Page images

foresight, is therefore expressed most naturally by the mode here mentioned. For example, Ut jugulent homines, surgunt de nocte latrones.

Hor. “ Thieves rise by night, that they may cut men's throats.” Here that they rise, is positively asserted in the declarative or indicative mode; but as to their cutting men's throats, this is only delivered potentially, because how truly soever it may be the end of their rising, it is still but a contingent that may never perhaps happen. This mode, as often as it is in this manner subjoined, is called by grammarians, not the potential, but the subjunctive.

But it so happens, in the constitution of human affairs, that it is not always sufficient merely to declare ourselves to others. We find it often expedient, from a consciousness of our inability, to address them after a manner more interesting to ourselves, whether to have some perception informed, or some volition gratified. Hence then new modes of speaking: if we interrogate, it is the interrogative mode; if we require, it is the requisitive. Even the requisitive itself hath its subordinate species: with respect to inferiors, it is an imperative mode; with respect to equals and superiors, it is a precative or optative.°

And thus have we established a variety of modes: the indicative or declarative, to assert what we think certain; the potential, for the purposes of whatever we think contingent; the interrogative, when we are doubtful, to procure us information; and the requisitive, to assist us in the gratification of our volitions. The requisitive too appears under two distinct species, either as it is imperative to inferiors, or precative to superiors.P

• It was the confounding of this distinc- the Peripatetics called the eldos KANTIKOV, tion that gave rise to a sophism of Pro- but the Stoics more properly apocayopevtagoras. Homer (says he) in beginning TIKDY) was nothing more than the form of his Iliad with, Sing, Muse, the wrath; when address in point of names, titles, and epihe thinks to pray, in reality commands. thets, with which we apply ourselves one Εύχεσθαι οιόμενος, επιτάττει. Αristot. Poet. to another. As, therefore, it seldom inc. 19. The solution is evident from the cluded any verb within it, it could hardly division here established, the grammatical contribute to form a verbal mode. Ammoform being in both cases the same.

nius and Boethius, the one a Greek Perip The species of modes in great measure patetic, the other a Latin, have illustrated depend on the species of sentences. The the species of sentences from Homer and Stoics increased the number of sentences Virgil after the following manner. far beyond the Peripatetics. Besides those 'Aλλά του λόγου πέντε ειδών, του τε mentioned in chap. ii, note k, p. 122, they κλητικού, ώς το, had many more, as may be seen in Ammonius *Ω μάκαρ 'Ατρείδη. de Interpret. p. 4. and Diogenes Laertius, Kal Toû TPOOTAKTIKOÙ, ús id, 1. vii, 66. The Peripatetics (and it seems Βάσκ' 1θι, Ιρι ταχεία. too with reason) considered all these addi- Kal Toù {pwrnyatınow, ás od, tional sentences as included within those Τίς, πόθεν εις ανδρών και which they themselves acknowledged, and Kal TOÙ EÚKTIKOÙ, ás to, which they made to be five in number; the At γαρ Ζεύ τε πάτερ. . vocative, the imperative, the interrogative, και επί τούτοις, του αποφαντικού, καθ' ον the precative, and the assertive. There is åtopalvbueda tepl dovoûv tîv apayudno mention of a potential sentence, which may be supposed to coincide with the as- Θεοί δέ τε πάντα ίσασιν. . sertive, or indicative. The vocative (which tepi martos, &c. Els td mepl 'Epu. p. 4.

των, οίον

As therefore all these several modes have their foundation in nature, so have certain marks or signs of them been introduced into languages, that we may be enabled by our discourse to signify them one to another. And hence those various modes or moods of which we find in common grammar so prolix a detail, and which are, in fact, no more than “so many literal forms, intended to express these natural distinctions."

All these modes have this in common, that they exhibit some way or other the soul and its affections. Their peculiarities and distinctions are in part, as follows.

The requisitive and interrogative modes are distinguished from the indicative and potential, that whereas these last seldom call for a return, to the two former it is always necessary.

If we compare the requisitive mode with the interrogative, we shall find these also distinguished, and that not only in the return, but in other peculiarities.

