Billeder på siden

dead bodies are usually cast forth; and where dogs and vultures are ever


Juggernaut, 18th of June, 1806. I have returned home from witnessing a scene which I shall never forget. At twelve o'clock of this day, being the great day of the feast, the Moloch of Hindostan was brought out of his temple amidst the acclamations of hundreds of thousands of his worshippers. When the idol was placed on his throne, a shout was raised by the multitude, such as I had never heard before. It continued equable for a few minutes, and then gradually died away. After a short interval of silence, a murmur was heard at a distance; all eyes were turned towards the place, and, behold, a grove advancing. A body of men, having green branches, or palms, in their hands, approached with great celerity. The people opened a way for them; and when they had come up to the throne, they fell down before him that sat thereon, and worshipped. The throne of the idol was placed on a stupendous car or tower, about sixty feet in height, resting on wheels which indented the ground deeply, as they turned slowly under the ponderous machine. Attached to it were six cables, of the size and length of a ship's cable, by which the people drew it along. Thousands of men, women, and children, pulled by each cable, crowding so closely, that some could only use one hand. Infants are made to exert their strength in this office, for it is accounted a merit of righteousness to move the God. Upon the tower were the priests and satellites of the idol, surrounding his throne. I was told that there were about a hundred and twenty persons upon the car altogether. The idol is a block of wood, having a frightful visage painted black, with a distended mouth of a bloody colour. His arms are of gold, and he is dressed in gorgeous apparel. The other two idols are of a white and yellow colour. Five elephants preceded the three towers, bearing towering flags, dressed in crimson caparisons, and having bells hanging to their caparisons, which sounded musically as they moved.

I went on in the procession, close by the tower of Moloch; which, as it was drawn with difficulty, "grated on its many wheels harsh thunder." After

[ocr errors]

a few minutes it stopped; and now the worship of the God began.-A high priest mounted the car in front of the idol, and pronounced his obscene stanzas in the ears of the people; who responded at intervals in the same strain. These songs,' said he, are the delight of the God. His car can only move when he is pleased with the song.'-The car moved on a little way, and then stopped. A boy of about twelve years was then brought forth to attempt something yet more lascivious, if peradventure the God would move. The child perfected the praise' of his idol with such ardent expression and gesture, that the God was pleased, and the multitude, emitting a sensual yell of delight, urged the car along. After a few minutes it stopped again. An aged minister of the idol then stood up, and with a long rod in his hand, which he moved with indecent action, completed the variety of this disgusting exhibition.-I felt a consciousness of doing wrong in witnessing it. I was also somewhat appalled at the magnitude and horror of the spectacle; I felt like a guilty person on whom all eyes were fixed, and I was about to withdraw. But a scene of a different kind was now to be presented. The characteristics of Moloch's worship are obscenity and blood. We have seen the former. Now comes the blood.

After the tower had proceeded some way, a pilgrim announced that he was ready to offer himself a sacrifice to the idol. He laid himself down in the road before the tower, as it was moving along, lying on his face, with his arms stretched forwards. The multitude passed round him, leaving the space clear, and he was crushed to death by the wheels of the tower. A shout of joy was raised to the God. He is said to smile when the libation of the blood is made. The people threw cowries, or small money, on the body of the victim, in approbation of the deed. He was left to view a considerable time, and was then carried by the Hurries to the Golgotha, where I have just been viewing his remains.' Juggernaut, 20th June, 1806. The horrid solemnities still continue. Yesterday a woman devoted herself to the idol. She laid herself down on the road in an oblique direction, so that the wheel did not

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

kill her instantaneously, as is generally the case; but she died in a few hours. This morning, as I passed the place of skulls, nothing remained of her but

her bones.'

As to the number of persons assembled at this horrid festival, which Dr. Buchanan witnessed, no accurate calculations, he says, could be made. The natives, when speaking of particular festivals, usually declare, that if 100,000 persons were to withdraw from the amazing multitude, their absence would not be perceptible.

Review of " A Grammar of the Eng-
lish Language, by the Rev. Joseph
Sutcliffe." London, 1815.

THAT the study of the English Lan-
guage has, within these few years,
been greatly facilitated and improv-
ed, is a fact which none can contro-
vert, and in which all the friends of
science will rejoice. Before the ap-
pearance of Lowth's "
our language was much neglected, and
of course very imperfectly understood.
Since that time, the rising generation,
and English students in general, have
been laid under great obligations,
by the meritorious and successful la-
bours of Mr. Lindley Murray. The
high opinion universally entertained
of this gentleman's works, is evidenced
by the unprecedented sale they have
had, both in the British dominions,
and in the United States of America.
They have almost superseded all other
works of the kind, and obtained exclu-
sive patronage, wherever the language
is taught or learned.

