Animadversions vpon Lillies grammar, or Lilly scanned

ANIMADVERSIONS VPON LILLIƐS GRAMMAR, OR LILLY SCANNED.

An Extract of Grammaticall PROBLEMES.

Gathered out of the Inquiries, and Diſputes of the moſt judicious GRAMMARIANS.

Set downe by way of Queſtion, and Anſwere.

Wherein, Many difficult Knots in the Engliſh Rudiments, and Lillies Grammar are vnlooſed: many Obſcurities enlightned: many Errors and Incogitancies diſcouered: many Deficiences ſupplied, the Originall and Reaſon of many Termes of Art manifeſted, and not a few acceſſorie Queſtions diſcuſſed with much breuitie and perſpicuitie. Very neceſſarie, and profitable for all thoſe that deſire to be exact Grammarians.

LONDON Printed by W. Stansby for Richard Hawkins, and are to be ſold at his Shop in Chancerie Lane. 1625. {n. p.}

Animaduerſions vpon LILLIES Grammar, OR LILLY ſcanned. An Extract of Grammaticall PROBLEMES.

Of Grammar, and the parts thereof.

MAy euery one that teacheth Lillies Grammar, bee called Grammaticus in proprietie of ſpeech?

No: If he be able to teach thoſe Rudiments onely, he is rather to be called Grammatiſta?

What difference is there betweene Grammatiſta, and Grammaticus?

Among the Ancients he was called Grammaticus, who did not onely teach how to ſpeake a tongue well {A3}, but alſo did examine, and diſcuſſe all the difficulties in Poets, Hiſtorians, Orators, Philoſophers, &c. hee that taught the Elements of Words, Letters, was called Grammatiſta. Grammaticus with them was as much as Literatus, a learned Scholar, or Criticke, whom we now call a Philologer¹; Grammatiſta as much as Literator, an Elementarie Pedant. They differ in effect as much as a Fidler, and an exact Muſitian. Sueton. de claris Grammaticis.

May that ſpeech, which is compared according to the rules of Grammar, bee called congrua oratio, in the proprietie of the latine tongue?

So it is commonly called by moſt Schoole-maſters: but to ſpeake properly; loqui congruè, is to ſpeake fitly, and oppoſitly to the purpoſe, which is the part of a Logician, an Orator, a Moraliſt: but to ſpeake according to rule, is, Grammaticè loqui, which is not oppoſed to Barbarè loqui (for there may bee a rude impoliſht and barbarous expreſſion, where there is no breach of rule, {n. p.} and Priſcians head is vntoucht) but to caſtigate, or terſè, or emendatè loqui, to ſpeake trimly and elegantly, according to the example of the pureſt Authors; according to that ſaying, Aliud est Grammaticè, aliud latinè loqui: Congruè loqui, reſpects the fitneſſe of the matter; Emendatè loqui, the puritie of the ſtile; Grammaticè loqui, the regularitie of the conſtruction.

Is that diuiſion of Grammar into foure parts, Orthographia, Etymol. Syntaxis, Proſop. an exact diuiſion?

Priſcian, Melancthon, and their followers ſo diuided Grammar: but παχυλῶς², rather then κατ´ακρίζ?αν³, it may more artificially and compendiouſly bee diuided into two parts, Etymologie and Syntaxis: for theſe two doe, as integrall parts, take vp the whole body of Grammar: the other two, Orthogr. and Proſodia, like Particles are contayned in theſe, and ſpread through the whole Grammar. {A4}

Of ORTHOGRAPHIE.

IS Orthographie ſtill the ſame?

No: It hath beene often changed, and therfore the rule of it muſt be cuſtome. The Hebrewes, Syrians, and Arabians, begin to write from the right hand to the left. They of China, from the top of the leafe to the bottome in a direct line. Other Nations, from the left hand to the right, which motion of the hand ſeemes to be moſt naturall.

Of the Letters.

How are diphthongs made?

By the diuerſe diſpoſitions of the vowels.

Whence haue the diphthongs their names?

Of the Greeke words δìς, bis, and φθέγγομαι, loquor; becauſe there is a conflation, and coalition of two vowels in a diphthong, which are to bee vttered and breathed out as one entire ſyllable.

What is the meaning of that paſſage {n. p.} in the firſt page of Lillies Grammar? S, ſuæ cuiuſdam potestatis litera eſt?

Lilly hauing diuided the Conſonants into Mutes, as b, c, d, &c. and ſemi-vowels, as l, m, n, r, ſ, x, z, he ſubdiuideth the ſemi-vowels into liquids, and double conſonants, and ſince (ſ) will not be changed in either of theſe rankes, hee calleth it ſuæ cuiuſdam poteſtatis literam; ſuch a letter as is (as it were) of its owne head, ſits by it ſelfe, will not be marſhalled in that συστοιχία literarum.

