him that I called it Venus Callipygia, which the Professor answered by letter, seriously, as a piece of criticism impugning the word Callipygia, and maintaining, most stoutly, Callipygis, by analogy and examples. One of which was (in this letter to the lady) Δώριδα τὴν ῥοδόπυγον ὑπὲρ λεχέων διατείνας, *Αν θέσιν ἐν χλοεροῖς ἀθάνατος γέγονα. This was funny, was it not? I met the Professor since, and liked him much. His edition of Hippolytus is very learned and accurate. I don't agree with him, however, and I hope you do not, in his reading of the sixty-seventh line of that play commonly thus: Ναίετ ̓ εὐπατέρειαν αὐλὰν Ναίεις εὐπατέρει ̓ ἂν αὐλάν.—Monk. I have no objection to vales from Lascar's ed., but I strongly object to evπatépei' àv' a. (a conjecture of Gaisford's). It introduces a great awkwardness and inelegance both of metre and construction; besides, I don't know that it is even Greek: valw avλàv, or ev avλg, is proper, but I doubt as to vaíw àv' avλáv. Besides, what necessity is there for it? J. SYMMONS. [Vol. vii. p. 562.] Al Rev. Dr. Valpy to Dr. Parr. Dear and benevolent Sir, Reading, March 12, 1816. I believe you have seen the advertisement. I had marked some expressions which I thought faulty. The writer was too fond of quod after such verbs as moneo, and in general of the indicative mood. most all these passages are indeed corrected; but I shall not be satisfied without your devrépaι opovrides. In page 1, line 11, should not non modo be left out, as nothing corresponding follows? l. 34, et passim, I would write Maittarius, as they write Voltarius; on the same principle, Valckenarius. P. 3, l. 26.—I am not clear that quod after ægre laturum esse is the most correct Latinity. I would prefer the accusative and infinitive. If quod is tolerated, should it not be followed by the subjunctive? P. 4, 1. 16.—quàm objectiones, quas ipsi prævident sibi oppositas iri. Pray, cast your judicious and experienced eye on this sentence; I shall be glad if you like it better than I do. Objectiones is not a very pure word. Opponere objectiones appears to me very harsh; and I would prefer oppositum iri to oppositas, as I believe the best writers use that supine with iri for any gender or number. Oppositas fore would not be so bad. I should prefer quam quod sibi objectum iri prævident. Indeed, the whole sentence ought to be restored to the anvil. Is evitent, in the same line, the proper word? Would not elevent or infirment be preferable? R. VALPY. [Vol. vii. p. 568.] ON THE MYSTERIES OF ELEUSIS. PROSERPINE was the daughter of Ceres, or the Earth: and hence Porphyry, after having informed us that Ceres educated Proserpine in a cavern, says that a cavern was a symbol of the world and of sensible creation.' She had a reference to Protogonus, the first-born amongst mortals. She was no other than Eve, the mother of man. The Protogeneia, the reputed daughter of Deucalion, referred to the same person. And we learn from Pausanias, too, that in a temple in one of the Attic pagi, there was worshipped Kopn Пpwτoyown, Proserpina Primigena.3 2 The earthly paradise, the residence of the first fair, was typified in that fair field Of Enna, where Proserpine gathering flowers, Was gathered. And to be convinced that it was no improper emblem, we have but to read the descriptions that the ancients have given us of those glorious Sicilian meads. Forma loci superat flores: curvata tumore 1 Ου μονον δ ̓ ὡς φαμεν κοσμου συμβολον ητοι γενητου αισθητου το αντρον εποιουντο• αλλ' ἡδε και πασων αορατων δυναμεων αντρον εν συμβολῳ παρελάμβανον. ὡς αυτως και ἡ Δημητηρ αντρῳ τρεφει την Κορην μετα νυμφων.-Αφ ̓ ὧν οιμαι ὁρμωμενοι και οἱ Πυθαγορειοι, και μετα τουτους Πλατων αντρον και σπηλαιον τον κόσμον απεφήναντο. παρα τε γαρ Εμπεδοκλει αἱ ψυχοπομποι δυναμεις λεγουσιν· Ηλυθομεν τοδ ̓ ὑπ ̓ αντρον ὑποστεγον. *. T. λ. Porphyr. de Antro Nympharum, p. 254. 2 Θυγατηρ δε Πρωτογένεια. Apollodorus, lib. i. p. 20. 