changed? This is a familiar practice in all languages; and it is scarcely possible to look into any vigorous or animated production, without finding instances of it; so that all the pompous display of common-place quotation might have been spared. But can a causal, which influenced Strabo in writing, be now expressed by an indicative present subjoined to the causal "cum ?" If it can, let its defender boldly say so, and produce a single case in point, instead of insidiously courting the suffrage, and misleading the minds of the young and ignorant, by heaping together quotations so wholly inapplicable.

Equally unconscious is the Critic of ever having entertained or expressed a doubt, that, in animated passages of poetry and oratory, the course of expression might be suddenly changed from oblique to direct. Instances of this are so common, that the detail of them might have been left to school-boys. But do they afford any justification of joining nominatives to accusatives, under one verb, by such a connective as "scilicet?" It is admitted, after all this parade of defence, that they do not; and oversight is pleaded in excuse; an oversight of a nominative for an accusative repeated in no less than eight names!

That passages, in which there is neither sense nor grammar, should not be interpreted as their author meant, is no wonder; and will their defender presume to say, that there is either in such sentences as, "Donati sententiam intelligo esse a porta Esquilina versus Labicanam ;" or expect a reader to presume, that, when the substantive, which ought to have followed, was left out, the adjective was meant to be referred to any other than that which immediately preceded? It was wrong, indeed, to look for grammatical construction, where "fidem damus Josepho," and Augustus fidem historiæ dedit," are used to signify, "we believe Josephus," and "Augustus believed the story."

Even such jargon as this is, however, said to be, on the whole, as good as most modern Latin; and better than the Critic, in his attempts to improve it, has written. Let us examine, therefore, the errors and barbarisms with which he is charged, as the grounds of this assertion.

In the first place, he is accused of condemning the construction of "post reges subditos," which is said to be much more elegant than his own. I answer, that he has not condemned the construction of these words, as not being Latin, but the whole sentence, as neither being sense nor Latin. "Post reges subactos” would have been so far both sense and Latin; but would not have signified, what the writer evidently meant to signify, "that Tigranes had himself subdued those kings, and then assumed the title of king of kings." If he assumed it on the occasion, as the Critic meant to express, " appellatus est" is right; but if habitually

afterwards, "appellabatur:" but "appellatur," applied to what has so long ceased, is undoubtedly wrong.

He also asserts, that his use of the tenses in "competisset," « habuisset,” and “occidisset," is strictly proper; and the Examiner's alterations quite inadmissible. In an oblique narration or statement, in the person of one who had long ceased to exist, events co-existent with him are to be expressed in the imperfect, and those preceding him in the pluperfect tense subjunctive; of which almost every oblique speech in Livy will afford examples. For instance-Rem se, ait, magnam inchoasse, ad quam perficiendam ipsius Gracchi opera opus esse. Omnium populorum prætoribus, qui ad Poenum in illo communi Italiæ motu descissent, persuasisse ut redirent in amicitiam Romanorum: quando res quoque Romana, quæ prope exitium pugna Cannensi venisset, in dies melior atque auctior fieret, Annibalis vis senesceret, ac prope ad nihil venisset." xxv. 16. What the Examiner has cited from Cicero is quite inapplicable; as an event is there stated as past, with reference to the writer's own time, and not to the intermediate time of another writer or speaker, who had been quoted; whereas the annotator is citing Strabo and Pausanias, in the same oblique form as the historian is citing Fulvius; and consequently ought to employ tenses equally correlative to the period of their writing, not of his own.

These, however, the Examiner gently calls « faults;" but in the same sentence discovers two "gross barbarisms;" which, from the pomp of accusation with which they are introduced, and the parade of quotation with which they are followed, might be expected to prove as monstrous as any in the English that he writes, or the Latin that he defends.