Why are x and z called, literæ duplices?

Becauſe they haue the force of two conſonants, as x may be reſolued into Cs, or gs, as appeares by the genitiue caſes of nounes ending in x, Rex, Regis, Dux, Ducis. z is changed (being a greeke letter originally) into ss, as Maſſa, of μάζα: Patriſſo, of πατρίζω.

How many wayes is the letter (I) taken?

Three wayes: as in this word ieiunium: in the firſt ſyllable, I is taken for a ſimple conſonant, in the {n. p.} ſecond for a double one, in the third for a vowell.

How doth it appeare that (I) betweene two vowels, is a double conſonant?

Becauſe the Ancients, in ſtead of Maior, Peior, were wont expreſly to write Maijor, Peijor.

Hath (I) betweene two vowels alwayes the force of a double conſonant, as Lilly tells vs here, and in the rules of Quantitie?

No: The rule is true only in ſimple words, not in words compound, for in ſuch wee finde the ſyllable which comes immediately before I between two vowels, made ſhort in the Poets: as in Bijugis, Quadrijugus.

Martis equi bijuges, & magni currus Achillis. Virg.

Centum quadrijugos agitabo ad flumina currus. Idem.

Lilly in the diuiſion of his letters, tells vs, that two is a ſemi-vowell: how then comes it to paſſe, that anon after he ſaith, y & z, latinis dictionibus nunquam admiſcentur.

It is very ſtrange a man ſhould ſo {n. p.} ſoone forget himſelfe: there is a manifeſt contradiction, from which I cannot acquit him.

Are not k or y mixed amongst other latine letters, as Lilly affirmes?

K is iudged by the modern Grāmarians to bee an vnprofitable letter, but Auſonius⁴ ſaith, it is prefixed before three latine wordes: which ſome aſſigne to bee, Kaput, a Chapter, Kalendæ, Kalumnia: and as for y, if it be not mixed amongſt latine letters, how is it that wee finde in Propria quæ maribus, Tybris, Lybs, Tybur: proper names, Phryx, Gryps, Hydrops, Syren, Hyems, &c. appellatiues: nay, how is it that in the very ſame page, where hee affirmes this, we finde theſe words: Hymnus, Triſyllaba, Hieronymus. Here as elſewhere, bonus dormitat Lilius.

What are the literæ majuſculæ put for when they are ſet alone?

A. for Aulus, as A. Gellius; Aulus G. but ſome Criticks write Agellius.

B. among the Schoole-men, is put for Beatus.

C. V. Celſitudo Veſtra. {n. p.}

C. M. Cæſarea Maieſtas.

D. Diuus. Doctor, Dominus.

E. T. Excellentia Tua.

I C. Iureconſultus.

M. Marcus, and Magiſter.

N. Nomen ignotum, vel Nota.

P. C. Patres Conſcripti.

P. L. Poeta Laureatus.

P. C. Poeta Coronatus, vel Palatinus Comes.

R. Rabbi. R. T. D. Reuerenda Tua Dignitas.

S. Sanctus. S. P. D. Salutem plurimam dicit.

S C. Senatuſconſultum.

V.C. Vrbs condita &c. vid. Lilium.

Is not a great decorum to bee obſerued in the Poets, by the repetition of diuers letters, to expreſſe to the life the matters themſelues?

Yes. E. ſerues to expreſſe lamentation, and ſorrow: as, Lachrymæ peredere humore exangues genas.

F. To expreſſe blowing: as, Terras turbine perflant.

I. To expreſſe thin, and peircing things. Accipiunt inimicum imbrem, nimiſq_ȝ fatiſcunt. {n. p.}

L. To expreſſe lowe, and ſoft things.

Qualem virgineo demeſeum pollice florem

Seu mollis violæ, ſeu languentis Hiacynthi. Virg.

M. To expreſſe great things: as, Dorſum immane mari ſummo: as alſo to expreſſe admiration. Deum immortalem! hominum! fidem!

N. hath a contrarie vſe; it contracts. Frangitur inq_ȝ ſinus ſcindit ſeſe vnde reductos.

R. To expreſſe fury, and anger; and rough, and terrible things. Imprecor arma armis.

S. By this Virgil deſcribes the noiſe of a tempeſt, Emiſſamq_ȝ hyemem ſenſit Neptunus, & imis ſtagnæ refuſa vadis.

T. To expreſſe ſlowneſſe: as, Nec nos obniti contra, nec tendere tantum.

V. To expreſſe obſcure things: Tu plæuſu, fremituq́_ȝ virum, ſtudijſq_ȝ fauentûm.

What wordes are to bee written with great letters?

1. Proper names, and ſuch as are {n. p.} thence deriued, and the names of Arts.

2. Beginnings of Sentences in Proſe and Verſes in Poems.

3. Names of Offices, and Dignities.

Is it lawfull to mixe letters of another tongue with latine letters?