We are not however so weak, as to suppose Mr. Murray infallible; nor would we bind ourselves, on all grammatical questions, by his sentiments and authority. His positions are open to investigation; and if any of them can be proved erroneous, they should instantly be abandoned. To this principle we heartily subscribe; and if where Murray errs, any subsequent grammarian can point out the path of truth, we shall gratefully avail ourselves of his help.

Though we believe ourselves free from any blind and unreasonable partiality in favour of Mr. Murray, yet, we must confess, we were somewhat startled at the charge brought against him, in Mr. Sutcliffe's preface. We conceive that Mr. S. in accusing Mr. M. of "pla

giarism, always revolting to the moral feelings of the heart," does not evince so much of candour and generosity, as of a disposition to cavil and find fault; and we are afraid that, throughout his Grammar, he seems glad, and even eager, to catch at every opportunity of opposing and censuring his popular predecessor.

That Mr. Sutcliffe's publication is a work of some merit, and contains several things curious, useful, and important, we do not deny. At the same time, after an attentive, and, we trust, a candid perusal, we are constrained his sentiments erroneous, his princito aver, that on many points we deem ples false, his illustrations and arguments unsatisfactory; and that we think the work, taking it in the whole, far more calculated to be detrimental than

useful, in the study of our language. The annexation of Mr. S.'s name has stamped a degree of respectability on the work, and procured for it a considerable circulation. Hence we think, his statements should be publicly controverted; that all his readers may at least have both sides of the question fairly laid before them, and be better qualified to decide where truth and accuracy are to be found.

We shall now proceed with our animadversions on various parts of the Grammar.

Page 17. "The letter a has five distinct sounds;-the first is primitive or open-in father, gracious, large." Here father and gracious are both adduced as instances of the open a; whereas its sound in father is totally distinct from that which it has in gracious.

Page 20. "L is silent in-soldier." To sink the l in soldier is incorrect and vulgar.

Page 22. "H is mostly silent after w, as in wharf, wheel, while." In these cases, the h is distinctly sounded before the w; the words being pronounced hwarf, hweel, hwile, &c.

Page 36. Declension of kingdom. It is improper to call of kingdom or of kingdoms the genitive case; for though such expressions would be the genitive in Latin or Greek, they certainly are not so in English. Of is a preposition, and kingdom, when preceded by of, is not the genitive, but the objective case.

Page 37. "When we are obliged to use two nouns together, separated by a

hyphen, as ship-mate, wine-whey,china- | think perfectly right, and Mr. S.'s obware; mostly the latter, and sometimes the former, is the adjective." Here Mr. S. is unquestionably wrong. In compound substantives, it it mostly, if not always, the former noun, that is used as an adjective. Thus in the examples adduced, the three former nouns, ship, wine, china, are used like adjectives, indicating the sort or quality of the mate, the whey, and the ware. We know not of a single instance, in which the latter noun is used as an adjective, to qualify the former.

Page 42. (Note.) "The Greek word λaxOTg signifies the most lowest." Not so; it is not a double superlative; but a comparative formed from the superlative λx50s; and its sense is precisely and literally lower than the lowest, or rather, less than the least.


Page 43. He is amazingly, or astonishingly, or infinitely popular." Such an expression as infinitely popular, is inaccurate and objectionable, if not absurd.

jection altogether futile. In the phrases quoted there is no ellipsis of any verb. We have enough, is a complete sentence, equvalent to we possess enough. He wills it to be so, is equivalent to he desires or he chooses it to be so ; and, they do as they please, to they act as they please. To say that in such cases the verbs have, wills, do, are not principals, but auxiliaries, is as absurd as to say, that the verbs which we have substituted above, viz. possess, desires, act, are not principals but auxiliaries; neither are the words execute, written, appointing, &c. understood, as Mr. S. intimates.

[ocr errors]

Page 62. It seems erroneous to call am an auxiliary verb." By admitting, with Mr. Murray, that it is sometimes an auxiliary, sometimes a principal verb, every difficulty is obviated.

Page 72. "The participle, to sicken." Sicken is a verb, not a participle; neither can we see the propriety of saying that to be sick is a verb. To be is a verb, but sick is an adjective; to be sick is no more a verb than to be old, to be rich, to be pious, to be proud, &c.

