Gothic verb fian, to hate, of which Fiend is the present participle, raised to the rank of a substantive by that metaphysical process which forms beings from non-entities. "FOE, fa, is the past tense, and therefore past participle, of the same verb fian; and means (subaud, any one) hated."-" The nauseating (Interjection, as it is called,) Fox! or FAUGH! is merely the same past participle.

FOH! one may smel in such, a will most ranke.
Foule disproportions, thoughts unnaturall.

Othello."

The irregular orthography of the Saxon language renders it difficult to ascertain, with precision, from what parts of the original verb the several Interjections have been derived. The following distinctions of usage, however, are corroborative of Mr. Tooke's etymologies.

FIE! Or FIE FOR SHAME! shows disgust at some particular action which is committing, and includes an admonitory reprimand to the actor. We never say fie to an inanimate object.

FOH! FAUGH! PоOH! or PUGH! (which we consider as different spellings of the same word,) expresses our detestation of an action that offends the purity of the mind, without our attending to the agent; or it evinces our dislike of an object which is disgusting to our senses. The Scotch guttural Feech, and the German spitting sound pfui are kindred Interjections.

δι The ejaculations PISH and PSHAW are the Anglo-Saxon Pac, Paca, pronounced pesh, pesha (A broad): and are equivalent to the ejaculation Trumpery! i. e. tromperie, from tromper," to cheat.*

Beshrew theE and EVIL BETIDE THEE are general calls for vengeance, without specifying the kind. In such phrases as DEUCE TAKE IT! THE DEUCE IS IN IT! &c. the word deuce appears to denote the devil. See TIDE, SHREW, and DEVIL.

TUSH! and TUT! are the same, or similar Interjections; and give a contemptuous command to say nothing more on the subject spoken of. They are, probably, old imperatives of the French taire to be silent, as much as to say, in the English idiom, hold your tongue!' TUT-MUT is an affected state of silence, or private whispering,-mute only from compulsion.'

Go To!, an old English command to depart, appears to us, now, to be too little peremptory. It was, however, at one time as rude as the more modern imperative GET AWAY!

In the days of our forefathers, when the demons of darkness were not only

* Diversions of Purley.

allowed to wander at will over the earth, but had their pensioned ministers from among the children of men, there were numerous forms of exorcisms, for casting out devils and warding off their emissaries. When one of those illomened beings confronted the passenger, or crossed his path, the Hag, or Fiend, was solemnly commanded to depart, by certain chosen words that were appropriated to such purposes. Most of those spells and deprecatory exclamations are now forgotten. They were of course formed from the common language of the country, but they became powerful adjurations, when consecrated to superstition.

AVAUNT is an imperative from the old French verb avauncer, to advance, or go forward; and is equivalent to get out of the way!' BEGONE! It is still written by the poets when they would avert the presence of a maleficent being.

AROYNT! is another exclamation, for a like purpose, but it is now quite obsolete. Indeed we have seen it nowhere except in the witch-spell of Shakspeare. Mr. Tooke refers the word to the French rogne, a scurf, or scab; in which case, it must have been equivalent to the vulgar imprecations 'Pox on you!' Pox take you!' Plague on you!' 'A murrain on it!' &c. which call for the infliction of diseases on persons or things that are hated. The last-mentioned phrase is now obsolete, and all the others ought to be so.

We do not know a more certain mark of an uncultivated mind than the use of oaths and imprecations. The silly fool who interlards his speech with those wretched Interjections is generally unconscious that he is 'doing so, and offends the good taste, or shocks the piety, of his hearers, without being aware of his grossness. He is stupid rather than wicked; and would be astounded could he learn the import of the words, which escape from his mouth as unmeaningly as the chatterings and railings of a magpie.

The curses and asseverations that pass current at present, in vulgar low life, stand in need of no explanation; but there are a few antiquated words and phrases (the oaths of our ancestors) which, though beginning to be forgotten, yet being still seen in popular works and heard from the stage, require some elucidation. Many of those, which we now consider as ludicrous, or unmeaning expletives, were once serious and solemn. They are, in many instances, merely shreds and patches of the anathemas of the church, and of its pious appeals to the powers of heaven.

The French merci, (an old synonyme of the English mercy, remission of punishment,) is superseded by miséricorde; but it yet remains in certain phrases which we have, long since, translated and adopted: as "MERCY UPON US!" and "I CRY YOU MERCY;" literally, “be merciful” and “I beg your pardon.”

These exclamations, however, are now either playful or ironical; not having the modern form of construction suitable to prayer, in which we invoke, by name, the being whose pity we implore. In the same language, grand merci! (literally great kindness!) became a common expression of thanks. It was an utterance of the sense of obligation. This was also adopted into the old English phraseology, but contracted into GRAMERCY! which was equivalent to a careless, or ludicrous, pronunciation of thank you,' I am much obliged to you.'

·

I'FAITH is contracted from in faith, that is on my faith' or belief. This is, in effect, the legal oath,—that which is required in courts of Justice. The witness guarantees the truth of his assertions, by an appeal to the book that contains the doctrines in which he has fixed his faith, or confidence.

I'GAD! (in God) is an old asseveration equivalent to the modern vulgar oath BY GOD! (GAD being an old orthography.) It is the French Perdy, which was also written in old English.