Yes ſomtimes, but very ſparingly: as, Liber phraſeωn, ſignum diceréſeωs.

Of Syllables.

Can we ſay that ea, ei, and εάω, are words of two and three ſyllables, when as they conſiſt only of vowels ſimply, and ſeuerally pronounced?

Wee may for want of a better terme: but properly ſyllaba comming of συμαζεῖν, i. concipere, ſignifieth a comprehenſion or vniting of diuers letters in pronuntiation with one tone, or ſpirit.

How many letters hath the largest ſyllable in the latine tongue?

Not aboue ſixe: as ſtirps. {n. p.}

Of the diſtinction of Syllables.

What rules haue you for the distinction, or diuiſion of Syllables?

Diuers: firſt, in the diuiſion of a word, thoſe letters are to be ioyned together, which may bee ioyned in the beginning of a word: as in Magnus Aruſpex, the laſt ſyllables muſt bee gnus and ſpex, becauſe gn and ſp may bee found in the beginnings of words, as gnatus, ſpectrum. Secondly, if a ſingle conſonant bee put in the midle betwixt two vowels, it ſhall belong to the latter, as Pa-ter: if two conſonants be geminated, the firſt belongs to the firſt ſyllable, the latter to the latter, as An-nus. Thirdly, if the latter ſyllable begin with a vowell, the former ſhall end in a vowell, as De-us.

Doth not the ſecond rule ſometimes faile?

Yes, in compoſition, as ab-utor, the former ſyllable ends in a conſonant, the latter begins with a vowel; ſo abs-temius, of abs and temetum. {n. p.}

Of Pronuntiation.

Whence hath a tone its name?

From the Greeke word τείνειν, to ſcrew vp, or ſlacken the ſtrings of an inſtrument of muſick. As by the intention, or remiſſion of the ſtrings the ſound is flat, or ſharp: ſo according to the tone, or accent a ſyllable is ſhrilly, or depreſſedly pronounced.

In a word, whoſe penultima ſyllaba is doubtfull, or common, where is the accent to be put?

In the antepenultima, as Célebris, Medíocris, Vólucris, Fúnebris, thus in Proſe; but in Verſe, the accent is according to the meaſure: as Pecudes, pictæq́_ȝ volúcres.

Is the accent to be plac’t in antepenultima in theſe words: Deinde, proinde, perinde, aliquando, ſiquando, nequando, hucvſque, &c. as Lilly would haue it?

No: for it is an vndoubted rule receiued amongſt the beſt Grammarians. Polyſyllaba, quæ habent penultimam poſitione longam penultimam {n. p.} acuunt vt deinceps, duntáxat, probléma, extémplo: and herein Lilly thwarts his owne third generall rule of Tones: and hee is thwarted by Quint. Inſtit. l.1.c.5. where he ſaith, Duabus longis ſequentibus primam acui noſter ſermo non patitur.

Haue propémodum, ádmodum, nihilóminus the acute accent in antepenultima, for this reaſon only, to diſtinguiſh them from prope-modum, admodum, nihilo-minus, as Lilly beares vs in hand?

No: but the reaſon why they are ſo accented, is, becauſe theſe by compoſition being made one word, haue their penultima ſhort by quantitie.

Lilly tells vs, that duntaxat, deinceps, deorſum, haue the accent in antepenultima, to difference them from other words: Is that aſſertion true?

No: for wee reade no where dun taxat, dein ceps, de orſum, as diſtinct words, as per inde, pro inde.

How is amabo the aduerbe of flattering to be pronounced?

Some pronounce it ámabo, to diſtinguiſh it from the verb amato, but better {B} authoritie teacheth vs to pronounce ἀmábo: as, Dic verum mihi Marce dic amabo. Mart. where amabo hath the penultima long by quantitie.

How is Ti before another vowell to be pronounced?

Alwayes as in the word Oratio, where (t) doth liqueſcere, and is to be pronounced as z, as if it were written orazio, except firſt, in the beginning of a word, as tiara: ſecondly, if ſ come before it, as iuſtior: thirdly, in the poeticall infinitiues, as mittier: fourthly, in borrowed words, as Politía, pragmatía.

How are Greeke words, being made latine, to be pronounced?

According to their Quantitie, not according to the tone, or accent they had in their owne tongue: as, we are not to pronounce Nicódemus, but Nicodémus; not Demónicus, but Demonícus; not Basílius, but Baſilíus; not Cæſárea, but Cæſaréa; not Eúbulus, but Eubúlus: for the penultima of theſe is long by quantitie. {n. p.}

Of the Quantitie of Syllables.

Are we to write patrizo, as Lilly doth in the rule concerning words long by poſition, or patriſſo.

