The preterite wist is sometimes referred to a present I wis. But I should like to hear it ably discussed whether there is or ever was such a verb as I wis. It is in fact almost a metaphysical problem. It is something like the question whether pas and point in French are negative particles or only adverbs. Whether there ever was such a verb as 'I wis' is one of the problems of English philology. Certainly Spenser believed there was, and in the century before him it was believed. The verb is really a myth. It grew out of a change in the conception of an old adverb gewis (German gewiss to this day) which became a stock word for the close of lines in the form iwis, ywis, I wis, I wiss, &c., and then the old preterite wiste helped out the grammatical conception.

In a few instances, such as 'mean, meant, meant,' the ordinary spelling has been departed from in order to exhibit to the eye as well as to the ear that there is a change in the internal vowel.

These verbs are a still less numerous class than the former; and they do not admit of addition to their numbers any more than the strong verbs. They would seem to have been mostly the growth of a limited period; that, namely, wherein

the transition of habit was taking place from the strong to the weak methods of conjugation.

But, insignificant as this class is in point of numbers, it contains within it a small batch of verbs of very high importance. These are the symbolics of the class. They are the verbs commonly called 'auxiliaries,' and they hold (for the most part) the same place in the German and other branches of our family, as they do in our own English language.

Ought is a preterite which has no present. Indeed, it is a preterite only in form and historical development, for it is

a present in its usage as an auxiliary. signifies that I am in duty bound to do so.

I ought to do so

The present owe transition to this

has not accompanied the preterite in its moral and semi-symbolic use. When the old preterite had deserted the service of the verb owe in its original sense, that verb supplied itself with a new preterite of the modern type, owed. The distinction between ought, the old preterite, and owed, the new preterite, is now quite established, and no confusion happens. But the reader of our old poets should observe that ought does duty for both these senses. Here we have it in Spenser, in a place where the modern usage would require owed :

'Now were they liegmen to this Ladie free,

And her knights service ought, to hold of her in fee.'

The Faerie Queene, iii. I. 44.

These verbs, it will be seen, are destitute of participles, and this is merely because they have dropped off through disuse. In like manner, and from the same cause,

few of them have infinitives. Indeed, none of them have infinitives of symbolic use. As symbolics, it has been their function to serve the participles and infinitives of other verbs, and to have none of their own. We can indeed say 'to will' and 'to dare'; but in neither instance would the sense or the tone of the word be the same as when we say, 'it will rain,' or 'I dare say.'

So completely has the sense of 'dare-ing' evaporated from this latter auxiliary, that 'I dare say' is a different thing from 'I dare to say.' The latter might be negatived by 'I dare not to say'; but 'I dare not say' would not be the just negative of 'I dare say.' In that expression, the verb 'dare' has lost its own colour, and it is infused into 'say.' And therefore they often merge by symphytism into one word, as in the following, from a newspaper report of a public speech:

'I daresay you have heard of the sportsman who taught himself to shoot steadily by loading for a whole season with blank cartridge only.'

These verbs are all called by the common title of auxiliaries; yet there is a gradation of quality in them, which is to be measured by their relative retention of presentive power. Will has still a good deal. Wilt thou have &c.? I will! This word is therefore far less purely a symbol than shall, of which the infinitive to shall was never heard in our language. In the transition period, we find the verb shall serving as an auxiliary to the infinitive verb will. In Roberd of Brunne's Handlyng Synne (written A.D. 1303), we have

'Y beleue hyt nou3t, ne never shall weyl.'

I believe it nought, nor never shall will.

Ed. Furnivall, for Roxburghe Club, 1. 372.

This verb in its presentive sense retains, or did retain for a long time, one old flexional form, which is never found in

the symbolic sense. This is willeth. God willeth Samuel to yield unto the importunity of the people.'-1 Samuel viii, Contents. 'It is not of him that willeth.'-Rom. ix. 16.

May has long been without an infinitive, but there was one as late as the sixteenth century in the form mowe. Thus in the Secret Instructions from Henry VII respecting the young Queen of Naples, we read,

And to knowe the specialties of the title and value therof in every behalf as nere as they shall mowe.'-National Manuscripts, Part I. 20 Hen. VII.

Can originally meant to know, and in this presentive sense of it, we meet with an infinitive to con as late as the fifteenth century.

To mine well-beloved son, I greet you well, and advise you to think once of the day of your father's counsel to learn the law, for he said many times that whosoever should dwell at Paston, should have need to con [i.e. know bow to] defend himself.'-Paston Letters, Letter x. A.D. 1444-5.

The French equivalent for this con would be savoir, and in fact the English auxiliary can, could, is largely an imitation of that French verb.

Some auxiliaries have become obsolete. Such is mote the present, of which must is the preterite. It lingered till recent times as a formula of wishing well or ill, and indeed an example of present use has been given above, at p. 174, note. Its place has now been taken by may.

In a ballad on the Battle of Flodden Field, A.D. 1513 (Gentleman's Magazine, August, 1866), this benison is bestowed on the Earl of Surrey :

'In the myddyll warde was the Erle of Surrey,
Ever more blessyd mote thowe be;

The ffadyr of witte, well call him we may;

The debite [deputy] most trusty of Englond was he.'

A still older auxiliary which is quite extinct is GAN, which was used as now we use did, and was probably extinguished

by the preference for the latter. This auxiliary must not be too closely associated with the more familiar word began. This latter is a compound of the word, but the sense of commencing is the property not of the root so much as of the compound.

Of a wryght I wylle you telle

That some tyme in thys land gan dwelle.'

The Wryght's Chaste Wife (A.D. 1460). Let in early times signified the causation of some action. Thus it is said of William the Conqueror by the vernacular historian that he 'let speer out' all the property of the country so narrowly that there was never a rood of land or a cow or a pig that was not entered in his book—' swa swyde nearwelice he hit lett ut aspyrian,' &c. (Two Saxon Chronicles Parallel, p. 218.) This 'let' is a very different thing from the light symbol now in use, as when one says to a friend, Will you let your servant bring my horse?' To this levity of symbolism it had already arrived in the Elizabethan era.

'Let Gryll be Gryll, and have his hoggish minde;

But let us hence depart whilest wether serves and winde.'

The Faerie Queene, Bk. ii., end.

There is one verb of a character so mixed, that it is for distinction sake reserved to a place at the end of this section of mixed verbs. It is the verb which, though common to German and the other dialects, is yet in one sense peculiar to English, namely as an auxiliary. Speaking generally, we share our auxiliaries with the rest of the Gothic family, but there is one all our own. It is

The anomaly of its form has been touched on at the close of the former section.

The preterite possesses the double character of a presentive