tity being different, partly because of the difference of meaning. For the desire to eat, and the being about to eat, are far from being the same ideas; but by leaving the matter as I have done, I have decided nothing against the proposed view. I limit myself to an indisputable fact that the suffix is turi; but what that suffix may be, is left an open question.

P. 117.-"Discors from dis and corda, 'a string,' of a diffirent note;" "The old opinion is more probable." I can readily attach a meaning to concors, derived from cor, the heart; but scarcely so to discors, upon the same theory. In English, at any rate, concord and discord have so much of the musical idea about them, that they rather support my view; compare, also, Ov. Metam. I. 518, concordant carmina nervis; and Horace, Ars Poetica 374, Symphonia discors. I make no claim for secors or vecors, which clearly belong to cor, cordis. I am not in the slightest degree moved by Cicero's authority, (who believed in the derivation of concors and discors from cor, Tusc. Disp. 1. 9,) because I know his utter inability to understand the etymology of his own tongue. On the other hand, I set much value on the consideration that the Romans, like the Greeks, used very freely metaphors of a musical nature; compare the words, discrepare, absurdus, &c.

P. 118.-" Senatus Cm. et Mm. hostes judicavit-Illis hostibus judicatis."-G. F. is wrong in assuming that I should admit hostes to be in apposition to Catilinam et Manlium. The genuine construction of this sentence from Sallust, I hold to be identical with that of Marcium regem creavit, viz. the people created Marcius, that is, put him into the position of a king. The notion of judicare is not unlike that of creare, for he who holds another to be a king, makes him a king, so far as he himself is concerned. The man is a king to him, as we say. Now applying this view to the idea intended to be expressed in Illis judicatis hostibus, my opinion is, that it would have been more logical if the Romans had had the courage to say Illis hostes judicatis. But from this more reasonable construction (more reasonable, in my view of the matter,) they were drawn away by what I have called the principle of attraction. I leave others to judge whether my view be right; but such at any rate is my view. I suppose G. F. has not passed over the German construction mentioned in the note to ? 896, sie wählen ihn zUM Führer, they chose him (TO) the leader.

P. 119.-" Propius, proxime, are given, 830, along with prope, in the list of prepositions, while they are said, in 908, to be adverbs.”—There is no contradiction in this, for they are sometimes one, sometimes the other, like our own three particles, nigh, near, next; which, by the way, also stand to each other in the relation of positive, comparative, and superlative adjectives.

P. 119.-" Coram, clam, palam, excluded from prepositions in ? 830 and 831, are classed as such in ? 914, note."-Here again there is no contradiction. They are used sometimes as adverbs, occasionally as prepositions. Besides, G. F. has passed over 833 of the first part, where I have actually said that they are "rather adverbs than prepositions;" which means merely that they are used more frequently in the first sense than the second. In fact, I put them into the note on 914 for the sake of the rhyme.

P. 119.-"Hand's Tursellinus."-This writer is very apt to draw distinctions utterly imaginary, and so to overwhelm the language with what appears to me to be worse than useless. I never yet saw a passage where proinde had more than one of two meanings, viz. at once then; the pro seeming to denote forward, and the inde then; or, secondly, for pro eo, with an ut, or some equivalent word, considering that, according as, in proportion as, &c.; see ? 1361, 9. In saying that the MSS. generally have proinde, when our editions have perinde, I used too soft a phrase. I do not, in fact, recollect a single instance of a good MS. of Cicero failing to have proinde. Observe too that inde is never added to any prepositions but those which govern an ablative. Further observe, that expergiscor is a corruption of exporgiscor,so that even if perinde were found, I should hold it to be another orthography for proinde, the legitimate word.

