Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

not, of course, as if any suggestion of ours 'could have the least scientific weight, but because the science of the day evidently inclines to attach more and more value to Mr. Darwin's hypothesis, at least as explaining the modus operandi of all those modifications of species which concern the vitality and tenacity of the surviving races. But now what picture does this process really present to us of our little universe? one, as some of the Darwinians think, of inexorable law sifting out the weak and casting them away as refuse, or one of strangely wise preparation for the dwellingplace of a being in whom the principle of "natural selection" gives way to the higher principle of moral selection? To us the latter seems the true image left upon the mind by the curious process the naturalists indicate to us. Here are a great number' of strange laws at work, the total effect of which is to give to all the plants and animals which are least inconsistent with, and most useful to, the life of the most civilized races of men, a direct share in the protection of that civilization. The shield of civilization is as it were in some sense thrown over those inferior races of existences which, themselves incompetent to share it, and generally not even directly protected or guarded by man, are yet at the second remove, as it were, most important, in order to able him to carry with ease into the still uncultivated and uncivilized parts of the earth the full advantages he has gained by long residence in cultivated and civilized regions. The animal and vegetable train of life which he cannot help drawing after him wherever he goes, the old grasses and weeds and flowers, the old insects and beasts, as well as those more valuable plants and domestic animals which he takes pains to carry with him, have all gained by their conditions of life in the Old World that hardiness which fits them to colonize as well as man himself, and to force their way into his new home without asking his consent, at the expense of the native flora and fauna. Everything not only that man intentionally brings with him, but that crawls after him almost by accident, spreads as he spreads. A moving atmosphere of power clings to his steps, so that even the lowest creatures which he has found useful or even but supportable for centuries in one place, will drive out, without giving him any trouble, the creatures which he would find comparatively useless or insupportable in another. The clover driving the fern and even the sword-flax before it, and so preparing a rich pasture for the sheep, the little house

1

fly, transported in boxes and bottles, and then left to supplant the disgusting native blue-bottle by its own energies, are but special illustrations of the general law that all that man has found on the whole very often unconsciously, as in the case of the fly - suitable and, comparatively speaking, advantageous to him in ages of civilization, has during those ages been acquiring with out knowing it the power to follow him successfully into other regions, where the conditions of animal and vegetable life would otherwise be much less favourable to his existence, and so to share the charmed life of civilization without being the objects of his intentional protection. Naturally one would have supposed that by the law of the "conflict for existence," the lush tropi cal forests of South America, the sworded flax tree and thick ferns of New Zealand, would have struggled with the most tremendous advantages against the foreign growths which civilized man brings with him, and which are so essential to his progress. And so it would be certainly, if art alone were his only dependence; if every animal and vegetable inconsistent with his comfort and safety had to be industriously exterminated, instead of retreating almost as if by magic, before him. But the fact is quite otherwise. The wild animals and wild growths even of the tropical forests yield easily before the weakest invader that has gone through the selecting process inseparable from civilization. The clover follows man into the heart even of South American jungles, displacing the rank grasses it finds there. The horse and the sheep and the pig multiply in these new wastes of vegetation with infinitely more rapidity than the wild animals which are native there. Man, of course, takes his arts with him, but where he might expect to have to fight Nature hardest with his most marvellous efforts, nature seems to acknowledge the mere magic of his preparations, and to yield to him without insisting on any laborious application of them. Even the tangled forests of the Amazon will probably yield to the first sincere effort at immigration with infinitely less difficulty than we expect. Rich, wild, and virgin soils nourish weak and comparatively untenacious forms of life, both animal and vegetable. The very luxuriance of growth is perhaps a sign of this weakness. The hardier and subtler vitality of "selected,"i. e., civilized, nature, soon beats the luxuriance of wild nature in the race.

And we must remember that this process of "natural" selection, selection with re

spect merely to weakness and strength, is arrested directly we reach man, directly we reach a being endowed with a character which can see that there is a weakness stronger than strength, indeed a strength in weakness itself, when that weakness is the weakness of reverence, self-denial, and love. Our Poor Laws, our hospitals, our healing art, our charities, are all so many agencies for counteracting the process of "natural selection " so soon as we arrive at a stage of culture when we can see that mere strength, mere tenacity of life, is not itself divine. Natural selection stops, or begins to stop, with the very race for whom it has hitherto worked with so beneficial an effect. It prepares a region suitable for civilized man, and enables him to conquer with infinitely greater ease other regions not thus suitable for him, and then the being for whom all this has been done, is taught that after all his highest duty and noblest function in relation to his own race lies in reversing the process, in protecting the weak, in lifting up the hands that hang down, in strengthening the feeble knees, in guarding with the tenderest care every spark of human reason and human love. How should a being placed in the position which man holds on the earth by long ages of merely natural selection," of struggle for existence, have learned that this very process, this fierce competitive strife, is one of the very lowest of his functions, - the one, indeed, which he shares with the lower order of plants and animals, - if the Providence which had watched over the one process had not been waiting to give the corrective and the great supplement to His own teaching, the moment He had at last prepared for Himself a being worthy of it? To our minds the most wonderful side of the Darwinian theory is, that it shows us. in such strong contrast, what God has really done to perfect our physical and animal nature, and that the being for whom He has done all this, and who is the first to know it, is the first also to know that the law of conflict and competition is the lowest of the laws of human nature, and is recognized by us only in learning to keep it well under us. It would be the strangest of all paradoxes if a universe really accounted for by the law of competition, was crowned by the one being who, in his highest moments, reverses and repudiates that law.