Page 47." In asking questions, which is distinguished from what by its always following a noun expressed or understood; as what is the news? which Ditto. "The participle is the root of the papers do you read?" Which, or parent of the verb." This is indeed in the above example, does not follow a novel and singular doctrine. We any noun expressed or understood; have always thought, on the contrary, but it agrees with the noun paper under- that the verb is the root or parent of the stood; which (paper) of the papers do participle. Would it not be absurd to you read? and so in all similar cases; say that have comes from having, love thus, which (house) of the houses be- from loving, think from thinking, &c. longs to you? which (garden) of the when have, love, think, are evidently the gardens do you choose? primitive words, and the others, inPage 48. That has a decided pre-flections or variations of the primitive ference of euphony over who,-after word? the pronoun they." This we think very doubtful, and not established by good authority. It might be contended with much plausibility, that on the ground of euphony, who should be preferred to that, as tending to prevent the recurrence of the sound th in two successive words, they, that. Dr. Blair says, "They, who are learning to compose," &c.


Page 61. (Note.) Mr. Sutcliffe, after quoting from Murray an observation that "the verbs have, be, will, do, when unconnected with a principal verb, expressed or understood, are not auxiliaries but principal verbs," subjoins: "This mistake arises through inattention to the ellipsis in these phrases. If we except the verb am, the principal verb is always understood." Mr. Murray's opinion we

Page 73. "The participle promotes beauty and variety in language, by superseding the too frequent recurrence of the infinitive mood. Ex. Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain," &c. The participles forbidding and commanding are not here used, as Mr. S. supposes, instead of infinitive moods.


Ditto. "Sometimes the participle is more impressive than the noun. What are the pangs of a mother when she hears the moanings of her infant?" Mr. S. seems not aware that here, as in a thousand cases besides, the word, originally a participle, becomes a perfect noun, and follows in all respects the usual regimen of nouns. Certainly moanings is not a participle, but a noun.

Page 77. (Note.) " In London and its vicinity, the following phrases are

much used; I have began to learn French; the coach had came away," &c. We think it highly objectionable to give any sort of countenance to such expressions as I have began, the coach had came. If such innovations be allowed, our language will be essentially injured.

Page 85. "When the prepositions out, near, far, even, &c. precede another preposition, they become adjectives."

This we think a novel and objectionable hypothesis. Mr. S. merely makes the assertion, without adducing any authority, or offering any argument in proof. If the occurrence of two consecutive prepositions causes any change of character in the first of them, it would be far more plausible to say that it becomes an adverb, than an adjective.

Page 99. "When the infinitive mood occurs, it is said to supply the place of the nominative;-as, 'to learn is laudable.' But assuredly the noun or pronoun is understood; as, for me or you to learn is laudable.' It certainly would be more correct to say, that the nominative is understood before the infinitive mood."

Mr. S. would have us to believe, it seems, that in the above example, the objective case me or you (understood), governed by the preposition for, is nominative case to the verb is. This is perfectly absurd. In all such instances, the infinitive is a mere substitute for a noun; thus, to learn is laudable, is equivalent to learning is laudable; to err is human, that is, error is human: hence there can be no impropriety in saying, that the infinitive, in these cases, is used as a nominative to the following verb.

Page 101. "Again- where there are two nominatives and but one accusative, or but one nominative and two accusatives, we could not know whether to use a singular or a plural verb. Ex. His meat was locusts and wild honey." In this example there is no accusative case at all; the three substantives, meat, locusts, honey, all being, according to Mr. S. himself, (Rule ix. page 125) in the nominative. An accusative case after a verb can never affect the number of that verb. To convey Mr. S.'s meaning correctly, the rule should be: "when there are two nominatives before a verb, and but one nominative after it; or one nominative before and two nominatives after it."

P. 102. Many of our grammarians

talk much of a case absolute; as, 'shame being lost, all virtue is lost;' 'he being dead, yet speaketh.' - The case absolute is no case at all. It is merely the fragment of a phrase, not reducible to law, till the ellipsis is supplied. Hence Dr. Crombie, and several of our wiser grammarians, are silent about the case absolute."

Notwithstanding Dr. Crombie's and Mr. Sutcliffe's opinion, this case must, we think, be allowed in our language. One of the two examples adduced above, contains no case absolute: he being dead, yet speaketh; here he is plainly nominative to the verb speaketh. The other example is appropriate; shame being lost, all virtue is lost. This Mr. S. does not attempt to analyze ; nor do we see how such a construction can be accounted for, without calling shame the case absolute. It is not the nominative to the verb is lost, that verb has virtue for its nominative: neither is it the nominative after that verb; nor is it the objective case; for there is neither verb nor preposition, that can cause it to be in the objective.