1

The first is, "primum qui;" the superlative being, according to his rule, to stand alone, or in the same case after the relative pronoun; as in "qui primus." Ancient practice was not, however, quite so strict in this instance, though so much more so in most others. "Ex quo potest probabiliter confici, eum recte primum esse suo judicio, qui omnium cæterorum judicio sit se cundus." Cic. Acad. fragm. incert. "Est enim primum, quod cernitur in universi generis humani societate; ejus autem vinculum," &c. id. Off. i. 16. "In quibus hoc primum est, quo miror," &c. id. de fin. 1. " Polemoni ea prima visa sunt, quæ paulo ante dixi." ib. ii. 11. It were easy to produce fifty other examples; but two sentences of a passage, in which the two modes of expression stand correlative to each other, will show their respective uses; "Si illud vere connectitur que quod est in connexo- –necessarium est," &c. "Si igitur quod primum in connexo est, necessarium est," &c. id. de Fato. 7. Let us add also two others from Virgil, in which the distinction is observed with equal accuracy:

primum

Trojæ qui primus ab oris. Æn. i. 1.
cadit ipse Tolumnius augur,

Primus, in adversos, qui telum torserat hostes. Æn. xii. 460. The reader may perhaps have heard of a Professor of rhetoricqui toties Ciceronem Allobroga dixit; but probably never either read or heard of a Professor of Poetry passing a similar sentence upon Virgil; and to prevent any thing so disgraceful, let us shortly state the principle of distinction in these two modes of construction. Where the predicate in a statement or proposition is the priority of a person or thing, the emphasis will be on the superlative; and consequently the first mode will be proper: but, where such priority is merely incidental, the second. Even in this last case, however, should any circumstance require an emphasis on the superlative, it will stand first in the order of collocation, though not of construction." puerum, primus Priamo qui foret post illa natus, temperaret tollere." apud Cic. de Div. i. 21.

All the genealogical, chronological, and mythological disquisitions of the Roman writers being lost, it is not probable that many occasions should remain for the first, as applicable to per sons. The Examiner, indeed, says that there are more than twenty in Cicero's book "De Claris Oratoribus ;" in all which he avoids it, and employs "primus," "qui primus," or the adverb "primo." This assertion is of a character, Cui non invenit ipsa Nomen, et a nullo posuit natura metallo. There is only one occasion for it in the whole book, and there he does employ it. "Quem vero extet, et de quo sit memoriæ proditum, eloquentem fuisse, et ita habitum esse, primus est M. C. Cethegus." c. 15. The order of collocation is indeed here inverted, to compress and adapt it to the succeeding member of the period; but the order of construction is the same-primus est, quem eloquentem fuisse, et ita habitum esse, extet, &c.

The same distinct usage, guided by the same analogy, prevails in other superlatives. "Dignissimus, qui et patrem Corvinum habuisset," &c. Paterc. ii. 112. "Quod indignissimum," &c. Cic. de Inv. i. 53. Illud homini longe optimum esse, quod ipsum sit optandum per se." id de fin. i. 20. "Quod optimum sit quæritur." de o. g. Or. 1. Nay, the principle applies itself to positives also, both adjective and substantive; " omnes qui," and "qui omnes ;""locus qui," and "qui locus," being respectively employed by the same rule; and it is only by such general views of the principles of construction, that the student can acquire that kind of knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages, which may render them really useful to him, by making them the means of substituting the permanent analogy of universal grammar to the fluctuating caprice of vulgar usage in his own.

The other "gross barbarism," of which the Critic stands accused, is, "eundem, qui ;"" idem," it seems, according to another article

in the Examiner's code, being only to be used with a relative pronoun, to signify, figuratively, contingent identity, or continuity of quality or character-never physical identity of person or substance; so that, though "idem qui fuit" be Latin, "idem qui fecit" is barbarous.

Let us,

Instances, however, of the violation of this modern law, are so abundant in all the best ancient writers, that it is insulting the learning of the reader to quote them, though by a strange oversight they have been omitted by the Lexicographers, whose ponderous folios, he duly informs us, have been searched without success. therefore, select a few instances by way of supplement, in most of which the expression is so far from signifying moral identity merely, that it signifies physical in opposition to moral. " Quid enim tam repugnans, quam eundem dicere qui dicat?" Cic. de fin. iv. 28. "Neglige, inquit, dolorem. Quis hoc dicit? idem qui dolorem summum malum: vix satis constanter." id. Tusc. ii. 19. "Idem facillime destruit, qui construxit." id. de senect. 20. "Quis eum nuntium miserit? nonne perspicuum est, eundem, qui Ameriam ?" id. pro Rosc. Amer. 37. "Cum idem possit judicare qui dixerit." de leg. Agr. ad pop. 15. "Iidem, qui hæc appetunt, queri nonnunquam solent," &c. ib. 17. But to multiply quotations is only to waste paper, it being the constant mode of expression, when the pronoun is used emphatically, as in the note; so that to call it a gross barbarism, is a blunder surpassing all that pride ingrafted on ignorance has hitherto committed. Here is, however, one other instance from the same authority, and that of the identical verb which he cites as an illustrative specimen of such barbarism." Iidem bustum in foro facerent, qui illam insepultam sepulturam effecerant."

