Irish are descended from Celtic ancestors; but that Germans, Belgians, Saxons, and Scandinavians, from Gothic or Teutonic, all of which have been included by Zosimus and others under the term Scythian, which at best is but indefinite. This writer quotes Strabo, who informs us, that although "the old Greek authors gave all the northern nations the common name of Scythians, or CeltoScythians, yet that writers still more ancient divided all the nations, who lived beyond the Euxine, the Danube, and the Adriatic Sea, into the Hyperboreans, the Sauromatæ, and Arimaspians, as they did those beyond the Caspian sea into the Sacæ and the Massagetæ. These Sacæ and Massagetæ might possibly be the ancestors of the Saxons and Goths, as these last are fully proved to have been the Geta of the ancients." And indeed this distinction may clearly be proved from the modern tongues of the respective people, and on this head the testimony of Cæsar is conclusive: "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres : quarum unam incolunt Belgæ, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum linguâ Celta, nostrâ Galli appellantur. HI OMNES LINGUA, INSTITUTIS, LEGIBUS INTER SE DIFFERUNT;" and in another place he says, " Plerosque Belgas esse ortos à Germaniâ, Rhenumque antiquitus transductos, propter loci fertilitatem ibi consedisse; Gallosque, qui ea loca incolerent, expulisse." St. John's Coll. Cambridge, D. G. WAIT. Mr. Barker's Reply' to the Strictures of the SCOTTISH REVIEW on his Edition of CICERO'S TWO TRACTS. Is the 7th No. of the Scottish Review (lately termed Edinburgh Quarterly) is an elaborate critique on my Edition of Cicero's Two Tracts. The hypothesis about the origin of ne quidem, in the sense of not even, has been assailed by the Writer: I shall give his own words in the order in which they occur, and subjoin to each sentence 1 Perhaps it may be useful to give here an index of the critical matter introduced into this Reply. 1. Ne quidem the same as nec quidem in the opinion of Priscian, and of Basil Faber; neque never used for ne quidem, with Remarks upon a Passage of Columella, and Strictures upon M. Gesner and Forcellinus; nec used for ne quidem by the ellipse of quidem; nec before quidem resolvable into et ne quidem, when it begins the sentence, in which it occurs; ne quidem never used without the intervention of some word, except in one passage; Onus Ætna gravius, the opinions of Basil Faber and M. Gesner upon the origin of the proverb; Etne et Athones montes used proverbially; Cicero took the proverb from Euripides Herc. Fur.; sustinere properly used with a reference to the shoulder ; pænitet, licet, miseret, tædet, piget, pudet, decet, libet, expedit, evenit, accidit, tonat, such remarks, as I have to make upon them." Priscian is understood by Gesner to intimate 16 p. 1028, that ne in ne quidem is a corruption of neque, or nec: our Author's opinion, therefore, is not quite so novel, as he seems to think; but whether he, and Priscian be at all right in their conjecture, appears to us extremely doubtful." I must confess that I know not where "Gesner intimates" this, but I cannot find any intimation of it in the Thes. Ling. Lat.: the reference, however, to Priscian, whose words I subjoin, is correct: "Invenitur etiam ne proneque, quæ copulativa est conjunctio; sub una enim abnegatione, copulat res, quomodo et nec, Lucan. in 1. Nec se Roma ferens, Cicero in Iv. Invent. Ne dici quidem opus est, quanta diminutione civium, Terent. in Eun. Non eam, ne nunc quidem, cum accersor ultro, pro neque nunc. Grammaticæ Lat. Auctores antiqui, Opera Heliæ Putchii Hanoviæ, 160 p. 1028: Basil Faber in the Thes. Scholast. Erudit. also says "ne quidem pro ncc quidem, Ne istius quidem laudis sum cu-· pidus, Cic. Pro Rosc. Am. c. 1.," and he then cites other passages. It was not fair in the Reviewer to say that "our Author's opinion, therefore, is not quite so novel, as he seems to think," when my Note begins with the words, "I know not whether Grammarians have ever remarked." To proceed with the Reviewer's words, "Our Author has, indeed, produced one instance in which nec quidem is found, and might easily advance more, but, as nec is a corruption of neque, we are pretty sure that, the latter is never used precisely in the same way as ne quidem :" the Reviewer has overlooked the instance of neque for ne quidem, to which I have, with the authority of Gesner in the Thes. Lat. Ling. referred, and that is, Colum. 