صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

shew that the view I have put forward is one of more than twenty years' conviction. I first stated my opinion in print in the Journal of Education, I. p. 107; see Dr. Schmitz's Translation of Zumpt, 8vo, p. 300, note;—so much to shew that it is not a hasty view. I further quote Suetonius's remark on Karthagine in Virgil (and on Tibure in Horace,) to shew that in olden times there were at least those who disagreed from the now received view. Ramshorn, it is true, quotes Babylone” and Lacedaemone” from Cicero, but he also quotes Tiburi from the letters to Atticus. Zumpt admits the use of Karthagini (p. 302, middle ;) observe, too, the use of Abydo, Corintho, “at Abydos, Corinth,” as admitted in the same page. Note also, that in the epitome of Livy's 28th book, all the reported MSS. have Karthagini, and with it novae, and also all the editions down to the time of Sigonius, who made the alteration upon CoNJECTURE. The phrase of Drakenborch's note, siquidem (if at least) non est hic casus tertius, shews that he had a scruple about the alteration, and oddly enough, by a typographical error, his text appears to share the scruple, having novae in p. 147, nova in p. 148. Again, in such phrases of apposition, as Antiochiae, celebri quondam urbe, there is surely some difficulty in conceiving a GENITIVE and ablative in apposition; but little in having a DATIVE and ablative in that relation, seeing we are agreed that this ablative was a dative in origin. In the phrase hic viciniae of Terence, Zumpt seems unwilling to admit that vicinia is a genitive; and I think, with reason, considering the Plautian phrase procumab vicinia. I contend that viciniae is a dative; and more than that, viz. that hie also is a dative, and agrees with vicinia “in this neighbourhood,” according to the principle put forward in a 1150 of my Grammar. Huc viciniae in the first scene of the Andria, is only a conjectural reading. I have much doubt too, whether I am right in the explanation of the construction of interea loci, 3 923, for there is very strong reason for believing that inteream (the old form, in my view, of intered,) contains in eam a dative rather than an accusative : and thus loci also may be a dative. But this, I fear, will be deemed by G. F. becoming ec insano insanior. r P. 117.-“Clumsy expedients.”—I prefer truth, even when it appears more clumsy, to ill-founded ingenuity; and in fact in the long run, I believe we shall find truth the simpler in philology as in morality. But there is a matter involved in this passage of the review, which it may be useful to speak about. When a suffix is added to a root, certain changes for facility of pronunciation often take place, which changes depend solely upon the letters brought into juxtaposition, without any reference to the part of speech to which it belongs. Thus the suffix to of the perf. participle, and the suffix turo of the future participle, can scarcely be connected in meaning or origin, although they happen to begin both with t. Still, when added to the root em, “take” or “buy,” we in both cases get a p inserted, emptus and empturus. I object to the process commonly followed in our grammars, of deriving the future part. from the perfect. In the same way in Greek, I deny that spapua is formed from the perfect of the passive Yéspappa, because words are never derived from perfect tenses,” except of course other perfect tenses, much less from the first person of a tense. But at the same time I fully admit that the addition of the suffix par to spap for a noun, is accompanied by the same letter-changes in the root as when the suffix pal for the first person of the passive is added to sepap. Orthography.