I thinke we are rather to write patriſſo for z is not a letter proper to the latine tongue and I find other verbes of imitation ending in ſſo, as Platoniſſo, Philoniſſo, Atticiſſo: nay, Lilly himſelfe ſaith in his rules of the ſpecies of verbes. Imitatiua ſunt &c. vt Patriſſo &c.

Is that rule, vocalis breuis ante mutam ſequente liquida communis redditur, to be vnderſtood indifferently, and equally of all the foure liquids, l, m, n, r?

No: but of (l) and (r) very often, of (m) and (n) very ſeldome.

When of l and r?

In ſimple words, or ſuch cōpounds whoſe mutes together with the liquids pertaine to the ſame ſyllable: and this is very neceſſarie to bee obſerued for theſe words; obrodo, obrepo, obligo, obrumpo &c. though they haue a ſhort vowell before a mute, and a {B2} liquid, yet are they long, and are neuer found ſhort, for as much as the liquid and mute in any of them, being compound words, doe not concurre to the conſtitution of a ſyllable: for theſe words are to be diuided, thus: ob-rodo, ob-repo, as appeares by the rules of diſtinction of ſyllables before.

When of m and n?

In Greek words, as Cygnus, Progne, Atlas, or ſuch as imitate greek words.

Giue ſome examples of l, r, put after liquids, making the precedent ſyllables common?

L is put after mutes in theſe words, Hybla, Agathocles, Abodlas, Ciniflo, Noegla, Locuples, Atlas.

R in theſe, Celebris, Volucris, Exedra, Africa, Denigro, Apri, Arbitror.

Why is the laſt ſyllable ſaue one in Caï, Vultei, Pompei, &c. long in Poets, whereas as one vowell comes before another?

Lillies Grammar doth not except theſe wordes from the generall rule vocalis ante alteram &c. but the reaſon of this production is, becauſe amongſt the Ancients they were written {n. p.} with (ji) and ſo were long by poſition, which manner of writing, though it bee not now in vſe, yet the quantitie of the ſyllable ſtill remains.

Doe onely innuba, pronuba, compounds deriued of nubo; dejero, pejero, the compounds of juro, by compoſition change their long quantitie to ſhort?

No: diuers other words alſo, as Omnipotens, Sacroſanctus, apud Buchan. Bardocucullus, Mart. integer, ab in, & æger: æuiternus, ab æuum, & æternus, nihilum, à ne, & hilum: the ſecond ſyllables of which are ſhort in compoſition, long out of compoſition: ſo ſiquidem, ―ſiquidem ieiuna remanſit. Ouid. iubeo, à ius, & habeo; whoſe firſt ſyllables become ſhort by compoſition.

Is that generally true: in t deſinentia breuia ſunt?

No: ſuch words are to be excepted which haue a conſonant before t, as amant, eſt, refert, and ſuch as are long by contraction, as,

Nomen abît, aut vnde redît maiore triumpho. Lucan.

If all nounes ending in e haue e ſhort {B3} by quantitie, except the ablat. of the fifth declenſion, how is it that wee finde e in fame long in Virg. a noune of the third declenſion, as,

Amiſſis (vt fama) apibus morboq_ȝ fameq_ȝ.

It is not ſo made by Cæſura, becauſe it is not a ſyllable produced after a foot full and compleat falling any of the kinds of Cæſura in Grammar ſpecified, we muſt therefore ſay that anciently (fames) was of the fift declenſion, but now vſed onely in the third, yet here retaines the ſame quantitie which it had in former times, when it was of the fift.

Is that true which Lilly hath: Pes vna cum compoſitis, vt præpes, bipes &c?

No: Præpes ſignifieth ſwift, not on foot, but in flying, it is not compounded of præ, and pes, but deriued rather of præpeto, to haſten to with ſpeed: it is commonly vſed in the Poets, as an epithite of the Eagle, which is conſecrated to Ioue, Præpes adunca Iouis, Ouid. In Tully, præpes auis, is the bird that firſt ſheweth himſelfe to the Augur, {n. p.} whereby hee declares things to come: it may appeare by analogie very euidently, that præpes is no compound of pes: bipes makes bipedis, quadrupes quadrupedis in the genit. caſe, but præpes præpetis, not præpedis.

Is that rule of Lilly true, Longæ ſunt omnes voces quartæ inflexionis in us præter nom. & voc. ſing.

No: for the dat. and ablat. plurall in us, of all words of the fourth declenſion are ſhort, as well as the nom. and voc. ſingular.

Of ETYMOLOGIE.

WHat is the meaning of that definition of Etymologie in Lilly. Etym. eſt ratio cognoſcendi caſuum diſcrimina?

