Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]

'IBuxcide, quibus indicativus more subjunctivi flectebatur, e Rheginorum dialecto, quam Homerici perinde ac Sinicam vel Japonicam intellexissent, arcessenda sunt; neque viro præstantissimo EI AE KE et EI KE in EI AE CE et EI TE commutanti obsequendum :' alterum enim nusquam in Homericis occurrit: alterum semel tantum; ubi l'E, restituto F, locum sponte cedit : είγε μεν ειδείης, scribendum EI MEN FEIΔEIHΣ.3 ΓΕ, apud poetam, vel επανορθωτικών vel επαναληπτικών vel βεβαιωτικόν est in vocem proxime antecedentem ; neque ulla ratione copulis KAI, TE, 4E, &c., subjungi potest, nisi cum pronominibus vel adverbiis affixæ sint; ut in TOTE, '04E, 'ENO AAE, &c. Eandem ob causam nulli usquam aut pronomini relativo, aut adverbio loci vel temporis indefiniti et incerti, ut NOTE, "OTE, 11001, I1ODEN, &c., subjungitur; sed iis tantum, quæ locum vel tempus aliquod certum ac definitum indicant; ut 'EN AAE, KEIDI, KEIXE, ΤΟΤΕ, ΝΥΝ, ΕΤΙ, ΕΠΕΙΤΑ, ΠΡΙΝ, ΠΑΡΟΣ, &c.

Usum hunc particulæ justum, subtilem, et discretum, neque poetæ, neque historici postea unquam observarunt; neque critici vel grammatici Alexandrini intellexisse videntur ; magnumque est exemplum modestiæ, fidei, et religionis, qua veteres carmina Homerica tractaverint, eos fulcrum tam commodum metro, e detrimento digammatis claudicanti et hianti, non sæpius inculcasse. Rectè intellecta et accepta vim mirabilem sæpe habet in exprimenda et augenda vehementia loquentis in orationibus incitatioribus ; cujus insigne exemplum est Iliad. E. 287–8. Usus ejus štavannutixos constans ac solennis est in utroque carmine ; ut in attap öye, Il. B. 667. T. 328. E. 308. 327. 585. 2.474. 8. 268, 1. 205. K. 154. 1. 461. 483. N. 164. 399. 0. 479. 523. 630. P. 108. Ø. 367. 550. ¥. 42. 896. 12. 50. 189. Od. r. 173. I. 536. K. 264. 11. 41. 2. 397. T. 140. X. 116. 482.-in apívys, II. T. 430. E. 219. 288. Z. 465. 1. 488. 651. M. 172. 437. N. 105. 0. 557. 11. 209. P. 504. £. 75. 135. 189. 190. 334. 0.578. X. 266. ¥.45. Od. A. 211. 8. 128. 347. 4. 255. 477. H. 196. M. 187. N. 114. 322. 336. P. 9. 2. 288. ¥. 43. 138.σύ ye,

Il. E. 350. 429. 827. P. 483. &c. Od. 1. 412. N. 239. 0.326. 11. 150. 194. &c. &c.: quem usum

cum Alexandrini neque satis intellectum haberent, neque hiatu omnino offenderentur, particulam e multis locis, ut inutilem et redundantem, extruserunt ;4 quibus omnibus, ex aliis paribus, a nobis restituenda erit: ut Il. A. 333. B. 105. 107. 348. C. 379. Z. 81. 123.

1 Iliad. ¥. 526. Odyss. Z. 282. 2 Odyss. E. 206

3 ÖYTLYĆ ya semel dictum est Odyss. T. 511. sed totum episo rioris fætus est.

4 Vide schol. Ven, in Il, N. 399,

rhapsodi se

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

9. 271. D. 403. 1.787. N. 172. 0. 247. 11. 322. 840. $. 33. 340. X. 156. 1.387.-Od. H. 230. P. 105. £. 401. T. 1. 51. 1. 1.: utcunque enim lubricum et periculosum sit fulcrum tami commodum pro arbitrio adhibere, tutè tamen e locis paribus, vi ejus et ratione satis intellecta, transferre et reponere licet.

CL. Haud minus emendaturientibus commoda et opportuna est copula poetica 14E ; atque magis etiam cavenda : quo enim jure in Homericis stet, in ambiguo est; quoniam nusquam occurrit, nisi ubi KAI vel H4E, e quo factum esse videtur, locum ejus sine injuria occupare potuerit : ita ut e posterorum licentia poeticà profectum, et a dactylorum captatoribus insertum esse, suspicari liceat. Si pro comperto haberem ex HAE contractum esse, sine alia xißenasýuatos nota, haud cunctanter ejicerem. Cæterum particularum, copularum, articulorum, et pronominum usus in Homericis, a seriore totus diversus, testimonium satis amplum et idoneum affert, carmina sinceriora, quam vulgo creditur, ad nos venisse.

