasstolen the color of her ribbons from another."——Spect. No. 4.

"If wearerightly informed."——Same, No. 8.

"If sheistall enough, she is wife enough."——No. 66.

"If youarein such haste, how came you to forget the miscellanies?"——Swift's Letter to Mr. Tooke.

"If men's highest assurancesareto be believed."——Same.

Shall we say that the use of the indicative afterifin the foregoing examples is improper or ungrammatical? By no means. Yet the verbs express something conditional or doubtful; and therefore Lowth's rule cannot be well founded.

Let the foregoing passages be contrasted with the following.

"But if hesaytrue, there is but one government in the world that can have any thing of justice in it."——Sidney, sect. 1.

"If hehaveany knowlege of actual existence, he must be satisfied."——Priestley, let. 8.

"But tho criticismbethus his only declared aim, he will not disown," &c.—— Introd. to Elements of Criticism.

"But if a lively picture, even of a single emotion,requirean effort of genius, how much greater the effort to compose a passionate dialogue, with as many different tones of passion as there are speakers?"——Elements of Criticism, vol. 1. chap. 16.

"Here we must also observe, that tho THOUbelong in the first part of the verse, it becomes short when repeated in the second."——Sheridan's Art of Reading.

The Scotch writers, who learn the English language grammatically, are the most particular in the use of this subjunctive form of the verb; in consequence of which their stile generally appears stiff and fettered. In all the foregoing examples, and in every instance where the affirmation respects present time, the indicative form is themost correct, and the only form that corresponds with the actual present state of the language.If he says,if he has,if he requires, are the true expressions universally used in speaking; and grammars should exhibit and enforce this practice, rather than amend it.

There are few or no English writers, who seem to have adhered uniformly to any rule in the use of the verbs after the conjunctions. In consequence, either of ignorance or inattention, the most correct writers have fallen into inconsistencies, even in the same sentence. This will appear by the following examples.

"If life and health enoughfallto my share, and Iamable to finish what I meditate."——Bolingbroke, let. 4, on History.

The author intended the verbs,fallandam, to be in the present time; but this would make him write nonsense; for the events were future at the time of writing. The first part of the sentence, to make sense, must be considered as elliptical, "if life and health enoughshallorshould fallto my share;" in the last part thereforebeshould be substituted foram,if I shall beable: This would make the whole sentence correct and consistent.

"Whether our conductbeinspected, and weareunder a righteous government, or under no government at all."——Priestley's Pref. to Let. to a Phil. Unb.

What a confusion of modes! or rather of tenses!

"Tho THOUbelong, in the first part of the verse," says Sheridan, in the passage just quoted; yet soon after uses the indicative in a phrase precisely similar; "And tho itisimpossible to prolong the sound of this word." Can this great critic give a reason for this change of modes? Such examples serve to show at least the necessity of studying our language with more attention, than even many eminent scholars are willing to bestow.

It has been remarked by Lowth, and many other writers on this subject, that "the verb itself in the present, and the auxiliary both of the present and past imperfect times, often carry with them somewhat of a future sense."[112]Thus,if hecome tomorrow,if he should or would come tomorrow, carrysomewhat of a future sense. The writer should have gone farther, and said that these expressions are in future time; for they form the English future, and belong to no other tense. This would have been the truth, and have prevented the numberless errors which have proceeded from his arranging them in the present tense of the subjunctive. Let us attend to the following passages.

"This can never happen till patriotismflourishmore in Britain."—Home's Sketches, book 2. s. 9.

"Pray heaven, heproveso, when you come to him."——Two Gent. of Verona, act 2. s. 10.

"But if thoulingerin my territories."——Same, act 3. s. 2.

"Lest, growing ruinous, the buildingfall."——Same, act 5. s. 6.

"If the secondbepronounced thus, the verse will be degraded into hobbling prose."——Sheridan's Art of Reading.

It is needless to multiply similar passages; the same use of the verb, withoutthe personal termination, occurs in almost every page of our best writings, and it is perfectly correct.