3, 21, 7.: I shall now produce the passage itself, Frigora melius quam humores sustinent, humores commodius quam siccitates, nec caloribus tamen contristantur : in the Index to Gesner's Scriptores Rei Rustica, Ed. 2., Lipsiæ, 1774, he observes that nec is here used for ne quidem, but, to speak the truth, the passage is not exactly to the purpose: at the first view of it, nec seems to be used not so much for ne quidem, as for et ne quidem, that is nec quidem, and the solution of the passage is to be found in tamen, which always refers to quamvis, elsi, etc. either expressed, or implied, as I have observed in p. xxIII. of my Work: thus here the full construction is, Nec, si commodius sustineant, etc., tamen contristantur. Forcellimus, in the Lericon totius Latinitatis, says Neque pro ne quidem, Cic. Agrar. 3. c. 2. Caput est legis, de quo ego consulto, Quirites, neque apud vos ante feci mentionem, ne viderer etc., but this passage also is not to the purpose, and Forcellinus has probably made some mistake about it. Gesner in the Thes. Ling. Lat. says, "Nec suspicari, pro ne suspicari quidem, Cic. Acad. 1. 7. Quod bonum quale sit, negat omnino Epicurus, sine voluptatibus sensum moventibus nec suspi not impersonals; stipare, metaphorically applied in the sense of to attend a great personage, with Remarks upon a Passage of Horace; humi, domi, &c. noi adverbs, used elliptically; terræ equivalent to in solo, or in solum, instances produced where the ellipse is supplied; humi not to be derived from xapi: tollere digitum, manum, manus, pugnare ad digitum, tendere manus, manceps, micare, their different meanings illustrated, with Remarks upon their origin. cari. Davis in his Ed. (where it stands in the 2d c.,) is silent about the passage, but Hulsemann in the M. T. Ciceronis Academica, emendata ad optimorum et Exemplarium, et Criticorum Fidem, Nexusque Orationis Auctoritatem, ac Rerum inprimis Ratione habita, illustrata, Magdeburgi, 1806. says, p. 67, "Mox Ern. conjicit vel suspicari." But whether neque, which is clearly to be identified with nec, be ever used for ne quidem, is but of little consequence, as I have produced indisputable instances, where nec itself, by the ellipse of quidem, signifies ne quidem, or not even. As to the last words of the sentence, I say with Bishop Hare, in his Epistola Critica, Vol. II. of his Works, London, 1746, p. 325, Meum quidem non est de tota Latinitate pronunciare; hanc laudem iis relinquo, qui in studiis hisce consenuerunt. The next sentence of the Reviewer is this: "Nec quidem does not act simply as a negative upon that member of the sentence, to which it is joined, as ne quidem does, but at the same time does the duty of a connective betwixt its own member, and that, which immediately precedes: thus in the sentence quoted by our Author from Justin, the expression must be analysed by considering nec as equivalent to et non, for ait must be again supplied from the former part of the sentence, and the words arranged thus-et (ait scil.) ne eos quidem dubitare, qui spe victoria careant, quin sit resistendum impugnantibus: in the same manner, e quibus unum mihi videbar ab ipso Epicuro dictum cognoscere: amicitiam a voluptate non posse divelli, ob eamque rem colendam esse, quod sine ea tuto, et sine metu vivi non posset, nec (ne would not suit here, for the two numbers [members] of the sentence require a connective particle) jucunde quidem posset, Cic. De Fin. 2, 26." I admit, with the Reviewer, that in the passage of Cicero nec quidem is equivalent to and not even, et ne, (not, as the Reviewer says, et non, quidem) but I am prepared to contend that the same explanation is inapplicable to the sentence of Justin from the difference between the two passages in the arrangement of the words: whensoever nec quidem signifies and not even, it must obviously begin the sentence, or the member of the sentence, in which it occurs: in the passage of Cicero nec does begin in the clause, to which it is attached, but in the passage of Justin the collocation is, quin vero sit resistendum oppugnantibus, nec eos quidem dubitare, qui spe victoriæ careant. I shall here give the following important remark of Scheller: "Nat. D. 1. 