The meaning of it is this: that in Etymologie is handled the differences of terminations of Nounes, Pronounes, and Participles, by declining of Verbes by their coniugating from their firſt themes: as for example, the variations of Muſa in the oblique Caſes, are called Caſuum diſcrimina: {B4} ſo likewiſe the differences of endings of doctus, whether it be varied by declining as doctus, a, um; or by compariſon, as doctus, ior, iſſimus, are called caſuum diſcrimina. Caſus here is not to bee taken in ſo ſtrict an acception as it is afterwards, where it is ſaid, Caſus ſunt ſex, for it is attributed to a verbe alſo, for the variation of the verbe Amo in all Tenſes, Perſons, and Moodes, from its ſimple ſelfe are called in this definition, Caſuum diſcrimina. But yet mee thinkes the definition is too narrow, though wee doe ſtretch the words after this manner, and comprehendeth vnder it onely the declineable parts of ſpeech, for though almoſt all aduerbs deriued from adjectiues be compared, and ſo bee varied in termination (yet they haue this nature as deriued rather then as aduerbs) and ſome few prepoſitions, as ſupra, ſuperior, &c. yet not any conjunction, or interjection admitteth of Caſuum diſcrimina, and very hardly any aduerbe which is ſo primitiuely, and originally. {n. p.}

Of the parts of Speech.

Of a Noune.

How are there eight parts of ſpeech, ſince a Pronoune, and a Participle haue the ſame things which belong to a Noune, to wit, Number, Caſe, Gender, and Declenſion?

A Pronoune, & a Participle agree, and communicate with a Noune in theſe, but yet they haue ſeuerall and peculiar differences by which they are diſtinguiſhed, and conſtitute ſeuerall parts of ſpeech: a Pronoune is diſtinguiſhed from a Noune by difference of Perſon, and from a Participle by Time, and ſignification.

Why doe you ſay that a Noune admits not difference of perſons: when as Magiſter in the nominatiue caſe is of the third perſon, in the vocatiue of the ſecond perſon, according to that rule. The ſecond perſon is ſpoken to, as, Tu, Thou, and of this perſon is euery vocatiue caſe?

A vocatiue caſe is ſaid to be of the ſecond perſon, not becauſe it is ſo of its proper ſignification, but by reaſon of the pronoune, Tu, with which it {n. p.} doth agree in the ſame caſe by appoſition.

This anſwere is giuen by ſome to make Lillies definition of a noune good, but in the definitions of Friſchline, Melanchthon, Scaliger, and Finkius, there is no want of difference of Perſon mentioned to difference it from other parts of ſpeech.

’Tis true: The ſtreame of beſt Grammarians run, that a noune hath Perſons, but thus is diſtinguiſhed from a Pronoune, which ſignifies a thing with difference of Perſon as well as a Noune: a Noune ſignifies firſt, a Thing; ſecondarily, a Perſon: a Pronoune, firſt a Perſon; ſecondarily, a Thing.

If all Aduerbs, Coniunctions, &c. be parts indeclinable, how comes it to paſſe that ſome of them are the Nominatiue Caſes to their Verbes, and haue Adiectiues ioyned to them, agreeing with them in caſe, gender, & number, as in Martial: Dic mihi cras iſtud Poſthume quando venit: and againe, Magnum ſemper inane ſophῶs: or thus, Et eſt coniunctio, Penes eſt præpoſitio. Vah eſt interjectio. {n. p.}

Cras, and Sophῶs, and the other particles before the verbe eſt, are not nounes, but as it were nounes inaſmuch as they ſupply the place of a nomin. caſe before the verbe, they are not properly nounes, but τεχνικῶς, artificially as Melanchthon ſpeaketh: and in the ſame manner are verbes ſometimes vſed.

Matutinum portat ineptus ave. Mart.

Quis expediuit Pſittico ſuum χαῖρε. Per.

Scire tuum nihil eſt. Idem.

Doe not the nounes, Hora, Dies, Menſis, Annus, ſignifie difference of Time, as well as a participle; doth not the Time of an Houre differ from the Time of a Day, and the ſpace of a Moneth from the ſpace of an Yeere? how is it then that Lilly ſaith, a noune doth not ſignifie difference of Time?

’Tis true indeed, that theſe nounes conſidered cōparatiuely among them ſelues, doe ſignifie Times which differ among themſelues, but conſidered abſolutely, and each by it ſelfe, they doe barely ſignifie a ſpace of Time, not conſignifie Time beſides its prime ſignification, as a participle {n. p.} doth; as amans doth not onely ſignifie the action (or rather paſſion) of louing, but conſignifies the preſent time.

Are not ſome ſubſtantiues varied by three terminations.

Yes: we reade Syngraphus, Syngrapha, Syngraphum: Intybus, Intyba, Intybum: Vesper, & vesperus, ra, rum.

How doth that definition of a noune ſubſtantiue proper, hold: Quod vni ſoli conuenit; when as we reade many proper names in the plurall number?

