of many eminent men, and passed with them through many cities."Analectic Magazine.

"Ah! who can tell the triumphs of the mind,

By truth illumin'd, and by taste refin'd ?"-Rogers.

EXCEPTION FIRST.

The preposition to, before an abstract infinitive, and at the head of a phrase which is made the subject of a verb, has no proper antecedent term of relation; as, "To learn to die, is the great business of life."-Dillwyn. "Nevertheless, to abide in the flesh, is more needful for you."-ST. PAUL: Phil., i, 24. "To be reduced to poverty, is a great affliction."

"Too much to know, is, to know nought but fame;

And every godfather can give a name."-Shakspeare.

EXCEPTION SECOND.

The preposition for, when it introduces its object before an infinitive, and the whole phrase is made the subject of a verb, has properly no antecedent term of relation; as, "For us to learn to die, is the great business of life."-"Nevertheless, for me to abide in the flesh, is more needful for you."-"For an old man to be reduced to poverty is a very great affliction."

"For man to tell how human life began,

Is hard; for who himself beginning knew ?"-Milton.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE XXIII.

OBS. 1.-In parsing any ordinary preposition, the learner should name the two terms of the relation, and apply the foregoing rule, after the manner prescribed in Praxis 12th of this work. The principle is simple and etymological, being implied in the very definition of a preposition, yet not the less necessary to be given as a rule of syntax. Among tolerable writers, the prepositions exhibit more errors than any other equal number of words. This is probably owing to the careless manner in which they are usually slurred over in parsing. But the parsers, in general, have at least this excuse, that their text-books have taught them no better; they therefore call the preposition a preposition, and leave its use and meaning unexplained.

66

OBS. 2.—If the learner be at any loss to discover the true terms of relation, let him ask and answer two questions: first, with the interrogative what before the preposition, to find the antecedent; and then, with the same pronoun after the preposition, to find the subsequent term. Theso questions answered according to the sense, will always give the true terms. For example: "They dashed that rapid torrent through."-Scott. Ques. What through? Ans. "Dashed through." Ques. Through what? Ans. Through that torrent." For the meaning is-"They dashed through that rapid torrent." If one term is perfectly obvious, (as it almost always is,) find the other in this way; as, "Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge."-Psal., xix, 2. Ques. What unto day? Ans. "Uttereth unto day." Ques. What unto night? Ans. "Showeth unto night." For the meaning is-" Day uttereth speech unto day, and night showeth knowledge unto night." To parse rightly, is, to understand rightly; and what is well expressed, it is a shame to misunderstand or misinterpret. But sometimes the position of the two nouns is such, that it may require some reflection to find either; as,

"Or that choice plant, so grateful to the nose,

Which in I know not what far country grows."-Churchill, p. 18.

OBS. 3.-When a preposition begins or ends a sentence or clause, the terms of relation, if both are given, are transposed; as, "To a studious man, action is a relief."-Burgh. That is, "Action is a relief to a studious man." "Science they [the ladies] do not pretend to."-Id. That is, "They do not pretend to science." "Until I have done that which I have spoken to thee or."Gen., xxviii, 15. The word governed by the preposition is always the subsequent term of the relation, however it may be placed; and if this be a relative pronoun, the transposition is permanent. The preposition, however, may be put before any relative, except that and as; and this is commonly thought to be its most appropriate place: as, "Until I have done that of which I have spoken to thee." Of the placing of it last, Lowth says, "This is an idiom which our language is strongly inclined to;" Murray and others, "This is an idiom to which our language is strongly inclined:" while they all add, "it prevails in common conversation, and suits very well with the familiar style in writing; but the placing of the preposition before the relative, is more graceful, as well as more perspicuous, and agrees much better with the solemn and elevated style."-Lowth's Gram., p. 95; Murray's, 8vo, p. 200; Fish's, 141; R. C. Smith's, 167; Ingersoll's, 227; Churchill's, 150.

OBS. 4.-The terms of relation between which a preposition may be used, are very various. The former or antecedent term may be a noun, an adjective, a pronoun, a verb, a participle, or an adverb: and, in some instances, we find not only one preposition put before an other, but even a conjunction or an interjection used on this side; as, "Because oF offences."-" Alas FOR him!"— The latter or subsequent term, which is the word governed by the preposition, may be a noun, a pronoun, a pronominal adjective, an infinitive verb, or an imperfect or preperfect participle: and,

in some instances, prepositions appear to govern adverbs, or even whole phrases. See the observations in the tenth chapter of Etymology.

