now, they appear as archaisms; indeed, Milton's "rathe primrose that forsaken dies" is the one passage which has made the word familiar to most modern ears. Further, the comparative rather, while common as an adverb, is hardly known with us as an adjective. It is, in truth, to the particular idiom under consideration that it is now almost entirely restricted. There is but little difficulty in tracing the development of meaning which took place. Rather strictly signifies "quicker," "earlier." But when a man wishes to have something more speedily than something else, it is generally safe to say that he has for it a distinct preference. Accordingly, the transition from the sense of "quicker" into that of "more desirable," "preferable," was both natural and easy. That it was actually made we know outside of this particular idiom; but here it has found its regular manifestation. It follows that I had rather is precisely equivalent to "I would (or should) hold more desirable (or preferable)." An it might be inserted between the verb and the adjective, to denote the following clause; but it is not necessary, and is here omitted, as in several other like phrases.
We come finally to the last word, be. This is not only an infinitive, but it is now invariably the pure infinitive. Originally, however, it was not such in all cases. In the earlier period the sign to frequently accompanied it, as it did also the infinitive when following had liefer and had better. There was a good deal of variation in the use of this particle. When the sentence contained two clauses, each with an infinitive of its own, to sometimes preceded the first verb and was omitted before the second. More frequently it was omitted before the infinitive of the first clause, and inserted before that of the second. The former construction is seen in the following lines, with modernized orthography, from Chaucer:
Liefer I had to dien on a knife
Than thee offende, true deare wife.
The other mode is exemplified in the text of the Psalms now under examination. But while both these practices existed, the preferred one was to drop the to altogether. In process of time this became the exclusive one, as we find it to-day.
As a result of this analysis, the passage of Scripture in which had rather be is found can be legitimately paraphrased, so as to exhibit clearly the grammatical character and construction of that idiom. This done, it would read as follows: "I would hold (or deem) it more desirable (or preferable) to be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than to dwell in the tents of wickedness." An explanation essentially similar is true of any sentence in which the archaic had liefer occurs. Had better, however, stands upon a somewhat different footing. In it the verb has regularly the sense of obligation which does not belongs to it, as found in the other two locutions. To have to do a thing, implying that it is a matter of duty or of policy to do it, and not one of mere inclination, is a usage of the word which has existed from an early period and is current to-day, at least in colloquial speech. It is this which is found in had better, and it is this which makes it impossible to substitute for it would better.
One further observation remains to be made in connection with an idiom of this general nature. In the three examples of it which have been considered, liefer, rather, and better are, as we have seen, not adverbs, but adjectives. This is also true of the superlative best in had best, and of the positives good and lief in the expressions had as good and had as lief. The last-named locution maintained itself in usage after had liefer had died out, and still flourishes as vigorously as it did in the days of its youth. But in all these phrases the words have seemed and still seem to the popular apprehension not adjectives, but adverbs. Especially is the observation true of had rather. With this feeling on the part of the users of speech, it could be predicted with certainty that adverbs would be resorted to and not adjectives, if any new locutions were formed in imitation of the old ones. Such a result has shown itself in the extension of the idiom which has taken place. In our later speech we find had sooner, had as soon, and had as well employed, and the first two in particular have come to be used extensively. About the propriety of employing these there is some chance for controversy; in the case of the others there is really none.