The definition is true notwithſtanding that exception: for a proper name in its owne nature is attributed but to one in the ſame ſpecies, but by accident to many. Firſt, when the ſame name agrees to many men: as, Virgilij, Simones, Scipiones. Secondly, when a noune metaphorically noteth a propertie or ſimilitude: as, Catones, for Wiſe-men. Thirdly, when the names of Nations, or Families, take vpon them the nature of appellatiues, as the Latini from Latinus, Fabij from Fabius, the Authors and Founders of that Nation, this Familie. {n. p.}

Of the Accidents of a Noune.

Of Species.

When is a word ſaid to be of the primitiue ſpecies?

A word is ſaid to be of the primitiue ſpecies, which is as the ſtemme, or roote, whence other wordes as branches doe ſprout forth; or as the fountaine, whence other words as rivolets doe iſſue and flow forth, which are therefore called deriuatiues, as the noune of the primitiue ſpecies is nauis, of the deriuatiue ſpecies, are, nauigo, nauicula.

Is ſpecies taken properly in Grammar, or metaphorically?

Metaphorically: ſpecies properly ſignifies an image, picture, or reſemblance of any thing: the reaſon of borrowing this word, is this: as the image which repreſents it ſelfe to the eye of the body by a direct ray, is the prime image; that which is repreſented by a reflected ray is a ſecond image begot of the firſt: ſo that word which repreſents it ſelfe to {n. p.} the Vnderſtanding (which is the Eye of the Soule in its prime eſtate, is a word of the primitiue ſpecies, that which iſſues from the former of the deriuatiue.

What is a noune collectiue?

A noune which collecteth, gathereth, and vniteth a companie, or multitude, in the ſingular number: as, Ɛxercitus, an Armie; Grex, A flocke of ſheepe; Examen, A ſwarme of Bees.

If Quis bee ſometimes a noune interrogatiue, ſometimes a noune indefinite; how comes it to paſſe that Lillie claps it in amongst the pronounes afterwards, and ſubioynes to the rules of pronounes a catalogue of the compounds of Quis?

It ſeemes to bee placed out of due order; vnleſſe peraduenture it viſite the pronounes by reaſon of ſome ſeeming affinitie it hath with Qui.

It is ſaid in the Engliſh Rudiments, that Quid is alwayes a ſubſtantiue of the neuter gender, is that true?

No: Quid is not a ſubſtantiue, but is put ſometimes ſubſtantiuely with a genitiue caſe: as, Quid noui? {n. p.}

Is not Quid ſometimes vſed for Magnum?

Yes: as, Neſcio, quid certe eſt, & Hylax in limine latrat. Virg.

Neſcio, quid certè eſt, quod me tibi temperat aſtrum. Pers.So among the Greekes, τί ?? vſed for μέγατι, as ὂιονται τί εἶναι, ἐδενὸς ὄντες ἂξιος, Plat. in ap. Socr.

Why are Vnus, Duo, Tres, Quatuor, &c. the firſt kindes of numerall nounes of the primitiue ſpecies, called Cardinalls?

Becauſe the digit numbers are the firſt and chiefe numbers, vpon the which the reſt doe depend, and turne as the doore vpon the hinges, which in latine are called cardines, the reſt being but reſumptions of them. So the foure great and chiefe windes, are called the Cardinall windes, and the chiefe, and mayne point in any buſineſſe, is called, Cardo cauſæ.

Whence is a noune Patronymicke deriued?

From the Greeke words, Πατὴρ, a Father; and ὂνυμα, a Name; which hath its name from the father. So it {n. p.} onely ſignifies, being ſtrictly taken according to the Etymon. as Tydides, the ſonne of Tydeus; Pelides, the ſonne of Peleus; but yet it is vſed in a larger extent, to ſignifie many other relations by marriage, as Æacides, the ſonne, or nephew of Æacus; Nerine, the daughter or neece of Nereus; Menelais, the wife of Menelaus.

Of Figure.

What doe Grammarians meane when they aſke that queſtion: Cuius eſt figuræ eſt hoc nomen?

They aſke whether it bee a ſimple noune, as parabilis, or a compound as reparabilis, or a decompound as irreparabilis.

Doth not compoſition ſometimes change gender?

Yes: for τίμος is of the maſcul. gen. but atomus the compound is of the femin. φθόγγος, is of the maſcu. gender, but diphthongus is of the femin.

Are there not diuers words which are vſed by latine Authors, which are compounded of greeke and latine words, and latine and greeke words? {n. p.}

Yes: theſe are compounded of greeke, and latine words:

Monoculus,        Vnoculus.

Bigamus,   { for which ſome had rather ſay } Digamus.

Anthropouorus,       Anthropophagus.

Archigubernus, Protonotarius, Archidux, &c. Theſe of latine, and greeke words:⁵ Prologus, and therefore they make the firſt ſyllable long; Epitogium, Elogium, Grauitona, Semidiameter, Biſſyllabum, Imbuo, ab in, & βύω, Induo, ab in, & δύω, &c. vide Rod. Boclen. prob. Gram. l. 3. 29. p.