But will any person contend that the verbs in these passages are in the present tense? The sense is entirely future, and could not be translated into Latin or French, without employing the future tense. The expressions are elliptical, and cannot be clearly understood, without insertingshallorshouldbefore the verbs. This pretended present tense of the subjunctive is therefore the real future of the indicative. To confirm this remark, let us attend to some other passages.

"Tho heslayme, yet will I trust in him."

"Unless hewashhis flesh, he shall not eat of the holy thing."

In the original Hebrew these verbs are in the future tense; and so are most similar expressions.[113]

Matth. vii. 10.—Or if heaska fish, will he give him a serpent? Και εαν ιχθυν αιτησῃ μη οφιν επιδωσει αυτῳ;

Rom. xiv. 15.—But if thy brotherbegrieved with thy meat. Ει γαρ δια βρωμα ὁ αδελφος σου λυπειται

Luke xvii. 3.—If thy brothertrespassagainst thee. Εαν αμαρτηση ὁ αδελφος σου. 4. And seven times in a dayturnagain to thee. Και επτακις της ημηρας επιστρεψη.

Luke xvi. 28.—Lest they alsocomeinto this place of torment. Μη και αυτος ελθωσιν εις τουτον τον τοπον της βασανου.[114]

Is not the sense of the foregoing verbsfuture? Are not the verbs in the original, either in the future tense, or in the indefinite tenses, which, in the subjunctive mode,usuallyhave the sense of the future, and perhapsneverthe sense of the present? Why then should we consider the English verbs as in the present time? Either the translators made a mistake, and placed the verbs in a wrong tense; or Lowth and his followers have mistaken the tense, and called that present which is really future.

That the fault is, in some measure, to be ascribed to the translators, is evident from their using the same form of the verb, after a conjunction, when the original Greek is in the present of the indicative.

1 Cor. xvi. 22.—If any manlovenot the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be, &c.Ει τις ου φιλει τον Κυριον Ιησουν Χριστον, ητω, &c.

1 Cor. xiv. 37.—If any man think himself a prophet. Ει δε τις δοκει προφητης ειναι. 38.—If any manbeignorant, let him be ignorant still. Ει δε τις αγνοει, αγνοειτω.

In these instances, the verbs express conditional facts in the present time. In the original they are in the indicative present;and on what authority did the translators introduce a different mode in English? Can they be justified by the idioms of the language at the time when they lived? Was the subjunctive always used after a conjunction? By no means: Their own translation of other passages proves the contrary.

1 Cor. xv. 13.—And if thereisno resurrection of the dead. Ει δε αναστασις νεκρων ουκ εστιν.

Here is the present tense of the indicative used, where the fact mentioned is supposed, by the argument, to be at least doubtful. In other places the present time of the same mode is used, where the future would have been more accurate.

Prov. ii. 3, 4.—"Yea if thoucriestafter knowlege, andliftestup thy voice for understanding; if thouseekestfor her as for hid treasures, then shalt thou understand," &c.

What conclusion shall we draw from this state of facts? This at least may be said with safety, either that the English modes and tenses have not been ascertained and understood, or that the best of our writers have been extremely negligent.

After an attentive and accurate examination of this subject, I believe I may venture to assert, that nine times out of ten, when the pretended subjunctive form of the verb is used after a conjunction, either in the vulgar translation of the Bible, or in our best profane authors, the sense is actually future, and to render the sentences complete, it would be necessary to insertshallorshould.[115]This will be more obvious by attending to the Latin translation of the New Testament, where the future is almost always employed to express the Greek future and aorists.Igitur si munus tuum attuleris ad altare—If thoubringthy gift to the altar;et illic memineris—and thererememberest; (what confusion of modes.) If his sonaskbread—Si filius ejuspetieritpanem. And if the housebeworthy—Et si quidemfueritdomus digna; and so throughout the whole New Testament.

Will any person pretend to say that the verbsbring,askandbe, in the foregoing passages, are present time; or thatrememberestis not bad English? The elliptical future,If thou be,if he ask, &c. is correct English, but should by no means be confoundedwith the present tense, which, in English, has but one form.

I do not deny that good authors have used this form, after conjunctions, in the present time; but I deny that the genius of the language requires it, that it is agreeable to the ancient or modern elegant languages, and that it has been or is now the general practice.

