In Polyclem.

In Polyclem, p. 1210. 1. 20. ὑποθεὶς τὸ χωρίον Θρασυλόχῳ καὶ ̓Αρχενέῳ, καὶ δανεισάμενος τριάκοντα μνᾶς παρ' αὐτῶν, καὶ διαδοὺς τοῖς ναύταις, ᾠχόμην ἀναγόμενος, ἵνα μηδὲν ἐλλείπῃ τῷ δήμῳ, ὧν προς σέταξε, τὸ κατ' ἐμέ.

Corrigendum,χόμην ἀναγόμενος, ἵνα μηδὲν ΕΛΛΕΙΠΟΙ Τῷ

δήμω

In Polyclem, p. 1215. 1. 11. γελάσαντα δ ̓ ἔφασαν αὐτὸν εἰπεῖν· ἄρτι μᾶς πίττης γεύεται. ἐβούλετο γὰρ ἀθηναῖος εἶναι.

ἐβούλετο γὰρ ἀθηναῖος εἶναι.) Apollodorus scilicet. Verba Polyclis.-- Apollodorus, Pasionis filius nummularii, inquilinus fuerat, sed κατὰ ψήφισμα πολίτης erat, ut ipse loquitur, In Nicostratum, p. 1252. 1. 21. ἐγώ, Πασίωνος ὤν, καὶ κατὰ ψήφισμα πολίτης.

In Polyclem, p. 1215. 1. 20, κατάλιπε, ἔφασαν, ἀργύριον αὐτοῦ, καὶ μὴ διακινδύνευε, ἐκεῖσε ἄγων· ἵνα μοι λύσωνται τὸ χωρίον, ἀποδόντες ̓Αρχενέῳ καὶ Θρασυλόχῳ τριάκοντα μνᾶς.

" Ante quæ verba (ἵνα μοι κ. τ. λ.) subaudiendum est à ἔλεγον, vel καὶ ταῦτα ἔλεγον.” Reisk.

Ergo corrigendum præterea, ἵνα μοι ΛΥΣΟΙΝΤΟ τὸ χωρίον

In Polyclem, p. 1216. 1. 17. οὕτω γάρ μοι ἀκριβῶς ἐγέγραπτο, ὥστ ̓ οὐ μόνον αὐτά μοι τὰ ἀναλώματα ἐγέγραπτο, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅποι ἀνηλώθη, καὶ ὅ, τι ποιούντων, καὶ ἡ τιμὴ, καὶ ὁπόσου τίς ἦν, καὶ νόμισμα ὁποδαπὸν, καὶ ἐκ πόσου ἡ καταλλαγὴ ἦν τῷ ἀργυρίῳ.

σε καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ὁπόσου τις ἦν) Sustuli comma, et duo ista vocabula καὶ ὁπόσου. videtur in aliis libris fuisse καὶ ἡ τιμὴ τὶς ἦν. quanti quisque conductus esset, ut dedi : in aliis καὶ ἡ τιμὴ δὲ ὁπόσου (scil. ἀργυρίου) τις ἦν. in illa lectione τις habet accentum et significat quænam. in hac est encliticum et significat aliqua." Reisk.

Editt. quædam accentum dant T Tis et in hac lectione. e. g. Hervagiana posterior. Scripserat Demosthenes, ut opinor: καὶ ἡ τιμὴ ὁπόση τις ἦν.

In Callippum.

In Callippum, p. 1239. 1. ult. ἐπειδὴ δὲ ᾔσθετο ἀδυνάτως ἤδη ἔχοντα τὸν πατέρα, καὶ μόγις εἰς ἄστυ ἀναβαίνοντα, καὶ τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν αὐτὸν προδιδόντα, λαγχάνει αὐτῷ δίκην.

66

προδόντα) Dedi προδιδόντα.” Reisk.

Genuinum est προδόντα, quod habent aliæ editiones : sed sup peditanda particula, ἄν. καὶ τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν αὐτὸν ΑΝ προδόντα.

In Callippum, p. 1240. 1. 18. ἐτόλμησαν μαρτυρῆσαι, ὡς ὁ μὲν Κάλλιππος ὅρκον τῷ πατρὶ δοίη· ὁ δὲ πατὴς οὐκ ἐθέλοι ὀμόσαι παρὰ τῷ Λυσιθείδῃ, καὶ οἴονται ὑμᾶς πείσειν, ὡς ὁ Λυσιθείδης, οἰκεῖος μὲν

ὢν τῷ Καλλίππῳ, διαιτῶν δὲ τὴν δίαιταν, ἀπέσχετ' ἂν μὴ οὐκ εὐθὺς τοῦ πατρὸς καταδιαιτῆσαι, δι' αὐτοῦ γε ἑαυτῷ μὴ θέλοντος δικαστού γενέσθαι τοῦ πατρός.

