"But he that cometh (1) after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall (2) baptize (Baлtion) you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. Whose fan is in his hand, and he will (3) throughly purge (diaza Faqiɛ7) his floor, and gather (4) (ovráže) his wheat into the garner; but will (5) burn up (zarazavoɛi) the chaff with unquenchable fire."

Wiclif, of course, renders all the Greek futures by shall. Tyndale has shall only once, viz., se shall (2) baptize (like the authorized version). Cranmer has shall twice, viz., shall (2) come and shall (2) baptize. The Geneva Bible, agreeing with Tyndale, has shall once, viz., he shall (2) baptize. The Rheims Bible has shall three times, viz., shall (1) come, shall (2) baptize, shall (3) clean purge, and will twice, viz., will (4) gather, will (5)

burn.

Here we can distinctly discover a state of transition, and unsettled usage. The authorized version itself is here, as elsewhere, at variance with itself; for instance, Psalm v. 6,

"Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the Lord will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

Here we see the Future in the second person, expressed by shall; but in the same Psalm, v. 12, it is rendered by will:

"For thou, Lord, wilt bless the righteous; with favour wilt thou compass him as with a shield."

Curiously enough, the Prayer Book agrees with the authorized version, thus showing that, in 1568, the interregnum, if I can call it so, had already begun. Matt. vi. 4:

"And the Father, which seeth in secret, himself shall reward thee openly."

This is evidently the simple Future, and ought to have been translated by will reward; but the Rheims translation alone has "will repay thee." Matt. vi. 14:

"For if ye forgive (1) men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will (2) also forgive you; but if ye forgive (3) not men their trespasses, neither will (4) your Father forgive your trespasses."

We have here four verbs, (1) if ye forgive; (2) he will forgive; (3) if ye forgive not; (4) neither will he forgive. It is curious to see how these four verbs have been handled by the different translators.

Wiclif has the present tense in (1) and (3), like the authorized version; but shall in (2) and (4). Tyndale has shall, in (1) (2) and (4); will, in (3). Cranmer has the present tense in (1); shall, in (2) and (4); will in (3). The Geneva Bible agrees with the authorized version. The Rheims Bible has will in all the four cases.

If we carefully compare this passage with Matt. iii. 11, quoted above, we see that the translators had no fixed rule, or even predilection in the use of shall and will. For instance, whereas, in the former, Tyndale and Cranmer favor will, in the latter they favor shall, and the Rheims translations does just the reverse.

It is unnecessary to produce more evidence to prove that, in the age of the Reformation, the present form of the Future was not yet elaborated, and acknowledged by the several translators of the Scriptures. Other writers are equally at variance with the modern use. Ascham writes

*The scholar shall win nothing by paraphrases."

Hooker says

"No; I will not be afraid to say unto a Pope or Cardinal, in this plight."

This is clearly Scotch. We find this even in Shakspere. For instance, in the Merchant of Venice, I. 3

Bassanio
Antonio

"You shall not seal to such a bond for me."

"Why, fear not, man, I will not forfeit it."

It would be absurd for Antonio emphatically to deny that he intended forfeiting the bond. He means to say, that the contingency which could make him forfeit it, is not at all likely to arise.

Merchant of Venice, II. 3. Jessica says to Launcelot, who is going to wait upon his new master

"And, Launcelot, soon at supper shalt thou see Lorenzo."

Measure for Measure, iv, 1. "May be I will call upon you anon." "I'll warrant we'll unkennel the fox."

Merry Wives, iii, 3.

Merry Wives, i, 1.

"I am of the church, and will be glad to do my benevolence to make atonements and compromises between you."

Merry Wives, i, 1. "I hope, sir, I will do, as it shall become one that it would do reason."

Merry Wives, i, 3.

Merry Wives, i, 3.

Merry Wives, ii, 2.

"It is a life that I have desired; I will thrive."

"We will thrive, lads, we will thrive."

"See the hell of having a false woman! my bed shall be abused, my coffers ransacked."

Measure for Measure, iii, 1. "Be absolute for death; either death or life shall thereby be the sweeter."

King Kenry VI, 1st pt., i, 1.

Merchant of Venice, iii. 2.

purchased by the weight."

"Henry is dead and never shall revive.”

"Look on beauty, and you shall see it is

Ibid., iii. 1. “Our feast shall be much honoured in your marriage." Ibid, iv. 1. "I'll take no more;

And you in love shall not deny me this."

Ibid, i. 3. "If he should offer to choose, and choose the right casket, you should refuse to perform your father's will, if you should refuse to accept him."

Here should refuse stands for the modern would refuse.

The use of should in such sentences has survived to the present

day so much so, that I am doubtful, if it is not more correct than would.

Merry Wives, ii, 4. "If he had been thoroughly moved, you should have heard him so loud and so melancholy."

2nd part, Henry VI, iii, 1. "Glo. Why 'tis well known that whilst I was protector pity was all the fault that was in me; For I should melt at an offender's tears, and lowly words were ransom for their faults."

Hundreds of examples might be added from Shakspere, to prove that his use of shall and will had not yet settled down to what we now consider correct. I cannot understand, how Sir E. Head,*) taking only one passage (Hamlet V, 2), which he found quoted by M. Guest,**) tries to explain it away, and how he can fancy he has thereby proved that Shakspere has quite adopted the modern future. Sir E. Head has evidently not taken the trouble to look over a single play of Shakspere, to ascertain what were the facts.

Either.

