Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

Hesiod and the Georgics, and read them as a relief from the morning toil of the dramatic writers. So much I have to say about your classical learning and your logical; but remember that in your nooks, and especially when you are reading the rhetorical works of Cicero, &c. you must reserve a nook for Heineccius de fundamentis styli Latini, and for Scheller's præcepta styli bene Latini. My friend, great will be the use to your taste of these two books, and let me add, even to your learning and to your compositions. If any nooks be open, fill them up with Gesner's Isagoge: it is a most useful book to readers of every age, and scholars of every size. As to Corinthus, Phrynichus, Moeris, Thomas Magister, and Apollonius de Syntaxi, meddle not with them, except in the way of occasional consultation. The study of them must be reserved to a more distant period, when your mind will be stored with materials from original authors, and when you will bring with you taste, knowlege, and habits of reflection to facilitate your philological inquiries, to supply subjects for them, and to make you a competent and impartial judge of their real value. Hereafter you may go on to Plutarch, Lucian, the remaining Greek historians and orators, and indeed what not, for you will go to them as a scholar and a man of sense; but don't be in a hurry, do not begin where you should end, and depend on it, Charles, with a long reach in my mind I have employed for you the spur and the rein; the spur to knowlege, the rein from philology for the present. But I wish you, Charles, in good time, to be a complete philologist. Your own good sense will tell you the occasional use you are to make of Potter's Greek Antiquities and Adam's Roman ditto, and perhaps I shall applaud you for bestowing an hour or two on each while you are reading the Greek and Roman orators, but not more than an hour at that time, nor even five minutes at any other time. My godson, believe me, that method is every thing, and till method is observed you never can wander with impunity. Charles, there is one book which hardly for one day ought to be out of your hands while you are busy with the prose writers of Greece. It is almost the only indulgence I grant to philology, but it is a necessary one, and I even impose it on you as a duty. Whensoever you have a spare half-hour read Vigerus, with the notes of Hoogeveen, Zeunius, and Hermann. First read him through in regular series, do so a second time in some of the nooks, and consult him again and again, and read him a third time while you are in statų pupillari. Have the book almost by heart. I almost say the same of Maittaire de Dialectis, especially when you are busy with Pindar or Homer. Perhaps, Charles, after one perusal of the book, you may thus divide it. Take the Attic dialect for your Orators and Tragedians, &c. the Ionic, Doric, and their dependencies, for Homer; the Doric and Æolic for Theocritus and Pindar. Consult your good sense about this; but be sure to make yourself master of the principles, and much of the spirit in Maittaire. S. PARR.

[Vol. vii. p. 419.]

Rev. Dr. Parr to Rev. Dr. Gabell.

Dear Sir, Hatton, Jan. 12, 1813. I think I shall not offend you by throwing on paper all the instances which my reading has furnished, of an indicative mood following indefinite words. I am quite confident that no such instances are to be

found in prose writers down to the brazen age. After premising, then, that in the colloquial phraseology of Terence and Plautus the examples are very frequent, I shall enter on my catalogue of examples from other writers.

O Romole, Romole, dic ô

Qualem te patriai custodem Di genuerunt.

Ennii Fragm. lib. ii. Annal.

Ecfare quæ cor tuum timiditas territat.

Pacuvii Fragm. Periboea.

In the passage from Ennius we are compelled by the metre to read genuerunt: the metre in Pacuvius would admit territet, but I should object to the alteration, because Pacuvius is an old dramatic writer; and why should we condemn in him that licence which we know to have been employed by Terence and Plautus?

[blocks in formation]

Now let us hear Burmann: "In Langermanni uno etiam codice vidi librarium, forte ferulam metuentem, dedisse induat, sed nunquam potui mihi persuadere, poëtas ita servire ludimagistrorum canonibus, ut non sæpius hoc obsequium librariis, quam ipsis scriptoribus sit adtribuendum." Let Burmann's wit shift for itself. I allow, with him, that the correction was made in order to accommodate the passage to a general rule. But I resist the correction; first, because the passage requires a past tense; and secondly, because in another passage, long known to myself, and properly referred to by Burmann, Lucan a second time neglects the rule; and because, in a third passage, there is a yet more decisive instance of the same neglect. I shall produce both the passages, when I have stated my objections to Burmann in other matters. He quotes from the Muræna, "Nescio quo pacto hoc fit," where the construction is, "Hoc fit nescio quo pacto." He also quotes from Claudian,

Nescis quod turpior hostis

Lætitia majore cadit.

