the one hand, he was aware that his arrangement might not suit the views of the above-mentioned persons; and, on the other, he was so sensible of the inaccuracy of their system, and of its clashing with the definitions, as well as rules, laid down in almost every grammar, that he was unwilling to bring before the public a work containing so well-known and manifest an error.  Of what use can Murray’s definition of the active verb be, to one who endeavours to prove the propriety of thus assigning an epithet to the various parts of speech, in the course of parsing?  He says, ’A verb active expresses an action, and necessarily implies an agent, and an object acted upon.’  In the sentence, ‘William hastens away,’ the active intransitive verb hastens has indeed an agent, ‘William,’ but where is the object?  Again, he says, ’Active verbs govern the objective case;’ although it is clear it is not the active meaning of the verb which requires the objective case, but the transitive, and that only.  He adds, ’A verb neuter expresses neither action, nor passion, but being, or a state of being;’ and the accuracy of this definition is borne out by the assent of perhaps every other grammarian.  If, with this clear and forcible definition before our eyes, we proceed to class active intransitive verbs with neuter verbs, and direct our pupils to prove such a classification by reciting Murray’s definition of the neuter verb, we may indeed expect from a thinking pupil the remonstrance which was actually made to a teacher on that system, while parsing the verb ‘to run.’  ‘Sir,’ asks the boy, ’does not to run imply action, for it always makes me perspire?’”—­Nixon’s English Parser, p. 9.

OBS. 8.—­For the consideration of those classical scholars who may think we are bound by the authority of general usage, to adhere to the old division of verbs into active, passive, and neuter, it may be proper to say, that the distribution of the verbs in Latin, has been as much a matter of dispute among the great grammarians of that language, as has the distribution of English verbs, more recently, among ourselves; and often the points at issue were precisely the same.[226] To explain here the different views of the very old grammarians, as Charisius, Donatus, Servius, Priscian; or even to notice the opinions of later critics, as Sanctius, Scioppius, Vossius, Perizonius; might seem perhaps a needless departure from what the student of mere English grammar is concerned to know.  The curious, however, may find interesting citations from all these authors, under the corresponding head, in some of our Latin grammars.  See Prat’s Grammatica Latina, 8vo, London, 1722.  It is certain that the division of active verbs, into transitive and intransitive—­or, (what is the same thing,) into “absolute and transitive”—­or, into “immanent and transient”—­is of a very ancient date.  The notion of calling passive verbs transitive, when used in their ordinary and proper construction, as some now do, is, I think, a modern one, and no small error.