OBS. 5.-Both terms of the relation are usually expressed; though either of them may, in some instances, be left out, the other being given: as. (1.) THE FORMER-" All shall know me, [reckoning] FROM the least to the greatest."-Heb., viii, 11. [I say] "IN a word, it would entirely defeat the purpose."-Blair. "When I speak of reputation, I mean not only [reputation] IN regard to knowledge, but [reputation] IN regard to the talent of communicating knowledge."Campbell's Rhet., p. 163; Murray's Gram, i, 360. (2.) THE LATTER-"Opinions and ceremonies [which] they would die FOR."-Locke. "IN [those who obtain defence, or [in those] who defend."-Pope. "Others are more modest than [what] this comes to."— Collier's Antoninus, p. 66. OBS. 6. The cnly proper exceptions to the foregoing rule, are those which are inserted above, unless the abstract infinitive used as a predicate is also to be excepted; as, "In both, to reason right, is to submit."-Pope. But here most if not all grammarians would say, the verb "is" is the antecedent term, or what their syntax takes to govern the infinitive. The relation, however, is not such as when we say, "He is to submit" that is, "He must submit, or ought to submit:" but, perhaps, to insist on a different mode of parsing the more separable infinitive or its preposition, would be a needless refinement. Yet some regard ought to be paid to the different relations which the infinitive may bear to this finite verb. For want of a due estimate of this difference, the following sentence is, I think, very faulty: "The great business of this life is to prepare, and qualify us, for the enjoyment of a better."-Murray's Gram., Vol. i, p. 373. If the author meant to tell what our great business in this life is, he should rather have said: "The great business of this life is, to prepare and qualify ourselves for the enjoyment of a better."

OBS. 7.—In relation to the infinitive, Dr. Adam remarks, that, "To in English is often taken absolutely; as, To confess the truth; To proceed; To conclude."-Latin and Eng. Gram., p. 182. But the assertion is not entirely true; nor are his examples appropriate: for what he and many other grammarians call the infinitive absolute, evidently depends on something understood; and the preposition is, surely, in no instance independent of what follows it, and is therefore never entirely absolute. Prepositions are not to be supposed to have no antecedent term, merely because they stand at the head of a phrase or sentence which is made the subject of a verb; for the phrase or sentence itself often contains that term, as in the following example: In what way mind acts upon matter, is unknown." Here in shows the relation between acts and way; because the expression suggests, that mind acts IN some way upon matter.

66

OBS. 8.-The second exception above, wherever it is found applicable, cancels the first; because it introduces an antecedent term before the preposition to, as may be seen by the examples given. It is questionable too, whether both of them may not also be cancelled in an other way; that is, by transposition and the introduction of the pronoun it for the nominative: as, "It is a great affliction, To be reduced to poverty."-"It is hard FOR man to tell how human life began."--"Nevertheless it is more needful for you, THAT I should abide in the flesh." We cannot so well say, "It is more needful for you, FOR me to abide in the flesh;" but we may say, "It is, on your account, more needful FOR me to abide in the flesh." If these, and other similar examples, are not to be accounted additional instances in which to and for, and also the conjunction that, are without any proper antecedent terms, we must suppose these particles to show the relation between what precedes and what follows them.

OBS. 9.-The preposition (as its name implies) precedes the word which it governs. Yet there are some exceptions. In the familiar style, a preposition governing a relative or an interrogative pronoun, is often separated from its object, and connected with the other term of relation; as, "Whom did he speak to ?" But it is more dignified, and in general more graceful, to place the preposition before the pronoun; as, "To whom did he speak?" The relatives that and as, if governed by a preposition, must always precede it. In some instances, the pronoun must be supplied in parsing; as, "To set off the banquet [that or which] he gives notice of."-Philological Museum, i, 454. Sometimes the objective word is put first because it is emphatical; as, “This the great understand, this they pique themselves upon."-Art of Thinking, p. 66. Prepositions of more than one syllable, are sometimes put immediately after their objects, especially in poetry; as, "Known all the world over."-Walker's Particles, p. 291. "The thing is known all Lesbos over."-Ibid.

