« PreviousContinue »
not have mortified him with such coldness and want of curi. osity as not to read it: besides, for what other purpose was it shewed? and how could Walker be supposed to live at this time in the house with Gauden, and know so much, without knowing more?
As to the evidence of Mr. North and Mrs. Gauden, it can stand for little, if the following positive evidence in favour of the book, be considered.
M. de la Pla, minister of Finchingfield, in a letter to Dr. Goodall, informs him, that William Allen, a man of repute and veracity, who had been many years a servant to Gauden, declared, that Gauden told him
he had borrowed the book, and that being obliged to return it in a certain time, he sate up in his chamber one whole night to transcribe it, Allen himself sitting up with him, to make up his fire and snuff his candles.
It is also recorded by Sir William Dugdale, who was perfectly acquainted with the transactions of his own times, that these meditations had been begun by his Majesty at Oxford, long before he went thence to the Scots, under the title of Suspiria Regalia ; and that the manuscript itself, written in the king's own hand, being lost at Naseby, was restored to him at Hampton Court, by Major Huntington, who had obtained it from Fairfax. That Mr. Thomas Herbert, who waited on his Majesty in his bed chamber, in the Isle of Wight, and William Livet, a page of the back stairs, frequently saw it there, read several parts of it, and saw the king divers times writing farther on in that very copy which Bishop Duppa, by his Majesty's direction, sent to Mr. Royston, a bookseller, at the Angel in Ivy Lane, on the 23d of December 1648, who made such expedition, that the impression was finished before the 30th of January, on which his Majesty died. Lastly, it is improbable, that if this book had been the work of Gauden, King Charles II. would have expressed himself with so little esteem and affection, when he heard of his death; “I doubt not, said he, it will be easy to find a more worthy person to fill his place."
For a further account and confirmation of these facts, the reader is referred to a vindication of King Charles against Anglesey's Memorandum. 4to. 1711. An Appendix to the Life of Dr. Barwick. Dr. Hollingsworth's Defence of Eikon Basilikė, 2 parts, 4to. 1692. Ditto, by Thomas Long, B. D. 4to. 1693. And Dugdale's Short View.
1574, March, April.
X. New method of modelling the Tenses of Verbs.
Mr. URBAN, MEN of polite learning hare long complained, that Latin written by moderns, of whatever skill in the language, has something in it unlike that of the purest classics. This has generally been resolved, like taste, into the French Je ne sçai quoi; or attributed to the aukwardness of imitation. But certainly a defect that is universal must be in essentials. It may therefore be worth while to inquire, whether it may not, in a great measure, if not entirely, be owing to the use of wrong tenses in verbs ; an error produced by defects in that case, cominon to all grammars ever yet published in our own or any other nation.
It is now about four years since I was appointed master of a free grammar school, when, though the classics had, been the principal study of my life, it became necessary for me to be thoroughly versed in the true analysis of their language, in order to discharge that trust with fidelity. For initiating youth in the rudiments of grammar, I made use of Lilly, as revised by Ward: which, in perspicuity and regular disposition, far exceeds any compend of the art, I have been able to procure. But as this, as well as others, has its errors and deficiencies, I took the pains to collect, from the best writers on that subject, such remarks, for the use of my upper school, as I hoped, would, in some degree, perfect that grammar, make my youth acquainted with the grounds of the science, and put it in their power always to avoid a grammatical error. In the execution of this design, I found myself under the necessity of new modelling the tens s of the verbs; or rather indeed of restoring them to their most ancient form, that of Varro, From which, how all the grammarians in general came to vary, in a case so plain, and supported by such authority) is to me matter of astonishment. The world has seen how much light has been thrown on Homer by Dr. Clark's revival of this form in the Greek; and why may not as much be done by it for the Latin?
The disposition of matter in Lilly, as I before observed, is extremely proper; and therefore, to make the formation of verbs easier to childhood, he begins with the present tense. But as youth of thirteen or fourteen are capable of thought and reflection, and must have learnt the formation long before; I there reduce time to its natural order, the past,
the present, and the future; each of which being conceived, as respecting the action or passion perfect or imperfect, constitutes two separate tenses or times. To explain this more fully, I shall subjoin a paradigm,
Præteritum primum et secundum.
Præsens primum et secundum.
Tempus præsens rei perfectæ, (Ang. Present-perfect.)