3 Ναος δε έτερος εχει βωμους Δημητρος Ανησιδωρας, Διος Κτησίου, και Τιθρώνης Αθηνας, και Κορης Πρωτογονης. Pausan. Attica, lib. i. c. 31. Claudian, de Rapt. Proserp. lib. ii. 101. See Diodorus Siculus, lib. v. p. 331 ; and Cicero in Verrem. comprehend, and estimate the difference between nisi and si non, and I trust that you will accurately, copiously, earnestly, and repeatedly instruct the Winchester boys to make a distinction, which certainly is not made by schoolboys any where, and probably is not known to four schoolmasters in England. This is a long postscript to my long letter. My friend, there is much importance, as well as much acuteness in Hermann on uǹ and uǹ ou, and you will do well to correct several passages in Sophocles. If you were with me in my library, we should pull down many books, and have some interesting chat on the subject. [Vol. vii. p. 495.] S. PARR. Professor Pillans to Dr. Parr. Dear and much honored Sir, Edinburgh, June 25, 1820. Two points only occur to me at present as requiring explanation : the one regarding the double iï in the genitive of nouns, which you seem to think a licence introduced by Ovid. Yet I think I have met with it more than once in Propertius. One example occurs in iii. 3. 22. "Non est ingenii cymba gravanda tui." The other regards the use of the indicative after indefinites; in treating of which you appear to have overlooked a remarkable passage in the same poet, in which he seems to have used both moods indiscriminately, and to have passed from the one to the other without any feeling of impropriety. The passage is the last thirty lines of lib. 111. 5. beginning Tum mihi naturæ libeat perdiscere mores: Quis Deus hanc mundi temperet arte domum; [Vol. vii. p. 522.] Dr. Parr to Professor Pillans. Dear Mr. Pillans, The passage from Propertius, lib. iii. eleg. 5. is one which I have again and again employed as an instance where the indicative and the subjunctive are, in the same sentence, used promiscuously; and my present scribe remembers it well. There is a parallel one in Persius. I cannot, from memory, speak about my letter to you; but I think it scarcely possible for me to have omitted so notorious a passage. Pray look at my letter. Among the early Roman poets, except the comic, there is but one instance: that one occurs in Ennius, which I must suppose myself to have produced. You will remember that I told you, that this use of the indefinite words with the subjunctive was gradually introduced as the Latin language became more and more refined; and you will take notice that, according to my opinion, the Romans, in their ordinary conversation, did not observe the rules which were afterwards established. Plautus and Terence frequently put the indicative; and this shows the colloquial use. In the Origines of Cato the structure of the sentences is very inartificial, and in the parts which have reached us there is not one sentence where the subjunctive could be used after an indefinite. But I desired you to observe that in the prose writers the rule is uniformly attended to, and for this position I appeal to Cato de Re Rustica, and to Varro. Let me intreat you to mark what I am now going to say: we are all charmed with the energetic style of Quintilian; he never violates the rule. But the striking circum stance is, that in so large a book we have very few instances in which the rule is employed. It is in the poets only that the violation of the rule occurs, and probably one reason is the metrical convenience. Thus, in Propertius, after temperet we find venit, deficit, videt, tremuere, coit, in the indicative, when the verse did not admit the subjunctive. As to the terminations in ii, from nominatives ending in ium and ius, the principle which is laid down in Bentley's Prolegomena to Manilius is perfectly correct. When I mentioned Ovid, I did not forget Propertius: I consider them as contemporary writers; and poets who lived after them would write fluvii for fluvius, and ingenii for ingenium. Thus, in Propertius, we read Quid tunc Tarquinii fractas juvat esse secures, Et spolia opprobrii nostra per ora trabit. There may be here and there rare instances; but they are very few. Now Propertius is not so correct and polished a writer as Tibullus. From both we are warranted in saying, that this use of the genitive does not occur before the Augustan age, that Lucretius, Virgil, and Horace afford no instance, that even the comic writers afford none, that the practice began with Ovid and his contemporary Propertius, was very convenient for their verse, and is found in all the poets subsequent to the Augustan age. Boys should be informed of this distinction in time; and I would permit them to use this genitive in every sort of verse, except the lyric and the iambic. Make this your rule: Never admit ii in sapphics, never in hendecasyllables, never in alcaics, never in iambics, never in trochees. But let your boys use it in