P. 119.-"Even Cicero's Latinity does not escape censure." On consideration, G. F. will see that this involves simply a petitio principii. The question is, Whether Cicero did write it? I believe he did not. Ramshorn's authority in such a question is to be measured by the words flocci, pili, &c. I know his book well, and set the same value upon it that Madvig does. Kühner's I have not access to; but no authority will make me believe that the ei can be omitted. That an antecedent is omitted at times, I have already admitted in the Grammar, 1126, 1127; but the limits I contend for are there given also, which I find agree very nearly with those laid down by Madvig in his

Gr. ( 324 a. and obs.) In the juristical phrase, Ejus pecuniæ, qui volet petitio esto, the original reading I suspect to have been quoi volet, or cui volet, just as the qui before lubet in quilibet takes its case from the other words of the sentence, more than from lubet. It likes me, is an older form in English than I like. P. 116.- Tonitum."-The compound attonitus was probably in my view; fluctum has not been forgotten; see 539 or p. 77 notet. Permulceo was left out by mistake; but the mulserat attributed by Priscian to Ennius seems not to bear the sense of mulcere; and as some deduce it from mulgere, I thought it a very unsafe authority. The word mulsus in Plautus, &c. appears to me to be wholly unconnected with mulceo, and, in fact, to be formed from the subs. mel, "honey," like our own mead. Vietus, G. F. will find was not forgotten; see? 552, or p. 87, note .

I am

P. 117.-"Neglegere, negare."-My view of the former I still retain; and I object to G. F.'s etymology of nego, from ne or nee and aio, because I do not say yes does not mean I deny. fully aware that verbs are formed with the negative prefix. deed, I have a 2761 on the subject.

In

P. 117.-" Terminational."-This word seems to tell me that G. F. does not quite understand what I mean by a suffix. I will merely say that I believe every prefix and suffix to have been originally as distinct a word, and possessed as definite a meaning, as the root syllable itself. It may often be most difficult to ascertain what the meaning is, but this difficulty does not make me doubt for a moment that there was such a meaning. Again, as I believe all roots to be monosyllabic, so also I believe that every suffix was so; and if we stop at a disyllabic, or longer suffix, it is merely because we have no means of dissecting it. But further knowledge will remove these blemishes. For example, were I now writing the Grammar, I should not put down tura as a suffix of nouns, for I believe pictura to be formed directly from the subs. pictor. Again, in such a word as castimonia, one is tempted at first to treat monia as a suffix; but I believe the formation of the word to have been this, that castimonia was the abstract quality of one who is castimōn, an adjective signifying "pure-minded," the syllable mon being the same as the radical syllable of mens. Compare the Greek appwv, soundminded, from a root opav.

P. 113.-" Karthagine versus Karthagini."-I will here first

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 Babylone9 and Lacedæmone 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 nova, 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 nova in p. 147, nova in p. 148. Again, in such phrases of apposition, as Antiochiæ, 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 vicinia of Terence, Zumpt seems unwilling to admit that vicinia is a genitive; and I think, with reason, considering the Plautian phrase proxuma vicinia. I contend that vicinia is a dative; and more than that, viz. that hic also is a dative, and agrees with vicinie "in this neighbourhood," according to the principle put forward in ? 1150 of my Grammar.. Huc vicinia 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, 2923, for there is very strong reason for believing that inteream (the old form, in my view, of interea,) 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 ex insano insanior.

P. 117.-" Clumsy expedients."-I prefer truth, even when it appears more clumsy, to ill-founded ingenuity; and in fact

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

matter.

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 ypáupa is formed from the perfect of the passive réɣpapua, because words are never derived from perfect tenses,10 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 ματ to γραφ for a noun, is accompanied by the same letter-changes in the root as when the suffix μαι for the first person of the passive is added to repay. 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, Æn. 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 :11 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, om

10 I am aware that Buttmann derives δεισιδαίμων μιξοβάρβαρος, &c. from the aorist inf. μιξαι, δεισαι. But I wholly dissent from his view, and have just sent a paper to press which deals with

the subject, for the Philological Society of London.

11 The various readings of the CODEX REGIUS of Paris for the two last books of the Verrine Orations. Madvig is of most accurate habit.