With respect to the ancient practice, examples sufficient have been already produced, to show that authors have considered the present of the indicative, after conjunctions, denoting uncertainty or doubt, as at least correct; and the present practice in speaking is wholly on this side of the argument.

With respect to the Roman and Greek languages, I believe examples enough may be brought to prove, that the subjunctive mode after the conditional conjunctions or adverbs, was not generally used, except when the idea was such as we should express bymay,might,should,let, or some other auxiliary before the verb. "Quid est autem, quod deosveneremurpropter admirationem ejus naturæ, in qua egregium nihil videmus?" "Ut, quos ratio non posset, eos ad officium religioduceret."—Cicero, De nat Deorum, l.I. 42. To renderveneremurandduceretinto English,shouldmay be prefixed toadore, andmighttolead.

At any rate, the conditional conjunctions do not all, nor generally require the subjunctive mode: "Quæ,simundusestDeus, quoniam mundi partes sunt, Dei membra parim ardentia, partim refrigerata dicenda sunt."—Ibm. 1.I. 10. "SiDipossuntesse sine sensu," &c. The indicative after this conjunction occurs frequently in the best Roman authors.

In Greek the case is nearly the same. Several instances of the indicative after the conditional conjunction ει (if) have already been quoted from scripture; and similar instances without number may be produced from profane writers.

"Εἰ ουν ουτως εχει, εφη, ω Κῦρε, τι αν αλλο τις κρειττον ευροι, ἢ πεμπειν εις Περσας, και αμα μεν διδασκειν αυτους οτι ει τι πεισονται Μηδοι, εις Περσας το δεινον ηξει, αμα δε αιτειν πλειον στρατευμα;"——Xenoph. de Cyri. Inst. l. 2. p. 80. Lond. Ed.

Here the verb εχει is in the present tense of the indicative, after a conjunction denoting condition or doubt; "if the affairisso—if suchisthe true state of affairs, Cyrus, what better methodcan be taken(ευροι) than to send to the Persians, and inform them thatifany accidenthappento the Medes (so we should render πεισονται, which is in the future) calamity will fall upon the Persians also, and let us ask for a greater force."

In French, the conditional conjunctions do not require the subjunctive mode. "Si ma prédictionestfausse, vous serez libre de nous immoler dans trois jours."—Telemaque, liv. 1. "S'ilestvrai que vous aimiez la justice."—Liv. 4. If my predictionisfalse—if itistrue—are correct modes of speaking in French. No argument therefore in favor of the use of the English subjunctive, can be drawn from the analogy of other languages.

But this subjunctive form is not agreeable to the structure of the language. It has been demonstrated that our conjunctions are mostly old Saxon verbs in the imperative mode. Let us resolve some sentences where the subjunctive form is used; for example, the passages before quoted.

"If hehaveany knowlege of actual existence, he must be satisfied."——Priestley's Letters.

Resolved—"He have any knowlege of actual existence, (if) give that, he must be satisfied." Is this English?

"If thou be the son of God, command that these stones be made bread."——Matth. iv. 3.

Resolved—"Thou be the son God, give that, command," &c.

"Tho he slay me, yet will I trust in him."

Resolved—"He slay me, grant it, yet will I trust in him."

This is the literal construction of those sentences; the two first are present time, the last, which is future, is merely elliptical.

If therefore,I be,he have, are good English in the present tense of the indicative, the foregoing are correct expressions; if not, they are incorrect; for every such conditional sentence is resolvable into two or more declaratory phrases. Let us substitute the Latin derivative, which preciselyanswers toif, viz.suppose; thus, in place of "if thou be the son of God," write, "supposethou be the son of God," does not every ear acknowlege the impropriety? The only difference between the two expressions is this;ifis aSaxonverb in the imperative mode, andsuppose, aLatinone in the same mode.

With respect tobe, it may be said very justly, that it was anciently used after the conjunctions in almost all cases. But it must be observed also, it was usedwithoutthe conjunctions. Be, from the Saxonbeon, is the true radical verb, still preserved in the German,Ich bin, I be,du bist, thou beest, in the indicative. The old English writers employedbein the same mode and tense.