But quod in this passage is not indefinite. When he quotes from Ovid, Quis scit an hæc sævas tigridas insula habet,

he ought to have added, that haud scio an, followed by an indicative, is a particular formula sui juris, and is used by prose writers as an indirect sort of affirmation. Again he quotes from Ovid, Metam. lib. x. 637.

[blocks in formation]

Nil agit exemplum litem quod lite resolvit ; for the Mss. vary. "Quod facit ignorans," is, "Ignorans id quod facit;" and if quid be substituted for quod, the uniform practice of Ovid in other places would call for a subjunctive, and Heinsius, seeing this, would read, "quidque agat ignorans;" I retain quod. Burmann again quotes from Ovid, Met.

Deinde ubi sunt digiti, dum pes ubi quærit;

but here the reading is equivocal; for we may read sint, and so we ought. He quotes from the Fasti, lib. ii. 57.

Nunc ubi sint illis, quæris,

where some of the Mss. read sunt, but general usage is in favor of sint, He allows a variation of reading in Virgil,

[blocks in formation]

and this therefore proves nothing. In the passage quoted from Cicero, De Nat. Deor. ii. 6. "Animum illum spirabilem si quis quærat, unde habemus," Davis proposes habeamus. Burmann would retain habemus; but Burmann's assertion is gratuitous, and Davis's conjecture is warranted by the uniform practice of Cicero in other passages. Burmann's quotations from Terence are so far pertinent, as to show what was done by comic writers; but they give us no help in poets of another class, or in prose writers. There is a strong medley of right and wrong through the whole of Burmann's note. Let us return to Lucan.

[blocks in formation]

Here the Mss. vary between sunt and sint, and nothing is proved. But if sunt be retained, I should defend it by the passage above quoted of induit, and by a yet more decisive passage in lib. ix. 563.

Quære quid est virtus, et posce exemplar honesti.

Here the metre requires est ; and thus from Lucan we have one certain instance, one very probable, and one probable. Now let us go to Claudian, iv. De Cons. Honor. v. 267.

Nec tibi quid liceat, sed quid fecisse decebit,

Occurrat.

Here in the same sentence we have the subjunctive and the indicative, and of a similar irregularity I shall hereafter produce an instance from Persius. Let us return to Claudian, Epigr. in Æthium, v. 9.

Versiculos, fateor, non cauta voce notavi,

Heu miser ignorans quam grave crimen erat!

Now let us go to Persius, Sat. v. 27.

Ut, quantum mihi te sinuoso in pectore fixi,
Voce trahem pura.

Here the reading is indisputable. The next passage contains the irregularity of which I spoke, Sat. iii. 66.

Discite, o miseri, et causas cognoscite rerum,
Quid sumus, et quidnam victuri gignimur: ordo
Quis datus ; aut metæ quam mollis flexus, et undæ;
Quis modus argento: quid fas optare: quid asper
Utile nummus habet: patriæ, carisque propinquis
Quantum elargiri deceat: quem te Deus esse
Jussit, et humana qua parte locatus es in re.

Here we have sumus, gignimur, habet, jussit, locatus es, in the indicative, and deceat in the subjunctive. I will stop for a moment to communicate a conjecture I made many years ago on one of the foregoing lines. In the common reading, metæ et undæ, there is no clear sense: some read et unde; this again is obscure. I would read ut for sicut. "Metæ mollis flexus, ut flexus undæ est." Two instances will be added.

Here ends my enumeration of instances (with two additional to be

produced presently) from classical authors; and it contains, you see, one certain from Ennius; one very probable from Pacuvius; one certain, one very probable, and one probable, from Lucan; two certain from Claudian; and five in one sentence equally certain from Persius. Now, dear Sir, I will mention some instances of deviation from the general rule in the best Italian writers of Latin verse. Few of them write more correctly than Sannazarius, and yet even Sannazarius sometimes errs; the sentence begins,

His addis cultusque pios, &c.

it goes on thus, depending on addis,

Denique ut ad patrem populo spectante suorum
Cesserit, igniferis præsideatque locis:

Quantaque nos maneant promissæ gaudia vitæ,

Quantaque venturæ gloria lucis erit.

This beautiful copy of verses is addressed by Sannazarius "Ad Divum Jacobum Picenum." There is a similar confusion of the indicative and subjunctive in the opening of the 3rd book of Paleareus, De Animi Immortalitate:

Nunc animis quæ sit sedes, quæ præmia vitæ,

Quemque bonum tandem maneant, quas pendere poenas
Conveniat sontes, properante quis undique rege

Tolletur clamor, quæ signa futura, tubæque,

Expediam dictis.