"Wild Carron's lonely woods among."-Langhorne.

"Thy deep ravines and dells along."-Sir W. Scott.

OBS. 10.-Two prepositions sometimes come together; as, "Lambeth is over against Westminster abbey."—Murray's Gram., i, 118. "And from before the lustre of her face, White break the clouds away."-Thomson. "And the meagre fiend Blows mildew from between his shrivell'd lips."-Cowper. These, in most instances, though they are not usually written as compounds, appear naturally to coalesce in their syntax, as was observed in the tenth chapter of Etymology, and to express a sort of compound relation between the other terms with which they are connected. When such is their character, they ought to be taken together in parsing; for, if we parse them separately, we must either call the first an adverb, or suppose some very awkward ellipsis. Some instances however occur, in which an object may easily be supplied to the former word, and perhaps ought to be; as, "He is at liberty to sell it at [a price] above a fair remuneration."- Wayland's Moral Science, p. 258. "And I wish they had been at the bottom of the ditch I pulled you out of, instead of [being] upon my back.”—Sandford and Merton, p. 29. In such examples as the following, the first preposition, of, appears to me to govern the plural noun which

ends the sentence; and the intermediate ones, from and to, to have both terms of their relation understood: "Iambic verse consists of from two to six feet; that is, of from four to twelve syllables."-Blair's Gram., p. 119. "Trochaic verse consists of from one to three feet."-Ibid. Tho meaning is "Iambic verse consists of feet varying in number from two to six; or (it consists) of syllables varying from four to twelve."—"Trochaic verse consists of feet varying from one foot to three feet."

OBS. 11.-One antecedent term may have several prepositions depending on it, with one object after each, or more than one after any, or only one after both or all; as, A declaration for virtue and against vice."-Butler's Anal., p. 157. "A positive law against all fraud, falsehood, and violence, and for, or in favour of, all justice and truth." "For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things."-Bible. In fact, not only may the relation be simple in regard to all or any of the words, but it may also be complex in regard to all or any of them. Hence several different prepositions, whether they have different antecedent terms or only one and the same, may refer either jointly or severally to one object or to more. This follows, because not only may either antecedents or objects be connected by conjunctions, but prepositions also admit of this construction, with or without a connecting of their antecedents. Examples: " They are capable of, and placed in, different stations in the society of mankind."-Butler's Anal., p. 115. "Our perception of vice and ill desert arises from, and is the result of, a comparison of actions with the nature and capacities of the agent."-Ib., p. 279. "And the design of this chapter is, to inquire how far this is the case; how far, over and above the moral nature which God has given us, and our natural notion of him, as righteous governor of those his creatures to whom he has given this nature; I say, how far, besides this, the principles and beginnings of a moral government over the world may be discerned, notwithstanding and amidst all the confusion and disorder of it."—Ib., p. 85.

OBS. 12.-The preposition into, expresses a relation produced by motion or change; and in, the same relation, without reference to motion as having produced it: hence, "to walk into the garden," and, "to walk in the garden," are very different in meaning. "It is disagreeable to find a word split into two by a pause."-Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 83. This appears to be right in sense, but because brevity is desirable in unemphatic particles, I suppose most persons would say, "split in two." In the Bible we have the phrases, "rent in twain,"-" cut in pieces,"—"brake in pieces the rocks,"—" brake all their bones in pieces,"—"brake them to pieces,”- "broken to pieces,"-" pulled in pieces." In all these, except the first, to may perhaps be considered preferable to in; and into would be objectionable only because it is longer and less simple. "Half of them dare not shake the snow from off their cassocks, lest they shake themselves to pieces."SHAK: Kames, ii, 246.

