a

a

were intended to be general. I stated, however, two or three particular illustrations of my design. By then we were enabled to arrive at an easy method of remembering the duration of the metadiouds, the date of Apollonius Tyaneus, and the difference of the expressions, pollicem premo, and pollicem verto. I purpose to continue these particular instances, and am confident that many, who now read without benefit, would by a little attention stay the swift flight of knowlege; fix in the mind those fluttering facts which wander there in confusion; and, by giving them a local habitation, enable themselves to say of them in the words of Ulysses:

Οδ', ου γαρ άκρας καρδίας έψαυσέ μου. After premising that no order is to be expected in the position of the following facts, I proceed to particularise a fourth memorial association. It was not until a few weeks since that I discovered that I had from time to time read and forgotten the Glyconic and the Pherecratic measures. I determined to invent some mode by which these metres should not elude my memory hereafter. 4. I fixed the Glyconic by this Glyconic of Horace: “Urit me Glyceræ nitor. 5. The Pherecratic by a line of the same writer in this metre: • Insignemque pharetra.' And thus by a little exertion I succeeded in imprinting on my mind two points of knowlege, which no care or attention had hitherto been able to secure.

6. In Valpy's Grammar, p. 12, we are told, that “a contraction of two syllables into one, without a change of letters, is called Synæresis :' and that, if there is a change of vowels, it is called Crasis.' How shall we reinember this ? For the difference does not seem suggested by the derivation of the words. In Synæresis, a and e are contracted into one vowel, the word remaining the same.

This is a sufficient distinction. 7. • The penultima of comparatives in w, is long in the Attic, short in the Ionic and Doric dialects. Valpy's Grammar, p. 153. Consider a word like xardioves at the end of an lambic line in the dialogue of Euripides.

8. The Choriambic foot consists of one long, followed by two short, and one long. By an inversion we obtain bicchoramb. Though, it must be confessed, this may be better known from the choreus, and the iamb. Some grammars, we have observed, state the choriamb, but omit the choreus, which is synonymous with the trochee.

9. The Ionic a majore we obtain from the word mājārībūs. The Ionic a minore is w--, the reverse of the former.

10. The Proceleusmatic I remember by repeating its two first syllables, which are Latin words: procě prově.

6

11. The Dochmiac by prefixing its two last syllables : mžācdöchmiāc.'

12. The first of the Pæonic feet is -vw. Pæonia, a district of Macedonia, is so marked. The second places the long syllable in the second place; and so the third, and the fourth, in the corresponding places. The measure of the Epitrite feet is precisely the reverse of this. Thus, the third Pæon is wu: the third Epitrite is --v-.

19. 'Etúbavto is an instance of the Antispastic. The termination avta, the same number of syllables in these words, and the

αντο, past tense of the Greek word, cannot fail to bring this to the memory.—Téruko is an instance of the Amphibrachys: but the derivation of the word, meaning a short syllable on either side, takes away the necessity of any artificial association. The Amphimacer is easily remembered for the same reason. It bad been well for science, had all words been formed thus conveniently for the purposes of the memory.

14. The Bacchic is uno Now Iacchus and Bacchus are used for the same person. The term Iacchic will fix in the mind the measure of this foot.

15. The Pyrrhic may be remembered by the word Túpi.

16. The Molossus is marked like the united words whos and σύς: μώλοσσυς.

17. «Latius patet ομόφυλος quam ομοεθνος,” says Sclaweigliouser ad Polyb. 1. 10. The former is more full than the latter.

18. In distinguishing the accentuation of words in tixtw, spépu, &c. Dr. Valpy (Gr. Gr. p. 168.) writes: 'Acorpódos, he who feeds the people: ... daótpocos, he who is fed by the people.' Who can forget this part of an hexameter: λα | οτρόφος | he who is fed by thě people.

19. Of the two Plinys the elder was the naturalist. We often hear of natu maximus, seldom of natu minimus.'

20. Cohors' was larger than 'manipulus.' Think of a mere handful.

21. Cicero reckons three Jupiters. The termination of · Jupiter' may establish the fact in the memory.

22. ‘Attici dicunt silmus, tions, ribnot,' says Dawes. 'AB i va will make this easy.

