and passion, when, perhaps, (like verbs middle,) they may be rather said to imply both. Not, however, to dispute about names, as these neuters in their energizer always discover their passive subject," which other verbs cannot, their passive subjects being infinite; hence the reason why it is as superfluous in these neuters to have the subject expressed, as in other verbs it is necessary, and cannot be omitted. And thus it is that we are taught in common grammars that verbs active require an accusative, while neuters require none.

Of the above species of verbs, the middle cannot be called necessary, because most languages have done without it. The species of verbs therefore remaining, are the active, the passive, and the neuter, and those seem essential to all languages whatever.i

It may be here observed, that even those verbs, called actives, can upon occasion lay aside their transitive character; that is to say, can drop their subsequent accusative, and assume the form of neuters, so as to stand by themselves. This happens when the discourse respects the mere energy or affection only, and has no regard to the subject, be it this thing or that. Thus we say, οὐκ οἶδεν ἀναγινώσκειν οὗτος, “ this man knows not how to read," speaking only of the energy, in which we suppose him deficient. Had the discourse been upon the subjects of reading, we must have added them, our οἶδεν ἀναγινώσκειν τὰ Ὁμήρου, “ he knows not how to read Homer, or Virgil, or Cicero," &c.

Thus Horace:

sidered them under the four following sorts.

When a verb, coinciding with the nominative of some noun, made without further help a perfect assertive sentence, as Σwкрáтns πEρiñaτεî, “Socrates walketh ;" then as the verb in such case implied the power of a perfect predicate, they called it for that reason kaτnyópημα, “a predicable ;” or else, from its readiness, ovußaivew, to coincide with its noun in completing the sentence, they called it ouμBaua," a coincider."

66

66

When a verb was able with a noun to form a perfect assertive sentence, yet could not associate with such noun, but under some oblique case, as Σωκράτει μεταμέλει, Socratem pœnitet: such a verb, from its near approach to just coincidence, and predication, they called Tapaσúμßaμa or apaκατηγόρημα.

When a verb, though regularly coinciding with a noun in its nominative, still required, to complete the sentiment, some other noun under an oblique case, as Плáτшv piλeî Alava, "Plato loveth Dio,"

Qui cupit aut metuit, juvat illum sic domus (where without Dio, or some other, the

aut res,

Ut lippum picta tabulæ ....

66

* He that desires or fears, (not this thing, in particular, nor that, but, in general, he within whose breast these affections prevail,) has the same joy in a house or estate, as the man with bad eyes has in fine pictures." So Cæsar, in his celebrated laconic epistle of Veni, Vidi, Vici, where two actives, we see, follow one neuter in the same detached form as that neuter itself. The glory, it seems, was in the rapid sequel of the events. Conquest came as quick as he could come himself, and look about him. Whom he saw, and whom he conquered, was not the thing of which he boasted. See Apol. I. iii. c. 31. p. 279.

The Stoics, in their logical view of verbs, as making part in propositions, con

66

verb loveth would rest indefinite ;) such verb, from this defect, they called TTOV σύμβαμα, οι ἢ κατηγόρημα, “ something less than a coincider, or less than a predicable."

Lastly, when a verb required two nouns in oblique cases, to render the sentiment complete; as when we say Σwкράтeι'AλKIBiádovs μéλei, Tædet me vitæ, or the like; such verb they called ἧττον, οι ἔλαττον ἢ παρασύμβαμα, οι ἢ παρακατηγόρημα, “ something less than an imperfect coincider, or an imperfect predicable."

66

There remains a remark or two further, and then we quit the subject of verbs. It is true, in general, that the greater part of them denote attributes of energy and motion. But there are some which appear to denote nothing more than a mere simple adjective joined to an assertion. Thus ioále in Greek, and 'equalleth" in English, mean nothing more than loós ẻoti, equal." So albeo, in Latin, is no more than albus sum.

Campique ingentes ossibus albent.

Virg.

"is

The same may be said of tumeo. Mons tumet, i. e. tumidus est, "is tumid." To express the energy in these instances we must have recourse to the inceptives.

nouns.

Fluctus uti primo cœpit cum albescere vento.

Freta ponti

Incipiunt agitata tumescere.

66

Virg.

Virg.