The return to the requisitive, is sometimes made in words, sometimes in deeds. To the request of Dido to Æneas,

Boethius's account is as follows. Per- sist for the most part either in multiplying fectarum vero orationum partes quinque or diminishing the number of syllables, or sunt: deprecativa, ut,

else in lengthening or shortening their reJupiter omnipotens, precibus si flecteris ullis, spective quantities, which two methods are Da deinde auxilium, Pater, atque hæc omina called by grammarians the syllabic and the firma.

temporal. The Latin, which is but a spe Imperativa, ut,

cies of Greek somewhat debased, admits in Vade age, nate, voca Zephyros, et labere pennis. like manner a large portion of those variaInterrogativa, ut,

tions, which are chiefly to be found at the Dic mihi, Damæta, cujum pecus ?

ending of its verbs, and but rarely at their Vocativa, ut,

beginning. Yet in its deponents and pas0! Pater, O! hominum rerumque æterna sives it is so far defective, as to be forced potestas.

to have recourse to the auxiliar, sum. The Enuntiativa, in qua veritas vel falsitas modern languages, which have still fewer of invenitur, ut,

those variations, have been necessitated all Principio arboribus varia est natura creandis. of them to assume two auxiliars at least,

Boeth. in lib. de Interp. p. 291. that is to say, those which express in each In Milton the same sentences may be language the verbs have and am. As to the found, as follows. The precative,

English tongue, it is so poor in this respect Universal Lord! be bounteous still

as to admit no variation for modes, and only To give us only good.

one for time, which we apply to express an The imperative,

aorist of the past. Thus from write cometh Go then, thou mightiest, in thy Father's might. wrote; from give, gave; from speak, spake, The interrogative,

&c. Hence, to express time and modes, we Whence, and what art thou, execrable shape ? are compelled to employ no less than seven The vocative,

auxiliars, viz. do, am, have, shall, will, may, Adam, earth's hallow'd mould,

and can ; which we use sometimes singly, Of God inspir'd.

as when we say, I am writing, I have The assertive or enunciative,

written ; sometimes two together, as, I have The conquer'd also and enslav'd by war been writing, I should have written; someShall, with their freedom lost, all virtue lose. times no less than three, as, I might hare

9 The Greek language, which is of all the been lost, He could have been preserved. most elegant and complete, expresses these But for these, and all other speculations reseveral modes, and all distinctions of time lative to the genius of the English language, likewise, by an adequate number of varia- we refer the reader, who wishes for the most tions in each particular verb. These varia- authentic information, to that excellent treations may be found, some at the beginning tise of the learned Dr. Lowth, entitled, A of the verb, others at its ending, and con- short Introduction to English Grammar.

a prima dic, hospes, origine nobis

Insidias Danaum ..... the proper return was in words; that is, in an historical narrative. To the request of the unfortunate chief-date obolum Belisariothe

proper return was in a deed ; that is, in a charitable relief. But with respect to the interrogative, the return is necessarily made in words alone; in words, which are called a response or answer, and which are always actually or by implication some definitive assertive sentence. Take examples. Whose verses are these ? the return is a sentence, These are verses of Homer. Was Brutus a worthy man? the return is a sentence, Brutus was a worthy man.

And hence (if we may be permitted to digress) we may perceive the near affinity of this interrogative mode with the indicative, in which last its response or return is mostly made. So near indeed is this affinity, that in these two modes alone the verb retains the same form," nor are they otherwise distinguished, than either by the addition or absence of some small particle, or by some minute change in the collocation of the words, or sometimes only by a change in the tone, or accent."

Γ Ηγε ούν προκειμένη οριστική έγκλισις, only one. Now the least complex interτην έγκειμένην κατάφασιν αποβάλλουσα, rogation will admit of four answers, two μεθίσταται του καλείσθαι οριστική ανα- affirmative, two negative, if not perhaps of πληρωθείσα δε της καταφάσεως, υποστρέφει more. The reason is, a complex interrogaeis elvai OplOTIKÝ: “The indicative mode, tion cannot consist of less than two simple of which we speak, by laying aside that ones ; each of which may be separately assertion, which by its nature it implies, affi ned and separately denied. For inquits the name of indicative when it reas- stance: Are these verses Homer's or Virgil's? sumes the assertion, it returns again to its 1. They are Homer's; 2. They are not proper character.” Apoll. de Synt. l. iii. Homer's; 3. They are Virgil's ;

