This may be supposed to mean, “He who is poor and content,” &c.  In the following sentence again, we may suppose an ellipsis of the phrase To have, at the beginning; though here, perhaps, to have pluralized the verb, would have been as well: 

   “One eye on death and one full fix’d on heaven,
    Becomes a mortal and immortal man.”—­Young.

OBS. 3.—­The names of two persons are not unfrequently used jointly as the name of their story; in which sense, they must have a singular verb, if they have any; as, “Prior’s Henry and Emma contains an other beautiful example.”—­Jamieson’s Rhetoric, p. 179.  I somewhat hesitate to call this an exception to the foregoing rule, because here too the phraseology may be supposed elliptical.  The meaning is, “Prior’s little poem, entitled, ‘Henry and Emma,’ contains,” &c.;—­or, “Prior’s story of Henry and Emma contains,” &c.  And, if the first expression is only an abbreviation of one of these, the construction of the verb contains may be referred to Rule 14th.  See Exception 1st to Rule 12th, and Obs. 2d on Rule 14th.

OBS. 4.—­The conjunction and, by which alone we can with propriety connect different words to make them joint nominatives or joint antecedents, is sometimes suppressed and understood; but then its effect is the same, as if it were inserted; though a singular verb might sometimes be quite as proper in the same sentences, because it would merely imply a disjunctive conjunction or none at all:  as, “The high breach of trust, the notorious corruption, are stated in the strongest terms.”—­Junius, Let. xx.  “Envy, self-will, jealousy, pride, often reign there.”—­Abbott’s Corner Stone, p. 111. (See Obs. 4th on Rule 12th.)

   “Art, empire, earth itself, to change are doomed.”—­Beattie.

    “Her heart, her mind, her love, is his alone.”—­Cowley.

In all the foregoing examples, a singular verb might have been used without impropriety; or the last, which is singular, might have been plural.  But the following couplet evidently requires a plural verb, and is therefore correct as the poet wrote it; both because the latter noun is plural, and because the conjunction and is understood between the two.  Yet a late grammarian, perceiving no difference between the joys of sense and the pleasure of reason, not only changes “lie” to “lies,” but uses the perversion for a proof text, under a rule which refers the verb to the first noun only, and requires it to be singular.  See Oliver B. Peirce’s Gram., p. 250.

   “Reason’s whole pleasure, all the joys of sense.
    Lie in three words—­health, peace, and competence.”
        —­Pope’s Ess., Ep. iv, l. 80.