There are verbs also to be found which are formed out of So that, as in abstract nouns, (such as whiteness from white, goodness from good,) as also in the infinitive modes of verbs, the attributive is converted into a substantive; here the substantive on the contrary is converted into an attributive. Such are Kuvitev, from kúwv, "to act the part of a dog, or be a κυνίζειν, κύων, cynic;” Φιλιππίζειν from Φίλιππος, “ to Philippize, or favour Philip;" Syllaturire, from Sylla, "to meditate acting the same part as Sylla did." Thus, too, the wise and virtuous emperor, by way of counsel to himself—ὅρα μὴ ἀποκαισαρωθῇς, “ beware thou beest not be-Cæsar'd;" as though he said, "beware, that by being emperor, thou dost not dwindle into a mere Cæsar."k like manner one of our own witty poets,

Sternhold himself he out-Sternholded.

In

And long before him the facetious Fuller, speaking of one Morgan, a sanguinary bishop in the reign of Queen Mary, says of him, that he out-Bonner'd even Bonner himself.'

And so much for that species of attributes called verbs in the strictest sense.

CHAPTER X.

CONCERNING THOSE OTHER ATTRIBUTIVES, PARTICIPLES AND ADJECTIVES.

THE nature of verbs being understood, that of participles is no way difficult. Every complete verb is expressive of an attribute, of time, and of an assertion. Now if we take away the also Ammon. in lib. de Interpret. p. 37. all verbs neuter are ovμßáμaтa; verbs Apollon de Syntaxi, l. i. c. 8. 1. iii. c. 31. p. active, TTova ovμẞáμaтa. 279. c. 32. p. 295. Theod. Gaz. Gram. I. iv. k Marc. Antonin. l. vi. sec. 30. From the above doctrine it appears, that Church Hist. b. viii. p. 21.

assertion, and thus destroy the verb, there will remain the attribute and the time, which make the essence of a participle. Thus take away the assertion from the verb, ypápeɩ, "writeth,” and there remains the participle, ypápwv, "writing," which (without the assertion) denotes the same attribute, and the same time. After the same manner, by withdrawing the assertion, we discover γράψας in ἔγραψε, γράψων in γράψει, for we choose to refer to the Greek, as being of all languages the most complete, as well in this respect as in others.

And so much for participles."

m

The nature of verbs and participles being understood, that of adjectives becomes easy. A verb implies (as we have said) both an attribute, and time, and an assertion; a participle only implies an attribute and time; and an adjective only implies an attribute; that is to say, in other words, an adjective has no assertion, and only denotes such an attribute as has not its essence either in motion or its privation. Thus in general the attributes of quantity, quality, and relation, (such as many and few, great and little, black and white, good and bad, double, treble, quadruple, &c.) are all denoted by adjectives.

It must indeed be confessed, that sometimes even those attributes which are wholly foreign to the idea of motion, assume an assertion and appear as verbs. Of such we gave instances before, in albeo, tumeo, ioálw, and others. These, however, compared to the rest of verbs, are but few in number, and may be called, if thought proper, verbal adjectives. It is in like manner that participles insensibly pass too into adjectives. Thus doctus in Latin, and learned in English, lose their power as participles, and mean a person possessed of an habitual quality. Thus vir eloquens means, not a man now speaking," but a man "who possesses the habit of speaking," whether he speak or no. So when we say in English, "he is a thinking man, an understanding man," we mean, not a person whose mind is in actual

The Latins are defective in this article of participles. Their active verbs ending in or, (commonly called deponents,) have active participles of all times, (such as lo quens, locutus, locuturus,) but none of the passive. Their actives ending in o, have participles of the present and future, (such as scribens and scripturus,) but none of the past. On the contrary, their passives have participles of the past, (such as scriptus,) but none of the present or future, unless we admit such as scribendus and docendus for futures, which grammarians controvert. The want of these participles they supply by a periphrasis; for payas, they say cum scripsisset; for ypapóuevos, dum scribitur, &c. In English we have sometimes recourse to the same periphrasis; and sometimes we avail ourselves of the same auxiliars, which form

our modes and tenses.