—I have omitted noticing a few words objected to in p. 111. Sescenti—I believe G. F. could not find a SINGLE M.S. of any repute, of any Augustan author, which did not give this orthography; see Virgil, AEn. x. 172, Wagner on Heyne; see also Mon. Ancyr. v. 20; sescentas (and, by the way, the same inscription passim for deciens, viciens, &c. tris, curulis, pluris (acc.,) &c. For pluvit, I have given my authority in the Gr.; and the advantage of distinguishing the perfect from the present is obvious. Lastly, as regards the orthography of Wunder for Cicero, I will confirm it by a few extracts from Madvig's appendix to his letter to J. C. Orelli:” I. acc. pl. in is : c. 7, pluris; c. 9, infamis, immunis; c. 19, absentis; c. 24, testis, compluris; c. 27, omnis; c. 28, auris; c. 42, testis; c. 43, civis; c. 60, Thespiensis. Book V. c. 10, omnis; c. 25, compluris, omnis; c. 40, omnis, omnis, gravis, testis ; c. 43, testis, sapientis; c. 44, omnis; c. 47, civis; c. 51, omnis; c. 56, crudelis, venalis, navis; c. 57, civis, incolumis; c. 59, civis, c. 60, civis, civis, omnis. See also Oudendorp's Caesar, Bentley's Horace, the edi- . tions of Sallust, &c.; and, further, let it be recollected that in many passages the pupil is thus prevented from confounding a nominative with an accusative; nor is this compensated by the disadvantage of confounding an acc. pl. with any case of the singular, because the context will, for the most part, readily decide the question of the number. II. neglegere; c. 26, neglegens; c. 38, neglegantur; c. 50, neglegere; c. 51, neglegere, neglegentes; c. 64, intellegere. III. viciens, &c.: c. 26, quotienscumque. Book v. : c. 8, quotienscunque; c. 15, totiens. IV. The use of o after u or v : c. 43, convolsis, perparvola; c. 42, ignavos; c. 46, volnera; c. 49, volt; c. 51, volneris; c. 71, volnos (sic) V. Various orthographies: c. 1, improbissuma;” c. 2, optuma; c. 7, existumare; c. 15, deicere; c. 17, obicio (with these words added by M.: hoc deinceps notare neglexi,) c. 36, adulescentem (with these words added, et sic deinceps); c. 37, lubenter; c. 42, Mercuri (gen.); c. 57, AEsculapi; c. 59, acerbissuma; c. 60, ornatissumi. Book V. : c. 7, coici; c. 8, suscensere; c. 25, huncine, sescenos; c. 27, maritumos, maicume, maritumis, maritumi; c. 31, luxuriem, Cleomeni (gen.); c. 35, turpissumi; c. 36, maxuma; c. 41, quinto decumo; c. 46, Sexti; c. 46, lacrumarum, acerbissumus; c. 49, lacrumis; c. 51, acerrume; c. 52, maritumarum; c. 54, acerrume; c. 55, coiciebatur; e. 56, maritumos; c. 55, contentionis (meaning contionis); c. 60, ultuma; c. 61, lacrumis; c. 72, caelo; which last, by the way, is almost without erception spelt with an a in MSS., and the best foreign editions. My Orelli's Cicero is not at home, so that I cannot turn to it. But I happen to have some time ago extracted from it some of the chief readings (as regards orthography) of the MEDICEAN M.S. of the letters ad Fam. Orelli, vol. III. p. 2, ad fin. Ep. 1, tris, familiaris, idem (= iidem); Ep. 7, litteras, (et sic semper,) quotiens, Alexandream, neglegendo praeniteret (= paeniteret.) intellegas, adulescentem; Ep. 9, benivolo, adulescentia, cupientis, benivolentiam, talis, qualis, (et “sic semper in hujusmodi vocibus,”) existumes, intellego, (“et sie semper.)”