heroics and elegiacs. I would further observe, that in Propertius, who, as I told you, is not a very correct writer; there are five instances where he uses a short vowel at the end of a word, when the next word begins with st, sp, &c. Dawes very acutely remarks, that in Lucretius and the old writers there is the same use. We never find it in Virgil, nor in the lyrics of Horace; but in the sermoni propiora there are several instances. Looking at the whole case, I should forbid boys to do so in all lyrics, and in all iambics, and in all stately heroics; but in heroics where the style is not grand, and in all elegiacs, I would leave them at liberty, still recommending it to be done sparingly. I will give you two instances from Propertius, and there are more than two where a short vowel is used before sp, &c. Jam bene spondebant nunc omnia, &c. [Vol. vii, p. 524.] S. PARR. John Symmons, Esq., son of Dr. Symmons, to Dr. Parr. My dear Doctor, Ewhurst, Sept. 12, 1820. I am here on a visit to my uncle, and have received, with great pleasure, your letter transmitting seven instances from Propertius of the use of the indicative for the subjunctive moods. I have not here Petronius, or would refer with pleasure to the hendecasyllables you allude to I have quite forgotten them, if I ever read them. renburgius I never saw, and if I do not meet with him before, shall call on you to show him me at Hatton next year. I recollect something about myself, Professor -- and Kaλλívуos, but don't know, so don't vouch for your version of the story. I don't know whether you have it that a lady committed us on the subject, having represented to Lau It was from hence that she was ravished by Pluto, or Dis, the monarch of the shades. But although the fields of Enna are the favorite symbols of Roman and Italic writers to represent the earthly paradise, and although Proserpine is denominated by the same authors peculiarly Sicilian,' we must not consider her history as anywise connected with that island. On the contrary, the Grecian writers represent other and various places as the scene of her rape. According to Pausanias, it took place near Lernæ. Bacchylides asserts that she was carried away from Crete :3 and Conon tells us that the Pheneatæ asserted that it happened at Cyline. After the loss of Proserpine, Ceres is represented as wandering over the earth, miserable and disconsolate, in search of her daughter, till she learns her destiny, and succeeds in recovering her at least in part. Such is the outline of the fable as given by the poets and mythologists. To apply it to the great event recorded by Moses will be no great difficulty. Proserpine was snatched from the realms of light, from the earthly paradise, to the regions of darkness, and to the embraces of the monarch of the shades, who was in that capacity an emblem of Muth (D), or death. And thus Suidas, a Christian writer, when speaking of the fall, without any reference to allegory, says, that Adam was snatched from his proper seat and station by the devil, and that he fell down a precipice to certain depths and dark regions, approaching the comfortless depths of Hades.5 The Isis of the Egyptians, as I have before said, was the same as the Demeter of the Greeks and the Roman Ceres. We may therefore expect that their several rites and mysteries would be similar; and for the truth of this we have the most indisputable authorities. In the first place, the Eleusinian mysteries were acknowleged to have been taken from Egypt; and again, we 1 "Vidisti Siculæ regna Proserpinæ," Seneca, Hercul. Furens, act. ii. So Apuleius, "Siculi trilingues Stygiam Proserpinam," Metamorph. lib. ix. So Statius, "Nec si tergeminum Sicula de virgine carmen Affluat," Sylv. lib. ii. 1. v. 9. 2 Pausan. Corinthiaca, cap. xxxvi. 3 Bacchylides, ap. Schol. in Hesiod. Theogon. v. 911. 4 Και ὡς Φενεαταις μηνυσασι Δημητρι το χοριον, δι ̓ οὗ ἡ καθοδος (ην δε τι χασμα εν Κυλινῃ), κ. τ. λ. Conon, Διηγ. xv. 5 Εως ὁ παλαμναιος, και αποστατης, και πλανος διαβολος, τουτον εξεκύλισεν της οικείας ίδρυσεως τε και στάσεως, και κατα του πρανούς ειασε φέρεσθαι, και προς βαραθρώδεις τινας και αλαμπους χορους, και μεχρι των αμειδητων του ᾅδου κευθμώνων εγγίζοντο. Suidas in Αδαμ.—How beautifully does this accord with the words of Minutius Felix, that Proserpine was carried by Pluto through thick woods, and over a length of sea, and brought into a cavern, the residence of the dead! |