From Good Words.

MORE ABOUT THE QUEEN'S ENGLISH.

BY THE DEAN OF CANTERBURY.

A Supplementary Lecture, delivered to the Church of England Young Men's Associ ation, in St. George's Hall, Canterbury, Nov. 5, 1866.

WHEN your excellent secretary requested me to open your course of lectures for this season, I naturally went to a shelf where papers await future use, to see whether the Queen's English correspondence was ample enough to warrant another lecture on that subject. I found upwards of fifty letters on questions of more or less interest, and a fair amount of cuttings from newspapers, and memoranda picked up in society and in solitude.

I therefore determined to announce "More About the Queen's English," as my subject, and to go through my file of letters and memoranda, thus forming a supplementary lecture, which might, in the next edition of my little book, either be worked in among its paragraphs, or be printed entire as an appendix at the end.

This being so, I shall not aim at arrangement or classification, but shall simply discuss the matters presented by my correspondents, and the memoranda, as they come before me.

I am asked whether an expression which I had used, “the first foundation of an institution," can be right, seeing that an institution can have but one foundation? The reply is to be sought in the general

use

of expletive, i.e., superabundant words, together with others which already express the meaning required. Thus we have," O that they would consider their latter end," when "their end" would, strictly speaking, have been sufficient. Thus also we say, "the utmost end of the earth," "the first beginning of creation"; the expletive prefix in each case tending to give precision and emphasis, and showing that it is on the fact reasserted by it, that the stress of the sentence is laid.

A notable and very solemn instance of this usage is found in the title, "the most Highest," given to the Almighty in the Prayer-book version of the psalms (Ps. ix. 2; xiii. 6; xxi. 7; etc.) In the Bible version the expression seems not to occur, the "Most High," or "the Highest," being its equivalent. But we have a reduplication of the same kind in Acts xxvi. 5: "After the

most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee." In this place, it is difficult to account for it, as it represents only the simple superlative in the original text. King James's translators seem merely to have retained it from the older English versions, Tyndale's, Cranmer's, and the Geneva Bible.

It may be hard to assign exactly the difference between "oldest " and "eldest." Whatever it may be, it is clearly matter of idiomatic usage, and not derivable from any distinction in the words themselves. But that there is a difference, may in a moment be shown. We cannot say, "Methuselah was the eldest man that ever lived"; we must say, "the oldest man that ever lived." Again, it would hardly be natural to say, "his father's oldest born," if we were speaking of the first-born. If we were to say of a father, " He was succeeded by his oldest son," we should convey the impression that that son was not the eldest, but the oldest surviving after the loss of the eldest. And these examples seem to bring us to a kind of insight into the idiomatic difference. "Eldest" implies not only more years, but also priority of right; nay, it might sometimes even be independent of actual duration of life. A first-born who died an infant was yet the eldest son. If all mankind were assembled, Methuselah would be the oldest: but Adam would be the eldest, of men. Whether any account is to be given of this than the caprice of usage, I cannot say, but must leave the question to those who are better versed in the comparison of languages. My object is to describe the current coin, rather than to inquire into the archæology of the coinage.

other

Connected with this inquiry about "oldest " and " eldest" is the subject of a letter which I will give you entire.

der brother, I don't include myself. He I spoke of is the oldest of my brothers, not the oldest of my father's sons.' To this I replied by quoting Milton-Adam the goodliest of his sons since born, the fairest of her daughters, Eve.' That, however, we agreed was only justified by poets' license. Finally, I ruled that though my Russian friend was strictly and grammatically correct, yet, according to common usage, the expression employed by him was rather calculated to mislead. He seemed to think it rather hard that the English people, having constructed a grammar, should not conform to its rules; and hinted that in Russia no such liberty of the subject would be permitted that when laws were made, people were expected to obey them; and that a man who talked bad grammar would be in danger of the knout.

[blocks in formation]

66

66

"W. F."