9. prope fin. Quare mundum ratione uti putemus, nec cur animantem quidem? Ernesti pro nec edidit ne, et, sequens vulgarem sententiam, ait nec quidem non esse bene Latinum male: nec i. e. et non, et ne: cur nec quidem poni non possit, non video, cum tamen h. 1. necessarium sit, quia est i. q. et ne quidem miror nonnullos eruditos rò nec quidem ubique pro perperam dicto habere, et ubique ne quidem legi velle: occurrit tamen nec quidem Virg. Georg. 1. 126, et 390. ed. Heyn.: it. Cic. Senect. 9 in. Nec nunc quidem cet. ex edit. Græv.: sed ed. Ernest. habet ne nunc quidem cet.; et Ernesti quoque supra in loco aliquo Ciceronis, qui meæ memoriæ nunc excidit, edidit nec quidem : ergo et h. 1. tolerari poterat, aut causa adferri debebat, cur improbandum et pro vitioso habendum esset." Obss. in priscos Scriptores quosdam, Lipsiæ, 1785, p. 212. NO. XIIL VOL. VIL. M The concluding sentence of the Reviewer is this: "Our Author seems to think too that ne quidem may be used without the intervention of any word, but this theory is as doubtful as the former; only one instance of it is produced from Cic. Att. 2, 16. extr., and in this even the best critics question the accuracy of the common arrangement: besides, would our Author turn up Scheller's Præcepta Stili bene Latini, a work of the highest merit [and which is more particularly indebted for its celebrity, at least in this country, to the praises, which my illustrious friend, Dr. Parr, has bestowed upon it,] he will find pretty solid arguments in favor of the interposition of the emphatical word betwixt ne and quidem being a universal practice." I shall give Scheller's own words: "Ne, et quidem eleganter a se sejungi nonnulli aiunt; at prisci semper fere sejungunt: causam infra investigabimus: conjuncta tamen hæc duo verba reperiuntur Cic. Att. II. 16. extr." Præcepta Stili bene Latini, 2d Ed. Lipsia, 1784, Vol. I. p. 64. again in p. 204.: "Huc pertinent duæ particule ne quidem, quas sejungendas, et unum vocabulum inter eas ponendum recte vulgo dicunt; at neque cur hæc sejunctio fiat, neque, quodnam vocabulum interponi debeat, addunt: vera causa e præcedentibus intelligi potest; quidem enim hic est illa particula restrictiva, h. e. negat partem, ut eo magis totum negari possit, vel rem exiguam, ut eo magis res major negari queat: v. c. tu ne unum quidem librum, nedum omnes, legisti; hic lectio unius libri negatur, ut eo facilius lectio omnium negari possit: filius tuus ne legere quidem, nedum scribere, potest; hic rò legere tanquam levius negatur, ut inde ò scribere, tanquam gravius, eo tutius negari possit: sed supra jam diximus rò quidem, si sit particula restrictiva, statim subjecto s. rei, ad quam proprie pertinet ista restrictio, subjici debere: ergo et sic in ne quidem: hinc sequitur, ut non verba quælibet enuntiationis talis negativæ, sed tantum id vo. cabulum, ad quod restrictio s. negatio proprie et arctissime pertinet s. in quo accentus est (ut loquimur) interseri debeat: v. c. recte dicitur Tu ne partem quidem rei accipies, nedum rem ipsam, at male Tu ne accipies quidem partem etc. vel Tu ne rei quidem accipies partem, etc.: recte dicitur Hic homo ne legere quidem didicit, nedum scribere; male vero Hic homo ne didicit quidem legere, nedum scribere: recte dicitur Pauperes sæpe ne tantum quidem habent, ut se vestire possint; male vero Pauperes ne habent quidem tantum etc.: recte dicitur Ne vidi quidem virum istum unquam, nedum cum eo collocutus sum; male Ne virum quidem unquam etc., vel Ne