« FöregåendeFortsätt »
Ρ. 43. 6. διό το τοιούτο μορίων του σώματος έoικέν ούτως έχειν ώσπερ αν εί κύκλω ημίν περιεπεφύκει ο αήρ.
Here we would read ώσπερ εί.
Ρ. 44. 7. καίτοι καθάπερ είπαμεν και πρότερον, κάν εί δι' υμένος αισθανοίμεθα τών άπτων απάντων, ομοίως αν έχουμεν.
Read και εί, « even if.”
The disjunctive ovdè is often used after &é, but we do not remember ever having met with an instance of the reverse order.
Ρ. 59. 25. τα δε εν αφαιρέσει λεγόμενα ώσπερ αν εί το σιμών.
Read ώσπερ εί, and compare Eth. Nic. ii. 4. 1. ώσπερ ει τα γραμματικά και τα μουσικά γραμματικοί και μουσικοί.
Ρ. 60. 29. σκεπτέον, πότερον έν τι μόριον αυτής χωριστόν όν ή μεγέθει και λόγω, ή πάσα η ψυχή, κάν ει μόριόν τι, πότερον ίδιόν τι παρά τα ειωθότα λέγεσθαι.
Read και ει μόριόν τι.
Ρ. 66. 16. διο πάλιν ούτος την όψιν κινεί, ώσπερ αν εί το εν τω κηρώ σημείον διεδίδοτο μέχρι του πέρατος.
Read ώσπερ εί, and the same correction should be made p. 122. 14.
Ρ. 112. 8. ουκ άρα γε τη αισθήσει το ενύπνιον αισθανόμεθα. With the exception of a passage in the Nicomachean Ethics, which we corrected in a former number, we have not met with any instance of the use of γε after άρα. We would, therefore, read ουκ άρα τη αισθήσει, &c. See Classical Journal, No. LΧΧVΙΙΙ.
Ρ. 126. 17. ει δε πάν εξελαύνει το ενεργεία εναντίον, κάν ενταύθ' άφθαρτον αν είη.
This, if the reading is sane, is one of the few instances of the double åv in Aristotle.
Ρ. 145. 19. παραπλήσιον γαρ συμβαίνει κάν εί τις τινα των αναπνεόντων πνίγοι. Read xat er
τις. Everywhere, except p. 37.9. p. 53. 2. p. 30. 29. and p. 128. 29., Mr. Bekker writes del and new. We conclude, therefore, that these are misprints. Also in τεσσάρων, p. 9. 4. δισσαχή, p. 10. 24. πράσσεσθαι, p. 102. 10. μελισσών, p. 107. 4. and ελάσσονος, p. 116. 8. the Attic form should be restored. We do not see why Mr. Bekker should sometimes write a reúμων and sometimes πνεύμων. Ιn pp. 44, 45. running title, for B read Γ. and p. 70. 25. for ταχυτής read ταχύτης.
We will take this opportunity of offering a few corrections of some passages in the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, which had escaped our notice in our articles on the edition of that treatise by Mr. Cardwell.
11. 6. 20. όλως γαρ ούθ' υπερβολής και ελλείψεως μεσότης εστίν, ουδε μεσότητος υπερβολή και έλλειψις.
Read ούτε μεσότητος.
11. 4, 5, και διαφέρει πλείστον ίσως ο σπουδαίος τα ταληθές εν εκάστους δράν, ώσπερ κανων και μέτρον αυτών ών.
Read αυτώ ών, and compare IV. 8. 10. οίον νόμος ων εαυτώ.
1ν. 1. 28. ούτε γάρ ήδεται εφ' οίς δεί ούτε λυπείται, ούτε ως δεί. Read ουδε ως δεί.
ν. 4. 9. ώσπερ αν εί τις είπoι δίκαιον.
Read ώσπερ εί τις, and compare ν. 8. 3. ώσπερ εί τις λαβών την χείρα αυτού τύπτοι έτερον.
V. 5. 16. ότι δη ούτως ή αλλαγή ήν, πριν το νόμισμα ή, δήλον. Read πριν το νόμισμα ήν.
VI. 13. 7. δήλον δε, κάν ει μη πρακτική ήν, ότι έδει αν αυτής. ib. 8. έτι όμοιον καν εί τις την πολιτικήν φαίη άρχειν των θεών. In both these passages we would read και for κάν.
. Ib. 8. αλλά μεν ουδε κυρία γέ εστι της σοφίας.
