This day was published, price 2s. sewed, LACKINGTON'S CATALOGUE, PART II. THE SECOND PART of a CATALOGUE of the most EXTENSIVE STOCK of NEW and SECOND-HAND Books on Sale in this Country; containing the Classes, Divinity and Ecclesiastical History; Sermons, Discourses and Lectures; Libri Theologici Miscellanei; Dictionaries, Grammars, Bibliography, and Critical Works in all Languages; Greek and Latin Classics, Translations of the Classics, Historici Antiquitates et Miscellanei, Oriental and Saxon Literature, Coins and Medals, &c. &c. offered to the Public at moderate Prices, by HARDING, MAVOR, & LEPARD,

*

(LACKINGTON's) Finsbury Square, London.

* Libraries, and small Collections of Books, purchased or exchanged, on liberal Terms.

This day is published, price 5s. neatly half-bound,

THE SECOND EDITION OF

CONVERSATIONS ON ENGLISH GRAMMAR; In a Series of Familiar and Entertaining Dialogues between a Mother and her Daughters; in which the various Rules of Grammar are introduced and explained in a manner calculated to excite the attention of Children, and at the same time to convey to their minds a clear and comprehensive idea of the general principles of Language. Adapted to the use of Establishments for Young Ladies, as well as to Private Tuition, and to Preparatory Schools for Young Gentlemen.

By Mrs. WILLIAMS.

Printed for HARDING, MAVOR and LEPARD, Finsbury Sq.

To MASTERS of GRAMMAR SCHOOLS, ACADEMIES, and PRIVATE TEACHERS.

This day is published, and delivered gratis, by HARDING, MAVOR and LEPARD, Finsbury Square,

A CATALOGUE OF DICTIONARIES, GRAMMARS, GREEK AND LATIN CLASSICS, AND OTHER SCHOOL BOOKS, NEWLY ARRANGED;

Together with a selection of the best works, adapted to the Improvement and Recreation of Young Persons, with the Prices

affixed.

A very liberal allowance to Masters of Academies and Teachers.

END OF NO. LIII.

THE

CLASSICAL JOURNAL;

N°. LIV.

JUNE, 1823.

CRITICAL OBSERVATIONS ON SOME LATIN AUTHORS.

YOUR learned correspondent in No. 50. Art. v., after giving Spalding's excellent observations on the difference between non solum, and non modo, and the use of the latter phrase as equivalent to non dicam, observes: "It is well known by learned men, that non modo, put elliptically for non modo non, is a phrase followed by SED NE QUIDEM.

ac

Both Clarke and Davis ad Cæs. Bel. Gal. 11. 17. et vill. 33. have observed, that it is usual with good authors to omit the second non: but neither they nor Perizonius seem to have remarked the principle on which the phraseology proceeds. There are three examples of the omission, as it is called, of the second non in Cæsar's Commentaries, B. G. II, 17.: "effecerant ut instar muri hæ sepes munimenta præberent; quo non modo intrari, sed ne perspici quidem posset."-Ib. 111. 4. non modo defesso excedendi ex pugna, sed ne saucio quidem ejus loci, ubi constiterat, relinquendi, ac sui recipiendi, facultas dabatur." (A. Hirtii B. G.) v111, 33. "effugere non modo equitatum, sed ne legiones quidem possent." Yet Cæsar says, B. G. 1. 16. "nam propter frigora-non modo frumenta in agris matura NON erant, sed ne pabuli quidem satis magna copia suppetebat." Livy in like manner gives examples of both phrases. 1. 40, "advenam non modo civicæ, sed ne Italicæ quidem stirpis."-v. 38. non modo non tentato certamine, sed ne clamore quidem reddito."

It appears to me, that this difference of phrase is not accidental, that a second non would be inadmissible, where the authors have written simply non modo, and that it is essential to their meaning, where they have written non modo non. The reason of the difference I think is this: in the former case the negative of the second clause, SED NE QUIDEM, is applied to a verb or word VOL. XXVII. Cl. Jl. NO. LIV.

on which the meaning of the first clause also depends, and therefore a second negative in the first clause would be redundant. It is easy to preserve this effect in the translation: "The hedge was INCAPABLE not only of being entered, but even of being seen through;" or turning it actively, "not only to enter the hedge, but even to see through it was IMPOSSIBLE”—“ Not only to the tired of leaving the battle, but even to the wounded of retiring No opportunity was given "-" Not only to escape the horse, but even the legions, would be IMPOSSIBLE ”—“ A stranger, WITHOUT pretension, not only to Roman, but even to Italian extraction." A second non in the first clause of these sentences, would be as great a solecism in Latin, as it would be in English, to say, "NOT ONLY NOT to enter the hedge,

but even to see through it was IMPOSSIBLE."

But in the sentences where the authors have written non modo non, the phrase in the second clause being varied, and there being no word common to both clauses, the second non is essential to their meaning. It would have been no less absurd in Cæsar to have said, "non modo frumenta in agris matura erant, sed ne pabuli quidem satis magna copia suppetebat," than it would be in English, "Not only were the crops in the fields ripe, but there was not even forage to be had."

