THE RELATIONS EXPRESSED BY THE PASSIVE VOICE 
EDWARD T. OWEN, PH. D. 
ORIENTATION 
Were a definition of the passive voice required, all perhaps 
would agree on this: it is a system of verbal forms whose 
meaning differs from the meaning of the active—very greatly. 
There might not he so close agreement as to what the difference 
is. 
The popular conception may he indicated thus: “The can¬ 
nibal ate the missionary” tells of eating; “The cannibal was 
eaten by the missionary” tells of being-eaten; eating and being- 
eaten are very different; the active voice expresses one; the 
passive voice, the other;—a conception surely plausible, enough 
so to arouse a curiosity to learn where it would lead, were it 
adopted. If, for instance, being-eaten is different from eating, 
presumably also being-struck is different from striking. Cor¬ 
bett striking Sullivan implies for Sullivan a being-struck by 
Corbett. If being-struck is different from striking, the blow 
is two phenomena, instead of one as commonly supposed. Every 
other doing must be matched by a different being-done. Activ¬ 
ity then operates in couples—unless perhaps this seeing it in 
couples be after all the merest seeing double. 
In talking of abstractions I find relief in over-frequent use 
of “you” and “I”—still more in illustrations that amuse me. 
Accordingly in dealing with this glib conception of the passive, 
I invite you, hoping to save us both some weariness, to think a 
little more in detail of the cannibal. In particular, comparing 
his eating with his being-eaten, you perceive of course the pos¬ 
sibility of minor differences. If the cannibal is eaten by the 
missionary, better manners may be looked for; knife and fork 
and napkin—even finger-bowl—may complicate the function; 