FORE GOD! is assuming the presence of the supreme being, calling God to witness that what is said is true.

The greater number of our superannuated oaths are much older than the Reformation. They are not only Catholic, but are so spelt, or contracted, as to refer them to a very ancient date.

MARRY! I MARRY! or AYE MARRY! were exclamations to the Virgin, in cases of real or affected surprise.

MARRY COME UP! is similar to the vulgarisms what a wonder!' 'God be here!' &c.

The allusions to Jesus Christ were innumerable. The contractions 's DEATH, 'S BLOOD, 'S FLESH, 'S LIFE, were the oaths, by his death,' by his blood,' &c. ZOUNDS and Zooks, or GADZOOKS, are still more contracted, and meant ‘by his wounds,' by his aches,' &c.

6

The name of God was so rudely disfigured as to be almost unintelligible; or, if recognized, to sound like blasphemy. ODS BODY! ODS BODIKINS! ODS HEARTLINGS! &c. referred to the body of Christ as God and as a child. COCKES WOUNDS, COCKES BONES, COCKES PASSION, and COCKES MOTHER, which are so frequent in Chaucer and Shakspeare, were the wounds, the bones, the passion, and the mother of God. We are unable to show the origin of this extraordinary corruption. It was

To swear by COCKE and PIE, was once an oath of great solemnity. by God and his holy word!' The pie was a table in the old Roman missals, showing how to find out the service of the day.

There is nothing more striking in language, when comparing the present with the past, than the different effects which the same words have upon the

mind in different ages.

What would be intolerably rude, or even blasphemous, in the present day, was formerly the language of churchmen and of kings. The oaths of many of the English monarchs are recorded in history. "Elizabeth, the pious queen and good mother of the church of England, did not scruple to swear by Gods wounds."* William the Conqueror swore by the splendor of God! and Edward III., whose device was a white swan, had this daring motto wrought upon his surcoat and shield :

Hay, hay, the white swan;

By God's soul I am thy man.

OF CONJUNCTIONS.

Some of the words which the dictionaries and grammars include under this head have been already noticed; for the common classification is arbitrary, and we have all along used the freedom to explain any particular word, when treating of others to which it appears naturally allied, without troubling ourselves much as to what part of speech it is, usually, supposed to belong.

A conjunction, generally speaking, is a word which either connects two or more substantives, as being related to the same verb; or, unites two or more simple assertions into one sentence, by pointing out some relation between them. An accurate definition is a bounding line which includes nothing that ought to be extraneous, and rigidly excludes every thing which falls not clearly within its description. But there are few of the common collections of conjunctions that can be confined within such narrow limits.. Many of them are also allied to the divisions of pronouns, adverbs, or prepositions: in fact, the latter class of words had, at one time, the designation of Prepositive Conjunctions.

It is impossible to treat of Conjunctions and Prepositions without adverting to the labours of John Horne Tooke: they are the scaffolding by which he reared a monument more durable than brass. We shall not, however, follow

him, blindly, as an infallible guide. There are occasions in which the scholar be allowed to differ from his master.

may

AND is Saxon as well as English; and, according to Tooke, is the imperative an-ad of the verb anan-ad, to give or put to the heap. And, therefore, is add, but it is employed only as a conjunction. The primary Saxon verb anan is to give, or grant, and hence its imperative AN was, in old English, equivalent to give, gif, or Ir. Douglas and some old English writers have and

for an.

EKE is the Saxon imperative eac of eacan, to add to, or increase. The conjunction eke, is now seldom written, being supplanted according to circumstances, either by And or by Also. To EKE, or To EKE out, is to lengthen, -to supply what is wanting. The Scotch, and we believe some English authors, speak of an EKE, meaning the piece added to that which was before too short.

ALSO, is all and so; wholly so, or like to the preceding. It announces an additional action or actor, which follows the steps of what has gone before. By thus referring more particularly to increase in number it differs from LIKEWISE, which alludes to manner. ALS is an old spelling of also.

LEST, according to Tooke, is the past participle of the Saxon verb lesan, to dismiss, or put away. It is lest for lesed, as blest for blessed, "and with the article that (either expressed or understood), means no more than hoc dimisso, or quo dismisso:" that being dismissed, or taken away. Mr. Tooke proceeds to give examples of the proper as well as the erroneous application of this word, which, he says, is used by some of our best writers more improperly than any other of the conjunctions in the language. We shall copy one of his legitimate extracts, for the purpose of illustrating the explanation:

"You make use of such indirect and crooked arts as these to blast my reputation, and to possess men's minds with disaffection to my person; LEST peradventure, they might with some indifference hear reason from me."-Chillingworth.

Here lest is well used; " you make use of these arts:" why? The reason follows, "lesed that, i. e. hoc dimisso, men might hear reason from me. Therefore, you use these arts."

UNLESS is derived from the same source as lest. It is the imperative onles of the Saxon verb onlesan, to dismiss; and was so written as late as the time of Henry VIII. LEs and LESS (the imperatives of lesan, which has the same signification as onlesan) are also found in old authors, in place of unles; of which Mr. Tooke gives examples from Ben Jonson and others. The follow