Read αλλά μην ουδέ, and compare J. 6. 6. αλλά μην ουδε τα αΐδιον είναι. and for the use of γε VΙΙ. 2. 4. αλλα μην εί γε δόξα. VII. 2. 6. αλλά μην δεί
VIII. 11. 3. ούτω γαρ αν και η φιλία. We would read ούτω γαρ και η φιλία. x. 9. 18. ούτε-ούτε ούδ' αυ.
We believe that this use of the disjunctive cud?, when the conjunctive ošte occurs previously in the sentence twice or more times, is defended by a sufficient number of examples to establish its propriety. Thus, in 11. 3. 11. ούτε ούτε ούτε --ουδέ. Isocrat. Panath. p. 287. Α. ούτε-ούτε –ούτε ουδέ-ουδέ. Xenoph. Αnab. VΙΙ. 6. 20. ούτε-ούτε-ούδε μήν. Ρlato de Rep. Ι. p. 347. Β. ούτε ούτε-ούδ' αυ. 1d. . p. 426. Β. ούτε –ούτε-ούτε-ούτε ουδ' αυ ουδε -ουδέ. But we doubt whether ουδέ can in any case follow one ούτε. See Class. Journ. Part LXXVIII. p. 193, In Plato, Leg. vill. p. 840. B. quoted by Matthiae Gr. Gr. $ 609. ούτε τινος πώποτε γυναικός ήψατο ουδ' αυ παιδός, we would read oύτινος.
G. C. L.
γε. &c. &c.
CLASSICAL AND PHILOLOGICAL
EXTRACTS From the Works of SAMUEL PARR, LL.D., Prebendary
of St. Pauls, Curate of Hatton, &c.; with Memoirs of his Life and Writings, and a Selection from his Correspondence. By John JOHNSTONE, M.D. Fellow of the Royal Society, and of the Royal College of Physicians of London, &c. In 8 vols. 8vo. London : Longman and Co.
No. III.—[Concluded from No. LXXIX.]
Dr. Parr to Dr. Huntingford, Bishop of Hereford.
Hatton, Oct. 24, 1813. I thank you for the intelligence with which you have favored me about Bishop Hurd's edition of Addison's works; and sorry I am, for the sake of your Lordship and other scholars, that I had not an opportunity of granting, or offering to his executors, my 'copy of Addison's well-written, though little known, work in Latin prose. You shall regale yourself with it when you come to my parsonage. I cannot fix on any particular person as the writer of the epitaph on Addison. He certainly is a man of taste, and probably he is a man of learning. Some of the sentences run off barmoniously to the ear, and there is a fair surface of Latinity. But,
Nescit., The topics, though well chosen, are not quite so well arranged, and the Latinity in two or three places is vulnerable. I believe some Etonian to have been the author; and I am sure that, if his compositions were to be compared with other inscriptions in Westminster Abbey, rather than with the peculiar dignity of the subject, he, without much presumption, might have given up his name. Some of my pupils, when they heard it ascribed to me, had the good sense to acquit me ; and when the Duke of Bedford first mentioned it to me as mine, in terms of high commendation, I declined the honor before I knew the contents. I will give your Lordship my reasons for my doubts about Bishop Hurd, and I premise that they amounted only to one suspicion opposed to another. There is in the south transept of Westminster Abbey an epitaph on Mr. Mason,;written, as I believe, by his friend Bishop Hurd. It has the great merit of being free from all rhetorical florishes, and the phraseology is on the whole perspicuous and correct. In the opening there is a little error in the collocation. There is what, I think, an ill-judged allusion to a well-known passage in Catullus, who writes,
Nam castum esse decet, pium poëtam
Ipsum, versiculos nihil necesse est. In the inscription we read-Poëta, si quis alius, castus, pius, cultus. Now, my Lord, it is no very great praise for an English divine not to VOL. XL.
CI. Jl. NO. LXXX. Q
have been otherwise than castus et pius in his poetry, and the commendation is certainly bestowed not on his morals, but his writings. Again, it is rather unlucky in a sanctuary to bring back to the memory of men the apology of a heathen poet for the licentiousness of his
Again, cultus referring to the taste of Mason, does not very naturally follow commendation on his moral poetry. I will not quarrel with cultus as an epithet which seldom or never occurs in prose, but will admit the authority of the following passage:
“ Discentur numeri, culte Tibulle, tui." Ov. Am. 1. 15. 28.