4. They c. 21. Theodore Gaza says the same, Introd. are not Virgil's ; we may add, 5. They are Gram. I. iv.

of neither. The indefinite interrogations go * It may be observed of the interrogative, still further; for these may be answered by that as often as the interrogation is simple infinite affirmatives, and infinite negatives. and definite, the response may be made in For instance: Whose are these verses ? We almost the same words, by converting them may answer affirmatively, They are Virgil's, into a sentence affirmative or negative, ac- They are Horace's, They are Ovid's, &c.; or cording as the truth is either one or the negatively, They are not Virgil's, They are other. For example: Are these verses of not Horace's, They are not Ovid's, and so Homer? Response: These verses are of on, either way, to infinity. How then Homer. Are those verses of Virgil? Re- should we learn from a single Yes, or a sponse, Those are not verses of Virgil. And single No, which particular is meant among here the artists of language, for the sake of infinite possibles? These therefore are inbrevity and despatch, have provided two terrogations which must be always anparticles, to represent all such responses; swered by a sentence. Yet even here Yes, for all the affirmative ; No, for all the custom has consulted for brevity, by renegative.

turning for answer only the single essential But when the interrogation is complex, characteristic word, and retrenching by an as when we say, Are these verses of Homer, ellipsis all the rest, which rest the interroor of Virgil? much more, when it is in- gator is left to supply from himself. Thus, definite, as when we say in general, Whose when we are asked, How many right are these verses? we cannot then respond angles equal the angles of a triangle? we after the manner above mentioned. The answer in the short monosyllable, Two; reason is, that no interrogation can be an- whereas, without the ellipsis, the answer swered by a simple Yes, or a simple No, would have been, Two right angles equal except only those which are themselves so the angles of a triangle. simple, as of two possible answers to admit The ancients distinguished these two


But to return to our comparison between the interrogative mode and the requisitive.

The interrogative (in the language of grammarians) has all persons of both numbers. The requisitive or imperative has no first person of the singular, and that from this plain reason, that it is equally absurd in modes for a person to request or give commands to himself, as it is in pronouns, for the speaker to become the subject of his own address.'

Again, we may interrogate as to all times, both present, past, and future. Who was founder of Rome? Who is king of China? Who will discover the longitude? But entreating and commanding (which are the essence of the requisitive mode) have a necessary respect to the future only. For, indeed, what have they to do with the present or the past, the natures of which are immutable and necessary?

species of interrogation by different names. imperamus, quæ vel in præsenti statin The simple they called épárnuan “interro- volumus fieri sine aliqua dilatione, vel in gatio ;" the complex, aúouc, “percontatio.” futuro. Lib. viii. p. 806. Ammonius calls the first of these èpárnois It is true, the Greeks in their imperatives διαλεκτική: the other, ερώτησις πυσματική. admit certain tenses of the past, such as Sce Am. in lib. de Interpr. p. 160. Diog. those of the perfectum, and of the two Laert. vii. 66. Quintil. Inst. ix. 2. aorists. But then these tenses, when 50 Sup. p. 138.

applied, either totally lose their temporary u Apollonius's account of the future, im- character, or else are used to insinuate such plied in all imperatives, is worth observing. a speed of execution, that the deed should 'Επί γάρ μη γινομένοις ή μη γεγονόσιν ή be (as it were) done in the very instant πρόσταξις: τα δε μη γινόμενα και μη γεγο- when commanded. The same difference νότα, επιτηδειότητα δε έχοντα εις το έσεσ- seems to subsist between our English imDal, uériovtos ¿OTı: “A command has re- perative, Be gone, and those others of, Go, spect to those things which either are not or Be going. The first (if we please) may doing, or have not yet been done. But be styled the imperative of the perfectum, those things, which being not now doing, as calling in the very instant for the comor having not yet been done, bave a natu- pletion of our commands: the others may ral aptitude to exist hereafter, may be pro- be styled imperatives of the future, as perly said to appertain to the future.”. De allowing a reasonable time to begin first, and Syntaxi, l. i. c. 36. Soon before this he finish afterward. Says, “Απαντα τα προστακτικά έγκειμένην It is thus Apollonius, in the chapter first έχει την του μέλλοντος διάθεσιν- χηδόν cited, distinguishes between σκαπτέτω τας γάρ έν ίσα εστί το, και τυραννοκτόνησας αμπέλους, “go to digging the rnes” and τιμάσθω, τω τιμηθήσεται, κατά της χρόνου σκαψάτω τας αμπέλους, “get the vines έννοιαν τη εκκλίσει διηλλαχος, καθο το dug.” The first is spoken (as he calls it) μεν προστακτικόν, το δε οριστικόν: “ All είς παράτασιν, “ by way of extension, or imperatives have a disposition within them, allowance of time for the work ;" the second, which respects the future: with regard eis OUVTERELwowy, “ with a view to iminen therefore to time, it is the same thing to diate completion.” And in another place, say, Let him, that kills a tyrant, be ho explaining the difference between the same noured ; or, He, that kills one, shall be ho tenses, ordate and okávov, he says of the noured; the difference being only in the last, uovov To jeito yevõuevov apoptáo gel, mode, inasmuch as one is imperative, the annà Kal to ywóuevov ev tapatánet åraya other indicative or declarative.” Apoll. de peber, " that it not only commands some Syntaxi, l. i. c. 35. Priscian seems to allow thing, which has not been yet done, but imperatives a share of present time, as well forbids also that, which is now doing in an as future. But if we attend, we shall find extension, that is to say, in a slow and his present to be nothing else than an im- lengthened progress.” Hence, if a man has mediate future, as opposed to a more dis- been a long while writing, and we are