Of Number.

Is that rule true concerning all nounes; the ſingular number ſpeaketh of one, the plurall of more then one?

No: ſome nounes are ſingular by poſition, or termination, but plurall in ſenſe and vnderſtanding, as Turba, concie, exercitus, &c. Againe, ſome nounes are plurall by poſition, and ſingular in ſenſe: as, Athenæ, literæ, &c. {C}

Of Caſe.

Is it neceſſarie to make a ſeuenth or eighth Caſe?

No: the ſeuenth which Grammarians make by an ablatiue caſe with a prepoſition, is altogether ſuperfluous, for no prepoſition enters into the eſſence of a caſe, ſo likewiſe is their eighth caſe, for it is the datiue put for the accuſatiue, with the prepoſition ad: as, It clamor cœlo. i. ad cœlum⁶. Virg. Quærere ſibi adiumenta honoribus. i. ad honores conſequendos. Cic.

Why is the Ablatiue called Latinus Caſus?

Becauſe it is proper to the Latines; the Greeks altogether want it.

How then is it that we finde in Tully lat. prepoſitions which gouerne onely an ablatiue caſe, conſtrued with greeke nounes?

’Tis true, there is ſuch ſyntaxe found in Tully, as 13. Ep. ad Att. Id ab ἐποχῇ eſt remotiſſimum: and elſewhere. Prudentia cum ἐυμενείᾳ: where the words ἐποχῇ and ἐυμενείᾳ, though they be the {n. p.} datiue caſe, take vpon them the nature of the ablatiue.

Of Gender.

Doth not the feminine gender ſometimes imply the maſculine, as well as the maſculine the feminine?

Yes: hereof are diuers examples in Authors. Plaut. in Cistell. Scen. Niſi quid. Eam (rem) vult ſuæ matri, & patri, &c. vbi (ſuæ) innuit (ſuo)

Curtius is called Fama by Virg. in Culice.

Hic & Fama vetus nunquam moritura per æuum. Curtius.

Maistas veſtra, is the ordinarie title of a King.

Poteſtas, doth ſignifie Magiſtrates, and Iudges: Fenest. c. 26. De Procuratore Cæſaris, cæteriſq́_ȝ Romanis poteſtatibus. Sueton. in Claud. Cæs. Iuriſdictionem de fidei-commiſſis quotannis, & tantum in vrbe delegari magiſtratibus ſolitam in perpetuum, atq_ȝ etiam per prouincias potestatibus demandauit. So Saint Paul Rom. 13. 1. vſeth ἐξεσία ὑπερέχεσαι, which Beza renders, poteſtates ſupereminentes, to ſignifie Kings: {C2} ſo Nobilitæs, is in Lucan put for the Nobilitie, or Peeres of a Land. Nobilitas cum plebe perit.

Are all names of Males of the maſc. gender, of Females of the feminine; and all nounes that ſignifie both ſexes of both genders?

No: ſometimes one and the ſame gender doth agree to both ſexes, as is apparant in the names of birds, fiſhes, and other creatures, whoſe ſexe is not ſet forth by ſeuerall wordes: as in Paſſer, Aquila, Oſtreum. So Liberi, though it bee onely of the maſculine gender, is put both for ſonnes and daughters, and mancipium of the neut. gender, onely ſignifies a bond-man, or a bond-woman, a Hee, or a Shee captiue.

Is that a proper ſpeech which is ſet downe in the Engliſh Rudiments: the maſculine gender is declined with this article, Hic?

No: it is very harſh and inſolent; no gender, being the accident of a noune, can bee ſaid to bee declined; but euery noune which is declinable is declared to bee of the maſculine gender, {n. p.} hauing the article Hic prefixed.

Why are articles vſed in Grammar?

Not to point out an indiuidium, or particular Thing, or Perſon, nor to diſtinguiſh ſexe, for Grammar conſiders not the natures of things, but the names onely, as Lilly himſelfe confeſſeth, but to difference one gender from another: an article doth not make a noune of ſuch, or ſuch a gender, but demonſtrates it to be ſo: it is not the cauſe of the gender, but the ſigne.

Vpon Propria quæ maribus.

Is that marginall note true, which the Poſer of the Accidence hath in his margent vpon the first generall rule touching proper names, viz. Cocytus, the name of a Fenne in hell, is of the fem. gender.

No: I finde it of the maſc. gender in the moſt refined Authors:

Viſendus ater flumine languido Cocytus. Hor. 2. Car.

Inamænum forte ſedebat Cocytum iuxta. Stat. 1. Theb.

Is that exception of Stockwood to the ſecond generall rule of proper names, {C3} good, viz. that Epidaurus, the name of a Citie is of the maſc. gender?

No: for I finde it of the fem. gender in Martial. Aereis imposta iugis, medicamq_ȝ Epidaurum.

