« EdellinenJatka »
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 thuset (ait scil.) ne eos quidem dubitare, qui spe victoriæ 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. II. 9. prope fin. Quare mun. dum ratione uti putemus, nec cur animantem quidem ? Ernesti pro neg 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.l. necessarium sit, quia est i. q. et ne quidem : miror nonnullos eruditos tò nec quidem ubique pro perperam dicto habere, et ubique ne quidem legi velle: occurrit tamen nec quidem Virg. Georg. I. 126, et 990. 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, VOL. VIL NO. XIII.
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. Lipsiæ, 1784, Vol. I. p. 64. : again in p. 204.: “ Huc pertinent duæ particulæ 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 sò legere tanquam levius negatur, ut inde sò scribere, tanquam gra. vius, eo tutius negari possit : sed supra jam diximus tò 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 dici. tur Tu ne partem quidem rei accipies, nedum rem ipsam, at male Tu ne accipies quidem partem etc. vel í'u ne rei quidem accipies partem, etc.: recte dicitur Hichomo 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 Pau. peres 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 li. brum ne commodare quiden 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 particulæ iste locus tribuatur, sensum orationis, atque adeo gravitatem sæpe perire : not. At ne quidem conjunctim reperiuntut Cic. Att. II, 16 extr. Illud ne quidem contemnam, Édit. Era.”,
“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 Ætna gravius dicant sustinere, on which we are favored with the following remarks: “The expression, onus gravius Ætna, 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 Ætna 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,
Alta jacet vasti super ora Typhöcus Ætne,
Cujus anhelatis ignibus ardet humus. Fast. 4. 491.
Ejectat, fammamque fero vomit ore Typhæus. Met. 5. 552.
Fumantem premit Iapetum, flammasque rebelli
Sil. Ital. 12. 150. Homer and Virgil apply, the former, súvàs, 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 Scholasticæ Eruditionis under the word Ætna : “ Ætna, et Athones montes molestissima et gravissima proverbialiter dicuntur onera, unde et Cicero in Cat. Maj. c. 2. Senectutem onus Ætna gravius dixit. v. Chil. de Catanæis fratribus, qui ex Ætna 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 Lingua Latina) has anticipated my hypothesis, (Pereant, qui ante nos nostra dixerunt !) for he says:
Ætnam ei Athonem montes, in molestiæ tædiique proverbium
abiisse indicat versus Lucilii apud Gell. 16. 9. [the whole passage
Verum hæc ludu' ibi susyue omniu deque fuerunt:
Aly:a.74 montes, Lince omnes, usperi sthones) ; nempe
Degrarut Etna cnput, sub que resupinus arenas
Ljestui, flammamque jero comit ore Typhaus, Ovid. Met. 5. 352: Vid. mox Alta : unde et Cic. de Senect. 4. Onus Ætna gravius sus. tinere.” It is sufficient for me to be able to produce such respectable authority as that of M. Gesner, to which even the Reviewer will probably yield, to support the opinion, which I have advanced: yet the Reviewer rejects such an obvious and natural interpretation, without having himself given to us any other interpretation in these terms “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,” adds the Reviewer, “ one thing at least is certain, that the Poets do not represent them as bearing Ætna on their shoul. ders.” The mythological inaccuracy (an inaccuracy which I readily confess, and which had indeed been previously discovered by myself) about the position of the Giants, ought not to have destroyed, in the opinion of the Reviewer, the probability of my hypothesis ; for Gesner gives the same hypothesis without committing the same mistake. But the Reviewer is also wrong, when he says that “the verb sustinere has of itself no reference to any part of the body, which supports, more than another ;” for Gesner most justly observes, “ Sustinere, tenere subeundo præsertim, et subjiciendo humeros;" and Cicero generally applies the word with a reference, either expressed, or implied, to the shoulder in his metaphorical use of it: thus Orat. pro
Flacc. De summa reip. taceo, quam vos universam in hoc judicio vestris humeris, vestris inquam humeris, judices, sustinetis, Pro. Mil. 29 c. 9. Negotium totun gubernare, et suis humeris sustinere : so too we have in Tacitus Hist. 4. 51. 4. Sustinentium humeri. In my opinion there can be little doubt that Cicero took this phrase,as Muretus Var. Lectt. L. VII. c. 15. p. 158. Ed. Ruhnken. Lug. Bat. 1789. observes, from Euripides, whe in the Hercules Farens has these lines,
α νεότας και φίλων"
επί κρασί κείται.
