« PreviousContinue »
26. "Σpovdúhois: quidam crovdúλois, minus Attice." Porson ad Phoen. 1428. That is, some spoil it by writing σro-ydúλ015.
27. Monk says, ad Hippol. 37, that aivéw has for its future aivýow in Homer, aivéow in the Tragics. This is easily remembered: as aivéσeis cannot be admitted into Homer's verse.
28. The quantity of xpòs 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 Alcai minaces, Stesichorique graves Camoen.' 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. Avreλάler' edd. Mss. Quod dedi, (sc. avreλágur) est e Schol. Altera forma utuntur Attici, ut Orest. 446. sed hand præferunt.' Porson ad Med. 1213. The passage in the Orestes is this : ̓Αλλ ̓ ἀντιλάζου καὶ πόνων ἐν τῷ μέρες. Here it is manifest that άvriλávσo would not have suited the metre. Hence we may remember the distinction, by imagining that άvTAάuro 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 perhaps 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 "App' 'Exéns, Helenam Ελένης, propter,' and other metrical rules, may not be distinguished
'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, flos, 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.
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.
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, là, 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.
convey the idea of motion terminated at the point which these adverbs describe, a conception which in Latin it seems the province of the accusative alone to express. Our object in the following remarks, accordingly, is to prove by such evidence as the case will admit, that these words were originally the accusatives of their respective roots. This opinion is not only countenanced by the meaning of the several words, but derives powerful additional support from such forms of construction as the following: Quo tu te agis? Quonam, nisi domum? Plaut. Trin. 4. 3. 71. Quo te, Mori, pedes? an, quo via ducit, in urbem? Virg. Ecl. ix. 1. i. e. an in urbem, quem in locum via ducit? Quonam hæc omnia, nisi ad suam perniciem pertinere? Cæs. B. Civ. i. 9. i. e. ad quidnam, nisi ad, &c.
At a period in the history of the Latin language contemporaneous with that in which we may suppose these words to have assumed their adverbial character, the elision of the final m occurs so frequently as to afford us, without violating any known principle whatever, at least a plausible solution of the difficulty. The rejection of this letter in verse, when it is the terminating consonant before a word which begins with a vowel, and the well-known fact, that in the oldest inscriptions its absence as a final letter is almost universal, furnish rational grounds for believing that these adverbs may without any obvious impropriety be referred to the accusative case singular. At an early period, of which, however, distinct traces still remain, this case in words of the second declension, as the roots of all those adverbs manifestly are, terminated uniformly not in um, but in om or o. The extant proofs of this peculiarity are too numerous and too well authenticated to leave any room for imputing it to accident or the engraver's oversight. It is to this antiquated form of the - accusative then, and not to datives or ablatives singular, nor to accusatives plural, that we think the language indebted for such words as Quo, Eo, Eodem, &c.; and the ellipsis may, we conceive, in perfect accordance with existing constructions, and the actual meaning of the abbreviated or adverbial form, be thus supplied; Quom (in locom): Eom (in locom): Eomdem (in locom): &c.
It seems not improbable that the Romans imparted somewhat of a nasal enunciation to their m and n; and that it is from them that such of the continental languages as are the immediate descendants of the Latin have derived this marked peculiarity of utterance. Hence the Omnis of the Romans slides with facility into the Ogni of the modern Italians, and hence the ancient writers, as is remarked by Columna on Ennii Frag. Hesselii,
p. 182. used advenies for adveniens, abses for absens, &c. It seems probable then that in ordinary conversation the pronunciation of the soft final m was scarcely perceptible, and in some words the existence of the letter was at last forgotten. But when the language became an object of more general study, when, in consequence of the progressive improvement of the people at large, it became more cultivated and refined, and its grammatical principles were more perfectly understood, its sounds were uttered with greater clearness and precision, and the indistinctness of the unlettered age which had passed away was succeeded by that fulness of articulation which every polished people is ambitious to employ. In a writing and a reading age, besides, the eye and the ear exert themselves conjunctly to se cure for each letter a distinct utterance; in the ages of ruder antiquity, when written documents are far from being familiar even to the best informed, the ear alone, whose decisions yield in accuracy to those of the eye, is the only guide to whose counsel and direction it is permitted to resort. Hence there seem to be grounds for concluding, that in an early state of society those letters that are uttered with a soft and somewhat inaudible sound are frequently lost, and, even when the introduction of writing begins to give stability to the external forms of the language, are not always resumed, though their absence is sometimes indicated by such marks as have been invented to announce an incomplete orthography. When, however, the superior cultivation of the people has rendered the perfection of their language an object of care and attention, the anomalies which originate in conversation gradually disappear, and the more full and perfect forms of the language are, partially at least, restored. It need not then surprise us much to observe the occurrence of words in the earliest remaining monuments of the Latin language deprived of certain essential letters, which in its more advanced state again resume their proper place; nor on the other hand ought it to be held wonderful, if, in many cases, letters that at one time formed primary constituents in the structure of certain words, when they were once dropped, were ever afterwards forgotten and neglected. Now if, agreeably to these doctrines, it can be shown, either from any peculiarity in the pronunciation of the final m in the most improved state of the language, or from the monuments and inscriptions of earlier times, that it was not sounded or but feebly articulated, and that in inscriptions it was of so little consequence as to be often entirely disregarded, we are certainly warranted to conclude, that no objection can be drawn from the circumstance that Eo, Quo,