nation. o aveamos is used definitely in this passage to denote the creature Man, according to the custom which we noticed in the last paragraph. The French, in like manner, say L'homme, to denote Man, i. e. mankind. (See Rev. Vol. Ixii. PP. 383. and 384.)

In the third example, taken from Homer, Il. i. 11. the article prefixed to the proper name Chryses has none of that possessive power which Mr. V. ascribes to it. It does not 'point out the relation of Chryses to Apollo as his priest.' Both Dr. Middleton and Mr. Veysie speak of the difficulty of accounting for the use of the article in this passage: but we see no difficulty, nothing unusual, in the case. The article is employed here, as on all other occasions, to render the name (Chryses) more definite than it would be without an article. It was not simply Chryses that Agamemnon had disgraced, but the Chryses who was a priest, that holy man. In a different arrangement of the words, Tov apninga Xguom, nobody would find any difficulty. Why should they fancy any in the present arrangement? To Xeuon apninga is the Chryses who is definite by being a priest, just as τον αρκληρα Χρυσην is the priest who is definite by being Chryses. A parallel passage occurs in Judges ix. 18. Tov A BIKEXex Vior TNS Tαidians, the Abimelech the bondwoman's son, that vile slave, a worthless bramble. (See verse 15th.)

Harris, in his Hermes, (p. 226. edit. 8vo. 1771,) asserts that the article before proper names "is a mere pleonasm, unless perhaps it serve to distinguish sexes." This remark has called forth the animadversions of more writers than one, and of Mr. Veysie (p.15.) among the rest. It is indeed surprising that Harris should have made such an assertion, after having just before (p.220.) observed, from Apollonius, that "proper names often fall into Homonymie, that is, different persons often go by the same name." He was misled by his notion (derived likewise from Apollonius) that there are certain words with which the article cannot be associated. On the use of the article with proper names, we have already delivered our sentiments ; as we think, with sufficient fullness. (See Rev. Vol. Ixii. pp. 389,390. and note* p. 167. of our last Number.) We will now, therefore, add only a few words to shew that the principle, on which Mr. Harris grounds his assertion of the article with proper names being a pleonasm, is in our opinion, erroneous and illfounded; which we deem it the more necessary to do, because that principle affects the use of the article in many other cases besides that of proper names.

The principle is this, that there are certain words with which the article cannot be associated; and that these words are all such as are "already as definite as may be," or such as, "being

13

indefinite

indefinite, cannot properly be made otherwise." (p. 225.) We know not any such words. Definite and indefinite are relative terms, to the degrees of which no fixed limit is assigned. Nothing is so definite, or so indefinite, that it cannot be made more so; nor any thing so indefinite that it cannot be made otherwise.

The true question, however, in order to ascertain whether any words exist with which the article cannot be associated, is, whether there be any thing of such a nature that it cannot be numbered definitely, or indefinitely, among other things of one sort or another. Now it is manifest that there is no such thing. No word, therefore, by which any thing is expressed, or implied, can be of such a nature that the article cannot be associated with it; we say by which any thing is expressed or implied, because, unless that be the case, the article cannot be associated with any word whatever; not even with a participle or an adjective, (such as σπείρων, άγιος, σπεδαιος, &c.) with which it is so commonly combined. Even here some thing, if not expressed, must be implied; and in like manner, every other word, or part of speech, may be so used as to imply, if it does not express, some thing, and consequently may be associated with the article. Apollonius has observed that the article may be added a μge λoy, to all words, when they are used, as the more modern grammarians express it, materialiter; or, as he himself better expresses it, as λογοι εδεν σημαινονίες πλεον, η αυτο My to a Ts Owens (p. 27. edit. Sylburg. Francof. 1590.) In this way, we find the article prefixed, in his own book, not only to the personal pronouns of the first and second persons, when he says n εγώ, της εγώ, ή συ, της συ, &c. (pp. 28. 106. 107. 214 :) but likewise to the article itself, when he speaks of To aggov To • (lib. 1. cap. 41. init. p. 88.) We see not any need, however, of this restriction, or limitation, of Apollonius. The article may be prefixed to every part of speech at other times, as well as when that part of speech is used to denominate itself. Hoogeveen, in his notes on Vigerus, (de Idiotism. pp. 22-24. edit. Hermanni. 8vo. Lips. 1802.) has exemplified this remark with regard to every part of speech but conjunctions, which he excepts :-but we perceive no occasion for the excep tion, since it is very intelligible, and not very uncommon, to hear a person say that he assents to every part of a resolution, or agreement, but the but, the if, or the and; meaning by these conjunctions some exceptive, conditional, or additional clause.