It was somewhat curious that the Russian should have blamed us for inconsistency: for surely my elder brother "must mean "the elder brother of me," just as my better "the better half of me." half" means, We may also hereby illustrate what was just now said about "oldest " and "eldest": 66 my eldest brother" could never be said by the first-born of a family, seeing that the title belongs to him alone: whereas when "my oldest brother" is said, he excludes himself, and indicates the brother next to him in age.

I am asked why we say "dependent on," but " independent of"? The answer is surely not difficult.

When we make "dependent "into" independent," we not only deny that which "dependent" asserts, but we construct a different word; different in its reference and its government. The" on," which we use after "dependent," implies attachment and sequence; as in " hanging on," waiting on ": the "of," which we use after "independent," expresses merely the relation of the thing following, as when we say "inclusive of," "exclusive of." In this case, the variation of prepositions might be still further exemplified; we say "pendent from," "dependent on," "independent of." A somewhat similar instance may be found in "with respect to," and irrespective of."

"SIR, When I came on deck the other morning in the Red Sea (very near the place at which Moses and the Israelites are supposed to have crossed), I was seized by three fellowpassengers -a Russian, a Frenchman, and a Swiss who, nolentem volentem, constituted me umpire in a dispute which they were carrying on upon a point of English grammar. The Russian, it seems, was his father's eldest son, and he had four brothers, all, ex ne essitate, younger than himself. In speaking of the oldest of these four, he called him my elder brother'; on which the Frenchman said, I thought you were your father's eldest son.' 'So I am,' he replied; but I spoke of the elder of my brothers. I am not one of my own of"? The answer to this is to be sought brothers, and therefore when I speak of my el-trom a different source. In “

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The same correspondent who proposed the last question also asks, why we say contemporary with," but "a contemporary

[ocr errors]

contemporary

with," the "with" simply carries on the
force of the preposition "con," or "cum,"
with which the adjective is compounded.
But when that adjective is made into a
substantive, it then must be connected with
other substantives by the customary prepo-
sition "
of," indicating possession or rela-
tion.

A somewhat similar change takes place
when substantives which may be used pred-
icatively, are used indicatively. Thus we
say "neighbour to him," but, "a neighbour
of him," or, as we commonly express it, "of
his." If we keep the same preposition in
the two cases, the phrase does not retain
the same meaning. "He is neighbour to
him," means,
"He lives near him": but
"He is a neighbour to him," means " He
behaves to him in a neighbourly man-

[merged small][ocr errors]

The question at the end of our Lord's parable of the Good Samaritan, "Which of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?" forms not an exception to the rule first mentioned, but rather an example of it. For the conclusion to be drawn from the parable is, that the real claim to the title of neighbour is his who acts in a neighbourly manner. So that the question does not mean, which of these three acted in a neighbourly manner to him? - but which of these three had a right to be called his neighbour - neighbour to him? Then the answer naturally comes," He that showed mercy on him."

This correspondent also points out the curious difference which is made in the meaning of one and the same word in a sentence, when variously introduced by other words. Thus, if I say of one in India, "He will return for two years," I am rightly understood as meaning that the length of his stay at home will be two years. But if I say, "He will not return for two years," then I do not, by the insertion of the negative, reverse the former proposition, i.e., mean that the length of his stay at home will not be two years, but I imply something quite different: viz., that two years will elapse before his return. By the insertion of the "not," the preposition "for," retaining its meaning of "during," "for the space of," ceases to belong to the length of time during which he will "come" and belongs to the length of time during which he will "not come.'

was very respectful to Tom, and always
took off his hat when he met him." "Jack
was very rude to Tom, and always knocked
off his hat when he met him." You will
see that "his hat " in the former sentence
is Jack's, but in the latter sentence it is
Tom's. There is absolutely nothing to in-
dicate this but the context.
"Will any
one pretend," says the Reviewer, "that
either of these sentences is ambiguous in
meaning, or unidiomatic in expression?
Yet critics of the class now before us, [i.e.,
those who proceed on the assumption that
no sentence is correct, unless the mere syn-
tactical arrangement of the words, irrespec-
tive of their meaning, is such that they are
incapable of having a double aspect,] are
bound to contend that Jack showed his re-
spect by taking off Tom's hat, or else that
he showed his rudeness by knocking off his
own."

And this is important, as showing how utterly impossible it is for every reference of every pronoun to be unmistakably pointed out by the form of the sentence. Hearers and readers are supposed to be in possession of their common sense and their powers of discrimination; and it is to these that writers and speakers must be content to address themselves.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"How is it," asks still the same correspondent, "that 'excuse my writing more,' and excuse my not writing more,' mean the same thing?"" We may answer, that the verb to excuse has two different senses one being to dispense with, and the other to pardon. When a school is called over, the master may excuse (dispense with) a certain boy's attendance: or he may excuse (pardon) his non-attendance. will be at once seen, if we put, as we properly ought, the person as the object of the verb "excuse," as in, "I pray thee have me excused: " the sentence will then stand in the one case, "Excuse me from attendance"; but in the other, "Excuse me for non-attendance."