23. Ζήσοιτε, and μάλλον αν εσοίμην are solecisms. The oι in these words and in goroixionós will make this plain.

24. We readily know, and never mistake the quantity of aditus, obitus; why should we perpetually besitate in that of coitus and abitus ?

25. Tgóxos is, cursus : tpoxòs, rota. That is cursus, which has the acute.

6

6

26. “ Epovdúkois: quidam omovdúkois, minus Attice.” Porson ad Phæn. 1428. That is, some spoil it by writing 070-ydúxois.

27. Monk says, ad Hippol. 37, that aivéw has for its future aivýow in Homer, aivéow in the Tragics. This is easily remembered : as aivéteis cannot be admitted into Homer's verse.

28. The quantity of firepòs will be easily remembered, from the circumstance, that, were it a pyrrhic, no controversy would exist as to the pronunciation of omicron.'

29. The Alcaic stanza may be learnt from that stanza in Horace: Non, si priores Mæonius tenet | Sedes Homerus, Pindarica latent, Ceæque et Alcæi minaces, / Stesichorique graves Camcenæ,' Nor will the stanza, beginning with 'Sappho puellis,'&c. interfere with this, on the ground, that that stanza might with equal propriety be called a Sapphic, and therefore deceive us; since that

passage

must be considered as ambiguous; as it contains the name of Alcæus as well as of Sappho : " Alcæe, plectro,' &c.

30. ''Avredálet' edd. Mss. Quod dedi, (sc, đuterá Gur") est e Schol. Altera forma utuntur Attici, ut Orest. 446. sed hanc præferunt.' Porson ad Med. 1213. The passage in the Orestes is this : 'Αλλ' αντιλάζου και πόνων εν τω μέρει. Here it is manifest that årtinácuoo would not have suited the metre. Hence we may remember the distinction, by imagining that aytiXáturo would have been introduced into the passage in preference, had it been metrically correct.

I shall bring this number to a conclusion by a few general observations. The utility of this science, if we may dignify the system by so high and venerable a title, is sufficiently demonstrated by the custom of the earliest ages, still existing, and per- : haps gaining ground in our day, of softening the difficulties of committing ethical and sacred maxims to the memory, by the sweet numbers of the muse. The “Apepo Exéms, Helenam

" '' propter,' and other metrical rules, may not be distinguished

a

6

It is singular, however, that the author of Lilly's Grammar has con. trived to leave a difficulty, which is perfectly uncalled-for and unnecessary. In such lines or parts of lines as “ Callis, caulis, follis, collis,'° Et vermis, vectis, postis, ° Mos, filos, ros, et Tros, mus, dens, mons, pons, simul et fons,' Rus, thus, jus, crus, pus,' &c. how could it have escaped the writer not to place words of similar termination in alphabetical order, as 'Crus, jus, pus, rus, thus,' • Flos, mos, ... dens, fons, mons, simul et pons'? 'Collis similarly should precede follis, and is besides easily remembered when following 'caulis.' This irregularity has been avoided in Valpy's Metrical Rules; which have been copied in Grant's Institutes of Latin Grammar.

6

6

indeed for the harmony or softness of the poetry: but the confinement of certain necessary parts of knowlege within the limits of versification is of course intended for facilitating their remembrance. The very earliest knowlege we acquire in this country is impressed on the memory by the same means : for who is ungrateful enough not to acknowlege himself indebted for some of the earliest points of his information to the metrical sing-song of Thirty days hath September,' and The Ram, the Bull, the heavenly Twins'? The very common remembrance of the appearance of the 'Rutupina ostrea’ for sale in our shops, by the fact that they are in season in the months which have the letter r, is founded on the principle of facilitating knowlege. It may be objected, that there is but little dignity in this method: but utility is preferable to illiterate dignity; and knowlege, acquired by this mode, is decidedly preferable to ignorance without it. The acquisition of knowlege, gained by whatever means, will always shed a lustre on the meanest individual; and every objection to our plan may easily be refuted by the very common truth : Vita brevis, ars longa.

S. Y.

a

CLASSICAL CRITICISM. On the Origin of the Adverbs Alio, Aliquo, Eo, Eodem,

Illo, Quo, Quocunque, Quolibet, Quonam, Quopiam, Quoquo, Quoquam, Utro, Utroque.