The instances in the Syphilis, which I consider as the next poem to the Georgics, are numerous, and little observed by the admiring reader. Fracastorius is right and wrong in the very first sentence:

Qui casus rerum varii, quæ semina morbum

Insuetum, nec longa ulli per sæcula visum
Attulerint

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

*

Necnon et quæ cura, et opis quid comperit usus,

*

*

*

*

Hinc canere incipiam.

**

In my book I long ago marked the following additional instances:

Again,

Dic, Dea, quæ causa nobis post secula tanta
Insolitam peperere luem?

Nunc vero quonam ille modo contagia traxit,
Accipe.

Quis status illorum fuerit, quæ signa dedere
Sidera, quid nostris coelum portenderit annis,

Let us go to book the 3rd, for one more instance :

Quis Deus hos illis populis monstraverit usus,
Qui demum et nobis casus aut fata tulere
Hos ipsos, unde et sacræ data copia sylvæ,
Nunc referam.

I just stop to say that my pen is drawn under a false quantity: in book 2nd Fracastorius writes,

Talis dulcifluum fluviorum scarus adora.

Now Horace makes the penultima of scarus short:

Aut scarus, aut poterit peregrina juvare lagois.

These great Latin poets of Italy were led by their memory and their ear to employ the subjunctive generally when it suits their metre, they sometimes use the indicative; but they never would have employed that wrong mood, if by rule they had learnt the principle which requires the subjunctive mood. How far they would have availed themselves of the exceptions which I have quoted from Lucian, Clau-. dian, and Persius, I know not. Now, dear Sir, I will show you an instance of confusion in Gray, whose classical erudition was indisputable and pre-eminent:

Perspiciet vis quanta loci, quid polleat ordo,
Juncturæ quis honos, ut res accendere rebus
Lumina conjurant inter se, et mutua fulgent.

De Principiis Cogitandi, lib, i. 113..

Such instructors as you and Dr. S. Butler will warn your scholars against such errors committed by great poets. I have marked all the metrical blunders in Gray, and at some fu re time you and I will talk them over. We both of us know that B hop Lowth was never acquainted with the rule, and yet from ear and memory he is more fre quently right than wrong. Let us not be harsh with Lowth, when such verbal critics by profession, as Hare and Bentley, are not exempt from error. I have a marked copy of a very fine Concio ad Clerum, preached by Hare before the Convocation, A.D. 1722. Some of the errors may be fairly ascribed to the editor; others evidently flow from the author himself. I will enumerate those which contain the indicative instead of the subjunctive after an indefinite: "Quam necesse fuit Verbi ministris, ab omni offensionum genere cavere tum temporis, cum ad Titum hæc scriberet Apostolus; quam ipso Tito utile, ut hoc monitum animo semper observaretur, quivis facile intelligat, qui norit quam dura fuit illis temporibus Ecclesiæ conditio, vel quam præfracto et perverso ingenio illi, quibus Titus præfuit." Again: "Ut qui in historia ecclesiastica sunt hospites, nec sciunt quales pestes anteacta secula tulerunt, putent nullo unquam tempore iniquius fuisse comparatum." Again: "Ut inde ediscamus quæ præcipue vitanda sunt, quæ criminationibus præ ceteris obnoxia, qua parte iniquis malevolorum suspicionibus maxime patemus." Again: "Ego quidem, cum videam quales quantique viri mihi jam ob oculos versantur, cum videam quo sub præside consessus suos habituri sunt, quo nemo literis ornatior, virtutibus instructior, prudentia solertior." Here let me stop to correct a mistake of my memory; for the idem cum, of which I spoke to you, was the blunder of Wyttenbach, and not of Hare. Let us turn to Bentley. In his note on line 37, sc. 2, act 1, of the Eunuch, he writes thus: "Sed vide superstitio quid facit." Again, Andr. act 1, sc. 2. v. 18, "Sed vide, ut incommode hæc divisa sunt arsi et thesi." Here, my good friend, an objector might tell me that Virgil writes thus, Nonne vides croceos ut Tmolus odores, India mittit ebur?

Again:

Georg. lib. i. 5, 6.

Vidisti quo Turnus equo, quibus ibat in armis

Aureus.

En. lib. ix. 268.

My answer is, that in both passages the interrogation is carried on to the end of the sentence. There are variations in the reading of vidisti; for Macrobius and some of the Mss. give vidistis. The passage is not

« FöregåendeFortsätt »