IRREGULARITIES. Confusion of proximityConfusion of proximity. The following (though a not uncommon Shakespearian idiom) would be called an unpardonable mistake in modern authors:--
“The posture of your blows are yet unknown.
“Whose loss of his most precious queen and children
Are even now to be afresh lamented.
“Which now the loving haste of these dear friends
Somewhat against our meaning have prevented.
“But yet the state of things require.” DANIEL, Ulysses and Siren.
“The venom of such looks, we fairly hope,
Have lost their quality.
“How the sight
“The approbation of those . . . are, &c.
Of those smooth rising cheeks renew the story
Of young Adonis.” B. F. F. Sh. i. 1.
“Equality of two domestic powers
Breed scrupulous faction.
Here, however, "voice" may be (471) for "voices."
“The voice of all the gods
Make heaven drowsy.
The peril of our curses light on thee.
“The very thought of my revenges that way
Recoil upon myself.
The subjunctive is not required, and therefore "have" is probably plural, in
“More than the scope
Of these delated articles allow.
In these cases the proximity of a plural noun seems to have caused the plural verb, contrary to the rules of grammar. The two nouns together connected by "of" seem regarded as a compound noun with plural termination. So
“If the scorn of your bright eyne
Have power to raise such love in mine.
“Those blest-pair-of-fixed-stars.” B. and F. F. Sh. ii. 1. “These happy-pair of lovers meet straightway.” Ib. Similarly--
In the following instance the plural nominative is implied from the previous singular noun--
“Where such as thou mayest find him.
In “And the stars whose feeble light
“As every alien pen hath got my use,
And under thee their poesy disperse.
Give a pale shadow to the night,” B. and F. F. Sh. iii. 1. perhaps "give" may be subjunctive after the relative. (See 367.)