The Teachin<j of Latin. 319 



Contrast, therefore, tlie words "T" and "me." Though the person re- 

 ferred to is the same, there is so much difference in feeHng tliat we use 

 two difterent words. " I," egoistic, masterful, pntud of strength and 

 daring, breatlies that sense of personal power of action which is so 

 much to us. " Me," on the other hand, humble, submissive, broken, 

 gives the feeling of unresisting passivity. 



In his book on Psychology Professor James analyses the bodily 

 sensations most intimately connected with this feeling of personal 

 agency. He states his conclusion in the following words : — 



"That in some persons at least the part of the innermost self 

 which is most vividly felt turns out to consist for the most part of a 

 collection of cephalic movements — of 'adjustments' (which for want of 

 attention and reflection usually fail to be perceived and classed as 

 what they are) ; that over and above these there is an obscurer feel- 

 ing of something more ; but whether it be of fainter physiological 

 processes, or of nothing objective at all, but rather of subjectivity as 

 «uch, of thought become its own object, must at present remain an 

 open question." 



Again he says : — 



" If we divide all possible pliysiological acts into adjustments and 

 executions, the nuclear self would be the adjustments collectively con- 

 sidered ; and the less intimate, more shifting self, so far as it was 

 active, would be the executions. . . . The peculiarity of the adjust- 

 ments would be that they are minimal reflexes, few in number, inces- 

 santly repeated, constant amid great fluctuations in the rest of the 

 mind's content." 



Here I should like to throw out a suggestion. Do not these 

 primary reactions, which Professor James describes as acts of adjust- 

 ment, correspond closely with the inward feelings expressed by that 

 small but interesting class of verbs, the auxiliaries of mood — will, 

 shall, can, ma}', must 1 In confirmation I would direct attention to 

 the fact that instinctively these verbs are always kept in the closest 

 touch w4th their subjects, sometimes coalescing with them, when 

 personal pronouns, so as to form one word, while they are often 

 separated a long way from the infinitive that denotes the more 

 external action which Professor James calls tlie e.vectttion. 



This sense of personal agency is, therefore, the origin of our con- 

 ception of the grammatical subject. 



One objection to this theory will readily suggest itself. What of 

 the passive voice? it will be asked. Here the object of the action 

 becomes the subject. But the history of the passive confirms the 

 theory. For the passive voice was late in development and was in 

 its origin impersonal, and the object of the action remained in the 

 accusative. Saxum frauijitur really meant —Breaking is done on the 

 stone. 



I shall endeavour now to investigate more closel}'' the ideas and 

 bodily sensations connected with the primitive conception of the giam- 

 matical object. 8ome observations on the subject of gender in the 

 Indo-Germanic languages will perhaps throw light on the question. 