* The first time I have access to a good M.S. of these passages, I will test the matter.

* I am aware that Buttmann derives the subject, for the Philological Society Jurjasaar algogáegates, &c. from the of London. aorist inf. azal, hurai. But I wholly * The various readings of the Codex dissent from his view, and have just Regius of Paris for the two last books sent a paper to press which deals with of the Verrine orations. Madvig is of | most accurate habit.

* It is true that superl, in imo also occur in this M.S.

Lib. II. 1, opsecrare optestarique, (“sic semper in hujusmodi vocibus”); Ep. 6, benivolentiaeque, benivolentia, (“et sic semper”); Ep. 8, idem (= iidem); Ep. 9, obicitur ; Ep. 12, epistulas; Ep. 15, secuntur (= sequuntur); Ep. 17, dest (= deest); Ep. 19, optigisse. Book III. Ep. 10, Sulla; Ep. 11, afuturus. Lib. IV. Ep. 3, afui ; Ep. 5, quotiens, aliquotiens; Ep. 11, optumo. Lib. v. Ep. 1, paenitebit ; Ep. 2, imminutast (= imminuta est); Ep. 2, appellandast, quotienscumque; Ep. 6, quotienscumque, (“et sic semper”); Ep. 10, quattuor, (“et sic postea"); Ep. 12, celerrume, desse, vementius, = vehementius, (“et sic semper”); 15, quasid est (= quasi dest); 20, quom. Lib. VI. Ep. 14. vitiumst; 19, intumorum; 22, desse. Lib. VII. 1, consecutast, nullast; 3, visast; 9, desse, dest ; 11, rettuleris; 18, contione; 29, quantist; 30, sublatast, (sic fere semper”). Lib. VIII. 1, quoius ; 2, quovis for quoivis = cuivis; 8, quoiquam, coicerentur, istoc (= istuc); 9, istoc (= istuc); 14, quoius, satis pati (= satis spati); 15, illi (= illic, adv.); 16, quoius; 17, quoius. Lib. IX. 5, paniteret; 9, rusus, (sic et antea et postea); 11, hoc (= huc); 21, hoc (= huc) ter in una epistola, &c., &c. I repeat then, that so far from introducing archaic forms in place of those which Cicero used, I have scrupulously adhered to what I believe, on tolerably good grounds, to have been the actual orthography of the Roman orator; and I have also generally adhered to that orthography in other writers which has been sanctioned by the best editors,” as Bentley, Wunder, &c. As regards somitum, G. F. may be right, but he does not seem right in saying that legitimate analogy would give somatum. For the verb sonère is of an older standing in the language than sonáre. I have omitted to observe in the Grammar, what I believe to be certainly true, that sonare (from sub. sono,.) plicare (from sub. plica,) and perhaps all those from meca to jura, in 3549, are denominative verbs, in other words, secondary verbs formed from nouns, (see # 742). Thus the perfects and supines in vi; stum, without an a, belong to the old verbs of the third conjugation, those with an a to the secondary verbs. P. 119.-" Systematic prosody altogether omitted.”—True;

* As regards Wagner, I should add says, (p. 31,) Prosody, according to the that I have taken his last text, viz. modern use of the word, includes only that in his fifth volume. the teaching the quantity of syllables. * Buttmann, in his largest grammar,

but on the other hand, the quantity being marked through all the declensions conjugations and derivations, &c., the knowledge is before the pupil in one way, and I think in the best way, as I explained some years back in the Journal of Education, in a review of Carey's Prosody. I think much harm is done by those vague rules in our grammars, which begin with telling us that e final is long or short, &c., and which bring together words no way connected, at the same time that all principle is thrown out of view. The metres, it is true, might have been given. But I was afraid of making the book too large and too expensive, and further, of delaying its long promised publication. Moreover, if the metres of Terence and Plautus be included, as I should wish, there will be plenty of room for a separate treatise. “Eis, termination of acc. pl. not recognized,”—p. 111.—This was chiefly an oversight, but one of little moment, because our MSS. rarely if ever give it, notwithstanding the disposition of the editors of Lucretius to put it forward. And even in the best inscriptions it is not commonly found, for I hold the Duilian Inscription (as many others do) not to be the genuine article, but a rifacimento after the first had been worn away. Still I regret that I did not mention the orthography. “Wis.”—I readily admit the authority of the Dial. de Orat., which I have no doubt was written by Tacitus. The point seems to me to be quite established by the evidence to be found in Boetticher's book. But as regards this word, I have made an error, which I should wish to correct, The crude form is vis, not vi, and hence the r in the plural vires. I have given reasons for this new view in an article now printing for the Philological Transactions, “Proinde.”—I have been this morning reading a very careful edition of Ulpian by Böcking, where the readings of the Codex Vaticanus are minutely given, and nearly always adopted. Thus, in tit. II. : 5 and 6, the old editions had perinde, but he, following the MSS., has inserted proinde. The cause of the common error of substituting perinde is seen in the slight difference of the manuscript abbreviations for pro and per. I forget whether I observed that proinde ut, (or atque,) is supported by the use of pro eo ut and prout. On the other hand,

I cannot trace in perinde any meaning that it could naturally derive from per.

« السابقةمتابعة »