Some grammarians think that the absolute cases in Latin and Greek are always governed by some preposition understood. Some of the English absolute cases may be accounted for on this principle. Thus, in the above example shame being lost, denotes the same as in consequence of shame being lost, or through shame being lost. Others of our absolute cases may be accounted for, on the principle of ellipsis; thus, the sun rising, the shadows disappear; i. e. when the sun is rising: whose gray top shall tremble, he descending; i. e. while he is descending. such forms of speech are allowable, it seems necessary to call the noun or pronoun the case absolute, as it cannot be proved to be either nominative or objective according to the ordinary rules of construction.

But if

If Mr. S. will not allow this case to exist in our language, we would propose the following sentences;

"Isaiah flourished in the reign of Hezekiah; who being sick unto death, and having prayed to the Lord, the prophet was sent to comfort him, and to announce his recovery."

"A blow was aimed at the duke; but he escaping in due time, the assassin was disappointed."

How would Mr. S. account for the two pronouns who and he, both nomi

natives; but not nominative to any verb, nor nominative after any verb; nor yet agreeing in case with their antecedents; for both their antecedents, viz. Hezekiah and duke are in the objective?

Another example we take from the New Testament, Luke iii. 21. "It came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Ghost descended," &c.

This sentence is complete; there is no ellipsis; the substantive Jesus is not nominative to any verb, nor nominative after any verb, nor is it in the objective case; but is put absolutely with the two participles being baptized and praying, and in point of government, is wholly independent of the rest of the sentence. If Mr. S. will not allow it to be the case absolute, how will he account for the construction?

Page 102. "Dr. Crombie deems it a violation of this rule-when we say, You was present' he would write you were present.' This practice apprehend would occasion a great impropriety. The alteration would merely occasion a change of difficulties for the worse; for you, applied to the second person singular, is but a word of courtesy and honour; and a courtesy which we cannot pay to the singular noun by a plural verb."




say in the present? you am, you art, or you is; since he considers you as a singular? That the plan for which we contend will render it necessary to say, you were the person" or you were the man," is granted; but this inconvevenience admits of no cure, except by the adoption of the primitive style, always using thou to an individual. Page 105. Mr. Murray misguides his pupils when he gives as bad English the following phrase : Every person and every occurrence are beheld in the most favourable light." Mr. Sutcliffe's opinion on this phrase is certainly deserving of regard. Not being fully satisfied in our own mind, we cannot presume to determine the point between him and Mr. Murray.


[ocr errors]

Page 106. The quotation from Bacon, which Mr. S. vindicates, we think indefensible:-"the mathematics giveth a remedy thereunto, for in them," &c. to consider mathematics first as singular, and then, after an interval of four or five words, as plural, is certainly obIjectionable. We think it should always have a plural verb and pronoun. Page 110. For brevity we say also, I have not seen him this ten years;' that is, this space of ten years." We consider it highly improper to vindicate such an evident breach of grammar, on the principle of ellipsis. With equal propriety might another maintain the accuracy of such expressions as, this grapes, that books, this pence; saying, that they are elliptical phrases, used for this bunch of grapes, that parcel of books, this heap of pence. No ellipsis can justify a plain and positive violation of the established laws of grammar. It should unquestionably be, these ten years.

Dr. Crombie's opinion we deem perfectly correct, and Mr. S.'s objections of no importance. To justify the expression you was present, is highly improper. Was is either 1st person singular or 3d person singular, imperfect tense, indicative mood, of the verb To Be (see Mr. Sutcliffe's Grammar, page 62.) If you was be correct, it must be proved either that you is the 1st person Page 112." Any is always joined to singular, or the 3d person singular, or the singular number expressed or unelse that was is the second person derstood." Any may be joined indisplural; or otherwise it must be allow-criminately to singular or plural nouns ; ed, that a verb needs not agree with its and we do not know how Mr. S. can nominative case, either in number or per- prove, that when it is joined with a The general use of the plural plural, there is any ellipsis. pronoun you to an individual, is evidently a grammatical impropriety. Mr. Sutcliffe says, Since custom has established one anomaly, let us introduce another to keep it in countenance. As we use a plural pronoun to a single person, let us join a singular verb to that plural pronoun, and thus violate the first rule of Syntax. Besides, if you was be right in the imperfect tense, what would Mr. S.



Page 114. Other, when used without an article, is mostly joined to a plural noun ;-but when preceded by an article, it is joined to the singular.' Mr. S. seems not aware that other, preceded by the definite article, may be joined to a plural, as properly and as frequently, as to a singular.


Page 115, 116. I waited on the ladies before they left town, and have since heard that they arrived safe."

« ForrigeFortsæt »