unquam quidem virum, etc.: manifeste enim in istis vocabulorum horum partem, legere, tantum, vidi, maxime ratio habetur; notiones hæ proprie, et diserte negantur: hinc nullum voca. bulum est, quod non interseri possit, si quidem in eo accentus est: v. c. Tu ne librum quidem commodare mihi vis, nedum rem majorem, recte, non vero Tu ne commodare quidem librum cet.: at recte Tu librum ne commodare quidem mihi vis, nedum donare, male, Tu ne librum quidem cet.: sic recte Tu ne fratri quidem librum commodare vis, nedum alieno, male Tu ne librum quidem cet.: hinc patet perspicuitatem esse veram causam, cur rò quidem istum locum obtinere debeat, ac, nisi huic particule iste locus tribuatur, sensum orationis, atque adeo gravitatem sæpe perire: not. At ne quidem conjunctim reperiuntur Čic. Att. II. 16 extr. Illud ne quidem contemnam, Edit. Ern.” "The first note, which peculiarly attracted our notice, as containing information, to us at least, entirely new, is the following, on the De Senect. the former of the two Tracts: c. 2. Ut onus se Etna gravius dicant sustinere, on which we are favored with the following remarks: The expression, onus gravius Etna, was, it seems, proverbial among the Greeks, and the Romans: it doubtlessly had its origin from the supposed fact as celebrated by the Poets, that some of the Giants, who were buried beneath Ætna, bore Ætna on their shoulders, as Atlas is supposed to bear the heavens on his shoulders:' Now, we think it a very questionable point indeed, whether this proverb ought at all to be considered as having any reference whatever to the giants: but be this as it will, one thing at least is certain, that the Poets do not represent them as bearing Etna on their shoulders: the verb sustinere has of itself no reference to any part of the body which supports, more than another; its import obviously is, simply, that which sustains is below what it holds up: as up, in English, alludes to the burden, sub in sustineo plainly directs our attention to the bearer. But let us hear the poets on this momentous point; for their authority is admitted by our editor himself to be decisive of the question: we are told by Ovid, the most accurate of the ancient mythologists, Again, Alta jacet vasti super ora Typhöcus Ætne, Fast. 4. 491. Met. 5. S52. Cujus anhelatis ignibus ardet humus. Degrarat Etna caput, sub qua resupinus arenas Ejectat, flammamque fero vomit ore Typhæus. Our author understands the meaning of ora, and resupinus: the giants would have found some difficulty too in vomiting flames, and ashes, and lava, &c. &c. with the mountain upon their shoulders; yet such was the elegant employment assigned them by the Poets, Fumantem premit Iapetum, flammasque rebelli Sil. Ital. 12. 150. Homer and Virgil apply, the former, ves, and, the latter, cubile, to the place where the giants lay; but perhaps Mr. B. may suppose that they were compelled, in aggravation of their punishment, to lie with their faces downwards on these couches." I shall not stop to remark the vagueness and the inaccuracy of the language, in which this stricture is conveyed. There is, as Solomon says, nothing new under the sun: I had flattered myself that my interpretation of the proverb had not been anticipated, but it seems that both myself, and the reviewer, who speaks of the Note, as "containing information, to him at least, entirely new," are mistaken in this respect. Basil Faber says in the Thesaurus Scholastica Eruditionis under the word Etna: “ Ætnæ, et Athones montes molestissima et gravissima proverbialiter dicuntur onera, unde et Cicero in Cat. Maj. c. 2. Senectutem onus Etna gravius dixit. v. Chil. de Catanæis fratribus, qui ex Ætnæ incendio parentes suis humeris extulerunt, vide infra in Catana." I should not be inclined to think that the Reviewer would prefer this interpretation to the one, which I have given. But it is Gesner, who (in the Thesaurus Linguæ Latin) has anticipated my hypothesis, (Pereant, qui ante nos nostra dixerunt !) for he says: Etnam et Athonem montes, in molestia tædiique proverbium |