CLI. In Dorum veterum lingua usus subjunctivi perinde atque optativi cum AI vel EI sine KE vel AN, solennis fuit; eo tamen discrimine, ut subjunctivus potentialem, optativus desiderativam significationem habeat.' Indicativum item haud aliter quam in Homericis, eos particulis AI KA vel e xe subdedisse, intemeratis tabularum Heracliensium exemplis planè constat ; neque solutiorem hunc modorum usum grammaticæ nondum perfectæ, cum Heyneo, tribuere ausim ; quoniam in eo nihil sentire queam quod grammaticæ universalis rationi et indoli adversetur': modụs enim loquendi propriè subjunctivus est, qui actionem non tam dubiami vel incertam, quam priori alicui, de qua pendet, subjunctam vel subjungendam exprimit; ita ut verbum antecedens, potius quam particula aliqua, eum præfinire debuerit ; quod in Latinis evenit. Futurum tamen tantum indicativi pro subjunctivo Homericus sermo agnoscit ; loojev enim éveípoulev, &c. futura sunt Ionica, scribenda FH4OMEN, 'ACHPOMEN, &c., pro FEAROMEN, 'AreP20MEN, &c.; eliso sibilo, et producta vocali antecedente ; neque hærendum est in Iliad. A. 67. ubi pro Botaetae esse debuerat BOTAHT', amputata syllaba finali, more Homerico, de quo vide infra S. clxiv. Latini autem, vice versa, præsens subjunctivi pro futuro indicativi in verbis omnibus tertiæ et quartæ conjugationis adoptarunt, paullatim exolescentibus formis futuri naturalibus; quarum nihilominus exempla extant, inter Terentianas etiam elegantias, SCIBO, SERVIBO, &c., pro recentioribus SCIAM; SERVIAM, &c., quæ e præsenti subjunctivi translata sive re

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

ducta sunt.

! Vide fæd. Lacedæmon. et Argiv, apud Thucyd. v. 77 et 79.

CLII. Cum in suscepto opere restituendæ Homericæ linguæ, complurium verborum formæ haud paullo immutandæ erunt, plus ad rem arbitratus sum ea verba in ordine recensere, atque rationes, quas in singulis immutandis, sequutus sim, singulis subjungere, quam crebris · repetitionibus earundem observationum in annotationibus, lectorem pariter ac me ipsum defatigare. In his autem, si a viris summis Bentleio, Heyneo, &c. haud raro dissentiam, ne mihi obsit eorum nomen et auctoritas ; at judicium suum integrum ac sincerum lector unusquisque adhibeat, etiam atque etiam precor. In re tam obscura, quotus quisque criticorum non sæpe et egtegiè hallucinatus 'est ? neque me communi sorti exemptum esse speravi : at dummodo critici non rabulæ more in alienos errores animadvertam, parem indulgentiam in meos me poscere æquum est. Ob multos libro de hac re Anglicè scripto piacularem esse profiteor : attamen cum pari jure gloriari liceat, plura conjecturis assecutum esse, quæ, viris criticis tunc fastidita, veterum monumentorum fide nunc comprobata sunt, verecundiæ simul ac modestiæ consultum iri putavi, si neutra sigillatim retractarem aut perscrutarer curiosius quam opus esset ut vera elucerent, falsa proderentur: nam hoc saltem, salva modestia, gloriari licet, veritatem non victoriam in omni disputatione, tam critica quam philosophica, animo me meo finem unice propositum habuisse, neque ullam unquam præsumptam opinionem tanto amore amplexum esse, ut non, meliora edoctus, sponte ac libenter repudiarem. De re etymologica multa atque ingeniosa protulit Daniel Lennep, sed omnia e suo ipsius aut magistrorum Tiberii Hemsterhuisii et Ludovici Cašpari Valkenærii ingeniis deprompta, omni veterum inscriptionum et dialectorum auctoritate neglecta, neque ulla ratione habita vel sermonis vel 'metri Homerici ; e quibus solis leges ac normas in regulis suis generalibus stabiliendis accersere et accipere debuerat. Ipsæ itaque regulæ, perinde atque omnia ex iis deducta, harum rerum studiosis maximè præcavendæ sunt; neque ullo modo auscultandum docenti, “ AMNOE Latinè AGNUS ex AMENOX participio verbi AMA formatum esse; quod A MENOS et AMNOE is propriè diceretur, sensu medio, qui complecteretur et amplecteretur; vel, sensu passivo, quem amplecteretur alius, sive, qui amaretur, quod tenerrimo agno non incongruum no

Hisce et talibus gaudeant ii quibus argutiæ e longinquo petitæ in deliciis sint; nobis autem, quo minus doctrinæ tam reconditæ et exquisitæ insit, eo etiam minus sensu communi sic carere licet; ita ut non aliunde AMNOS et AGNUS quam ex A privativo cum ΜΕΝΟΣ et ΓΟΝΟΣ deducenda videantur-ΑΜΕΝΟΣ et AΓΟΝΟΣ, contracta in AΜΝΟΣ et ΑΓΝΟΣ. Νeque aliter in

[ocr errors]

men.

