does it limit the exact duration of the time of writing? It merely denotes that each of them is a past time, detached from the future. It corresponds to short times as well as long, provided they are past and detached times. For each of the other forms, see our times and transits, or the exposition of the different forms of the assertive.

We beg our readers to peruse the following extracts with attention, as they prove in the clearest manner, how little writers on this subject respected common sense, and the necessity of investigating the truth of their grammatical principles. They generally follow each other, as sheep do in snow. Precedent, whether good or bad, true or false, is all that is necessary.

We find in Lindley Murray's Grammar, page 82:-"In general, the perfect tense may be applied wherever the action is connected with the present time, by the actual existence, either of the author or of the work, though it may have been performed many centuries ago; but if neither the author nor the work now remains, it cannot be used. We may say Cicero has written orations; but we cannot say, Cicero has written poems, because the orations are in being, but the poems are lost. Speaking of priests in general, we may say, they have, in all ages, claimed great powers, because the general order of the priesthood still exists; but if we speak of the Druids, or any particular order of priests which does not now exist, we cannot use this tense. We cannot say, 'the Druid priests have claimed great powers,' but must say, the Druid priests claimed great powers; because that order is now totally extinct.-See Pickbourn, on the English Verb; and the fifth edition of the Octavo Grammar, page 113."

If the perfect tense may be applied wherever the action is connected with the present time, by the actual existence either of the author or of the work, "though it may have been performed many centuries ago," we can correctly say, "Cicero has written orations some centuries ago;" because the orations now actually exist. We can also say, "In the beginning, God has created the heaven and the earth," because the author, God, now actually exists. "I have written to my friend

last week," is good English, because the author, I, now actually exists. "William the Conqueror, has built the Tower of London," is good English, because the tower (that is the work) now actually exists. We insist that each of the foregoing examples is bad English, that the principle laid down by Pickbourn, Lindley Murray, Grant, Lennie, and at least by a dozen other faithful copyists, is false, and that their solitary and immutable example, Cicero has written orations, is bad English; and ought to be, Cicero wrote orations.

All Cicero's actions were performed in his lifetime, of which the instant of his death was the final instant; but that time is detached from the future by the intermediate time that has since elapsed the same as yesterday is detached from the future by the time since elapsed, which is the past part of today; consequently, Cicero's life-time and yesterday are detached past times. As wrote is the form of the assertive that corresponds to every detached past time, consequently I must say, "I wrote yesterday," ," "Cicero wrote orations." "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," "William the Conqueror built the tower of London,” etc.

According to this extract from Lindley Murray's Grammar, you cannot say, "the Druid priests have claimed great powers." Why cannot you say so? He informs us you cannot say so, simply because the Druid order of priests does not now exist. Does Cicero now exist? Yes; Mr. Grant has performed a master-miracle by raising Cicero from death to life, and putting him in possession of his orations.-See Grant's Grammar, p. 84. "When we say, Cicero has written orations, we speak of Cicero, though dead, as alive, and in the present possession of the effects of his action, because they now exist; but we do not say, Cicero has written poems, because these do not now exist, but Cicero wrote poems." We maintain that the existence or non-existence of the work is perfectly indifferent, and that the same form of the assertive must be used, whe her the work exists or not, if the time or transit is the same. I can with propriety say I have written several letters this year, whether the letters now exist or not, I can as correctly say, “I have written several letters this year, which do

not now exist," as I can say, "I have written several letters this year which do now exist." Hence, the existence or nonexistence of the work cannot direct us in the form of the assertive to be used. The only guide is the time or transit expressed or understood, for which see our exposition of these forms. We cannot say, after a man's death, that he has written or has done anything; we must say, he wrote, or did, because death detached his lifetime from the future; therefore, we must use that form of the assertive that corresponds to every detached past time, namely, wrote, did, etc. Deplorable, indeed, must be the grammatical views which can only be maintained by miracles, or by sacrificing truth or common

sense.

