of parts of the Evangelists made before the times of Wiclif, which seems fa vorable to our conjecture. The manuscript of this version is described, and the passage to which we refer cited in the "Historical Account of the English Versions of the Scriptures," prefixed to Bagster's Hexapla, p. 8. The writer of the translation in the portion given in the Hexapla, uses hem for them; and hii invariably for they, except in the following sentence: "And hii that were sent thei were of Phariseus." Is not the thei here substituted for hii because the pronoun is used determinately?

ANOMALIES IN THE USE OF ME, US, HIM, &c.-(12) In vulgar usage me is treated as a sort of "indifferent form" (to use the term adopted by Dr. Latham), like moi in French. Like moi, it is employed by the uneducated, whenever they have occasion to use the pronoun of the first person singular in any other way, except as immediately accompanied by the verb to which it serves as subject. It is used in the predicate in such expressions as these: Who is there? The answer of the uneducated class to this is invariably, ME, or It is me, like the French, C'est moi. Who did that? It was ME. It is also by the same class used as subject, when its verb is suppressed, as in comparisons: He is wiser than ME, instead of the form of expression recognised as good English by the educated class; namely, He is wiser than I.

(13) Us, him, her, them are also employed in similar forms of expression, where the educated employ the nominative form of these words. This is, and has been for ages the current usage of the unlearned, wherever our language is spoken; and, had it not been for the general study of the Latin language, it would long since, we suspect, have been the current usage of all classes.

(14) There are some forms of expression still retained in what is considered pure grammatical English, which may be regarded as remains of this unlearned colloquial usage, not yet eradicated from the written language by the prevalence of classical constructions, or, perhaps, because of a casual coincidence with the classical forms of expression. Such are the exclamations, Ah me! Me miserable, &c. Some of these may have been real accusatives or datives completing some word now suppressed, or they may be in some instances forms introduced by the learned in imitation of Latin idioms; but some of them, we think, can be most readily accounted for, by considering

(12) Repeat what is said of the employment of me by the uneducated classes.

(13) What of the words us, him, &c., and of the extent of this usage?

(14) Repeat what is said in reference to the supposed retention of scme vestiges of the colloquial usage of the uneducated.

them remains of the dialect of the uneducated, in which me is regarded as an "indifferent form."

(15) We have already observed (§ 143, p. 455, note), that in AngloSaxon, when a substantive and participle are used absolutely, the substantive is of the dative form; and that some might be disposed to explain such expressions, as us dispossessed," in the following lines of Milton by reference to this Anglo-Saxon construction.

"This inaccessible high strength, the seat

Of Deity Supreme, us dispossessed,

He trusted to have seized."

We need scarcely repeat the caution, that such constructions (however accounted for) are not to be imitated, since there is no tendency in the present age towards such imitation.

(16) The word self plural selves is combined with some of the personal, perhaps with some of the possessive pronouns, for the purpose of giving them greater emphasis. (17) The compound pronouns thus formed are myself, thyself, himself, herself, itself, and the plural forms, ourselves, yourselves, themselves. These words serve the functions both of nominatives and accusatives. (18) In the function of accusatives they are generally used in a reflexive sense, referring back to the subject of the proposition; as, I hurt myself. Myself here refers back to the pronoun of the same person used as the subject. In such cases the agent and the recipient of the action expressed by the verb are the same individual. Cato killed himself; The man brought that calamity on himself. In the last example himself is used to form a noun with a preposition complement to the verb brought. Still it refers reflexively to the name of the agent, to "the man," which is subject of the proposition.*

* The use of the plural form of the pronoun of the first person where only an individual is intended to be indicated, is common in our language, especially in royal proclamations, in periodicals of all kinds when the editor speaks of himself, and in public speaking. This usage has arisen partly from the desire of writers and speakers to give more authority to what they say by representing it as a declaration emanating from the united wisdom of numbers, as in a royal proclamation from the sovereign aided by his council; or from a real or affected modesty, which shrinks from individual responsibility, or from giving offence by appearance of egotism. This latter

(15) Repeat the remarks in reference to a construction found in Milton.

(16) What is said in reference to the word SELF? (17) Enumerate the compound pronouns formed with this word, and tell what functions these compounds serve. (18) What 's said of their use in the function of accusatives?

(19) We have said that these compound pronouns of the first person perform the functions both of nominatives and accusatives. But we do not think that it is accordant with good or with general usage to employ them as subject noun of a proposition. We think they are rarely employed in any other way as nominatives save in connection with another pronoun or noun which is the direct nominative of the verb and to which they serve to give emphasis, being appended to it as a sort of apposition. Such expressions as "Myself did it,' "Them selves brought their misfortunes on them," &c., though sometimes used, appear to us not merely inelegant, but unsanctioned by current usage either of the educated or uneducated classes.

(20) Some grammarians have considered the word self, when added to the genitive case of the personal pronouns (or to the possessive pronouns, if we choose so to call them), a noun, and when added to the accusative case of the pronouns of the third person, HIM, HER, IT, THEM, as an adjective. (21) SELF or SYLF seems to have been regarded by our Anglo-Saxon ancestors as performing, in all these compounds, the function of a noun in apposition; or, at any rate, the same function in them all, whether that of a noun in apposition or of an adjective. (22) They attached this word to all the cases of the several personal pronouns, and inflected it to suit the case to which it was attached. For example, they used 10SYLF — Iself; genitive, MINSYLFES of myself; plural, WESYLFE weselves; genitive, URESYLFRA ⇒of ourselves. (23) In modern English we have retained only a part of these forms. All the nominatives compounded with SELF have fallen into disuse, except itself for hitself, either nominative or accu

purpose is often more effectually secured by resorting to the third person and presenting the author's own sentiments, as the sentiments entertained by those around him, using such forms of expression as, "It is thought;" "Some think;" "Many here think," &c. But these are all rhetorical contrivances, and the explanation of them scarcely belongs to the department of the grammarian. As we employ We for I, and You for Thou, we substitute also Ourself and Yourself for Myself and Thyself. (Ourself has almost fal.en into disuse.) Here whilst the pronoun of the first and second person assum.és the plural form, the word Self remains singular, indicating that a sing.e individual is represented by the compound sign.