σε θέλων] malim θέλοντος. et hoc de meo dedi, [Ita jam olim legerat Wolfius] ut sit sententia: sperant se vobis persuasuros, ut credatis Lysithiden non fuisse commissurum ut damnaret patrem, cum [vel si] pater nollet ipse sibi judex fieri, h. e. ultro desistere ab injusta lite, et satis Callippo facere.” Reisk.

Nil vidit hic vir perspicax. δι' αὐτοῦ γε ἑαυτῷ μὴ θέλοντος δικαστ τοῦ γενέσθαι τοῦ πατρὸς, est, Cum pater jurare noluisset; cum jurejurando suo, quo rem decidere potuisset, ipse sibi quasi judex fieri noluisset.

In Nicostratum.

In Nicostratum. Argument. p. 1245. 1. 2. ̓Απολλόδωρος γρα ψάμενος ψευδοκλητείας ̓Αρεθούσιον εἷλεν. ὀφείλοντος γὰρ τοῦ ̓Αρε θουσίου τάλαντον τῇ πόλει, καὶ ἀποδοῦναι μὴ δυνηθέντος, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο εἰς τὰ δημόσια ἀπογραφομένης αὐτοῦ τῆς οὐσίας, ἀπογράφει ὁ ̓Απολλοδωρος οἰκέτας, ὡς ὄντας ̓Αρεθουσίου, ὁ δὲ Νικόστρατος μεταποιεῖται ὡς ἰδιῶν, καὶ ἐκείνῳ προσηκόντων οὐδέν.

Primum, legendum, ὀφείλοντος οὖν τοῦ ̓Αρεθουσίου τάλαντον τῇ πόλει— Debitum enim talenti, sequela, non causa, erat judicii quo damnatus est Arethusius accusatore Apollodoro, id quod docet orator ipse, p. 1252. ἐξελέγξας αὐτὸν τὰ ψευδῆ κεκλητευκότα, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα, ὅσα εἴρηκα, ἠδικηκότα, εἷλον. καὶ ἐν τῇ τιμήσει βουλομένων τῶν δικαστῶν θανάτου τιμῆσαι αὐτῷ, ἐδεήθην ἐγὼ τῶν δικαστῶν, μηδὲν δι ̓ ἐμὲ τοιοῦτον πρᾶξαι· ἀλλὰ συγχωρῆσαι ὅσουπερ αὐτοὶ ἐτιμῶντο, ταλάντου.

Deinde ex illis pag. 1255. (πρὶν μὲν ὀφείλειν τῷ δημοσίῳ ὁ ̓Αρε θούσιος ὠμολογεῖτο τῶν ἀδελφῶν εὐπορώτατος εἶναι. ἐπειδὴ δ' οἱ νόμοι κελεύουσιν τἀκείνου ὑμέτερα εἶναι, τηνικαῦτα πένης ὢν φαίνεται ὁ ̓Αρε θούσιος, καὶ τῶν μὲν ἡ μήτης ἀμφισβητεῖ, τῶν δ ̓ ἡ ἀδελφή.) liquet rescribendum esse, ἀπογράφει ὁ ̓Απολλόδωρος οἰκέτας, ὧν, ὄντων ̓Αρεθουσίου, μεταποιεῖται ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ ̓Αρεθουσίου καὶ ἡ ἀδελφὴ, ὡς ἰδιών.

VOL. XXX.

CI. JI.

NO. LX.

S

NOTICE OF

ANTI-TOOKE; or an Analysis of the Principles and Structure of Language, exemplified in the English Tongue. By JOHN FEARN. 8vo. 10s. 6d. Longman and Co. 1824.

66

Ir any thing," says Mr. Fearn in his preface, " can be imagined more truly mortifying than another to the intellectual pretensions of our species, it is that we should be doomed to signify our thoughts in a jargon of utterance, with regard to the true logical import of which we are profoundly ignorant. Every man of education, when he happens to listen to the articulate effusions of a plough-boy, or untaught peasant, is filled with unmixed compassion to behold a large number of his fellowcreatures chained down by their lot to the dark necessity of expressing their ideas in a way that approximates not a little to the instinctive signs of brute animals. What then must be the reflections of the educated man, if it were had in proof, that with regard to this sort of attainment, he is in a state not much elevated above the level of the clown whom he pities and despises ?"

With the purport of this passage we fully concur. A clearer definition of the symbols, by which we express our mutual thoughts, is one of the chief wants of this age of universal pretension and excitement. The Baconian system of experimental stages, in the acquisition of moral truth, should be as rigorously applied to metaphysics as to physics, if we wish the progress of intellectual man to be as substantial as it is showy, as beneficial as it is energetic. Dry and useless as etymological inquiry may appear to superficial objectors, it is, in fact, replete with the elements of the richest, most salubrious, and most useful philosophical research. Etymology is calculated to throw a strong and steady light on the origin of man on the date of his antiquity on his earliest modes of life: on the various families into which the main stream of human population divided itself: on the regions whence they aboriginally flowed: and on the countries which the migrating colonies successively occupied and cultivated. The etymologist, by showing the true and original source of the notions and ideas attached to each word and expression which he investigates, may often supply undenia

ble proofs of antiquity from the wrecks and vestigia of institutions that remain: these furnish the best and strongest pleas which a nation can assign for its comparative antiquity, or for its ancient affinity, alliance, or connexion with other nations. Etymology, in short, is necessary to the thorough understanding of a language; for to express a word precisely, and to show its force and extent, there is a necessity for tracing it to its first form or root.