We have taken the following extracts from Lennie's Grammar, page 22:—

"The past tense is used when the action or state is limited by the circumstance of time or place; as, 'we saw him yesterday.' 'We were in bed when he arrived.' Here the words yesterday and when limit the action and state to a particular time. After death all agents are spoken of in the past tense, because time is limited or defined by the life of the person; as, 'Mary, Queen of Scots was remarkable for her beauty.' This tense is peculiarly appropriated to the narrative style, because all narration implies some circumstance; as 'Socrates refused to adore false gods.' Here the period of Socrates's life, being a limited part of past time, circumscribes the narration. It is improper then to say of one already dead, ‘He has been much admired; he has done much good;' but he was much admired; he did much good.""

After comparing the following extract with the foregoing, you may judge Mr. Lennie's consistency.

Page 23.-"We say, Cicero has written orations, because the orations are still in existence; but we cannot say, Cicero has written poems, because the poems do not exist-they are lost; therefore, we must say, Cicero wrote poems."

As this extract concerning Cicero is so faithfully copied from Pickbourn, Lindley Murray, or some of the authors who have copied from them, the observations we have already made will

here suffice. We shall only ask, if the period of Socrates's lifetime is a limited part of past time, is not Cicero's lifetime a similar part of past time? Why then not say, “Socrates refused to adore false gods, Cicero wrote orations?"

REMARKS ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE

ASSERTIVES, OR Verbs.

Lowth, page 30. Third Edition, 1754:

"There are three kinds of Verbs-Active, Passive, and Neuter Verbs.

"A Verb Active expresses an action, and necessarily implies an agent and an object acted upon; as, to love; I love Thomas.

"A Verb Passive expresses a passion, or suffering, or the receiving of an action; and necessarily implies an object acted upon, and an agent by which it is acted upon: as, to be loved, 'Thomas is loved by me.' So, when the agent takes the lead in the sentence, the verb i active, and is followed by the object; when the object takes the lead, the verb is passive, and is followed by the agent.

"A Verb Neuter expresses being, or a state or condition of being, when the agent and the object acted upon coincide, and the event is properly neither action or passion, but rather something between both: as, 'I am, I sleep, I walk.’

"A Verb Active is called also transitive, because the action passeth over to the object, or hath an effect on some other thing; and the verb neuter is called intransitive, because the effect is confined within the agent, and doth not pass over to an object.

"In English many verbs are used both in an active and neuter signification, the construction only determining of which kind they are.

The distinction between verbs absolutely neuter, as, to sleep, and verbs active intransitive, as, to walk, though founded in nature and truth, is of little use in grammar. Indeed it would rather perplex than assist the learner; for the difference between verbs active and neuter, as transitive and intransitive, is easy and obvious; but the difference between verbs absolutely neuter and intransitively active is not always clear."

The classification of the assertives in every grammatical work published since Lowth's time, which has fallen under our notice, is either a literal copy of the foregoing or in meaning the same. Grant seems to dissent, but he soon retracts, as may be seen in page 56 of his Grammar.

Seeming Dissent, page 56: "Passion or Suffering. There is no passive verb, or voice, in English. But such phrases as , John is flogged, is whipped,' denote the suffering of John; and hence, is flogged, is whipped, and the like, have been (erroneously) termed passive verbs."

Recantation, same page." Verbs may be divided into substantive and adjective verbs. Adjective verbs may be divided into active, passive, and neuter; and active verbs may be subdivided into transitive and intransitive."

and

We are fully prepared, from the Doctor's definitions, to subvert his classification of the assertives into active, passive, neuter; consequently, the same arguments, if founded in truth, must subvert the classification of his copyists. If there are only three kinds of verbs, namely, active, passive, and neuter, we may justly infer that every verb in the language must belong to some one of the three classes, which we shall call the First Inference from the definitions.

If every verb active expresses an action, and necessarily implies an agent, and an object acted upon, consequently, the verb that does not express an action is not an active verb, which we shall call the Second Inference.

As every verb active, by the definition, expresses an action,