"O, therebeplayers that I have seen play."——Shakesp. Hamlet to the Players.

"They thatbedrunken, are drunken in the night."——1 Thess. v. 7.

"As webeslanderously reported."——Rom. iii. 8.

The common people in New England still employbein the present tense of the indicative, except in the third person. They almost universally say,I be,we be,you be, andthey be. Whileberemained the proper substantive verb in the indicative, it was very correctly employed after the conjunctions,If he be,tho he be, but when,am,are,artandiswere substituted in the indicative, they should likewise have been employed in the subjunctive; for the latter is resolvable into the former.

From the facts produced, and the remarks made, we may draw the following conclusions; that the distinction made by grammarians between the present tense of the indicative and subjunctive mode in English, is not well founded; that it is not warranted by the construction of the language, nor by the analogy of other languages; that the expressions commonly supposed to be in the present tense of the subjunctive, are mostly in fact an elliptical form of the future in the indicative, and that the present translation of the Bible cannot be vindicated on any other supposition; that the present practice, both in speaking and writing, is generally in favor of the indicative after the conjunctions; and consequently, that the arrangement of the verbs by Lowth and his followers, iscalculated to lead both foreigners and natives into error.

I have been more particular upon this article, because the Scotch writers, many of whom stand among the first authors of the British nation, follow the usual grammatical division of verbs, and thus write a stile not conformed to the present practice of speaking.

In the use of what is called theimperfecttense, after the conjunctions, there is something peculiar, which has not yet been sufficiently explained. On examination it will probably be found that custom has established one singular distinction in the sense of verbs in different tenses, a knowlege of which is necessary to enable us to speak and write with precision. This distinction will readily be understood by a few examples.

A servant calls on me for a book, which his master would borrow. If I am uncertain whether I have that book or not, I reply in this manner; "If the bookisin my library, or if Ihavethe book, your master shall be welcome to the use of it."

But if I am certain I do not possess the book, the reply is different; "I have not the book you mention; if Ihad, it should be at your master's service."

Both these forms of speaking are correct; but the question is, what is the difference? It cannot be intime; for both refer to the same. The ideas both respect present time; "If Ihaveitnow, itshallbe at your master's service"—"If Ihaditnow, itshouldbe." The distinction in the meaning is universally understood, and is simply this; the first expressesuncertainty; the last impliescertainty, but in a peculiar manner; for an affirmative sentence implies a positive negation; and a negative sentence implies a positive affirmation. Thus,if I had the book, implies a positive denial of having it;if I had not the book, implies that I have it: And both speak of possessing or not possessing it at thispresenttime.

The same distinction runs thro all the verbs in the language. A man, shut up in an interior apartment, would say to his friend, "if it rainsyou cannot go home." This would denote the speaker's uncertainty. But on coming to the door and ascertaining the fact, he would say, "if it rained, you should not go;" or, "if it did not rain, you might go." Can these verbs be inpasttime? By no means;if it did not rain now, you could go, is present, for the present existence of the fact prevents the man from going.

These forms of speech are established by unanimous consent in practice.

"It remaineth that they who have wives, be as tho theyhadnone, and they that weep, as tho theyweptnot; and they that rejoice, as tho theyrejoicednot; and they that buy, as tho theypossessednot."——1 Cor. vii. 29, 30.[116]

"Nay, and the villains march wide betwixt the legs, as if theyhadgyves on."——1 Henry IV.

"We have not these antiquities; and ifwe hadthem, they would add to our uncertainty."——Bolingbroke on Hist. let. 3.

"Whereas,hadI (if I had) still the same woods to range in, which I oncehad,when I was a fox hunter, I should not resign my manhood for a maintenance."——Spect. No. 14.

"I confess I have not great taste for poetry; but ifI had, I am apt to believe I should read none but Mr. Pope's."[117]—— Shenstone on Men and Manners.

Whatever these verbs may be in declaratory phrases, yet after the conditional conjunctionsifandtho, they often express present ideas, as in the foregoing examples. In such cases, this form of the verb may be denominated thehypotheticalpresent tense. This would distinguish it from the same form, when it expresses uncertainty in the past time; for this circumstance must not be passed without notice. Thus,"If hehadletters by the last mail," denotes the speaker's uncertainty as to a past fact or event. But, "ifhe hada book, he would lend it," denotes a present certainty that he has it not. The times referred to are wholly distinct.