· Etymolog. Vol. I. p. 132.

aliis, obvia et simplicia abstrusis et eruditis omnino præferenda erunt. Quam vero sit periculosum in via tam lubrica et distorta cæcutientes errare, nugæ hujusmodi, quas viri tanti tam cumulate congesserunt, satis superque demonstrant. Ut enim concedamus verba primitiva quamplurima periisse, quis tamen discreverit, quæ fuerint deperditorum formæ, nisi quorum fragmina aut reliquiæ in dialectis aut monumentis antiquis supersint? Atque si e conjecturis analogicis primitiva pro libitu supponamus, ut exinde derivata et vulgata ad normam qualemcunque refingamus et constituamus, qua denique ratione evitabimus errores, qui e falsis principiis sponte pullulant, et quibus etymologica Lenneppiana haud minus quam antiquiora ubique scatere fatendum est. Audacter tamen progrediamur quatenus veterum dialectorum auctoritas, monumentorum fides, et justa metri ac sermonis ratio viam osten, dant; at non ulterius.

REMARKS OY LONGINUS.

To The EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL. On reading over some remarks of an anonymous correspondent of yours, on Longinus (Classical Journal, vi. p. 340.) I am induced to trouble

you

with some observations on the 1st passage commented on.

Speaking of the emulation excited by prizes awarded at the public games of old, he says, εκάστοτε τα ψυχικά προτερήματα των ρητόρων μελετώμενα ακονάται, και οίον εκτρίβεται, κ. τ. λ. Your Core respondent thinks the author uses “ two distinct metaphors, the first taken from a whet-stone, the second from a fire-stone." p. 342. But he might have considered that the word éxtpißopass by no means conveys the idea of sudden collision necessary to extract a spark from the flint or “ firestone” by steel; but rather a continued rubbing, or friction. Ruhnken justly observes, in a passage quoted by the author, that the allusion was borrowed from Plato, Polit. iv. and nearly in the same words; which metaphor was likewise copied by Philo, with the addition of the name of the instrument (Tupeñor), by means of which, fire was generated by friction : tpißortes ... xxlánep ex nupciwy. v. 1. p. 683. An unfor. tunate scholiast, on a passage in Lucian's Ver. Hist. 1. tà nupsia συντρίψαντες, και ανακαύσαντες (sc. πυρ:) says, τα πυρεία, τους πυρεκβοaitas vidous, from whence came the idea of the fire-stone." There is, however, a quotation from Apoll. Rhodius, where the action of

exciting fire by the πυρείον is more distinctly noted, Τοι δ' άμφι πυρήϊα δινεύεσκον, where the term αμφιδινεύω expresses the rotatory motion made use of; and here the scholiast is not satisfactory in describing the instrument; as he says, te aufhör TaŪTA A gootgiβόμενα αλλήλοις, προς το πύρ εγγενών: though evidently the one part of the instrument is stationary; and in the latter part of this passage I suspect a corruption in the text. It is thus continued : ών το μέν έστιν ύπτιον, ο καλείται στορεύς. Two parts are evidently implied, which is the fact respecting this instrument, and one only has a name given it; and, as the word Otopeùs, from otopeów, sterno, must mean the same as és xupa, which will be presently described, it cannot be applied to ÚttooV, the upper or superior part. I would read το μέν έστι τρύπανον (ν. infr.) ο δε στoρεύς.

This instrument, which we may aptly call a wooden tinder-box, is, however, minutely described by an ancient author,' whose works are seldom perused.' In his 4th book, nepà Cútwv, c. 9. he says it consisted of two parts: the first called to xuga, the term used by the Greeks, for the hearth-place of a chimney, and very appropriate to its nature. It is described as a flat piece of dry timber, with a circular excavation in the centre: the second was called Tpútavov, analogous to the instrument called the Terebra. The mode of exciting a flame, was by a brisk circulation of the spútavov in the cavity of the co xapdi, which-was furnished with dry leaves, or something easily taking fire, (hence it might likewise have the name of oTogeús). Theophrastus seems to have studied the nature of this instrument; for he,

says, it is proper to have the distinct parts of wood of different quality; the one soft and porous, the other closegrained and hard : and, as the former is more susceptible of ignition, he calls them, ξύλα θερμά. He hence seems to think the effect is produced from innate, or latent heat, and not from friction ; and he instances an effect produced on the edge of instruments by soft wood : viz. dubnúvel thy Bádru riêngov, from whence we may infer, that the process of steeling, by « immersion,” (Bátn) in cold water, was not unknown to the ancients. I believe the fact is incontro-' vertible, that soft woods blunt the edges of tools more than hard

The wood of the Kótivos, or wild olive, from its great hardness, was generally used for the spútavov, and that of the Aadrñ, or bay tree, for the foxapa, l. 5. c. 8, 9. I will not detain your readers with many other curious particulars respecting the qualities of woods to be met with in the same valuable author; whose

pages have lately occupied a great deal of my attention.

J.S.

ones.

Theophrastus.

« PreviousContinue »