Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

Ρ. 43. 6. διὸ τὸ τοιοῦτο μορίου τοῦ σώματος ἔοικεν οὕτως ἔχειν ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ κύκλῳ ἡμῖν περιεπεφύκει ὁ ἀής.

Here we would read ὥσπερ εἰ.

Ρ. 44. 7. καίτοι καθάπερ εἴπαμεν καὶ πρότερον, κἂν εἰ δι ̓ ὑμένος αἰσθανοίμεθα τῶν ἅπτων ἁπάντων, ὁμοίως ἂν ἔχοιμεν.

66

Read καὶ εἰ, even if."

Ρ. 52. 5. οὐδὲ τοῦτο δ ̓ ἐστὶ ταὐτὸ τῷ αἰσθάνεσθαι.

The disjunctive oude is often used after dé, but we do not remember ever having met with an instance of the reverse order. Ρ. 59. 25. τὰ δὲ ἐν ἀφαιρέσει λεγόμενα ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ τὸ σιμόν. Read ὥσπερ εἰ, and compare Eth. Νic. ii. 4. 1. ὥσπερ εἰ τὰ γραμματικὰ καὶ τὰ μουσικὰ γραμματικοὶ καὶ μουσικοί.

Ρ. 60. 29. σκεπτέον, πότερον ἕν τι μόριον αὐτῆς χωριστὸν ὂν ἢ μεγέθει ἢ λόγῳ, ἢ πᾶσα ἡ ψυχὴ, κἂν εἰ μόριόν τι, πότερον ἴδιόν τι παρὰ τὰ εἰωθότα λέγεσθαι.

Read καὶ εἰ μόριόν τι.

Ρ. 66. 16. διὸ πάλιν οὗτος τὴν ὄψιν κινεῖ, ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ τὸ ἐν τῷ κηρῷ σημεῖον διεδίδοτο μέχρι τοῦ πέρατος.

Read ὥσπερ εἰ, and the same correction should be made p. 122. 14.

Ρ. 112. 8. οὐκ ἄρα γε τῇ αἰσθήσει τὸ ἐνύπνιον αἰσθανόμεθα. 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 ye after apa. We would, therefore, read οὐκ ἄρα τῇ αἰσθήσει, &c. See Classical Journal, No. LXXVIII. p. 207.

Ρ. 126. 17. εἰ δὲ πᾶν ἐξελαύνει τὸ ἐνεργείᾳ ἐναντίον, κἂν ἐνταῦθ ̓ ἄφθαρτον ἂν εἴη.

..

This, if the reading is sane, is one of the few instances of the double av in Aristotle.

Ρ. 145. 12. παραπλήσιον γὰρ συμβαίνει κἂν εἴ τίς τινα τῶν ἀναπνεόντων πνίγοι.

Read καὶ εἴ τις.

Everywhere, except p. 37. 9. p. 53. 2. p. 30. 29. and p. 128. 29., Mr. Bekker writes ἀεὶ and κάω. We conclude, therefore, that these are misprints. Also in τεσσάρων, p. 9. 4. δισσαχῇ, p. 10. 24. πράσσεσθαι, p. 102. 10. μελισσών, p. 107. 4. and ἐλάσσονος, p. 116. 8. the Attic form should be restored. We do not see why Mr. Bekker should sometimes write πλεύμων and sometimes πνεύμων. In 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. ὅλως γὰρ οὔθ ̓ ὑπερβολῆς καὶ ἐλλείψεως μεσότης ἐστὶν, οὐδὲ μεσότητος ὑπερβολὴ καὶ ἔλλειψις.

Read οὔτε μεσότητος.

111. 4. 5. καὶ διαφέρει

πλεῖστον ἴσως ὁ σπουδαῖος τῷ τἀληθὲς

ἐν ἑκάστοις ὁρᾶν, ὥσπερ κανὼν καὶ μέτρον αὐτῶν ὤν.