will explain to him: the meaning of the term certainly is, though it will scarcely apply to the particular verb poenitet, that this class of verbs does not admit of personal nominatives, and undergoes no terminational inflexion.” I beg leave to inform the Reviewer that I do “ comprehend precisely what is meant by the grammatical term impersonal,” but I am prepared to contend that this class of verbs” do “admit personal nominatives,” and do “ undergo terminational in.
flexion.” The Reviewer himself admits the fact with respect to pænilet, and I will lay before him the following most sensible, and most important remark of an excellent Scholar: “Licet, verbum impersonale, a grammaticis putatur, quorum hæc est regula, Impersonalia tantum in tertia persona singulari conjunguntur: a qua immune esse nostrum licet, auctor est Seneca, qui plurativam formam licent, Controv. L. 4. c. 25. Quædam quæ licent, tempore et laco niutato non licent : huc accedit illud Catulli Carm. 62.
Scimus hæc tibi, que licent
Ista non caulem licent : simile nostrum est judicium de verbis miseret, tædet, piget, pudet, decet, libet, &c., quæ quidem nec personalia omnino sunt, secus licet sentiente Sanctio L. I. c. 1. p. m. 266. et 267. nec impersonalia, quia semper vel nominativum, vel verbum infinitum, vel totam orationem habent pro supposito, sed meo judicio defectivis annumerandi: cf. Valer. Flacc. L. 11. de Vulcano, Lucret. L. 3. v. 895. Enn. apud Nonium c. 7. Gell. L. I. c. 2. Senec. L. I. de Ira, Plaut. Trinumm, A. I. Sc. Il v. 64. Pseud. A. L. Sc. 3. v. 17. et Casin. A. v. Sc. II. v. 3. Terent. Adelph. A. iv. Sc. 7. v. 36. Cic. 1. Offic. Virg. 4 Æn. v. 597. Martial. in Spectaculis de leone occiso, Senec. in Troadibus v. 336. Suet. Cæs. c. 20, &c." C. Fabsteri Supplementum Ling. Lat., sive Observationes ad Ler. Fabro-Cellarianum, Flensburgi, 1717. The Reviewer doubtlessly imagines that expedit in the sense of utile est, is what he calls an impersonal, because, forsooth, Lexicographers, and Grammarians say so; but Plautus shall determine the point : he says in the Trin. 2, 1, 10. Omnium primum amoris artes eloquar, quem admodum expediant : again in the Amphit. 1, 3, 23. Nequiter pene expedivit prima parasitatio, where we have this Note in Gronovius's Plautus, Lug. Bat. 1661. p. 29.: “Douza expedivit interpretatur expedita est, i. e. peracta est, ut et Meursius, qui nequiter expedivit interpretatur, parum utilis fuit prima parasilatio, qualia illa sunt, male sanus, male suadus :" Forcellinus, however, says in the Lex. tot. Latin. that some critics read here expetivit, but it is
expedient that they should give to us an explanation of their erotic expetivit. The Reviewer will not venture to assert that evenit, and accidit are impersonals; for they do “ admit of personal nominatives," and do “ undergo terminational inflexion.”—It is well observed in the Minervu of Sanctius, L. I. c. 12. p. 101. Ed. Baver, Lipsiæ, 1793. : “ Tantụm monerem tirones, impersonaliu dici, non quod nullius sint personæ verbalis, sed quod videantur sine supposito, seu nominativo, in quo ipsa inest persona, consistere ; tum quod in multis duas priores personas, seu personales terminationes, vix recipiat usus, quia vis