Harris, jurans in verba magistri, produces from Apollonius, as instances of words which refuse the article, aupolepo, and the personal pronouns of the first and second persons when not used materialiter; but Dr, Middleton (p. 429.) has shewn that this is a mistake as far as it respects aupolego, by refering

T 3

to Acts xxiii. 8. Ephes. ii. 14. 16. 18. and by quoting from Plato (Vol. ii. p. 180. edit. 8vo. Bipont.) ra auqdlega yirwonɛi: to which we will add from Homer, Ως τις αμφότερες μακαρες θεοε Συμβαλον· (Π. ΧΧ. 24.)

As to the pronouns I and you, they no more refuse to be numbered definitely, or indefinitely, in or out of their own class, than any other substantives refuse it. Though it be true that we have not such frequent occasion to number them, as we have to number other substantives in this way, yet it may be sometimes useful, or even necessary, to do this. When the little woman in the song awoke, and found her petticoats cut so short that she doubted her identity, reasoning deep, "in wandering mazes lost," she said, "If I be I," &c. Now what was this but saying, "If the I, thus woefully cut down, or rather cut up, be the I so goodly erst"? &c. What is egomet or tute, or teipsum, nosmet, vosmet, &c. but the I, or the you? What is I myself, what is Virgil's " Ille ego qui quondam,” &c. but the I who, &c. except that the pronoun is made more definite by the demonstrative than it would be by the article?

As another instance of a word which refuses the article, Harris mentions the word both. Now it is true that we cannot say, "the both men:" but the bad English of this phrase no more proves that the word both refuses the article, than the bad English, as he justly calls it, of the phrase, "two the men," proves that the word men refuses the article. All that is proved, in either case, is that a wrong arrangement of the words has been made. In the first phrase, both, being an adverb, cannot stand between the article and its substantive ;-in the second, two, being an adjective, must stand in that situation :-but, if placed in its proper position, the word both may be associated with the article whenever it is so used as to imply some thing; a condition which, as we have already said, must be observed before any word (except substantives, which express things) can be associated with the article *.

The

*Johnson makes the word both an adjective and a conjunction; and in modern language it seems to be so used: but we believe this to be an inaccuracy which was orignally introduced by those who, as he says on another occasion, (see the word owing in his Diction ary) had no quick sense of the force of English words," and which was afterward sanctioned more by time and custom than by reason. He derives the word from the Saxon baru or barpa. We suppose it rather to be compounded of the two Saxon words, ba (which Lye renders ambo) and oð (usque, omninò), in which case it is an adverb.

On some occasions, however, the Saxons might compound the same ba (or perhaps bao) with their plural article da, or with de, dy,

or

The only other case which Harris mentions, of words which cannot be associated with the article, is that of interrogatives: -but nothing is more common than To Too, as every reader of Plato knows;-and in the Port Royal Grammar we have the following instances of interrogatives with the article, from Demosthenes, της ποιας μερίδος ; and from Plato, τα ποια τα ταυλα AEYES; So likewise in Lucian, Mercury, having been informed by Jupiter of the transformation of Io, asks him, Tw TOWTW δ' ενηλ Aayn; (vol. I. p. 207. edit. Reitz, 4to. 1743.) to which many other instances might be added from the same writer.

We may safely affirm, therefore, that there is no word which cannot be associated with the article; though some words are more frequently, some not so often, and others very rarely, to be found united with it.

With regard to any supposed power in the article of shewing, or demonstrating, when an adjective in the neuter gender is used in an abstract sense, it is wholly imaginary. The article possesses no such power. It is true that we frequently find it prefixed to a neuter adjective so used: but in that situation we see nothing different in its use from what we see in or di, particles which they used sometimes in an articular and some times in a pronominal sense, and might employ the word so compounded to signify both the, both they, or both them; that is, the, they, or them, both (adverbially).

