[236] John Despauter, whose ample Grammar of the Latin language appeared in its third edition in 1517, represents this practice as a corruption originating in false pride, and maintained by the wickedness of hungry flatterers.  On the twentieth leaf of his Syntax, he says, “Videntur hodie Christiani superbiores, quam olim ethnici imperatores, qui dii haberi voluerunt; nam hi nunquam inviti audierunt pronomina tu, tibi, tuus.  Quae si hodie alicui monachorum antistiti, aut decano, aut pontifici dicantur aut scribantur, videbitur ita loquens aut scribens blasphemasse, et anathemate dignus:  nec tamen Abbas, aut pontifex, tam aegre feret, quam Malchi, aut famelici gnathones, his assistentes, et vociferantes, Sic loqueris, aut scribis, pontifici? Quintilianus et Donatus dicunt barbarismum, aut soloecismum esse, siquis uni dicat. Salvete.” The learned Erasmus also ridiculed this practice, calling those who adopted it, “voscitatores,” or youyouers.

[237] “By a perversion of language the pronoun you is almost invariably used for the second person singular, as well as plural; always, however, retaining the plural verb; as, ‘My friend, you write a good hand.’ Thou is confined to a solemn style, or [to] poetical compositions.”—­Chandler’s Grammar, Edition of 1821, p. 41; Ed. of 1847, p. 66.

[238] In regard to the inflection of our verbs, William B. Fowle, who is something of an antiquarian in grammar, and who professes now to be “conservative” of the popular system, makes a threefold distinction of style, thus:  “English verbs have three Styles[,] or Modes,[;] called [the] Familiar, [the] Solemn[,] and [the] Ancient.  The familiar style, or mode, is that used in common conversation; as, you see, he fears.  The solemn style, or mode, is that used in the Bible, and in prayer; as, Thou seest, he feareth.  The ancient style, or mode, now little used, allows no change in the second and third person, [persons,] singular, of the verb, and generally follows the word if, though, lest, or whether; as, if thou see; though he fear; lest he be angry; whether he go or stay.”—­Fowle’s Common School Grammar, Part Second, p. 44.  Among his subsequent examples of the Solemn style, he gives the following:  “Thou lovest, Thou lovedst, Thou art, Thou wast, Thou hast, Thou hadst, Thou doest or dost, Thou didst.”  And, as corresponding examples of the Ancient style, he has these forms:  “Thou love, Thou loved, Thou or you be, Thou wert, Thou have, Thou had, Thou do, Thou did.”—­Ib., pp. 44-50.  This distinction and this arrangement do not appear to me to be altogether warranted by facts.  The necessary distinction of moods, this author rejects; confounding the Subjunctive with the Indicative, in order to furnish out this useless and fanciful contrast of his Solemn and Ancient styles.