this class of words. MYSELF, THYSELF or YOURSELF, HIMSELF, HERSELF, ITSELF; OURSELVES, YOURSELVES, and THEMSELVES, are the my, thy, &c. particular being, as distinguished from every other. These compounds are only used in the oblique cases; for when they are required to be in the nominative, they are preceded by I, we, &c. as, "I myself," " we ourselves," &c. did so and Sometimes the preceding pronoun is suppressed, but in such cases it is understood. In old English, self was always a separate word, and was both singular and plural. Sir Thomas More, and others since his time, wrote my self, thy self; our self, them self, &c. A remnant of this practice still remains; for OURSELF, (not Ourselves,) appears in the address of Kings.

So.

It has been observed that the pronouns, preceding the noun self, are generally in the genitive; and the apparent exceptions of himself and themselves have puzzled the grammarians, from the time of Dr. Wallis until the present day. Nevertheless this change, from the genitive to the accusative, appears to us to have proceeded from design, and not, as is usually supposed, from accidental corruption. Her is an accusative as well as a genitive, and it should be noticed that we write itself not its-self: in fact, the possessive, its, is of very modern introduction into the language. The anomaly then, if it be one, runs through all the pronouns of the third person: himself, herself, itself, and themselves.

When a man appears to be so desirous of his own gratification as to disregard that of others, we call him SELFISH. He acts SELFISHLY, and the principle that determines him so to act is SELFISHNESS. The Negative Adjective, UNSELFISH, has also been written. SELF, as a prefix, forms numerous compounds which are not to be found in the Dictionaries. The latter circumstance is the more surprising, seeing that many of those polysyllables, such as of those polysyllables, such as self-love, self-murder, &c. have been combined for centuries. Formerly, self was often used as we do same, but it is seldom so written in modern English. The two are conjoined in SELFSAME, the parts of which might be reversed, without altering the meaning. Self, in this application, is equivalent to very.

The Greek autos, aute, auto, (he, she, it,) when joined to other pronouns, or to nouns, is equivalent to self: and, in this sense, it appears as a prefix in compounds which we have either adopted, or formed from that language: thus, an AUTOCRACY is an independent power, or self-government, from kratos, power. As the term is understood in our language, an AUTOCRAT, or AUTOCRATOR, is an absolute Sovereign, and his government is AUTOCRATICAL.

Although the pronouns It and they are, each, understood to refer to some antecedent, yet there are cases in which the reference is so general that it is either unknown, or escapes attention. This we formerly noticed, with regard

p

to the pronoun it, when treating of Impersonal Verbs. The mention of a particular transaction's having happened is frequently introduced by "they say,' or "It is said." In such a case, we do not allude to any individual informant, or informants, but to a general rumour which we cannot trace to any authentic source. The same kind of obscure generalization is expressed by other words, such as men, people, everybody, &c. which stand in the place of they. The numeral ONE is used to express an indefinite nominative, in the singular: thus, we say, one cannot help believing"-" one must take care of one's self," &c. In this usage a substantive, such as man, or person, is understood; but it is to a man or person in a general, and not in an individual sense: for, in adding the suppressed substantive, we must employ the article, in place of the numeral, and say, a man cannot help believing,"-" a person must take care of himself," &c.

66

In the phrase last quoted the pronoun" himself" is rather incongruous; for the word PERSON denotes a thinking being in general, and not limited as to sex. Recently, indeed, the Newspaper Advertisements have rendered it feminine. She, whom they would not degrade by the name of a woman, and dare not raise to the rank of lady, is termed " a young person." We should not have adverted "a to these ephemeral publications did they not have a material effect in deteriorating the language of their country. Person (Latin persona, from from persono, I cry out,) is said to have originally signified a player's mask, with which he covered his face, and through which he spoke, when he PERSONATED any individual in the play. It is the character, or office, in which the actor appears upon the stage, or, metaphorically, that which he supports in the drama of life. Keeping more directly in view the dignity of the Kings and Demigods who trode the Grecian stage, the term PERSONAGE is more applicable to one who is officially raised above the multitude. It is, therefore, more select and better fitted than person to denominate one of the higher orders of society. In the same sort of etiquette the plural, persons, rises above the word PEOPLE: the latter being always collective, while the former are separately considered in the mind. "Twenty people" are a multitude; but, the phrase "twenty persons" suggests the idea that each may possess a different character.

Person is viewed under two relations, as the individual who acts and as the PERSONATOR of another. A judge, for example, is an official personage and has certain duties to perform in that capacity; but when viewing him as a real being, when the mask, or person, becomes, itself, a reality, he has other qualities which are termed PERSONAL. We then speak of his personal accomplishments, or, his personal appearance; and, if his body be well formed, we may say he is PERSON

ABLE.

He may even be assailed in either capacity, as a judge, or as a man. In the former case it is a comtempt of court, and in the latter he is attacked PERSONALLY-it is a Personal Insult. The principle of PERSONATION, (or of dividing a being into two or more persons) is observed in many other cases. The Law of this country separates property into two parts, which may, notwithstanding, be held by the same individual. One part, however, may be heritable, that is, it may be such as descends of right to his heirs, while another part may be Personal,—they are his PERSONALITY and therefore completely at his own disposal. These rights have various subdivisions, and are guarded by numerous exceptions, which are supposed to be known by the Lawyers. Even in ordinary language, we make similar distinctions. A young Lady may have different properties. She may have both mental and personal charms. In a company, each is a person; and to allude to an individual, especially in a disrespectful manner, is to be personal—it is a personality, and as such, according to the rules of good breeding, may be resented. Metaphysicians have employed the word Personality to designate identity of existence,-that the being of today is the same person as that of yesterday. To PERSONIFY is, metaphorically, to transform an inanimate substance into a person,—or thinking being. The act is PERSONIFICATION, and is performed by applying the pronouns that are indicative of gender (he, she, his, &c.) to the inert body, in place of the neuter. What cannot be attached to any person is IMPERSONAL. The complaint against Junius was his IMPERSONALITY. We speak of Impersonal verbs, and of verbs used IMPERSONALLY. The clerical denomination, PARSON, has also been referred to the class of words now treated of; but, we fear we have already dwelt too long on the subject.