The English grammar lays down a good rule with respect to its participles of the past, that they all terminate in d, t, or n. This analogy is perhaps liable to as few exceptions as any. Considering, therefore, how little analogy of any kind we have in our language, it seems wrong to annihilate the few traces that may be found. It would be well, therefore, if all writers who endeavour to be accurate, would be careful to avoid a corruption, at present so prevalent, of saying, it was wrote, for it was written; he was drove, for he was driven; I have went, for I have gone, &c.: in all which instances a verb is absurdly used to supply the proper participle, without any necessity from the want of such word.

energy, but whose mind is enriched with a larger portion of those powers. It is indeed no wonder, as all attributives are homogeneous, that at times the several species should appear to interfere, and the difference between them be scarcely perceptible. Even in natural species, which are congenial and of kin, the specific difference is not always to be discerned, and in appearance at least they seem to run into each other.

We have shewn already" in the instances of Φιλιππίζειν, Syllaturire, 'ATоkaιoaρwońvaι, and others, how substantives may be transformed into verbal attributives. We shall now shew how they may be converted into adjectives. When we say the party of Pompey, the style of Cicero, the philosophy of Socrates, in these cases the party, the style, and the philosophy spoken of, receive a stamp and character from the persons whom they respect. Those persons, therefore, perform the part of attributes, that is, stamp and characterize their respective subjects. Hence, then, they actually pass into attributes, and assume as such the form of adjectives. And thus it is we say, the Pompeian party, the Ciceronian style, and the Socratic philosophy. It is in like manner for a trumpet of brass, we say a brazen trumpet; for a crown of gold, a golden crown, &c. Even pronominal substantives admit the like mutation. Thus, instead of saying, the book of me, of thee, and of him, we say, my book, thy book, and his book; instead of saying, the country of us, of you, and of them, we say, our country, your country, and their country; which words may be called so many pronominal adjectives.

It has been observed already, and must needs be obvious to all, that adjectives, as marking attributes, can have no sex.° And yet their having terminations conformable to the sex, number, and case of their substantive, seems to have led grammarians into that strange absurdity of ranging them with nouns, and separating them from verbs, though with respect to these they are perfectly homogeneous; with respect to the others quite contrary. They are homogeneous with respect to verbs, as both sorts denote attributes; they are heterogeneous with respect to nouns, as never properly denoting substances. But of this we have spoken before. P

The attributives hitherto treated, that is to say, verbs, participles, and adjectives, may be called attributives of the first order. The reason of this name will be better understood, when we have more fully discussed attributives of the second order, to which we now proceed in the following chapter.

CHAPTER XI.

CONCERNING ATTRIBUTIVES OF THE SECOND ORDER.

As the attributives hitherto mentioned denote the attributes of substances, so there is an inferior class of them, which denote the attributes only of attributes.

To explain by examples in either kind: when we say, "Cicero and Pliny were both of them eloquent; Statius and Virgil, both of them wrote;" in these instances the attributives, eloquent and wrote, are immediately referable to the substantives, Cicero, Virgil, &c. As therefore denoting the attributes of substances, we call them attributives of the first order. But when we say, "Pliny was moderately eloquent, but Cicero exceedingly eloquent; Statius wrote indifferently, but Virgil wrote admirably;" in these instances, the attributives, moderately, exceedingly, indifferently, admirably, are not referable to substantives, but to other attributives, that is, to the words eloquent and wrote. As therefore denoting attributes of attributes, we call them attributives of the second order.

Grammarians have given them the name of ἐπιῤῥήματα, adverbia, "adverbs." And indeed if we take the word pμa, or "verb," in its most comprehensive signification, as including not only verbs properly so called, but also participles and adjectives, [an usage which may be justified by the best authorities, we shall find the name èrippnμa, or "adverb," to be a very just appellation, as denoting a part of speech, the natural appendage of verbs. So great is this dependence in grammatical syntax, that an adverb can no more subsist without its verb, than a verb can subsist without its substantive. It is the same here, as in certain natural subjects. Every colour for its existence as much requires a superficies, as the superficies for its existence requires a solid body."

bant vel casuale. Priscian. 1. i. p. 574.

This notion of ranging the adverb under the same genus with the verb, (by calling them both attributives,) and of explaining it to be the verb's epithet or adjective, (by calling it the attributive of an attributive,) is conformable to the best authorities. Theodore Gaza defines an adverb as follows: Μέρος λόγου ἄπτωτον, κατὰ ῥήματος λεγό μενον, ἢ ἐπιλεγόμενον ῥήματι, καὶ οἷον Emileтov PhμATOS: "A part of speech devoid of cases, predicated of a verb, or subjoined to it, and being as it were the verb's adjective." 1. iv. (where, by the way, we may observe, how properly the adverb is made an aptote, since its principal some