Futurum priinum et secundum,
To such as ask my reasons for preferring this distribution of tenses, I answer, 1st. That it is both a natural, regular, and easy one; and what I am persuaded others, as well as myself, from observations on the usage of good authors, will find to be just. 2dly. Let them please to consider, whether the judgment of Varro and Dr. Clark, be not, in this case, equal, not to say superior, to that of all who have written on the subject besides. And, 3dly. Whether the four defective verbs (cæpi, memini, novi, and odi,) which under the perfect form, retain also the sense of the imperfect, amount not to a demonstration, that it is right. To instance
Præsens primum et secundum.
Futurum primum et secundum. Tempus futurum rei imperfectæ et perfectæ. Novero, ris, rit; &c. I shall know, and have known.
A thorough acquaintance with this true state of the tenses would, I believe, prevent the affixing wrong ideas of time in Latin compositions ;-a fault very much fallen into by moderns. It would also supercede several frivolous and false rules of grammar; such as, that Conjunctions join the same mood, but different tenses. For, not to say (what however is true) that the business of conjunctions is not to join together either mnoods, tenses, or indeed single rsords, but sentences or clauses of sentences; those different tenses, as the grammarians call them, are in reality the same. Witness that deservedly admired passage of Virgil:
Erüt ad ccelum ramis felicibus arbos
where any man, with half an eye, may see that exiit and miratur are both of the present tense; and that the former must be Englished is gone, not was gone; for so it must bave been exierat.
But to proceed; to the imperative mood I found it necessary to add three new tenses; a present-perfect, a future-imperfect, coinmon to this mood, with the indicative: and a fuse ture-perfect, common to all the moods, except the infinitive,
Præsens primum et secundum. Tempus præsens rei imperfectæ, (Ang. Present-imperfect.) Ama, ato ; et, ato; &c. love thou, or be thou loving.
Tempus præsens rei perfectæ, (Ang. Present-perfect.) Amaveris, rit; &c. have thou loved, or been loving.
Futurum primum et secundum, Tempus futurum rei imperfectæ, (Ang. Future-imperfect.) Amabis, bit; &c. Love thou hereafter, or be loving.
Tempus futurum rei perfectæ, (Ang. Future-perfect.), Amaveris, rit; &c. Have thou loved hereafter, or been loving.
Lét Oderint, dum metuant; & adolescentes meminerint pudicitiæ, out of Tully, suffice as examples of the presentperfect of this mood; where the defective verbs, as has been already observed, under the form of the perfect, include the sense also of the imperfect. Examples of the first future of this mood occur so frequently, that it is needless to cite any; however, take this out of Ovid-Gradere et scitabere ab ipso. Met. Lib. I. line 775, where Dr. Friend and other editors, aware of the difficulty, but not knowing what to make of it, have put a colon stop, as a fence, to separate these two different moods, as they thought them, and to counterbalance the force of the copulative.
Of the latter future take this example out of Terence,
Nec tu eâ causâ minueris
And. Act II. Scene 3. where the common resolution by fac and ut is a very harsh one, and, in my opinion, much better resolved this way; especially as, in all like cases, it must be rendered into other languages by the imperative.
Before I finish with this mood, I should be glad, if such as are studious of grammatical perfection, would, in their reading of classics of the best note, observe, whether the two defective verbs, salvebis and valebis, ever occur in the indicative sense. That they are of the first future of the imperative, above described, numbers of instances may be produced; but I much doubt whether it was not through ignorance, as this tense belonged also to the imperative, that the compilers of grammar have referred them to the indicative.
In the Optative, Potential, and Subjunctive Moods the same ratio of tenses obtains, as in the indicative; only it is to be observed, that the present and future are the same both in the perfect and imperfect. For instance, MODI OPTATIVI, POTENTIALIS, ET SUBJUNCTIVI.
Præteritum primum et secundum. Tempus præteritum rei imperfectæ, (Anglice, Preter-im
perfect.) Amarem, res, ret; &c. I might, could, &c. love, or be loving. Tempus præteritum rei perfectæ, (Ang. Præter-perfect.) Amavissem, ses, set; &c. I might, could, &c. have loved, or be loving
Præsens et futurum primum et secundum. Tempus præsens et futurum rei imperfectæ, (Ang. Present
and future-imperfect) Amem, es, et; &c. I may, &c. or shall love, or be loving.