Imperativus vero præsens et willing to hasten him, it would be wrong to futurum [tempus) naturali quadam neces- say in Greek, ypápe, “ write,” (for that he sitate videtur posse accipere. Ea etenim is now, and has been long doing,) but

tant one.

It is from this connexion of futurity with commands, that the future indicative is sometimes used for the imperative, and that to say to any one, You shall do this, has often the same force with the imperative, Do this. So in the decalogue,"Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not bear false witness,” which denote (we know) the strictest and most authoritative commands.

As to the potential mode, it is distinguished from all the rest by its subordinate or subjunctive nature. It is also further distinguished from the requisitive and interrogative, by implying a kind of feeble and weak assertion, and so becoming, in some degree, susceptible of truth and falsehood. Thus, if it be said potentially, This may be, or This might have been, we may remark without absurdity, It is true, or It is false. But if it be said, Do this, meaning, Fly to heaven; or Can this be done? meaning, to square the circle; we cannot say in either case, It is true, or false, though the command and the question are about things impossible. Yet still the potential does not aspire to the indicative, because it implies but a dubious and conjectural assertion, whereas that of the indicative is absolute, and without reserve.

This, therefore, (the indicative, I mean,) is the mode, which, as in all grammars it is the first in order, so is truly first both in dignity and use. It is this which publishes our sublimest perceptions; which exhibits the soul in her purest energies, superior to the imperfection of desires and wants; which includes the whole of time, and its minutest distinctions; which, in its various past tenses, is employed by history, to preserve to us the remembrance of former events; in its futures is used by prophecy, or (in default of this) by wise foresight, to instruct and forewarn us, as to that which is coming; but above all in its present tense serves philosophy and the sciences, by just demonstrations to establish necessary truth; that truth, which from its nature only exists in the present; which knows no distinctions either of past or of future, but is everywhere and always invariably one.

ypávov, “ get your writing done; make no blichus, Ammonius, and others. There were delays." See Apoll. I. iii. c. 24. See also no sects of philosophy that lay greater Macrobius de Diff. Verb. Græc. et Lat. p. stress on the distinction between things 680. edit. Varior. Latini non æstimave- existing in time and not in time, than the runt, &c.

two above mentioned. The doctrine of the * See the quotation, note i, chapter vi. Peripatetics on this subject (since it is p. 143. Cum enim dicimus, Deus est, non these that Boethius here follows) may be eum dicimus nunc esse, sed, &c.

partly understood from the following sketch. Boethius, author of the sentiment there “The things that exist in time are those quoted, was by birth a Roman of the first whose existence time can measure. But if quality; by religion, a Christian ; and by their existence may be measured by time, philosophy, a Platonic and Peripatetic; then there may be assumed a time greater which two sects, as they sprang from the than the existence of any one of them, as sime source, were in the latter ages of an- there may be assumed a number greater tiquity commonly adopted by the same per- than the greatest multitude, that is capablo sons, such as Themistius, Porphyry, lam- of being numbered. And hence it is that

« PreviousContinue »