and they shall tell whether the dramatists occupy an undue share of attention or not. The following are the subjects of a miscellaneous collection, which happened to fall into our hands; and when we present it to our readers, we declare that the papers have not been selected to answer the present purpose, and that they are all we are able to refer to at this moment. Trinity College, June 1817. Trinity College, 1819. Trinity College, 1816. St. John's College, June 1818. Questions on St. Luke. Of the only two university scholarship papers, which we happen to have in our possession, the first requires a passage from Sophocles to be translated into English prose, and Latin Alcaics, and a passage from Homer to be translated into English prose. The second proposes five questions relating to Greek literature of these the two first bear upon passages in Herodotus, and on geographical and mythological subjects. The third enquires, what were the principal dialects in Greece, and their chief distinctions? The fourth relates to the metrical rules, and peculiar niceties observable in the Greek Tragedians; and the fifth, to the Greek year, and the different cycles that were introduced at different periods. Let it be granted that these specimens of classical examination papers are fairly produced, and they will justify the assertion of Philograntus, that the study of the poets and the prose authors is equally encouraged. But Eubulus returns to the charge in the sequel to his pamphlet, and triumphantly asks, "From the year 1800 to the present time, has any thing issued from the University press in Greek literature, but Greek plays?" It is very true, the Greek drama has been the principal object of the learned Editors, whom Eubulus names-but wherefore? Because this branch of literature requires more attention, and more investigation than any other. False readings in Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, or Xenophon, are much more rare, and of less importance than in the dramatists; and even if they were more numerous than they are, a second-rate scholar might easily detect and correct them; whereas it demands a vast fund of learning, an unusual degree of critical acumen, and a most vigorous intellect, to eradicate the errors which have crept into the Greek plays. In a dramatic author, where the sense is often embarrassed, even without a mistake in punctuation or orthography, the wrong position of a word, or of so much as a single letter, is known to entangle not only a sentence, but a whole passage. Conjectural emendations, philological criticisms, judicious substitutions, and happy illustrations, are therefore more necessary, and consequently more highly prized in this, than in any other department of letters: and, as our own poet Shakspeare has been permitted to furnish more work for editors and commentators than all our historians and philosophers, so we must allow Eschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, to engross a larger share of the scholar's notice, than the historians or philosophers of Greece. In fact we should be obliged to those eminent critics, who have gone so deeply into the troubled waters of metrical confusion, and restored order to the perplexity of choral mazes, instead of carping at them, for devoting their time to such weary researches. We are as anxious as Eubulus can possibly be, that the mighty names which grace the historic and philosophic page of Grecian literature, should not be forgotten in our admiration of her drama; but we most earnestly hope the time will never come when the university shall cease to pay that attention to the muses which she now gives. The ancient languages of Greece and Rome can never be properly understood without a thorough knowlege of prosody; and pure classical taste depends as much upon a familiarity with the dramatic, as with the heroic, lyric, or pastoral writers: