Article. as, a few men, a great many men.

27

The reason of this is manifest from the effect which the article has in these phrases it means a small or a great number collectively taken, to which it gives the idea of a whole, that is, of unity. Thus likewise a hundred, a thousand, is one whole number, an aggregate of many collectively taken, and therefore still retains the article a though joined as an adjective to a plural substantive; as, a hundred years. The exception therefore is only apparent; and we may affirm, that the article a universally denotes unity.

24. The indefinite article is much less useful than the other; and therefore the Greek and Hebrew languages have it not, though they both have a definite article. In languages of which the nouns, adjectives, and verbs, have inflexion, no mistake can arise from the want of the indefinite article; because it can always be known by the terminations of the noun and the verb, and by the circumstances predicated of the noon, whether a whole species or one individual be intended. But this is not the case in English. In that language, the adjectives having no variation with respect to gender or number, and the tenses of the verbs being for the most part the same in both numbers, it might be often doubtful, had we not the indefinite article, whether the specific name was intended to express the whole species or only one individual. Thus, if we say in English, "Man was born sent from God," we must be understood to mean that the birth of every man is from God, because to the specific term the indefinite article is not prefixed. Yet the words Eytilo vlęwños úñesadμevos maga tou convey no such meaning to any person acquainted with the Greek language; as the word argos, without any article, is restricted to an individual by its concord with the verb and the participle; and the sense of the passage is, a man was born (or existed) sent from God. But though the Greeks have no article correspondent to the article A, yet nothing can be more nearly related than their 'O to our THE, O faoideus-THE king; To dogov-THE gift. In one respect, indeed, the Greek and English articles differ. The former is varied according to the gender and number of the noun with which it is associated, being —masculine, —feminine, To―neuter; and oi, ai, ta, in the plural number: whereas the English article suffers no change, being invariably THE before nouns of every gender and in both numbers. There are, however, some modern languages which,' in imitation of the Greek, admit of a variation of their article which relates to gender; but this cannot be considered as essential to this species of words, and it may be questioned whether it be an improvement to the language. In tongues of which the nouns have no inflexion, it can only serve to perplex and confuse, as it always presents a particular idea of sex where in many cases it is not necessary.

A greater 25. The articles already mentioned are allowed to number of be strictly and properly such by every grammarian; articles in but there are some words, such as this, that, any, some, the English all, other, &c. which are generally said to be somelanguage than is times articles and sometimes pronouns, according to the commonly different modes of using them. That words should supposed. change their nature in this manner, so as to belong

sometimes to one part of speech, and sometimes to another, must to every unprejudiced person appear very extraordinary; and if it were a fact, language would

5

Articles. fection, of which our present state is capable, that the mind and body should both be kept in action; that neither the faculties of the one nor of the other be suffered to grow lax or torpid for want of use: but neither should health be purchesed by voluntary submission to ignorance, nor should knowledge be cultivated at the expence of health; for that must enable it either to give pleasure to its possessor, or assistance to others." If this long sentence be resolved into its constituent parts, and the words be supplied which complete the construction, we shall see the import of the word THAT to be precisely the same in each clause. "The mind and body should both be kept in action; THAT action is necessary to THAT perfection of which our present state is capable neither the faculties of the one nor of the other should be suffered to grow lax or torpid for want of use; the degree of action proper to prevent THAT laxness is necessary but neither should health be purchased by voluntary submission to ignorance, nor should knowledge be cultivated at the expence of health; for THAT health must enable it either to give pleasure to its possessor, or assistance to others." Again:

"He that's unskilful will not toss a ball:" "A man unskilful (he is that) will not toss a ball." Here the word THAT, though substituted for what is called the relative pronoun (E), still preserves unchanged its definitive import; and in every instance, except where it may be used very improperly, it will be found to be neither more nor less than a definite article.