As the practice of all writers and good speakers, and even of the vulgar, is nearly uniform in the distinction here mentioned, it is needless to produce more examples for illustration. One verb however deserves a separate consideration; which isbe. In the use of this verb in the hypothetical sense, there is a difference between good authors and common parlance; the first writewere, but most people in conversation say,was. Thus,

"Every rich man has usually some sly way of jesting, which would make no great figure,werehe not rich."——Spect. No. 2.

"He will often argue, that if this part of our tradewerewell cultivated, we should gain from one nation," &c.—— Same.

"WereI (if I were) a father, I should take a particular care to preserve my children from these little horrors of imagination."——Same, No. 12.

"Nor think, tho menwerenone,That heaven would want spectators, God want praise."

Milton, P. L.

"What then hewas, oh,wereyour Nestor now."

Pope, Iliad, b. 7. 189.

"Yes, if the nature of a clockwereto speak, not strike."——Ben Johnson.

"Where the poor knave erroneously believes,If hewererich, he would build churches, orDo such mad things."——Same.

Were, in these examples, is the same hypothetical present tense just described, having not the least reference to the past.[118]But in conversation, we generally hearwas; "if Iwasin his place;" "if hewasherenow," &c. and I observe that modern writers are copying the general practice.

"If Iwasnot afraid of being thought to refine too much."—Boling. Refl. on Exile.

Both these forms have such authorities to support them, that neither can be considered as wholly incorrect; they are both English. But custom will eventually establish the latter,was, as the hypothetical form of the substantive verb. It is now almost universally used, except in books; and the tide of general practice is irresistible.

The following examples will illustrate what has been advanced.

Present time. Affirmative.

If hehasoris—denotes uncertainty. If hehadorwereorwas—denote certainty that he has not, or is not.

Negative.

If hehasnot orisnot—uncertainty. If hehadnot,werenot orwasnot—certainty that he has or is.

Past time. Affirm.

If hehadorwasyesterday—uncertainty. If hehadhave,[119]orhadbeen yesterday—certainty that hehadnot, orwasnot.

Negative.

If hehadorwasnot—uncertainty. If hehadnot have, orhadnot been—certainty that he had or was.[120]

I cannot close my remarks on the tenses of the English verb, without noticing a common error, which must have sprung from inattention, and is perhaps too general now to admit of correction. It is the use of the past tense after another verb orthat, when the sense requires a change of tenses. Thus,

"Suppose I were to say, that to every art therewasa system of such various and well approved principles."——Harris.

The first part of the sentence is hypothetical,suppose I were to say; but the last becomes declaratory under the supposition, and therefore the form of the verb should be changed to the present, indicative,that to every art there is a system: For it must be remarked that when the English speak of general existence, they use the presenttime; as, truthisgreat above all things; the scripturesarea rule of faith; the heavensdisplaythe glory of the Lord. The past or the future, in such cases, would be highly improper. Hence the absurdity of the passage just quoted; the supposition is that every arthas(generally—at all times) a system of principles.

"If the taxes laid by governmentwerethe only ones wehadto pay."

The author's meaning is, "the only taxes wehaveto pay;" and he was probably led into the mistake by not understanding the preceding hypothetical verb,were, which actually speaks of the present time conditionally.

The error will be more striking in the following passages.

"If an atheist would well consider the arguments in this book, he would confess therewasa God."

Therewasa God! And why not confess that thereisa God? The writer did not consider that the first part of the sentence isconditional, and that the last ought to bedeclaratoryof a fact always existing.

"Two young men have made a discovery that therewasa God."——Swift's Arg. against Abolishing Christianity.

A curious discovery indeed! Were the Dean still alive, he might find thereisa great inaccuracy in that passage of his works.

"Yet were we to use the same word, where the figurewasmanifest, we should use the prepositionfrom."——Priestley, Gram. p. 158.

Here is the same error, and the author may live to correct it.