OBS. 13.-Between, or betwixt, is used in reference to two things or parties; among, or amongst, amid, or amidst, in reference to a greater number, or to something by which an other may be surrounded: as, "Thou pendulum betwixt a smile and tear."-Byron. "The host between the mountain and the shore."-Id. "To meditate amongst decay, and stand a ruin amidst ruins."Id. In the following examples, the import of these prepositions is not very accurately regarded; "The Greeks wrote in capitals, and left no spaces between their words."- Wilson's Essay, p. 6. This construction may perhaps be allowed, because the spaces by which words are now divided, occur severally between one word and an other; but the author might as well have said, “and left no spaces to distinguish their words." "There was a hunting match agreed upon betwixt a lion, an ass, and a fox."-L'Estrange. Here by or among would, I think, be better than betwixt, because the partners were more than two. "Between two or more authors, different readers will differ, exceedingly, as to the preference in point of merit."-Campbell's Rhet., p. 162; Jamieson's, 40; Murray's Gram., i, 360. Say, "Concerning two or more authors," because between is not consistent with the word more. 66 Rising one among another in the greatest confusion and disorder." -Spect., No. 476. Say, "Rising promiscuously," or, "Rising all at once;" for among is not consistent with the distributive term one an other.

OBS. 14. Of two prepositions coming together between the same terms of relation, and sometimes connected in the same construction, I have given several plain examples in this chapter, and in the tenth chapter of Etymology, a very great number, all from sources sufficiently respectable. But, in many of our English grammars, there is a stereotyped remark on this point, originally written by Priestley, which it is proper here to cite, as an other specimen of the Doctor's hastiness, and of the blind confidence of certain compilers and copyists: "Two different prepositions must be improper in the same construction, and in the same sentence: [as] The combat between thirty Britons, against twenty English. Smollett's Voltaire, Vol. 2, p. 292."-Priestley's Gram., p. 156. Lindley Murray and others have the same remark, with the example altered thus: "The combat between thirty French against twenty English."-Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 200; Smith's New Gram., 167; Fisk's, 142; Ingersoll's, 228. W. Allen has it thus: "Two different prepositions in the same construction are improper; as, a combat between twenty French against thirty English "-Elements of E. Gram., p. 179. He gives the odds to the latter party. Hiley, with no expense of thought, first takes from Murray, as he from Priestley, the useless remark, "Different relations, and different senses, must be expressed by different prepositions;" and then adds, “One relation must not, therefore, be expressed by two different prepositions in the same clause; thus, The combat between thirty French against thirty English,' should be, 'The combat between thirty French and thirty English.'”—Hiley's E. Gram., p 97. It is manifest that the error of this example is not in the use of two prepositions, nor is there any truth or fitness in the note or notes made on it by all these critics; for had they said, "The combat of thirty French

against twenty English," there would still be two prepositions, but where would be the impropriety, or where the sameness of construction, which they speak of? Bween is incompatible with against, only because it requires two parties or things for its own regimen; as, "The combat between thirty Frenchmen and twenty Englishmen." This is what Smollett should have written, to make sense with the word "between."

OBS. 15.-With like implicitness, Hiley excepted, these grammarians and others have adopted from Lowth an observation in which the learned doctor has censured quite too strongly the joint reference of different prepositions to the same objective noun: to wit, "Some writers separate the preposition from its noun, in order to connect different prepositions to the same noun; as, 'To suppose the zodiac and planets to be efficient of, and antecedent to, themselves.' Bentley, Serm. 6. This [construction], whether in the familiar or the solemn style, is always inelegant; and should never be admitted, but in forms of law, and the like; where fullness and exactness of expression must take place of every other consideration."-Lowth's Gram., p. 96; Murray's, i, 200; Smith's, 167; Fisk's, 141; Ingersoll's, 228; Alger's, 67; Picket's, 207. Churchill even goes further, both strengthening the censure, and disallowing the exception: thus, "This, whether in the solemn or in the familiar style, is always inelegant, and should never be admitted. It is an awkward shift for avoiding the repetition of a word, which might be accomplished without it by any person who has the least command of language."-New Gram., p. 341. Yet, with all their command of language, not one of these gentlemen has told us how the foregoing sentence from Bentley may be amended; while many of their number not only venture to use different prepositions before the same noun, but even to add a phrase which puts that noun in the nominative case: as, "Thus, the time of the infinitive may be before, after, or the same as, the time of the governing verb, according as the thing signified by the infinitive is supposed to be before, after, or present with, the thing denoted by the governing verb."-Murray's Gram., i, 191; Ingersoll's, 260; R. C. Smith's, 159.