Mr. Fearu, as the title of his book shows, is generally opposed to the system of Horne Tooke. He, however, not without justice, expresses a due sense of the labors of that distinguished philologist. Before Horne Tooke, many had pretended to write philosophically on the subject of language; but it was reserved for the author of the "Diversions of Purley" to be the first in this country to write sensibly on it. If that celebrated work be big with promises which never have, and perhaps never can be realised, it contains the substructure of a philological edifice of noble, correct, and intelligible proportions. But with every disposition to admit the merit of the above work, it certainly does contain a considerable proportion of unsound opinion. Ingenious paradox and bold assertion are often more conspicuous than careful inquiry and dispassionate reflection of which the author's favorite theory of Gothic derivation is a proof; while his etymological examples are often mere gratuitous assumptions, and some of them are excessively absurd. The following is a favorable example of the acute manner in which Mr. Fearn grapples with Horne Tooke's theory of prepositions :

:

"In Teutonic, FRAGM OF FRAM means originating, running, proceeding. Frogma, which is the derivative of FRAG, run, through the medium of the preterite, is in use for a root, or beginning. The reader must here recollect that to begin is itself from BI, upon, and GAN, to go; BIGIN and BI-GANG, to set a going."-HIST. OF THE EUR. LANG. Vol. 2, page 24.

Here, then, we have the full Etymological History of the Word -FROM.-And here it is expressly evident, that, although this Word naturally came to be in use for "A Root," or Beginning;" (in which use it is, certainly, an AGENT-Noun, as Mr. Tooke asserts it is, and Not a VERBAL Noun) yet, IT WAS IN ITS ORIGIN A VERBAL, as I affirm it was. Dr. Murray begins his account by saying, that FROM means the PARTICIPLES ORIGINATING, RUNNING, PROCEEDING." Now these are all VERBALS; which want nothing but inter-position between Two Other Words (operating at the moment as Nouns) to convert them into VERBS:

Whereas the AGENT-Noun-"AN ORIGIN," "A SOURCE," or "AN AUTHOR,"-(which is Mr. Tooke's assumption of the matter,) CANNOT IN ANY SITUATION be converted into a Verb.

In fine; It is conclusive, here, that the Word FROM, according to the Derivation given of it by Dr. Murray, is the Progressive or So-called Participial Form of the VERB TO BEGIN, as I confidently affirm it is.

assump

To this amount of evidence I shall only add, that the tion of Any Preposition's being a MERE AGENT-Noun,-(by which I mean ANY NOUN that is Nor the Name of SOME ACTION, and therefore is NOT IN ANY case convertible into a Verb,)—is an absurdity of the grossest kind in Language, and is precisely analogous to asserting that a BANK OR SUPPORTING PRINCIPLE is ONE SAME LOGICAL OBJECT, or SUBJECT, as a BRIDGE OR CONNECTING PRINCIPLE.

The following disquisition on the Past Tense is equally ingenious and instructive:

Since the speculations of Mr. Tooke it has been generally agreed, by our most enlightened Etymologists, that the Termination-D-or ED-expresses Some Sign, or Word, distinct from the Form of the Present: but the difficulty has been to determine, upon any certain ground, what actually is, or what ought to be, the real import of this Termination.

Mr. Tooke himself, and other writers after him, have supposed, that "lovED" means love-DID. But this hypothesis, even if admitted for a moment, does not remove nor lessen the difficulty; because DID is itself a Past Form, and it demands to be accounted for as much as Every Other Past Form.

The account given by Dr. Murray, of the nature of this contrivance, seems to be much more luminous, in appearing to have explained at least the actual fact or history of its origin and import; although it has not led to any Philosophical or Logical advancement of the Subject. As an Etymological light, therefore, I conceive it is to be regarded as a very valuable acquisition: but the exhibition of it only serves to show how unphilosophical were many of the devices, or contrivances, of our forefathers, with regard to the Structure of Language. This writer shews, very extensively, that Past Action was originally signified by a MERE DUPLICATION of the Name of Present Action. Thus, in Vol. 1, page 50, he expresses himself in the following terms. "While the Noun underwent these important changes, the Verb, the fountain of language, acquired new and interesting properties. It has been shown that it was monosyllabic, expressive only of action, and general in its sense; because it was a rapid articulation, framed to communicate to others the presence of some remarkable