In old English A BODY" was taken as the representation of a human being. In this it was less general than Person, which also includes the higher orders of spiritual existences. We even speak of the "PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD." In the early part of the seventeenth century, we find the word body where we should now write person. There are numerous examples in Shakspeare; and Johnson quotes the following from L'Estrange, which is directly to our present purpose.

"Good may be drawn out of evil, and a body's life may be saved, without having any obligation to his preserver.”

EVERYBODY, NOBODY, and SOMEBODY, (formerly every body, no body, and some body,) are still frequently in use. It is not unlikely that "a body" in place of "a person" may be a pretty general provincialism; but, at any rate, we know that it is universally heard in the ordinary dialect of Scotland. In the applica

tion here mentioned, the word "body" is pronounced with the o short, as if written boddy, or buddy. Burns gives us a feeling example of its use :

"It's hardly in a body's pow'r

To keep, at times, frae being sour,

To see how things are shar'd;

How best o'chiels are whiles in want,

While coofs on countless thousands rant,

And ken na how to wair't."

The words A, or AN, and THE, have been already noticed, under the denomination of ARTICLES. The former is the numeral one, applied indefinitely; and the latter is of that division of pronouns that are termed DEMONSTRATIVES. Like adjectives they are of every gender, and each is invariably followed by a substantive, or else by a phrase capable of supplying its place. A, or an, is one of any class of objects; and the, points, in a general manner, either to one, or to many, specific beings or actions. It is a universal adjective. The Saxon Articles and Pronouns were declined with gender, number, and case; and, besides, on account of the different dialects, they appear, in the few writings that are preserved, under various orthographies, or synonymes. From those several forms, have arisen certain derivatives of the definite article which have restricted applica

tions.

THIS and THAT, with their plurals THESE and THE; being species, of which the is the genus. are present either in time or in place.

THOSE, are more definite than

This and these designate what That and those are applied to such objects as are farther off. This house' and' these houses' are at hand; but 'that house' and 'those houses' are to be pointed at, so as they may be observed. YON, (which is both singular and plural) is what we can just descry, and consequently refers to very distant objects. The synonyme, YOND, is now out of use, but YONDER is still preserved by the Poets, although the pronominal is thereby apt to be confounded with the verbal usage. This word gives us an additional example of the interchange of the letters g, th, and y; for yon is the Saxon geond and the Scotch thon: the latter transformation also occurs in thou and you.

This and that (and their plurals) are used with nice discrimination, in the construction of sentences: this referring to the noun, or to the phrase, last spoken, and that to what was first mentioned.

"Some place the bliss in action, some in ease;

Those call it pleasure, and contentment these."

In the preceding application of this and that, they may be termed Relatives, rather than Demonstratives, because they refer to some word, or clause, that went before, and is therefore called the ANTECEDENT; but the RELATIVE PRONOUNS, principally considered as such, are wнO, WHICH, and THAT: the latter, under this head, not being contrasted in the mind with this, as respects distance in time or place. Those three Relatives are thus distinguished.

WHO always refers to a Person or Persons. It is, invariably, a he, a she or they, to which gender and reason are supposed to belong; for, if it refers to inanimate, or irrational, objects, it constitutes a personification. WHOSE and WHOM have, of course, the same personal application. WHICH, on the contrary, is a neuter pronoun and relates only to impersonal objects, such as animals, plants, and inert substances. On this account, it is fitted to refer to any preceding word or clause of a sentence, which (word or clause) cannot with propriety be personified. This distinction between who and which, it should be observed, is quite modern; for, much later than the time of Shakspeare, which had, very generally, a person, or persons, for its Antecedent. "Our Father which art in heaven" is now reckoned ungrammatical, but even yet, we are often puzzled to find a proper Possessive to which: for, there are cases that require some word of an adjective form, which neither wHEREOF nor“ OF WHICH❞ can designate. In consequence, the best writers are frequently tempted to personify when it would be otherwise unnecessary: so much So, that Johnson gives whose as a genitive that is common both to who and which.

That as a Relative Pronoun, is of every gender and number, and thus differs from who and which, by its capability of assuming the place of either. The idea of person is not included, but left indeterminate. In this view of the we say, "I received

Proteus word that, it is never preceded by a preposition: the letter of which you spoke," or, "I received the letter that you spoke of." "I called on the gentleman to whom you introduced me," or "I called on the gentleman that you introduced me to." In the case of who and which, the preposition may be carried to the end of the clause if we choose, but in using that, it must be so, if we would write with customary propriety.

IT and THE, abstractedly considered, are synonymous. Their generalization is complete. Like the Fluxions of the mathematician, they represent the latent energies of actions and the germs of beings, which we endeavour to arrest, in their nascent state, before they act, or spring into existence. The, it, and, add, at, be, to, do, &c. are kindred words, each specifying that an addition is to be made to the collected mass of Things. The Pronouns, he, she, it, are subsequent subdivisions of the primitive it, or the, which is unbounded in its nature until modified by being conjoined with something which has an individual