OBS. 16.-The structure of this example not only contradicts palpably, and twice over, the doctrine cited above, but one may say of the former part of it, as Lowth, Murray, and others do, (in no very accurate English,) of the text 1 Cor., ii, 9: "There seems to be an impropriety in this sentence, in which the same noun serves in a double capacity, performing at the same time the offices both of the nominative and objective cases."-Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 224. See also Lowth's Gram., p. 73; Ingersoll's, 277; Fisk's, 149; Smith's, 185. Two other examples, exactly like that which is so pointedly censured above, are placed by Murray under his thirteenth rule for the comma; and these likewise, with all faithfulness, are copied by Ingersoll, Smith, Alger, Kirkham, Comly, Russell, and I know not how many more. In short, not only does this rule of their punctuation include the construction in question; but the following exception to it, which is remarkable for its various faults, or thorough faultiness, is applicable to no other: "Sometimes, when the word with which the last preposition agrees, is single, it is better to omit the comma before it: as, 'Many states were in alliance with, and under the protection of Rome.'"-Murray's Gram., p. 272; Smith's, 190; Ingersoll's, 284; Kirkham's, 215; Alger's, 79; Alden's, 149; Abel Flint's, 103; Russell's, 115. But the blunders and contradictions on this point, end not here. Dr. Blair happened most unlearnedly to say, "What is called splitting of particles, or separating a preposition from the noun which it governs, is always to be avoided. As if I should say, 'Though virtue borrows no assistance from, yet it may often be accompanied by, the advantages of fortune.'"-Lect. XII, p. 112. This too, though the author himself did not always respect the rule, has been thought worthy to be copied, or stolen, with all its faults! See Jamieson's Rhetoric, p. 93; and Murray's Octavo Gram., p. 319.

OBS. 17.-Dr. Lowth says, "The noun aversion, (that is, a turning away,) as likewise the adjective averse, seems to require the preposition from after it; and not so properly to admit of to, or for, which are often used with it."-Gram., p. 98. But this doctrine has not been adopted by the later grammarians: "The words averse and aversion (says Dr. Campbell) are more properly construed with to than with from. The examples in favour of the latter preposition, are beyond comparison outnumbered by those in favour of the former."—Murray's Gram., i, 201; Fisk's, 142; Ingersoll's, 229. This however must be understood only of mental aversion. The expression of Milton, "On the coast averse from entrance," would not be improved, if from were changed to to. So the noun exception, and the verb to except, are sometimes followed by from, which has regard to the Latin particle ex, with which the word commences; but the noun at least is much more frequently, and perhaps more properly, followed by to. Examples: "Objects of horror must be excepted from the foregoing theory."-Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 268. "From which there are but two exceptions, both of them rare."-lb., ii, 89. "To the rule that fixes the pause after the fifth portion, there is one exception, and no more."-lb., ii, 84. "No exception can be taken to the justness of the figure."-Ib., ii, 37. "Originally there was no exception from the rule."-Lowth's Gram., p. 58. "From this rule there is mostly an exception."-Murray's Gram., i, 269. “But to this rule there are many exceptions."—Ib., i, 240. They are not to be regarded as exceptions from the rule."-Campbell's Rhet., p. 363.

OBS. 18.-After correcting the example, "He knows nothing on [of] it," Churchill remarks, "There seems to be a strange perverseness among the London vulgar in perpetually substituting on for of, and of for on."-New Gram., p. 345. And among the expressions which Campbell censures under the name of vulgarism, are the following: ""Tis my humble request you will be particular in speaking to the following points."-Guardian, No. 57. "The preposition ought to have been on. Precisely of the same stamp is the on't for of it, so much used by one class of writers."-Philosophy of Rhet., p. 217. So far as I have observed, the use of of for on has never