Read αὑτῷ ὤν, and compare iv. 8. 10. οἷον νόμος ὢν ἑαυτῷ. ιν. 1. 28. οὔτε γὰρ ἤδεται ἐφ ̓ οἷς δεῖ οὔτε λυπεῖται, οὔτε ὡς δεῖ. Read οὐδὲ ὡς δεῖ.

ν. 4. 9. ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις εἴποι δίκαιον.

Read ὥσπερ εἴ τις, and compare v. 8. 3. ὥσπερ εἴ τις λαβὼν τὴν χεῖρα αὑτοῦ τύπτοι ἕτερον.

ν. 5. 16. ὅτι δὴ οὕτως ἡ ἀλλαγὴ ἦν, πρὶν τὸ νόμισμα ᾖ, δῆλον. Read πρὶν τὸ νόμισμα ἦν.

νι. 13. 7. δῆλον δὲ, κἂν εἰ μὴ πρακτικὴ ἦν, ὅτι ἔδει ἂν αὐτῆς. ib. 8. ἔτι ὅμοιον κἂν εἴ τις τὴν πολιτικὴν φαίη ἄρχειν τῶν θεῶν.

In both these passages we would read καὶ for κἄν.

Ib. 8. ἀλλὰ μὲν οὐδὲ κυρία γέ ἐστι τῆς σοφίας.

Read ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδέ, and compare 1. 6. 6. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ τῷ ἀΐδιον εἶναι. and for the use of γε VII. 2. 4. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἴ γε δόξα. vii. 2. 6. ἀλλὰ μὴν δεῖ γε. &c. &c.

VIII. 11. 3. οὕτω γὰρ ἂν καὶ ἡ φιλία. We would read οὕτω γὰρ καὶ ἡ φιλία. x. 9. 18. οὔτε οὔτε οὐδ ̓ αὖ.

We believe that this use of the disjunctive code, when the conjunctive oйTE occurs previously in the sentence twice or more times, is defended by a sufficient number of examples to establish its propriety. Thus, in III. 3. 11. οὔτε οὔτε οὔτε οὐδέ. Isocrat. Panath. p. 287. Α. οὔτε οὔτε οὔτε οὐδὲ οὐδέ. Xenoph. Anab. vi. 6. 22. οὔτε οὔτε—οὐδὲ μήν. Plato de Rep. I. p. 347. Β. οὔτε οὔτε—οὐδ ̓ αὖ. Id. iv. p. 426. Β. οὔτε ούτε οὔτε οὔτε οὐδ ̓ αὖ οὐδὲ οὐδέ. But we doubt whether οὐδὲ can in any case follow one οὔτε. See Class. Journ. Part LXXVIII. p. 193,. In Plato, Leg. by Matthiæ Gr. Gr. § 609. οὔτε τινὸς πώποτε γυναικὸς ἥψατο οὐδ ̓ αὖ παιδός, we would read οὔτινος.

v111. p. 840. B. quoted

G. C. L.

241

CLASSICAL AND PHILOLOGICAL

EXTRACTS

From the Works of SAMUEL PARR, LL.D., Prebendary of St. Paul's, 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.

My Lord,

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 harmoniously to the ear, and there is a fair surface of Latinity. ` But,

Nescit.

-Ponere totum

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, whọ 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. JI.

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 verses. 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 nomine 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 Xenopho, 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 σωμα they said σωματς, σωματος as γαλακτς, 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, p. 143.

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 Palamo, 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 bim Dion. But when the termination is av, TOS, I dare not contend for the same uniformity. In the speeches De Corona, we find invariably KnowTos, and yet in Terence we find among the dramatis personæ, Ctesipho. So Avriówv, Avtiówvtos, does not hinder us from saying Antipho. Thus Bowyer's rule about wv, wvtos, 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, compels 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 termination o not only retained in the nominative, but extending even to the oblique cases. Thus λewv, λeoVTOs, gives in Latin, leo, leonis ; and thus Spaкwv, Spakovтos, 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 mero 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 have 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 Ennius alibi ait,

Hectoris natum de moro 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

« FöregåendeFortsätt »