There seems to be considerable uncertainty in the use and meaning of either. It is of Anglo-Saxon origin. Aegtha means each or both. But it seems early to have been confounded with the Latin alter, (French, autre.) and to have been used in the sense of one or the other, like the Latin alteruter. Bishop Lowth in his "Introduction to English Grammar," (p. 116,) condemns it in the following sentences: 2 Chron. xviii, 9, "The king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah sat either of them on his throne." He recommends each instead, and no doubt, correctly. Levit x. 1, “Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer.' 1 Kings vii. 15, "For he cast two pillars of brass, of eighteen cubits high apiece: and a line of twelve cubits did compass either of them about." Bishop Lowth says, "Each signifies both of them, taken distinctively or separately: either properly singnifies only the one or the other," for which reason the like expression in the following passages seems also improper: "They crucified two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst." John xix. 19. [Wiclif, oon on this side and oon on that side.] “Of either side of the river was there the tree of life." Rev. xxii, 2. [Wiclif, on eche side.] 1 Kings x, 19. Proposals for a truce between the ladies of either party." Addison, Freeholder, 38.

In all the instances here quoted, each would be so far better than either, as it would not admit of any mistake. Either in the meaning the one or the other, is used most emphatically in what would be called a "locus classicus" in a dead language, by Milton, Par, L., I., 423, where he says, that

-

"Spirits, when

They please, can either sex assume or both."

*) Shall and will, p. 14.

**) Transactions of the Philol. Society, March 13, 1846.

Here either must mean not the one and the other, but the one or the other; otherwise both has no meaning. But in other passages, Milton clearly uses the word in the sense of each, i. e. both of them; as, Par. L., V, 130

636

"She silently a gentle tear let fall

From either eye, and wiped them with her hair."

A tear from each eye, justifies the plural them. Again, Par. L., XII,

"In either hand the hastening Angel
Caught our lingering parents."

This passage, I confess, is very puzzling. Either must mean not the one or the other, but the one and the other; that is, both of them taken distinctively or separately. This being the case, the object ought also to have been expressed distinctively and separately; he caught in either hand one lingering parent. I do not, however, recommend this reading either on critical or æsthetic grounds.

The present practice in the use of either is still very unsettled. By some it is used for any one; for instance, "Which of these ten books do you like?" "I do not like either," or, "I want neither." This is utterly bad

grammar.

It is clear we must confine the word to one of the two significations, the Latin alteruter, or uterque. It cannot retain both without detriment to the language. Now, although the signification uterque is the oldest, the other has taken its place in the majority of cases, so that I agree with Bishop Lowth's canon.*) "On which side will you sit, on the right or on the left?" "On either." "Will you occupy the right side or the left?" -Both." This is clear language and correct grammar. It is further confirmed by the adverbial use of either, as: "Either say yes or no"

Each.

Each is the singular number and ought never to be used as a plural. Yet it often is found connected with the plural verb. For instance in the above quoted passage:

"Let each esteem other better than themselves."

It ought to be: "better than himself." Milton Par. L., V, 477

"Each in their several active spheres assigned."

The same mistake is made with words of similar signification, as "every que," and “any one," in spite of the warning voice "one." Bentley, Dissert. on Themistocles' Epistles, Lect. II - "It is observable, that every one of the letters bear date after his banishment, and contain a complete narrative

*) Shakspere uses it thus: Anth. & Cleop.:

"Lepidus flatters both,

Of both is flattered; but he neither loves,
Nor either cares for him."

of all his story afterwards." So also: "He forgave every one their sins." Addison, Spect. 25 "I do not mean, that I think any one to blame for taking due care of their health."

In spite of Addison's authority, and the very frequent use of the plural with each, there can be no doubt that it is faulty, as for example in the following passages:

"Each of us had reasons for our opinions best known to ourselves." (Goldsmith.)

"I shall venture to mention some qualities, every one of which are in a pretty high degree necessary to this order of historians."- (Fielding.) "And so indeed may any one; for I know the captain will well reward them for it." (Fielding.)

Similarly neither is incorrectly used as a plural noun, as

"Neither of them are remarkable for precision.”— (Blair.)

There is a very peculiar use of each in the common versions of Euclid "If two sides of one triangle be equal to two sides of another, each to each, &c." This is perfectly absurd. For if a and b be equal to « and each to each, then a = a = B and b = ( = 8, i. e., each of the former to each of the latter, which will make them all the same size. The word which ought to be used is "respectively." This would imply a = a, b = ß. Just so we have the banns published when more than one couple are named: "If any of you know cause or just impediment, why these persons should not be joined together respectively in holy matrimony, ye are to declare it." What awful result would follow, if the four or six persons were to be joined each to each? It might be supposed to be something like the promiscuous conjugal life of the Ancient Britons of whom Cæsar says, that a certain number of men married a certain number of women on communistic principles, discarding the idea of individual and peculiar rights.

I have endeavoured so far to trace the growth of the present English Future Tense, to account for its origin, to point out in what respect it is defective and where its use is still unsettled and likely to undergo further change. As for laying down practical rules, it is for an Englishman as unnecessary as it is difficult. For a thorough Scotchman it would be utterly useless, not because he is ill-bred or illiterate, but because he is from his birth accustomed to another formation of the Future verb, which not without a show of reason he may maintain to be as good as the English in itself. As for foreigners, I believe that they have not great difficulty in acquiring the proper use of shall and will, provided they make their studies of English on the south side of the Tweed.

Other and Others.

Other, as an Adjective when followed by a Substantive, takes no s in the plural: "Other lords besides thee have had dominion over us." When used substantively it takes the plural sign, as

Psalm xlix, 10. "The fool and brutal person die and leave their wealth

to others." (Authorized version.)