nis; 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 Cæsar, Bentley's Horace, the editions 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;12 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, Æsculapi; c. 59, acerbissuma; c. 60, ornatissumi. Book v.: c. 7, coici; c. 8, suscensere; c. 25, huncine, sescenos; c. 27, maritumos, marume, 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; c. 56, maritumos; c. 55, contentionis (meaning contionis); c. 60, ultuma; c. 61, lacrumis; c. 72, caelo; which last, by the way, is almost without exception 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 (= pæniteret,) intellegas, adulescentem; Ep. 9, benivolo, adulescentia, cupientis, benivolentiam, talis, qualis, (et "sic semper in hujusmodi vocibus,") existumes, intellego, (" et sic semper.)"

13 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, benivolentiæque, 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, pænitebit; 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, quas id 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, pœniteret; 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,13 as Bentley, Wunder, &c.

As regards sonitum, G. F. may be right, but he does not seem right in saying that legitimate analogy would give sonatum. For the verb sonere is of an older standing in the language than sonare. 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 něca to juva, in 549, are denominative verbs, in other words, secondary verbs formed from nouns, (see ?742). Thus the perfects and supines in vi, itum, 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."1-True;

13 As regards Wagner, I should add that I have taken his LAST text, viz. that in his FIFTH volume.

14 Buttmann, in his largest grammar,

says, (p. 31,) Prosody, according to the modern use of the word, includes only the teaching the quantity of syllables.

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.

"Vis."—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.

"Ursi."-I ought to have inserted. But I think not tursi. "Verbs defective in compounds,"-p. 115.-True, but this is perhaps in a great measure balanced by the more than usual attention paid to the sense of prepositions in composition with verbs in the Syntax. See 2 1306, especially e; 1332, 1347, 1367, 1376, &c.

"Sections in gender defective.”—It is quite true that the first part of the grammar was written on a different scale from the atter parts, but at the same time I hold, that our grammars are wrong in troubling themselves with minute exceptions, especially in the case of words of rare occurrence, and unimportant from their very meaning. They seem to me to belong rather to the dictionary. The grammar should deal only with classes and analogies.

"Static verbs."-The use of their tenses differ so widely in all languages from those of active verbs, (i. e. verbs of action,) that I thought it useful to mark the difference by a different name. For example, I believe that no static verb has a perfect or aorist tense; and for the very reason, that the static verb is already a perfect in the so-called present. All the verbs of feeling I include under this head, and I hold, that in the early language, they were none of them followed by an accusative of the thing, but took the construction of the so-called impersonals, like our own methinks, and the German, es hungert mich, es freuet mich. It was necessary to my explanation of the nom. and acc. case with a verb, to make the distinction between active and static verbs well marked.

"An assertion is limited and explained by qui and the subj." pp. 118, 119. I used the word limitation, because I thought the added clause really limited the verb peccare. "I erred in that I did so and so, not that I was altogether wrong." Take, for example, Me cæcum qui hæc ante non viderim, not blind in all things, but blind in not seeing this. I added the word explanation in the very sense in which G. F. uses the words "statement of a reason."

ABL. of quality, versus GENITIVE of quality, pp. 117, 118. -I think it must be admitted, that the abl. of quality is almost without exception used of permanent qualities. I therefore thought myself compelled to put this fact forward prominently. At the same time, I was very glad to find the example of a temporary use in the passage quoted from Cicero, because I be

lieved, that in the early state of things, the distinction between the use of the ablative and of the genitive in the sense of quality, turned upon this very point. The ablative is well adapted to denote an accidental and temporary state of things, depending upon the place in which one is, and the circumstances of the moment; while the genitive denoting the origin, is well fitted to signify that which is permanent, that which is inherited from the beginning. Unfortunately, the distinctions which belong to the first formation of language often disappear with time. I was therefore afraid to put forward in the grammar that of which there was left so slight a trace in the language, that I did not feel I could with safety rely upon it even for my own views, much less for others. Again, I feel convinced that nearly all adjectives have grown out of the use of the genitive of substantives. This also was a part of higher grammar, which I thought it prudent not to put forward even in a note. Still, I do not agree with G. F., that a writer of grammar has only to deal with the existing language. An investigation into the older state of things is often essential to the understanding of what is more recent. Again, I wished to put some things into the grammar beyond what a pupil's immediate wants required, to stimulate him to subsequent investigations when his mind became more developed. I may add, that for the same reason I was more profuse in such matters in the latter parts of the grammar than in the first pages. It was for this I omitted at the beginning the explanation of many little matters of novelty in the grammar, for instance, the order I have given to the vowels and liquids, for which of course I had my reasons. But enough.

"Negare," etymology of.-I ought to have added, that I fully admit the connection between aio and yes, or rather yea. Indeed, I have noticed in the metres of Plautus and Terence, that this word aio seems to have been pronounced with some initial consonant. For example, quid ais seems to occupy the place of an accentual trochee, so that the quid should be long by position, and I am in fact in the habit of reading the phrase (to myself) as quid-yais. We too have our words where a y is pronounced, but not written, as union, &c. I also believe that negare is formed from the negative nec or nay, but I doubt the point of its being a compound of aio. If it is, it must be on the principle I have alluded to in g 1404.

Lastly, I may add, that I purpose to abridge from the fuller