26. It appears then, that if the essence of an article be to define and ascertain, the words this and that, as well as any, some, all, &c. which are commonly called pronominal articles, are much more properly articles than any thing else, and as such should be considered in universal grammar. Thus, when we say, THIS picture I approve, but THAT I dislike; what do we perform by the help of the words THIS and THAT, but bring down the common appellative to denote two individuals; the one as the more near, the other as the more distant? So when we say, SOME men are virtuous, but ALL men are mortal; what is the natural effect of this ALL and SOME, but to define that universality and particularity which would remain indefinite were we to take them away? The same is evident in such sentences as, SOME substances have sensation, OTHERS want it; Choose ANY way of acting, and SOME men will find fault, &c.: for here SOME, OTHER, and ANY, serve all of them to define different parts of a given whole; SOME, to denote any indeterminate part; ANY, to denote an indefinite mode of action, no matter what; and OTHER, to denote the remaining part, when a part has been assumed already. 27. We have said that the article is a part of speech so very necessary, that without it, or some equivalent invention (F), mankind could not communicate their thoughts; and that of words falling under this description, we know of no language which is wholly destitute. Articles in We are aware that these positions may be controvertthe Latin ed; and that the Latin may be instanced as a language language.

28

which, without articles, is not only capable of commu- Articles. nicating the ordinary thoughts of the speaker to the mind of the hearer, but which, in the hands of Cicero, Virgil, and Lucretius, was made to serve all the purposes of the most profound philosopher, the most impassioned orator, and the sublimest poet. That the Latin has been made to serve all these purposes cannot be denied, although Lucretius and Cicero both complain, that on the subject of philosophy, where the use of articles is most conspicuous, it is a deficient language. But should we grant what cannot be demanded, that those two great men were unacquainted with the powers of their native tongue, our positions would still remain unshaken; for we deny that the Latin is wholly without articles. It has indeed no word of precisely the same import with our THE or the Greek ; but the place of the indefinite article A might be always supplied, if necessary, with the numerical word unus. It may be so even in English; for we believe there is not a single instance where the words one man, one horse, one virtue, might not be substituted for the words a man, a horse, a virtue, &c. without in the slightest degree altering the sense of the passage where such words occur. This substitution, however, can be but very seldom if ever necessary in the Latin tongue, of which the precision is much greater than that of the English would be without articles; because the oblique cases of the Latin nouns, and the inflexion of its verbs, will almost always enable the reader to determine whether an appellative represents a whole species or a single individual.-The want of the definite article THE seems to be a greater defect; yet there are few instances in which its place might not be supplied by THIS or by THAT without obscuring the sense; and the Latin tongue is by no means deficient of articles corresponding to these two. Let us substitute the words ONE and THAT for A and THE in some of the foregoing examples, and we shall find, though the sound may be uncouth, the sense will remain. Thus,

"THAT man who hath not music in himself, &c. "Is fit for treasons, 99

conveys to the mind of the reader the very same sentiment which the poet expresses by the words "THE man that hath not music," &c. Again, "Man was made for society, and ought to extend his good-will to all men; but one man will naturally entertain a more particular regard for those men with whom he has the most frequent intercourse, and enter into a still closer union with that man whose temper and disposition suit best with his own." Now the words HIC and ILLE being exactly of the same import with the words THIS and THAT; it follows, that wherever the place of the article THE may in English be supplied by THIS or by THAT, it may in Latin be supplied by HIC or by ILLE. This is the case with respect to NATHAN'S reproof of DAVID, where the definite article is indeed most emphatical. The original words might have been translated into English, "thou art that man," as well as "thou

art

(E) See more of this afterwards.

VOL. X. Part I.

importance.-Were it not that the custom of the lan- Articles, guage the forma loquendi, as Horace calls it has determined otherwise, there would be no more impropriety in saying this, or that men, than in saying some men, or the men.

29

ticles can

29. As articles are by their nature definitives, it fol. With what lows of course, that they cannot be united with such words arwords as are in their own nature as definite as they may not be unibe; nor with such words as, being undefinable, cannotted. properly be made otherwise; but only with those words which, though indefinite, are yet capable through the article of becoming definite. Hence the reason why it is absurd to say, THE I, or THE THOU; because nothing, as will be seen afterwards, can make these pronouns more definite than they are of themselves; and the same may be said of proper names. Neither can we say, THE BOTH, because the word BOTH is in its own nature perfectly defined. Thus if it be said "I have read both poets," this plainly indicates a definite pair, of whom some mention has been made already. On the contrary, if it be said, "I have read two poets," this may mean any pair out of all that ever existed. And hence this numeral being in this sense indefinite (as indeed are all others as well as itself), is forced to assume the article whenever it would become definite. Hence also it is, that as Two, when taken alone, has reference to some primary and indefinite perception, while the article THE has reference to some perception secondary and definite, it is bad language to say, TWO THE MEN, as this would be blending of incompatibles, that is, it would be representing two men as defined and undefined at the same time. On the contrary, to say BOTH THE MEN, is good language; because the substantive cannot possibly be less apt, by being defined, to coalesce with a numeral adjective which is defined as well as itself. So likewise it is correct to say, THE TWO MEN, THESE TWO MEN, or THOSE TWO MEN; because here the article, being placed at the beginning, extends its power, as well through the numeral adjective as the substantive, and tends equally to define them both.