nor is it too much to say, that livelier recollections of history, and mythology, and a better idea of national manners, are impressed on the memory by a few lines of a Greek or Latin poet, than by as many pages of a prose author. It is therefore quite preposterous to suppose that a person can become a sound or elegant scholar, but by an intimate acquaintance with the poets of the language which is to be his study. As it is poetry. which forms the connecting link, "with its little documents," between the ages that are, and those that are gone; which gives immortality to a decayed nation, consecrates its ancient glory, and breathes a romantic charm over the soil and climate, the landscapes and scenery, which are associated with its history; so it is a love of the muses which refines the taste, cherishes genius, and inspires that literary enthusiasm which leads to scholastic eminence. E. H. BARKERI AMENITATES CRITICA ET PHILOLOGICÆ. PARS. III. [Continued from No. XXXII. p. 378.] 1. PROFESSOR Dunbar having, in the last No. of the Class. Journ. (L. 219.), recalled the attention of scholars to Dr. Blomfield's observations on adverbs ending in and, which appear in the Gloss. ad Esch. Pr. 208., and to his own remarks on those obss., which are in the 25th No. of the Class. Journ., I shall lay before both of them, and before the readers of this periodical work in general, the opinion of Professor Sturz, contained in a tract, of which their learned author has kindly presented me with a copy, and which is perhaps unknown both to Professor Dunbar and to Dr. Blomfield :-"Quinque Orationes a totidem Scholæ Regiæ Discipulis A. D. xiv. Sept. A. C. 1814. habendas indicturus de Nonnullis Dionis Cassii Locis tertium disputavit M. Fr. Guil. Sturz, ill. Mold. Rector et Prof., Grimæ, ex Officina Goeschenia." DE ADVV. DESINENTIBUS IN & ET . "Exponenda nonnulla existimo de adverbis in et eì desinentibus, et ap. Dion. frequentissimis, quippe quorum terminationes nulli legi putantur aut subjectæ esse, aut subjiciendæ. Ita judicant Interpretes Pollucis vi, 162. ix, 10. 143. aliique, ut Alberti ad Hes. v.'Avarí. E recentissimis Grammaticis audiamus Ph. Butmanni sententiam, Griech. Grammatik p. 427. sq. Ed. 6. Berol. 1811, 8°. : 'Diese zwiefache Aussprache bestimmte der Wohlklang und vielleicht bei Dichtern das Metrum (da i auch kurz gebraucht werden kann); in unsern Ausgaben die Handschriften oder die Menge der Beispiele, (Exempla multa habet Fischer. Specim. i, 74. 298. sq.) Diese bezeichnen einen mit der Handlung, welche den Satz ausdrückt, verbundenen Umstand. Die Verbalia insbesondere gehen aus auf Tí oder Tei, welche Endungen ganz nach Art der Eudung auf Tós angehängt werden, z. B. ὀνομαστὶ, ἐγρηγορτί, besonders in Zusammensetzung mit der Verneinung und andern Begriffen, z. Β. ἀγελαστί, ἀνιδρωτὶ, άxnpuжTel.-Die von Nominibus gebildeten haben blos oder í an der Stelle der Declinir Endung (so dass also das zum Stamm gehört in Exovтì, ȧvatel.) Die meisten sind Composita, Ζ. Β. πανδημεί, αὐτονυχεί (von einer alten Flexion, νύξ, νυχὸς,) ἀμαχεί, αὐτοχειρὶ, νηποινί. "Mihi vero, quod pace viri eruditissimi dixerim, hæc non probari fateor. Nam vera quidem sunt, quæ attulit, omnia, si nihil uisi quærimus, quid sit. Sed nullo modo mens et ratio humana ita temere, sine lege omni ac norma, in lingua formanda versari existimanda est, videndum potius, quas causas ea verisimiliter sit in quoque genere secuta. Quod igitur ad adverbia illa attinet, periculum facere animus est, num possint leges reperiri, ad quarum normam Græci alia adverbia in ì, alia in eì, alia utroque modo terminaverint. Scilicet quemadmodum adverbia in a vel exeuntia revera nihil sunt nisi ablativi, sive, ut vulgo vocantur, dativi, nominum, ut βίᾳ, κρύφα, λάθρα, δημοσίᾳ, πανοικεσία, πανστρατιᾷ, παῤῥησίᾳ, κομιδῆ, κρυφῆ, πεζῇ, σπουδῇ, σχολῇ : ita etiam, quæ in i vel et terminantur, ut ἀκοντὶ, ἀμυστί, (a nom. ἄμυστις,) ἔθελοντι, ἑκοντι, αὐτοετεὶ, ηρεμεί. In et igitur exeunt, quæcunque originem debent nominibus in Oy desinentibus, ut feel a nom. BeTov, aut iis, a quibus verba in άw et éw et euw, vel adjectiva in ης descendunt, ut αὐτοβοεὶ (extat αὐτοβόητος), αὐτονυχεί (notum est ἐννυχεύω,) πανδημεί (habemus ἀποδημέω et similia,) πανομιλεί (quis ὁμιλέω nescit ?), τριστοιχεί (dicimus στοιχεώ,) αὐτοετεὶ, et geuel, qui, quod modo innui, proprie sunt dativi adjectivorum AUTOETS, et йpeμns, aut nominibus, quæ in syllaba ultima habent, ut άuaxe (male igitur ap. Dion. p. 114. 