(19) What is said of the employment of these compound pronouns as subject nouns ? (20) How do some grammarians consider the word self? (21) How does it seem to have been regarded in Anglo-Saxon usage? (22) How did they attach this word to pronouns, and to what cases? (23) What forms used in the Anglo-Saxon have fallen into disuse, and what is said in reference to those which have been retained?

sative. The forms retained with the exception of ourselves (ourself'), and yourselves (yourself), were, in our opinion, either datives or accusatives; namely, myself, in Anglo-Saxon mesylf, dative or accusative; thyself, Anglo-Saxon thesylf, dative or accusative; himself, AngloSaxon himsylf, dative; herself, Anglo-Saxon hiresylf, a dative. Themselves is also, obviously, a dative or accusative, though the word them is not Anglo-Saxon. Our and your in the words ourselves and your

selves seem to be either genitives or possessive pronouns.

(24) The fact that himself and themselves (obviously formed by the union of a dative or accusative of the pronoun of the third person with the word self) are employed as nominatives for all purposes, except the great purpose of serving as the direct subject of a verb, may, perhaps, be accounted for in the same way, as we account for the use of me and us, him and them among the uneducated for similar purposes. The only difference in the two cases is perhaps this, that, in regard of the compounds of self, the usage of the uneducated has become the universal usage, while, in reference to the simple pronouns, this common usage has been opposed and rejected by the educated.

QUERIES.-Has the Norman use of moi, toi, lui, as "indifferent forms," led to the use of me, us, you, as indifferent forms s; and has this use afterwards extended to him and them, himself and themselves, though so distinctly marked by form as oblique cases? Are there any traces of this "indifferent" usage of any of these forms before the Norman times?

(25) We may add here a remark on the pronoun ONE which we have already noticed in § 30: 17.

This word is entirely distinct from the numeral one. Though the two words are identical in sound, and are represented by the same letters in the written language, they are totally dissimilar in every thing else—in meaning, in etymology, and as to the source from which we have received them. ONE, the numeral is of Anglo-Saxon origin ; the other ONE, whether we call it noun or pronoun, is apparently of Norman origin, and the same with the present French indefinite pronoun on. If it has connection with any Anglo-Saxon word in our language, it is with MAN, not with the numeral ONE. The French on is generally admitted to be a corruption of homme from the Latin homo hominis, which is again generally admitted to be a form made from

(24) How may we, perhaps, account for the use of himself and themselves to perforin certain functions of the nominative case?

(25) Repeat the substance of what is said of the pronoun ONE.

the root MAN. The root is more clearly exhibited in the word huMaNuS formed from homo. The Germans stiil use the word man for the same purpose for which the French employ on, and for which we (less frequently) employ ONE.

(26) Let the learner observe that this word one has both a plural form, and a genitive form regularly made. "I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones." We also say, ONE's reputation; ONE's interest, &c.

§ 156. (1) Each of the personal pronouns has, according to most of our grammarians, a genitive or possessive case, both of the singular and of the plural forms. (2) In the case of all these pronouns, except it and he, there are two forms which have been thought to possess claims to the distinction of serving as their genitives. The two forms, connected with I (at least in significance), are MY and MINE, both evidently formed from me; with WE, OUR and OURS; with THOU, THY and THINE; with YE or You (but evidently sprung from You), YOUR and YOURS; with SHE, HER and HERS; and with THEY, THEIR and He has only one genitive or possessive form HIS, and IT only

THEIRS.

one form, ITS.

(3) Where two forms occur, some gramınarians recognise only one of them as genitive of the personal pronoun, and call the other forms possessive pronouns. (4) But those who agree in making this distinction are not agreed, as to which are genitives of the personal or substantive pronouns, and which are the possessive or adjective pronouns. (5) The older grammarians generally considered mine, ours, thine, yours, hers, theirs, as exclusively genitives, and, consequently, substantives; and my, our, thy, your, her (except when used as an accusative), their, as pronominal adjectives. His and its they regarded as performing both functions. (6) Some of the more modern grammarians reverse this arrangement. (7) Exceptions might, perhaps, be taken to the reasons assigned by both parties for the course pursued by them in this matter. (S) We regard the subject of dispute as of very small importance, since every genitive performs nearly the same function as an adjective. This is plainly seen, when we happen to

(26) Of what modifications of form is this pronoun ONE susceptible? Examples?

§ 156. (1) What is said in reference to genitives of the personal pronouns? (2) What of the forms connected with each claiming this distinction?

(3) What course is pursued by some grammarians, where double forms occur? (4) Are the grammarians agreed which form is genitive, &c.? (5) Describe the course pursued generally by the older grammarians. (6) Do all the modern grammarians acquiesce? (7) What remark is made in reference to the course pursued by both parties? (8) Repeat the substance of the reasons assigned for considering this dispute or difference between the