30. As some of the above words admit of no article, because they are by nature as definite as may be; so there are others which admit it not, because they are not to be defined at all. Of this sort are all INTERROGATIVES. If we question about substances, we cannot say, THE WHO IS THIS, but WHO IS THIS? And the same as to qualities and both quantities: for we say, without an article, WHAT SORT OF, HOW MANY, HOW GREAT? The reason is, the article THE respects beings of which we can predicate something but interrogatives respect beings about which we are ignorant, and of which we can therefore predicate nothing; for as to what we know, interrogation is superfluous. In a word, the natural as- With what sociators with articles are ALL THOSE COMMON APPEL- words they LATIVES WHICH DENOTE THE SEVERAL GENERA AND naturally associate. SPECIES OF BEINGS and it may be questioned whether, in strictness of speech, they are ever associated with any other words.

:

30

express this particular as unknown; I say a man :— Pronouns. Known ; I say THE man :— -Definite; A CERTAIN man:

Indefinite; ANY man :-Present, and near; THIS man:-Present, and at some distance; THAT man :— Like to some other; SUCH a man :-Different from some other; ANOTHER man :—An indefinite multitude; MANY men:-A definite multitude; A THOUSAND men :— :-The ones of a multitude, taken throughout; EVERY man:— The same ones taken with distinction; EACH man :— Taken in order; FIRST man, SECOND man, &c. :—The whole multitude of particulars taken collectively; ALL men :-The negation of that multitude; No man :— A number of particulars present and near ; THESE men: -At some distance, or opposed to others; THOSE men : —A number of individuals separated from another number; OTHER men:-A small indefinite number; FEW men:-A proportionally greater number; MORE men: -A smaller number; FEWER men :-And so on we might go almost to infinitude. But not to dwell longer upon this subject, we shall only remark, "that minute changes in PRINCIPLES lead to mighty changes in effects; so that PRINCIPLES are well entitled to regard, however trivial they may appear."

CHAP. III. Of Pronouns, or Substantives of the second order.

Articles. obliged to have recourse to adjectives or epithets. For example, there were two Grecian chiefs who bore the name of Ajax; and it was not without reason that Mnestheus used epithets when his intention was to distinguish the one from the other : "If both Ajaxes cannot be spared (said he), at least let mighty Telamonian Ajax come." But as epithets are diffused through various subjects, in as much as the same adjective may be referred to many substantives, it has been said to be necessary, in order to render both parts of speech equally definite, that the adjective itself assume an article before it, which may indicate a reference to some single person only. It is thus we say-Trypho THE Grammarian; Apollodorus THE Cyrenian, &c. This is the doctrine of Mr Harris; from which, though we have the highest respect for the learning of the author, we feel ourselves obliged to dissent. In the examples given, the article THE is certainly not associated with the words Grammarian and Cyrenian, in the same manner in which it is associated with the word man in the sentence" The man that hath not music in himself," &c. When we say Apollodorus the Cyrenian, we may, without folly or impertinence, be asked-the Cyrenian WHAT (G)? And the moment this question is answered, it will be seen that the article defines, not an adjective, but a substantive. If the answer be, the Cyrenian philosopher, the article THE is associated with the word philosopher, and the phrase Apollodorus THE Cyrenian, is an abbreviation of Apollodorus THE philosopher of Cyrene. In like manner, Trypho THE grammarian, is Trypho THE grammarian writer, or Trypho THE writer of grammar. Such abbreviations are very common. We familiarly say THE SPEAKER, and are understood to mean a high officer in the British parliament; yet, as speaker is a name common to many men, we may, without impropriety, be asked, what speaker we mean? and if so, we must reply, the speaker of the house of commons. But that which is eminent is supposed to be generally known; and therefore, in common language, THE SPEAKER is deemed a sufficient designation of him who presides over the lower house of parliament. Hence, by an easy transition, the definite article, from denoting reference, comes to denote eminence also: that is to say, from implying an ordinary pre-acquaintance, to presume a kind of general and universal notoriety. Thus A KING is any king; but THE KING is that person whom we acknowledge for our sovereign, the king of Great Britain. In Greek too, as in English, the article is often a mark of eminence; for the POET meant Homer, and THE STAGYRITE meant Aristotle; not but that there were many poets besides Homer, and many Stagyrites besides Aristotle, but none equally illustrious.