By the way, the Italians use non che exactly in the same way as their ancestors used their non modo, as equivalent to non dicam, "Spero trovar pietà non che perdono." Petrarch. Son. 1. Examples occur very frequently both in poets and prose

writers.

as

It is with more diffidence that I bring forward the next remark, I am aware that I am contending for a very uncommon use of a compound. I am, however, satisfied, that Cæsar does so use it. At all events, the substitution adopted by many editors, appears to me infinitely more intolerable. B. G. 111. 14. "Una erat magno usui res præparata a nostris, falces præacutæ, insertæ affixæque longuriis, non absimili forma muralium falcium. His quum funes, qui antennas ad malos DISTINEBANT, comprehensi adductique erant, navigio remis incitato, prærumpebantur: quibus abscissis, antennæ necessario concidebant," &c.

So I restore the reading instead of DESTINABANT. This word, I think, has been substituted by copyists and editors who did not understand Cæsar's use of DISTINEBANT.

How was it possible, I ask, that the hook in the hands of the Roman soldier could lay hold of the rope which attached the yard to the mast? The case was plainly this. The rope, or halyard, which was fastened to the yard, passed through a block,

or hole at the mast-head: the mariners by means of it drew up the yard to the mast-head, and then made the rope fast on deck at the side, or gunwale of the vessel, and consequently within reach of the Roman hooks. Now, says Cæsar, the ropes were laid hold of, qui antennas ad malos distinebant, h. e. qui antennas ad malos tenebant a parte distante, which kept or held the yards to the masts at the farther ends of the ropes, at a distance from the place where they were laid hold of. The word distinebant seems thus to explain a matter which might otherwise have been unintelligible, or might have even appeared incredible.

The same seems to be the meaning of this compound in two other passages. B. G. iv. 17. “Hæc utraque [tigna bina] insuper bipedalibus trabibus (quantum eorum tignorum junctura distabat) binis utrimque fibulis ab extrema parte DISTINEBAN TUR: quibus DISCLUSIS, atque in contrariam partem revinctis, tanta erat operis firmitudo, &c." Here, also, Davis would have destinabantur; but Oudendorp retains distinebantur, observing, Immo distineri non esse mutandum patet e sequentibus disclusis et revinctis, per quæ se ipse explicat Cæsar. Here I say the meaning of distinebantur is the same with that contended for in the former passage: "These two opposite pairs of piles, again, were, by beams two feet square in thickness (answering to the interval in the pair of piles) which were let in between them (and fastened) with double braces, KEPT FIRM IN THEIR SEPARATE PLACES at each end of the beam; and the piles being thus SEPARATELY FIXED and bound to the opposite ends of the beam, such was the firmness of the work, &c." Here it may be contended, that distinebantur and disclusis signify merely, that the piles were held asunder by the beam. But is this the author's object? was such the use of the beam? was it not to connect and hold firm at its opposite ends each pair of piles?

The other passage, to which I allude, is B. G. vII. 22. At the siege of Avaricum, he says, the Gauls showed great ingenuity in counteracting the efforts of the Romans: "Nam et laqueis falces avertebant, quas quum DISTINUERANT, tormentis introrsus reducebant, &c." that is, when the Romans advanced their mural falces to tear out the stones from the wall, the Gauls let down ropes with nooses at the end, and turned aside the falces, and occasionally, when they had caught a firmer hold of the falces by the noose AT THE FARTHER END of the rope, they by means of engines drew them into the town. In these places, Oudendorp reads DESTINAVERAT, which to me seems absolutely inadmissible. If that

verb may be used in the sense of binding fast, yet, surely it cannot mean to catch hold of.

The three passages seem to confirm and explain each other.

B. G. iv. 10. "Mosa profluit ex moute Vosego, qui est in finibus Lingonum, et, parte quadam ex Rheno recepta, quæ adpellatur Vahalis, insulamque efficit Batavorum, in Oceanum inAluit; neque longius ab Oceano millibus passuum LXXX in Rhenum transit." So Oudendorp has edited this passage, and he tells us that innumerable learned men have endeavoured to explain it and lay down from it the ancient geography of his country; and he confesses that his own endeavours have not been very successful. If we understand the last clause, as speaking of the Mosa, and render in Rhenum transit, "flows into the Rhine," it is quite impossible to understand it, or reconcile it with the topography. But the difficulty entirely vanishes by referring the last clause to the Vahalis, and explaining in Rhenum transit— in Rhenum abit-fit Rhenus, " passes into or becomes the Rhine," that is, in tracing the Vahalis up from the Ocean, at the distance of 80 (Roman) miles, you come to the Rhine, of which the Vahalis is a branch. If one looks into the map either ancient or modern, with this explanation, the whole becomes quite clear and intelligible, and one wonders how so plain a matter should have been so long misunderstood, Several manuscripts, as appears from Oudendorp's note on the place, agree in this order of the words: "insulam efficit Batavorum, neque longius ab Oceano millibus passuum LXXX in Rhenum transit." have therefore ventured to make a transposition of part of the sentence, as given by Oudendorp, thus: "Mosa profluit ex monte Vogeso, qui est in finibus Lingonum, et parte quadam ex Rheno recepta (quæ appellatur Vahalis, insulamque efficit Batavorum, neque longius ab Oceano millibus passuum LXXX in Rhenum transit) in Oceanum influit." Whether this transposition be approved or no, I think it clear that the clause in question respects the Vahalis, and must be understood as I have explained it.

I

On Horace my first remark may appear of that conjectural character, which some of his commentators, Dacier especially, have carried too far: but I am disposed to indulge in it as setting in a more favorable light the character of the author. Adopting Sanadon's conjecture, which Gesner calls a happy one, that the second ode of the first book was written on the occasion of Octavius receiving the title of AUGUSTUS, and that it alludes to the inundation of the city by the Tiber on the night which fol