Yet we believe that this latter compound was never immediately followed by any substantive to which the word both was intended to refer, unless that substantive were used indefinitely. Whenever the word both was followed by a substantive definitely understood, we think that the article was always interposed, as a separate and detached word, between both and the substantive; and that both was formed in that case according to the first mode of composition, and was an adverb. Most commonly, the word, when formed in the latter way, would be used without any substantive, either definite or indefinite, after it; as we find it in most of Johnson's examples.

From not discriminating between these two different modes of compounding and forming the same word both, (which in old language was often written bothe,) and from not attending to the interposition of the article the, which, when it immediately followed both, would be easily lost in the rapidity of pronunciation on account of the repetition of the same letters, might arise the inaccuracy of saying, "I have read both poets," instead of saying, "I have read both the poets ;" and this inaccuracy would give birth to the notion of both being an adjective.

From the phrase "both of them," a person so disposed might conclude, in like manner, that both was a substantive, where it seems to be nothing more than the latter composition of the word used in its most common way without any substantive; or, which is the same thing, with an ellipsis of any substantive suited to the occasion.

T 4

every

every other. Dr. Middleton, therefore, had no occasion to make it a separate canon, nor Mr. Veysie to make it a separate case. Neuter adjectives are often used in an abstract sense without the article, and in a sense that is not abstract with the article. When the article is prefixed, it shews that such adjectives are used definitely, and it shews nothing else. Their abstract meaning must be collected from the nature of the case,

and not from the article.

In the following examples, the adjectives are all used in an abstract sense, though no article is annexed to any of them; εκκλιναίω απο κακε και ποιησοίω αγαθον (r Pet. ii. 11.): Μηδενι nanov avlı nanx añod.dovles (Rom. xii. 17. 1 Thess. v. 15.): Пęcs διακρισιν καλό τε και καλα (Heb. v. 14.): Ειδέναι γνωσον καλο na Tongs (Genes. ii. 9. 17. and iii. 5.) On the other hand, these which we will now subjoin have nothing abstract in their significations, though they all have the article; To yuxU KAI TO πικρον (James iii. II.): Το γεννωμενον άγιον (Luke i. 35.) : Μη δωξε το άγιον τοις κυσι (Matt. vii. 6.) : Το γνωσον τα 9ε8 (Rom. i. 19.): Το εσώτερον τα καλα πελασματος (Heb. vi. 19.): Το γεννηθεν (Matth. i. 2o.): Επειπων το κοινον, αρχη δε τοι ήμισυ πανος (Lucian Somn. Vol. i. p. 5. edit. Reitzii, 4to. 1743); and in a very different application of the same word, Γενομενων χρημαίων MεyanWY EV TW No (Herodot. lib. vii. p. 569. edit. Wessel. 1763. fol. and Thucyd. lib. viii. p. 507. edit. Duker. 1731. fol.): Οι περι τας γεωμετριας τε και λογισμός και τα τοιαύλα πgayμαλευομενοι, υποθεμένοι το τε περιτίον και το άρτιον (Plut. de Repub. lib. vi. sub fin. p. 510. Vol. ii. edit. Steph. 1578. fol. and see the Greek definitions to the 7th book of Euclid's Elements): To vaulikov..... TO TECO (Thucyd. lib. vi. p. 397. ejusd. edit. et alibi sepissime): Τα δημοσια δραχμην της ημερας των ναύλη εκατω Didovios (Id. ib.).

When the Greek philosophers disputed so vehemently about To ayador, they meant not goodness, not good in an abstract sense, but the good which was paramount to every other good, the summum bonum. So in Rom. xiv. 16. jμwv To ayzov does not mean your good in the abstract, but that particular good thing which you have above others, the good, or blessing, of Christianity, and the freedom which it allowed; which good thing the apostle warns them not to discredit and scandalize by their disputes, so as to make it appear a mere bone of contention, a curse instead of a blessing. Let not the world abuse you, and say that To ayatov av, the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free, is like to ayadov of the wrangling Greeks, a cloke of maliciousness, a pretence for reviling one another, a thing that makes you worse, instead of making you better men.