But of all this class of mistakes, the following is the most palpable.

"I am determined to live, as if therewasafuturelife."——Hammon, quoted by Price and Priestley.

Hammon is an atheist, and it would require the same abilities to reconcile the two wordswas future, as to reconcile his principles with the common sense of mankind.[121]

The following passage, fromGregory's Comparative View of the State and Faculties of Man, is remarkable for this error.

"Men have been taught that theydid(do) God acceptable service, by abstracting themselves from all the duties theyowed(owe) to society; and by inflicting on themselves the severest tortures which nature can support. They have been taught that itwas(is) their duty," &c.

"And yet one would think that thiswasthe principal use of the study of history."——Bolingbroke on Hist. letter 3.

A similar fault occurs in one of Mrs. Thale's letters to Dr. Johnson, Aug. 9, 1775.

"—Yet I have always found the best supplement for talkwaswriting."

So in Blackstone's Commentaries, book 1. chap. 7.

"It was observed in a former chapter, that one of the principal bulwarks of civil liberty, or, in other words, of the British constitution,wasthe limitation of the king's prerogative."

The observation had been made in time past, but respecting a fact that existsnow, and at all times while the British constitution exists. The sentence therefore should run thus; "itwasobserved that one principal bulwark of civil liberty,isthe limitation of the king's prerogative."

No fault is more common; we every day hear such expressions as these; "If I thought itwasso;" "suppose I should say shewashandsome;" "I did not think itwasso late," &c.Was, in the first and last examples, should be the infinitive,to be; and in the second, the present time,is. Had proper attention been paid to our language, so many palpable mistakes would not have crept into practice, and into themost correct and elegant writings. Dr. Reid is perhaps the only writer who has generally avoided this error.

The Greek and Roman writers were not guilty of such mistakes. Either the varieties of inflection in their languages, or superior care in the writers, made them attentive to the nice distinctions of time. In the following passage, the translators of the Bible, by adhering closely to the original, have avoided the common error before mentioned.

"Iknewthee that thou art an hard man."—Matth. xxv. 24. "Εγνων ὁτι σκληρος ει ανθρωπος;" literally,having knownthat thouartan hard man. So also ver. 26, "Thou wicked and slothful servant, thouknewestthat Ireap, where I sowed not;" "ηδεις ὁτι θεριζω." Had these passages been translated into the careless stile of modern conversation, and even of many excellent writings, they would have stood thus—"I knew thee that thouwastan hard man"—"thou knewest that Ireapedwhere I sow not." But the general character and conduct of the person mentioned in this parable, are supposed to exist at all times while he is living; and this general nature of the factrequires the verb to be in the present time. To confirm this remark let the sentences be inverted; "thou art an hard man, I knew thee to be such, or I knew it." "I reap where I sowed not, thou knewest that." This is an indubitable evidence of the accuracy of the translation.[122]

An inversion of the order of the sentence in the passages first quoted, will show the common error in a most striking light.

"Therewasa God, two young men have made that discovery." "MendidGod acceptable service, by abstracting themselves, &c. they have been taught this; itwastheir duty, they have been taught this." "The taxes wehadto pay to government, if these were the only ones." This will not make sense to a man whohastaxesstillto pay; the writer'shad to paywill not discharge the public debt. But it is unnecessary to multiply examples and arguments; the reader must be already convinced that these errors exist, and that I ought not to have been the first to notice them.

Sometimes this hypothetical tense is used with an infinitive for the future. In the following passage it seems to be correct.

"I wish Iwereto go to the Elysian fields, when I die, and then I should not care if Iwereto leave the world tomorrow."——Pope.

But the following are hardly vindicable.

"Suppose theymarchedup to our mines with a numerous army, how could theysubsist for want of provision."——Moyle, Diss. on the Rev. of Athens.

"If theyforagedin small parties."——Same.

The sense is future, and thereforeshould march,should forage, would have been more correct.

"I should not act the part of an impartial spectator, if Idedicatedthe following papers to one who is not of the most consummate and acknowleged merit."——Spect. Dedic.

If I should dedicate, would have been more accurate.

A similar fault occurs in the following passage.

Back to Index Next