31

The great 32. Before we dismiss the ARTICLE, we shall proutility of duce one example to show the utility of this species of this species words; which, although they may seem to be of small of words, importance, yet, when properly applied, serve to make a few general terms sufficient for expressing, with accuracy, all the various objects about which mankind can have occasion to converse. Let MAN be the general term, which I have occasion to employ for the purpose of denoting some particular. Let it be required to

33. To men who are neither intoxicated with their own abilities, nor ambitious of the honour of building new systems, little pleasure can accrue from differing upon points of science from writers of great and deserved reputation. In such circumstances a man of modesty, although he will not upon the authority of a celebrated name adopt an opinion of which he perceives not the truth, must always advance his own notions with some degree of diffidence, as being conscious that the truth which he cannot perceive, may be visible to a keener and more perspicacious eye. In these circumstances we feel ourselves with regard to some of the most celebrated writers on grammar, from whom, concerning one or two points, comparatively indeed of but little importance, we have already been compelled reluctantly to differ. In treating of pronouns we are likely to deviate still farther from the beaten track; but that we may not be accused of acting the part of dogmatists in literature, and of claiming from others that implicit confidence which we refuse to give, we shall state with fairness the commonly received opinions, point out in what respects we think them erroneous, assign our reasons for calling them in question, and leave our readers to judge for themselves. The most celebrated writer in English who has treated of pronouns, and whom, since the publication of his Hermes, most other writers have implicitly followed, is Mr HARRIS, who, after a short introduction, proceeds thus:

32

Pronouns, have been described, cannot answer this purpose. The first expedient upon this occasion seems to have been pointing, or indicating by the finger or hand; some traces of which are still to be observed, as a part of that action which naturally attends our speaking. But the authors of language were not content with this: they invented a race of words to supply this pointing; which words, as they always stood for substantives or nouns, were characterised by the name of PRONOUNS. These also they distinguished into three several sorts, calling them pronouns of the first, the second, and the third person, with a view to certain distinctions, which may be explained as follows.

"Suppose the parties conversing to be wholly unacquainted, neither name nor countenance on either side known, and the subject of the conversation to be the speaker himself. Here to supply the place of pointing, by a word of equal power, the inventors of language furnished the speaker with the pronoun I; I write, I say, I desire, &c. and as the speaker is always principal with respect to his own discourse, this they called, for that reason, the pronoun of the first person.

Again, suppose the subject of the conversation to be the party addressed. Here, for similar reasons, they invented the pronoun THOU; THOU writest, THOU walkest, &c. and as the party addressed is next in dignity to the speaker, or at least comes next with reference to the discourse, this pronoun they therefore called the pronoun of the second person.

Mr

ject of the discourse; nor is the party addressed, but the Pronouns. truth of his assertion, the subject of discourse in the following sentence;-" You say, that Horne Tooke's Diversions of Purley is the most masterly treatise on grammar, so far as it goes, that you have ever seen." Harris uses the phrase, becoming the subject of conversation, in no other sense than that when the speaker has occasion to mention HIMSELF, he uses I; when the party addressed, THOU ; and when some other person or thing, HE, SHE, or IT: but we know that we may use other words, by no means equivalent to the two first of these pronouns, which will sufficiently mark himself, and the party addressed; and that he may use indifferently, and without the smallest injury to the sense, either the third pronoun, or the word for which it is merely a substitute. A man who bears various characters, may design HIMSELF by any one of them. Thus Mr PITT may speak of himself as first lord of the treasury, chancellor of the exchequer, or member for the university of Cambridge; and in each case he would be what Mr Harris calls the subject of conversation: yet every one feels that none of these designations is equivalent to I. What then is the force of the personal pronouns ?

33