Phil. i. 2.

It were easy here to retort the charges of falsehood, misrepresentation, malice, &c.; but the accused will be so far charitable to him as to allow the busy pride of ignorance to account for all; leaving the candid reader to decide, who shows most of such ignorance, he, who, in the irksome labor of exposing a long series of the grossest errors, made one hasty objection to the application of the single epithet" majorem," or, he who thus deliberately tries and condemns, as gross barbarisms, expressions sanctioned alike by general analogy, and the authority of the best writers of the best ages of Latinity.

To follow him any further, may, perhaps, seem superfluous; but, nevertheless, having gone so far, the Critic will shortly meet his other objections.

"Persona," whatever he may think of it, is repeatedly used by Cicero for natural, as well as assumed, character, and even as we use the word "person." Hujus Staleni persona, populo jam nota atque perspecta, ab nulla turpi suspicione abhorrebat."

pro A. Cluent. 29. "Tibi certe confitendum est, causam perniciosissimi belli in persona tua constitisse." Phil. ii. 22. see also Off. 1. 28. 30. 34. de Inv. i. 16. & 24. ad Att. viii. 11. & ix. 11. Sub persona is likewise used, exactly as he has used it, by Paterculus, i. 3.

"Straboni" is an error of the press, for "a Strabone:" but "potuerit," subjoined as it is to a causal member in the sentence, is an elegance." Non habet defensionem: qua sublata, omnis quoque controversia sublata sit." Cic. de Inv. i. 13. "Publicatæ enim pudicitiæ nulla venia: non forma, non ætate, non opibus maritum invenerit." Tac. de. M. G. 19.

"

"Competo" is the proper verb- Villa situs competit.' Colum. ix. 5.; and the form of expression, " haud diutius," "no longer," with which it is used, common in the best writers, and one which Cicero has used more frequently perhaps than any other; how bald soever it might appear to this critic, who could not find it in his Nizolius. «Tui te diutius non ferent;"" thine own people will no longer bear thee." Phil. ii. 44. "Diutius non morabor;" "I will delay no longer." pro A. Cluent. 60. "Nec diutius vixit quam locuta est;"" she lived no longer than she spoke." ib. 10. But to multiply instances is to insult the reader, there being no less than five directly in point in this single oration for Cluentius. We say directly in point, though not joined to the same verb; since, if such adverbs as "diutius," "potius," "melius," &c. are not to be joined to a verb by the analogy of sense, without specific authority, all modern Latin must be a mere repetition of ancient thoughts, as well as words; for new combinations of ideas will require new combinations of expression in dead, as well as in living, languages. But if the words be sanctioned by use, and their connexion by analogy, the result will be that which distinguishes the scholar from the pedant; and a learned man of taste, parts, and discernment, from the mechanic drudge of memory. In the small remains of authoritative Latin extant, not amounting altogether to so much as the lost works of Livy and Varro, many cases in particular nouns, as well as persons in particular moods and tenses of particular verbs, are not to be found, merely because there happens to have been no occasion for them; which, nevertheless, the scholar, who would express his meaning clearly, must use, when there is occasion for them. Such, among many others, is the third case of the word "situs," over which the Examiner so loudly triumphs, and to this triumph he is

welcome.

But there is, it seems, a gross fabrication, in applying " in his" to what went immediately before in the note, and not to a passage in the text above. Could it be applied otherwise on any principle of sense or grammar? and is there any fabrication but of the accuser? If the accused has erred, it has been in supposing grammatical connexion in such compositions.