"To syllene his folce hæle gewit on hyra synna forgyfnesse."—Lucæ, i, 77. WICKLIFFE: "To geve science of heelth to his puple into remissioun of her synnes."—Luk, i, 73. SAXON:
"Onlyhtan tham the on thystrum and on deathes sceade sittath. ure fet to gereccenne on sibbe weg."—Lucæ, i, 79. WICKLIFFE: "To geve light to them that sitten in derknessis, and in schadowe of deeth, to dresse oure feet into the weye of pees."—Luk, i, 75. "In Anglo-Saxon," says Dr. Latham, "the dative of the infinitive verb ended in -nne, and was preceded by the preposition to: as, To lufienne = ad amandum [= to loving, or to love]; To bærnenne = ad urendum [= to burning, or to burn]; To syllanne = ad dandum [= to giving, or to give]."—Hand-Book, p. 205.
OBS. 20.—Such, then, has ever been the usual construction of the English infinitive mood; and a wilder interpretation than that which supposes to an article, and says, "to write signifies the writing," cannot possibly be put upon it. On this supposition, "I am going to write a letter," is a pure Grecism; meaning, "I am going the writing a letter," which is utter nonsense. And further, the infinitive in Greek and Latin, as well as in Saxon and English, is always in fact governed as a mood, rather than as a case, notwithstanding that the Greek article in any of its four different cases may, in some instances, be put before it; for even with an article before it, the Greek infinitive usually retains its regimen as a verb, and is therefore not "a substantive," or noun. I am well aware that some learned critics, conceiving that the essence of the verb consists in predication, have plainly denied that the infinitive is a verb; and, because it may be made the subject of a finite verb, or may be governed by a verb or a preposition, have chosen to call it "a mere noun substantive."
Among these is the erudite Richard Johnson, who, with so much ability and lost labour, exposed, in his Commentaries, the errors and defects of Lily's Grammar and others. This author adduces several reasons for his opinion; one of which is the following: "Thirdly, it is found to have a Preposition set before it, an other sure sign of a Substantive; as, 'Ille nihil præter loqui, et ipsum maledicè et malignè, didicit.' Liv. l. 45, p. 888. [That is, "He learned nothing but to speak, and that slanderously and maliciously."] 'At si quis sibi beneficium dat, nihil interest inter dare et accipere.' Seneca, de Ben. l. 5, c. 10." [That is, "If any one bestows a benefit on himself, there is no difference between give and take;" [407]—or, "between bestowing and receiving."]—See Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 342. But I deny that a preposition is a "sure sign of a substantive." (See Obs. 2d on the Prepositions, and also Obs. 1st on the List of Prepositions, in the tenth chapter of Etymology.) And if we appeal to philological authorities, to determine whether infinitives are nouns or verbs, there will certainly be found more for the latter name, than the former; that is, more in number, if not in weight; though it must be confessed, that many of the old Latin grammarians did, as Priscian tells us, consider the infinitive a noun, calling it Nomen Verbi, the Name of the Verb.[408] If we appeal to reasons, there are more also of these;—or at least as many, and most of them better: as, 1. That the infinitive is often transitive; 2. That it has tenses; 3. That it is qualified by adverbs, rather than by adjectives; 4. That it is never declined like a noun; 5. That the action or state expressed by it, is not commonly abstract, though it may be so sometimes; 6. That in some languages it is the root from which all other parts of the verb are derived, as it is in English.
OBS. 21.—So far as I know, it has not yet been denied, that to before a participle is a preposition, or that a preposition before a participle governs it; though there are not a few who erroneously suppose that participles, by virtue of such government, are necessarily converted into nouns. Against this latter idea, there are many sufficient reasons; but let them now pass, because they belong not here. I am only going to prove, in this place, that to before the infinitive is just such a word as it is before the participle; and this can be done, call either of them what you will. It is plain, that if the infinitive and the participle are ever equivalent to each other, the same word to before them both must needs be equivalent to itself. Now I imagine there are some examples of