[ocr errors]

This

A correspondent asks whether the expression "very pleased" is admissible. Undoubtedly, the ordinary usage before a participle is "very much": "I was very much pleased." No one would think of saying, "I was very cheated in the transaction." But on the other hand we all say very tired," very ailing," "very contented," "very discontented." Where then is the distinction? The account to be given My correspondent offers another exam- seems to be this: If the participle describe ple, which was originally given by the writ- only the action or the suffering implied in er of the article on my little book in the its verb, in other words, if it continue a Edinburgh Review for June, 1864. "Jack | verb, “ very " alone will not serve to qualiFOURTH SERIES. LIVING AGE. VOL. V. 128.

..

:

fy it. "Very" simply intensifies. And it must have some quality to intensify. You cannot intensify a mere event. In other words, if" very" alone be used, it must be followed by an adjective, or by something equivalent to an adjective. "Tired" is equivalent to "weary" is a participle used as an adjective: therefore we may say 46 very tired": " ailing" is equivalent to "poorly": both "contented" and "discontented are qualities and tempers, not merely records of an event which has happened. Judging then "very pleased" by this rule, it is admissible. "Pleased" is a state of mind, carried on beyond the mere occasion which gave rise to it. Introduce marked reference to the occasion, and very " becomes inappropriate. You cannot say very flattered," but must say, very much flattered." I own I prefer very much pleased," as more conformable

[ocr errors]

66

66

[ocr errors]

to usage.

66

A difficulty arises as to the proper number of the verb substantive, when it couples a singular nominative case to a plural one. Two correspondents have written on this matter. One cites from a newspaper, "More curates are what we want," and asks whether "are" is correct. The other is a printer, and relates that on this sentence being sent for press, "A special feature of the Reformatory Exhibition were the work-shops and work-rooms," the "Reader" in the office corrected "were" to "was"; upon which the Author corrected " was "back again to "were." A dispute arose in the office, some siding with the Reader, some with the Author. The former were the majority: and the minority, though they thought "were" correct, yet acknowledged that "was would sound

better.

[ocr errors]

And I believe that they were thus not only making an ingenuous confession, but giving the key to the whole question. In most cases of this kind, that which sounds right, is right. And that which sounds right is generally, in the examples before us, that the verb should take the number, be it singular or plural, of the preceding nominative case. More curates are what we want." But invert the proposition, and we must say, "What we want is, more curates." So in the other case, "a special feature of the exhibition was, the workshops, and work-rooms ": but, "the workshops and work-rooms were a special feature of the exhibition."

Still, this rule does not seem to have been always followed by our best writers. In the English Bible, Prov. xiii. 8, we have,

"The ransom of a man's life are his riches": and in Prov. xvi. 25, "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." The translators' rule seems to have been always to use the plural verb-substantive, when either of the nominatives was plural. We have in one and the same sentence, Prov. xvii. 6," Children's children are the crown of old men: and the glory of children are their fathers": where it is plain that the occurrence of one plural, and not the order of the substantives, has ruled the number of the verb.

Every schoolboy will remember "Amantium iræ amoris integratio est"; in reference to which we may notice, that the Latin possesses the advantage of being able so to arrange the sentence, that the verb shall stand close to, and take the number of, the more important of the two nominative

cases.

A correspondent is about to dedicate a book to a Royal patroness. He wishes to express gratitude for "many kindnesses": but feeling uncomfortable as to the correctness of the expression, is afraid he shall have to write "much kindness," which does not so well express his meaning," kindness shown on many occasions."

It is a very easy matter to calm his apprehension, and allow him the full expression of his gratitude. Nothing is commoner than the making of abstract nouns into concrete in this manner. I trust we all remember the verse in the Lamentations of Jeremiah, ch. iii. 22, " It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed, because His compassions fail not." In the same chapter we read of "all their imaginations against me." And in Ps. lxxxix. 49, we have the very word in question; "Lord, where are thy former loving-kindnesses, which Thou swarest unto David in thy truth?"

In all these examples, the word which originally signified an attribute, is taken to indicate an instance of the exercise of that attribute. "Loving kindnesses" are instances of loving-kindness.

A curious case of this license in speech may be seen at present on the walls of our railway stations, where an agent announces that he has upwards of 500 "businesses dispose of.

[ocr errors]

to

One expression in this last sentence reminds me that a correspondent at LeightonBuzzard asks the following question: " Does upwards of a thousand " mean "more than," "above," "in excess of," a thousand, or, as some persons here, of good education,

« AnteriorContinuar »