been frequent; and that of on for of, or on't for of it, though it may never have been a polite custom, is now a manifest archaism, or imitation of ancient usage. "And so my young Master, whatever comes on't, must have a Wife look'd out for him.”—Locke, on Ed., p. 378. In Saxon, on was put for more than half a dozen of our present prepositions. The difference between of and on or upon, appears in general to be obvious enough; and yet there are some phrases in which it is not easy to determine which of these words ought to be preferred: as, "Many things they cannot lay hold on at once."-HOOKER: Joh. Dict. "Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it."-2 SAM.: ib. "Rather thou shouldst lay hold upon him."-BEN JONSON: ib. "Let them find courage to lay hold on the occasion."-MILTON ib. "The hand is fitted to lay hold of objects."-RAY: ib. My soul took hold on thee."-ADDISON: ib. "To lay hold of this safe, this only method of cure."—ATTERBURY: ib. "And give fortune no more hold of him."-DRYDEN: ib. "And his laws take the surest hold of us."-TILLOTSON: ib. "It will then be impossible you can have any hold upon him."-SWIFT: ib. "The court of Rome gladly laid hold on all the opportunities.”—Murray's Key, ii, p. 198. "Then did the officer lay hold of him and execute him."—1b., ii, 219. "When one can lay hold upon some noted fact.”Blair's Rhet., p. 311. "But when we would lay firm hold of them."-Ib., p. 28. "An advantage which every one is glad to lay hold of."—Ib., p. 75. "To have laid fast hold of it in his mind."Ib., p. 94. "I would advise them to lay aside their common-places, and to think closely of their subject."-Ib., p. 317. "Did they not take hold of your fathers?"—Zech., i, 6. "Ten men shall take hold of the skirt of one that is a Jew."-Ib., viii, 23. "It is wrong to say, either 'to lay hold of a thing,' or 'to take hold on it.'"-Blair's Gram., p. 101. In the following couplet, on seems to have been preferred only for a rhyme:

"Yet, lo! in me what authors have to brag on!

Reduc'd at last to hiss in my own dragon."-Pope.

OBS. 19. In the allowable uses of prepositions, there may perhaps be some room for choice; so that what to the mind of a critic may not appear the fittest word, may yet be judged not positively ungrammatical. In this light I incline to view the following examples: "Homer's plan is still more defective, upon another account."-Kames, El. of Crit., ii, 299. Say-" on an other account." "It was almost eight of the clock before I could leave that variety of objects."Spectator, No. 454. Present usage requires-" eight o'clock." "The Greek and Latin writers had a considerable advantage above us."-Blair's Rhet., p. 114. "The study of oratory has this advantage above that of poetry."-Ib., p. 338. "A metaphor has frequently an advantage above a formal comparison."—Jamieson's Rhet., p. 150. This use of above seems to be a sort of Scotticism: an Englishman, I think, would say "advantage over us," &c. "Hundreds have all theso crowding upon them from morning to night."-Abbott's Teacher, p. 33. Better-" from morning till night." But Horne Tooke observes, "We apply To indifferently to place or time; but TILL to time only, and never to place. Thus we may say, 'From morn To night th' eternal larum rang;' or, 'From morn TILL night.' &c."-Diversions of Purley, i, 284.

NOTES TO RULE XXIII.

NOTE I.-Prepositions must be chosen and employed agreeably to the usage and idiom of the language, so as rightly to express the relations intended. Example of error: By which we arrive to the last division."—Richard W. Green's Gram., p. vii. Say," arrive at."

NOTE II.-Those prepositions which are particularly adapted in meaning to two objects, or to more, ought to be confined strictly to the government of such terms only as suit them. Example of error: "What is Person? It is the medium of distinction between the speaker, the object addressed or spoken to, and the object spoken of."—0. B. Peirce's Gram., p. 34. "Between three," is an incongruity; and the text here cited is bad in several other respects.

NOTE III.-An ellipsis or omission of the preposition is inelegant, except where long and general use has sanctioned it, and made the relation sufficiently intelligible. In the following sentence, of is needed: "I will not flatter you, that all I see in you is worthy love."-Shakspeare. The following requires from: "Ridicule is banished France, and is losing ground in England."-Kames, El. of Crit., i, 106.

NOTE IV. The insertion of a preposition is also inelegant, when the particle is needless, or when it only robs a transitive verb of its proper regimen; as, "The people of England may congratulate to themselves."-DRYDEN: Priestley's Gram., p. 163. "His servants ye are, to whom ye obey."—Rom., vi, 16.

NOTE V. The preposition and its object should have that position in respect to other words, which will render the sentence the most perspicuous and agreeable. Examples of error: "Gratitude is a forcible and active principle in good and generous minds."-Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 169. Better: "In good and generous minds, gratitude is a forcible and active principle." "By a single stroke, he knows how to