99 ... of man. Even in Clarendon, reporting the words of Queen Henrietta to himself, we have-"Her old confessor, Father Philips, always told her, that, as she ought to continue firm and constant to her own religion, so she was to live well towards the Protestants who deserved well from her, and to whom she was beholding." (Hist. Book xiii.) The initial syllable of the word is of more interest than its termination. The complete disappearance from the modern form of the English language of the verbal prefix ge is a remarkable fact, and one which has not attracted the notice which it deserves. This aug ment may be said to have been the favorite and most distinguishing peculiarity of the language in the period preceding the Norman Conquest. In the inflection of the verb it was not merely, as in modern German, the sign of the past participle passive, but might be prefixed to any other part; and the words of all kinds which commenced with it, and in which it was not inflectional, amounted to several thousands. Yet now there is no native English word having ge for its initial syllable in existence; nor, indeed, has there been for many centuries: there are not only no such words in Chaucer, whose age (the fourteenth century) is reckoned the commencement of the period of what is denominated Middle English; there are none even in Robert de Brunne, and very few, if any, in Robert of Gloucester, who belong to the thirteenth century, or to the age of what is commonly designated Early English. The inflectional ge is found at a comparatively late date only in the reduced or softened form of y, and even so scarcely after the middle of the sixteenth century (which may be taken as the date of the com mencement of Modern English) except in a few antique words preserved or revived by Spenser. If two or three such words as yclad and yclept are to be found in Shakespeare, they are introduced with a view to a burlesque or grotesque effect, as they might be by a writer of the present day. They did not belong to the language of his age any more than they did to that of Thomson, who in the last century sprinkled his Castle of Indolence with words of this description, the better to keep up his imitation of Spenser. As for the "star-ypointing pyramid" attributed to Milton (in his lines on Shakespeare), it is in all probability a mistake of his modern editors: "ypointed" might have been credible, but "ypointing" scarcely is. The true reading probably is "starry-pointing." [Compare Marsh, Lect. on Eng. Lang. First Series, p. 333.] It has commonly been assumed that, with such rare and insignificant exceptions (if exceptions they are to be considered), the old prefix ge has entirely passed away or been ejected from the language in its present state, — that it has dropped off, like a decayed member, without anything being substituted in its place. But the fact is not so. It is certain, that, both in its inflectional and in its non-inflectional character, it still exists in a good many words in a disguised form,-in that namely of be. Many of our words beginning with be cannot be otherwise accounted for. Our beloved, for example, is undoubtedly the Saxon gelufed. Another remarkable instance is that of the familiar word belief or believe. The Saxon has no such verb as belyfan; its form for our believe is gelyfan the same with the modern German glauben). Again, to become (at least in the sense of to suit) the Saxon gecweman: there is no becweman. Become, in this sense, it ought to be noticed, has apparently no connection with to come (from coman, or cuman); we have its root cweman in the old English to quem, meaning to please, used by Chaucer. And the German also, like our modern English, has in this instance lost or rejected both the simple form and the ge- form, retaining, or substituting, only bequem and bequemen. Nor is there any belang or belong; our modern belong is from the ancient gelang. In like manner there is no such Saxon verb as besecan; there is only gesecan, from which we have formed our beseek and beseech. So tacn, or tacen, is a token, from which is getacnian, to denote by a token or sign; there is no betacnian: yet we say to betoken. And there are probably other examples of the same thing among the words now in use having be for the commencing syllable (of which the common dictionaries give us about a couple of hundreds), although the generality of them are only modern fabrications constructed in imitation of one another, and upon no other principle than the assumption that the syllable in question may be prefixed to almost any verb whatever. Such are bepraise, bepowder, bespatter, bethump, and many more. Only between thirty and forty seem to be traceable to Saxon verbs beginning with be. The facts that have been mentioned sufficiently explain the word beholden. It has nothing to do with the modern behold, or the ancient behealdan (which, like its modern representative, signified to see or look on), but is another form, according to the corruption which we have seen to take place in so many other instances, of gchealden, the past participle passive of healdan, to hold; whence its meaning, here and always, of held, bound, obliged. It corresponds to the modern German gehalten, of the same signification, and is quite distinct from behalten, the past participle passive of the verb behalten, which signifies kept, preserved. One word, which repeatedly occurs in Shakespeare, containing the prefix ge, has been generally misunderstood by his editors. What they all, I believe without exception, print I wis, or I wiss, as if it were a verb with its nominative, is undoubtedly one word, and that an adverb, signifying certainly, probably. It ought to be written ywis, or ywiss, corresponding as it does exactly to the modern German gewiss. It is true, indeed, that Sir Frederic Madden in the Glossary to his edition of Syr Gawayne (printed, for the Roxburgh Club, in 1839) expresses a doubt whether it were "not regarded as a pronoun and verb by the writers of the fifteenth century." But this supposition Dr. Guest (Phil. Proc. ii. 160) regards as wholly gratuitous. He believes there is not a single instance to be found in which wiss, or wisse, has been used in the sense of to know, “till our modern glossarists and editors chose to give it that signification." Johnson in his Dictionary enters wis as a verb, meaning to think, to imagine. So also Nares in his Glossary. [The error is not corrected in Halliwell and Wright's revised edition of Nares, 1859.] It is the only explanation which any of these authorities give of the form in question. "The preterite," adds Nares, "is wist. The present tense is seldom found but in the first person; the preterite was common in all the persons.' In a note on the passage in The Merchant of Venice, ii. 9, "There be fools, alive, I wis [as they all print it], Silvered o'er," Steevens writes (Variorum edition, v. 71): "I wis, I know. Wissen, German. So in King Henry the Sixth: I wis your grandam had no worser match.' Again, in the Comedy of King Cambyses: Yea, I wis, shall you, and that with all speed.' Sidney, Ascham, and Waller use the word." The line here quoted from Shakespeare is not in King Henry VI., but in Richard III., i. 3, and runs, “I wis [wis] your grandam had a worser match." So in the Taming of the Shrew, i. I, "Ywis, it is not half way to her heart." Chaucer, though his adverb is commonly ywis, has at least in one instance simply wis: Nay, nay, quod she, God help me so, as wis C. T. 11,781. The syllable wis is, no doubt, the same element that we have both in the German wissen and in our English guess. [Compare Marsh, Lectures, First Series, P. 333, foot-note.] 394. We are blest that Rome is rid of him.The Second Folio has "We are glad." 398. [The evil that men do, etc. 66 Compare Henry VIII., iv. 2: Men's evil manners live in brass; their virtues we write in water."] 398. Here, under leave of Brutus, and the rest. -Compare "By your pardon" of 357. 398. When that the poor have cried. The that in such cases as this is merely a summary or compendious expression of what follows, which was convenient, perhaps, in a ruder condition of the language, as more distinctly marking out the clause to be comprehended under the when. We still commonly use it with now, when it serves to discriminate the conjunction from the adverb, although not with other conjunctions which are never adverbs. Chaucer often introduces with a that even the clause that |