My scribe wrote Xenopho as I dictated the word, and I would be understood so to approve of Xenopho, as not to disapprove of Xenophon. If you have, or at Winchester can find, the admirable treatise of H. Stephens, De Abusu Linguæ Græcæ, pray read the whole of the fourth chapter, where the rationale of Latin terminations in on and o is largely discussed. Apud Charisium certe legimus itidem Memno et Simo, non Memnon et Simon. Est tamen bis in hoc ipso nominc terminatione ista usus Maro, cogente etiam metri lege. At vero Antipho et Demipho, quæ apud eundem grammaticum inveniuntur, minus auribus nostris esse nova debent, vel ob talem Terentii usum. Apud eum enim Antipho et Demipho et Ctesipho (sicut Crito, Simo), non Antiphon et Demiphon et Ctesiphon legi, nemo est qui meminisse non possit. His autem simile esset Xenopbo, sed nescio quomodo major quædam in hoc nomine esse videtur terminationis insolentia, et a qua aures magis abhorreant." p. 48. Bowyer, in a letter to Mr. R. Gale, adopts Markland's hypothesis on the formation of the imparasyllabic genitive, and writes thus: “For owua they said owuats, owuatos• as yaλακτς, γαλακτος τυψαντς, τυψαντος: Πλατωνς, Πλατωνος: Ξενοφωντς, Ξενοφωντος. On this supposition, I think, we may form a rule, which ought to determine what Greek proper names should now be terminated in o, what in on, in Latin ; viz. those which make ovtos in the genitive should have on in the nominative ; those in wvos should be o in the nominative, preserving thus the vestigia of their pristine state, as Plato, Platonis ; Solo, Solonis; but Xenophon, Xenophontis; Ctesiphon, Ctesiphontis. Which the learned Dr. Taylor, Chancellor of Lincoln, writes without any discrimination in his accurate editions of Lysias and Demosthenes, &c. Plato, Solo, Xenopho, Ctesipho.”-Bowyer's Miscellaneous Tracts,
Now, my Lord, the subject seems to have been much controverted among Roman critics; and they, who were advocates for uniformity and independence in the Latin language, contended for the termination in o. You shall have a notable passage from Quintilian, where he speaks of the “ grammaticum veterum amatorem, qui neget quidquam ex Latina ratione mutandum. Quin etiam laudat virtutem eorum, qui potentiorem facere linguam Latinam studebant, nec alienis egere institutis fatebantur; inde Castorem, media syllaba producta, pronuntiarunt; quia hoc omnibus nostris nominibus accidebat quorum prima positio in easdem, quas Castor, literas exit; et ut Palæmo, sicut Plato (nam sic eum Cicero quoque appellat) (dicerentur] retinuerunt; quia Latinum quod o et n literis finiretur, non reperiebant.” Lib. i. cap. 5. Formerly, when I knew more and cared more about these things than I do now, I made up my mind thus. Whensoever the termination in Greek is wv, wvos, there I would invariably retain the termination o, and therefore I would always say Plato ; and I commend scholars for saying Dio Cassius, though I remember that formerly they
did not hesitate to call him Dion. But when the termination is wv, WVTOS, I dare not contend for the same uniformity. In the speeches De Corona, we find invariably KrnoIDwvtos, and yet in Terence we find among the dramatis personæ, Ctesipbo. So Avtipwv, AVTIPWTOs, does not binder us from saying Antipho. Thus Bowyer's rule about w, wrtos, is not conclusive, and leaves us to the choice of on or o in Latin, and perhaps that choice will often be regulated by the ear, or custom; and, in truth, either may be used without impropriety. Yet, as I said, the rule for wv, wvos, coinpels us to use o only, unless we be writing verse; and in verse I hold that Platon and Xenophon, however unusual, would be justifiable. When the question is transferred from proper names to appellatives, we find the predominant power of the Latin iermination o not only retained in the nominative, but extending even to the oblique cases. Tbus Aewv, Aeovtos, gives in Latin, leo, leonis ; and thus Opakwv, Opakovtos, gives draco, draconis. But further, the most striking instance that I know among the latter writers of the right they took to employ the Latin termination o, is in the Achilleid of Statius, book 1. v. 553.
Conclamant Danai, stimulatque Agamemno volentes. Our friend Dr. Gabell may tell his boys of the fact, but must not allow them to imitate ; and so much for the termination in o. You see, my Lord, that some of the sturdy critical antiquaries went a little further; and because quæstor and prætor made quæstoris and prætoris, they forsooth would have had any Greek word in wp making opos become in Latin or, oris, with the penultimate of the genitive long. You and I shall observe, but not imitate. On the fact, noticed as it is by Varro de Lingua Latina, we can have no doubt. “ Secundum illorum rationem debemus,” says Varro, “secundis syllabis longis dicere Hectorem, Nestorem. Est enim ut Quæstor, Prætor, Nestor, Hector." Lib. vii. True, say I, this was the very old practice, and it may be illustrated by two lines from Ennius, the first of which is quoted by Varro himself in libro ii.
Hectoris natum de mæro jactarier. You will find this line in page 239 of the edition of Hesselius. You will also find it immediately preceded by another line, where the termination Hectorem is right, but the metrical position is wrong,
Curru Hectorem quadrijugo raptarier. So the line is printed in Hesselius and in Maittaire's Corpus Poetarum, and in my copy of Maittaire 1 bave had occasion to correct many of these metrical errors. The line, as it has just now been given, was made so by Ursinus, and then quoted by him to prove that the second syllable in quadrijugo is long before jod. No, say I, and no said Gerard Vossius, whose words you shall have. “Non cogitavit vir doctissimus veteres secundam in Hectoris, et similibus produxisse, quomodo idem Enpius alibi ait,
Hectoris natum de mero jactarier. Alioqui, puto, vidisset, versu secundo, trajectis primis verbis, legi debere,
Hectorem curru quadrijugo jactarier.” De Arte Grammat. lib. i. c. 22. In sapphics and iambics I should write indifferently Hectorem et Hectora. But I should not venture to lengthen the penultimate, unless I wished to tease some fastidious