OBS. 2.—­Respecting the verb wert, it is not easy to determine whether it is most properly of the indicative mood only, or of the subjunctive mood only, or of both, or of neither.  The regular and analogical form for the indicative, is “Thou wast;” and for the subjunctive, “If thou were.”  Brightland exhibits, “I was or were, Thou wast or wert, He was or were,” without distinction of mood, for the three persons singular; and, for the plural, were only.  Dr. Johnson gives us, for the indicative, “Thou wast, or wert;” with the remark, “Wert is properly of the conjunctive mood, and ought not to be used in the indicative.”—­Johnson’s Gram., p. 8.  In his conjunctive (or subjunctive) mood, he has, “Thou beest,” and “Thou wert.”  So Milton wrote, “If thou beest he.”—­P.  Lost, B. i, l. 84.  Likewise Shakspeare:  “If thou beest Stephano.”—­Tempest.  This inflection of be is obsolete:  all now say, “If thou be.”  But wert is still in use, to some extent, for both moods; being generally placed by the grammarians in the subjunctive only, but much oftener written for the indicative:  as, “Whate’er thou art or wert.”—­Byron’s Harold, Canto iv, st. 115.  “O thou that wert so happy!”—­Ib., st. 109.  “Vainly wert thou wed.”—­Ib., st. 169.

OBS. 3.—­Dr. Lowth gave to this verb, BE, that form of the subjunctive mood, which it now has in most of our grammars; appending to it the following examples and questions:  “’Before the sun, Before the Heavens, thou wert.’—­Milton.  ’Remember what thou wert.’—­Dryden.  ’I knew thou wert not slow to hear.’—­Addison.  ’Thou who of old wert sent to Israel’s court.’—­Prior.  ’All this thou wert.’—­Pope.  ’Thou, Stella, wert no longer young.’—­Swift.  Shall we, in deference to these great authorities,” asks the Doctor, “allow wert to be the same with wast, and common to the indicative and [the] subjunctive mood? or rather abide by the practice of our best ancient writers; the propriety of the language, which requires, as far as may be, distinct forms, for different moods; and the analogy of formation in each mood; I was, thou wast; I were, thou wert? all which conspire to make wert peculiar to the subjunctive mood.”—­Lowth’s Gram., p. 37; Churchill’s, p. 251.  I have before shown, that several of the “best ancient writers” did not inflect the verb were, but wrote “thou were;” and, surely, “the analogy of formation,” requires that the subjunctive be not inflected.  Hence “the propriety which requires distinct forms,” requires not wert, in either mood.  Why then should we make this contraction of the old indicative form werest, a solitary exception, by fixing it in the subjunctive only, and that in opposition to the best authorities that ever used it?  It is worthier to take rank with its kindred beest, and be called an archaism.