40. in Cod. Mediceo antiquiori scriptum extat ἀμαχί, ἀνατεὶ, ἀσπουδεὶ, πανσυδεί. Priora enim sunt a nominibus μάχη, ἄτη, σπουδή, ultimum a σύδην, qui revera est accusativus substantivi σύδη. In terminantur, quæ fiunt vel e dativis nominum tertiæ declinationis, ut avidpari, αὐτανδρὶ, αὐτοποδί, αὐτοχειρί, παμπαιδί, παγγυναικὶ, πανθοινὶ, vel e dativis nominum declinationis priuæ, ut ἀμετρὶ pro ἀμετρία, avaitì (legitur hoc p. 164. 86. in Cod. Bavarico secundo, pro ἀνατὶ, quod in ἀνατεί mutandum esse e superioribus liquet,) ἀπαρτὶ, cum significat Plene, pro απαρτίᾳ, πανστρατί ο πανστρα τιᾷ, vel quæ derivantur ab ejusmodi nominibus, quæ in syllaba ultima, aut a verbis, quæ in penultima, i habent, ut ἀκονιτὶ, ἐγκονιτὶ, vel a nominibus in or terminatis, ut ἀδακρυτὶ, τετραποδητί, vel ab adjectivis in os exeuntibus, ut ἀκλαυτί, ἀκριτὶ, ἀμαχητί, ἀμεταστρεπτί, αναιμωτὶ (de quo v. Eustath. ad Il. P. 497.) ἀναπνευστί, ἀνωϊστὶ, ἀνωμοτὶ, ἀπνευστὶ, ἀπονητὶ, ἀσκαρδαμυκτί, ἀφρικτὶ, ἀψοφητί, νηποινὶ, vel ab adverbiis in ως desinentibus (de his et de iis, quæ proxime sequuntur, v. Draco Strat. de Metr. Poet. p. 37. et 96.) ut δημιωστε, ἱερωστί, μεγαλωστί, νεωστὶ, (nisi hoc est ab antiquo nom. νέως, cujus accusativus νέωτα superest. Ceterum Cod. Μedic. Dionis p. 195. 90. male dat νεωστεί, vel a verbis, quæ in ίζω terminantur, ut Αἰγυπτιστὶ, ἀνδριστὶ, Αττικιστι, βαρβαριστί, βοϊστὶ, διαμελεϊστὶ, Δωριστὶ, δωροδοκιστί, Ελληνιστί, Θρᾳκιστί, Ινδιστι, Λυδιστὶ, Μαιωτιστὶ, Μακεδονιστὶ, Παρθιστὶ, Περσιστι, Ῥωμαϊστὶ, Σκυθιστὶ, τετραποδιστὶ, Φρυγιστί, vel a verbis in άζω desinentibus, ut ἀγελαστί, ἀστακτὶ, (de hoc et præcedente v. Valck. ad Theocr. x. Idyll. p. 225. Ed. Lug. Β. 1810. 8. ubi reprobat ἀστακτεί non minus quam άγε λαστεί, et Wyttenb. ad Plat. Phaedon. 331.) ἀστενακτὶ, Ιαστὶ, ὀνομαστί. In universum et obiter hoc monere liceat, multas nominum formas nobis periisse, id quod e paucis vestigiis colligere possumus. Sic ἀλκὶ pro ἀλκῇ, λιτὶ pro λιτῷ, κλαδί pro κλάδῳ, ὑσμῖνι reperiuntur, quasi a nominativis άλξ, λὶς, κλὰς, ὑσμὶν, (omnino de talibus v. Fischer. 1. 1. Specim. ii, 182. sq. 186. sq.) Quid igitur impedit, quo minus αὐτανδρὶ et αὐτοποδι et similia statuamus revera esse antiquos dativos nominum αὐτανδρὶς et αὐτοποδὶς et reliquorum ? Ex omnibus autem, quæ diximus, satis, opinor, apparet, cur nonnulla utroque modo scribi possint, ut πανσυδεὶ a σύδη, et πανσυδί a πανσυδία vel πανσυδὶς, ἀκμητεὶ ab ἀκμητής, εἰ ἀκμητὶ ab ἄκμητος, πανθοινεὶ ε πανθοινέω, et πανθοινὶ a πανθοινία vel πανθοινὶς, et cur ἀκηρυκτὶ, ἀκλαυτί, ἀμισθί, αὐτοβοεὶ, rectius scribantur, quam ἀκηρυχτεί, (quare in Dionis Fragm. cxliii. extr. ἀκηρυκτί e Cod. Bavar. 1. recipiendum est,) ἀκλαυτεί, (quanquam enim Valck. 1. 1. in Callim. Η. in Dian. 267. άκλαυ τει prafert, haud dubie quia metri ratio postulat, ut syllaba prima producatur, tamen hoc ejus judicium mihi displicet, tam propter analogiam, quam quia Draco 1. 1. diserte dicit, a in ἀκλαυτὶ produci,) άμισθεὶ, (unde ap. Dion. p. 681. 61. pro άμισ θεί reponendum arbitror αμισθί,) αὐτοβοεὶ, (p. 191, 47. et 228, 80. et sæpius Cod. Μedic. antiquior male dat αὐτοβοΐ, sed αὐτοβοεί recte extat in permultis Dionis locis. Ducta enim illa tria sunt ab abjectivis ἀκήρυκτος, ἄκλαυτος, et ἄμισθος, ultimum autem a v. βοάω.” Hactenus Sturzius. Insignis est nota Brunckii ad Apollon. R. 1, 1019.:— |