These, and perhaps a few more adverbs which end in the letter o, and involve as a common conception the point where a body that has been in motion stops, or a metaphorical meaning strictly analogous, have perplexed and embarrassed every grammarian that has hitherto directed his thoughts to the history of their origin. Some maintain that they are obsolete datives of the several pronouns to which they are allied; others regard them as ablatives; one critic of note asserts that they may be either datives or ablatives, according to the relation in which they stand to the rest of that particular sentence in which they happen to occur; and others contend that they are accusatives plural. From this difference of opinion among the learned it may be lawfully inferred, that the derivations which they have

given were distinctly felt to accord imperfectly with the meaning of the words themselves, and that the termination alone deterred them from adopting others more appropriate and intelligible. Facciolati in his account of Eo and Eodem evidently follows the general opinion that they are ablatives, whilst Gesner, less decided, views Quo as being in certain of its significations closely allied to a dative, and as having in others a more striking affinity to the ablative. Neither case, however, seems at all fitted to

1 Eo, lù, colà, ablativus pronominis Is, Id, adverbii more adhibitus et multa significans. Primo enim est illuc, in eum locum, &c.

Eodem, là in quel medesimo luogo, ablativus pronominis Idem adverbii more usurpatum, et significat in eundem locum. Facciol. sub Vocc. Eo et Eodem.

Quo adverbialiter cum ponitur interdum ex ablativo ortum videtur, ut cum adjunctos sibi habet comparativos, magis, minus, &c. (Quo when construed with the comparative is no adverb, but a true ablative of the pronoun, and ought on no account to be confounded with the adverb of place, which has led to these remarks.) Interdum ex dativo secundæ declinationis, cum explicari potest per ad quid, vel cui rei. Forte ad dativum sunt qui referant, cum est adverbium loci, ad quem vel in quem itur. Gesn. Thes. sub voc. Quo.

Perizonius in his notes upon Sanctii Minerva, pag. 489. ed. 1714. Amstel., professes to entertain no doubt whatever that Quo is the dative of Qui. Quin et in dativo, says the learned critic, a Qui dixerunt olim Quoi, quod frequens apud Plautum et Lucretium, et sine i Quo. Nam sine dubio dativus est Quo in hisce, Quo tendis ? Quo cum pervenissent, apud Liv. i. 57. Quo secures attulisti ? apud Petron. p. 38. Martis vero signum quo mihi pacis auctori ? Cic. Fam. 7. 23. In prioribus intelligitur loco, in posterioribus usui vel negotio, per cujus ellipseos notionem refertur id ad omne genus et numerum. Notwithstanding the author's sine dubio, nothing more is necessary than to answer any one of the questions which he has put to demonstrate that Quo is no dative. Take, for instance, the first, Quo tendis ? Would a Roman answer to this, Venusia tendo; or Puteolis tendo? Neither Cicero nor Pliny sanction any such construction. Horace indeed gives Carthagini nuntios mittam; but Carthagini seems in this passage to signify the people, not the place, for Carthaginiensibus civibus meis, as we say misit mihi literas.

Sanctius maintains that these adverbs are accusatives plural; thus Quo tendis ? ad quæ tendis ? vel quæ ad ? vel quæ usque ? quasi sit ad quæ loca usque ? Nam mihi sunt accusativi plurales, ut, quousque, i. e. ad quæ. Id. pp. 525,526. atque ibi Perizon. The author of the Port-Royal Grammar, and Ruddiman, seem to concur in opinion with Sanctius; of these, however, the latter is obviously in extreme doubt whether to refer them to the dative singular or the accusative plural. Quo (quod vulgo pro adverbio accipiunt) antiquus dativus esse videtur. Potest etiam dici quo pro neutro plurali quæ esse positum per ellipsin præpositionis ad. Again, Sic eo et illo (quæ vulgo adverbiis accensentur) antiqui accusativi fuerint, pro ad ea vel illa negotia, loca, &c. Nisi malis ad dativum sing, hæc referre. Gram. Maj.

Vol. i. p. 203. New Method, &c. Eng. Transl, 1758.

. Book 6. Sect. 2. Ch. 1. 5. p. 94. Vol. ii.