How are the proper noune, Opus, a Citie, and the appellatiue, Opus, a worke, distinguiſhed?

By their genitiue caſes: Opus, the noune proper maketh Opuntis: Opus, the appellatiue, Operis.

What is contayned in the firſt generall rule?

Thus much: Theſe all are maſculines: the names of Gods, the names of Men, of Moneths, of Windes, of Floods.

Are none to be excepted?

Yes: Styx, and Lethe, which are riuers of hell, found in the Poets of the femin. gen. ―Styx inde nouem circumflua campo. Stat. ― ſoporiferæ biberem ſi pocula Lethes. Ouid. we need not excuſe Lilly, by ſaying they are Fennes, not Riuers. So Albula of the fem. gen. as, Albula pota Deo, where we neede not force a Syncheris; the rule muſt be ſquared to the examples, {n. p.} not the examples to the rule.

What is contayned in the ſecond generall rule?

Thus much: the names of women, Earthly and Diuine, of Regions, Cities, Iles, are feminine.

Are none to be excepted?

Yes: beſides thoſe which are expreſſed, theſe, Londinum, Eboracum, Brunduſium, Pergamon, are of the neut. gen. as Virg. Miramur Troiæ cineres, & flebile victis Pergamon.

Of the generall rules of Appellatiues.

If ſuber, and ſiler be rightly placed in appellatiua arborum &c. how is it that wee finde them againe in the ſecond exception of neuters, from the third ſpeciall rule?

I cannot excuſe Lilly herein, it is a vaine exception, or Tautologie.

Of Epicens.

May not the rule, ſunt etiam volucrum &c. be ſpared?

Yes, as I conceiue: for firſt, it belongs {C4} not to a Grammarian, but to a Philoſopher, to conſider the difference of ſexes. Secondly, the genders of the names of birds, wilde beaſts, and fiſhes, are to bee knowne by the rules following. Thirdly, if this rule ſhew the gender of thoſe nounes in the ſame ſpecified, how is that wee finde the genders of them ſet downe againe: of birds, as Halcyon, Bubo, Perdix, Phœnix, Nycticorax: of beaſts, as Elephas, Linx: of fiſh, as Halec.

If all nounes appellatiue ending in um, be of the neuter gender, according to that rule, Omne quod exit in um. why doth Lilly ſay againe in the ſecond exception from the firſt ſpeciall rule, Et quot in on vel in um.

I thinke that part touching nounes ending in um, might be ſpared, and the rule better thus contracted.

Neutrum nomen in e, ſi gignit Is vt mare, rete.

Et quot in on, ſea Barbiton. Et pelagus, lacoethes,

Hippomanes, virus. Neutrum modo, mas modo vulgus.

What is the meaning of Inuariabile nomen? {n. p.}

Not only euery ſubſtantiue vndeclined, as the Poſer of the Accidence ſpeaks: but alſo all nomina τεχνικά, viz. all clauſes which are the nominatiue caſe to the verbe, as in that clauſe, didiciſſe fideliter artes Emollit mores; didiciſſe fideliter artes muſt be conceiued to be of the neuter gender, as alſo all verbs of the infinitiue moode vſed ſubſtantiuely, whether they come before their verbe, or follow after; as, Velle ſuum cuiq_ȝ est. Perſ. Videamus beate viuere veſtrum quale ſit. Cicer. Plaut. in Curc. ſc. 1. Ita tuum conferto amare ſemper ſi ſapis. Ne id quod ames, populus ſi ſciat, tibi ſit probro. Idem in Bacchid. ſc. Iamdudum. Hic vereri perdidit i, e, verecundiam.

What doe you thinke of that which is annexed to the firſt ſpeciall rule, Labes, labis. Peſtes, peſtis.

Peſtes is here ſet downe by Lilly (or I know not who) as the nomin. caſe, which word is not found in any pure Author, nor in any Lexicon: and it ſeemes rather to bee an error of the Compoſer then a ſlip of the Printer, inaſmuch as hee would {n. p.} haue pictis by analogie, the gen. caſe of pestes, as labis of labes; this hath paſſed in all editions that I haue ſeene without correction: the true nomin. caſe is pestis.

Doth Lilly ſpeake properly, when hee ſaith, Scriba, Aſſecla, Lixa, &c. are the names of men?

No: for in proprietie of ſpeech they are not the names of men, but of the offices, or imployments of men.

Is that generally true, Maſcula græcorum quot declinatio prima fundit, &c.

No: for as learned Ramus obſerues in his Grammar, there be many words borrowed of the Greeks by the Latines, which being of the maſculine gender and firſt declenſion, of the Greeks are of the feminine gender in latine Authors; which I haue comprized in this Diſtich:

Fœminei generis ſunt hæc Græcanica. Charta, Gauſapa, Margarita, Catarracta, & Catapulta.

Are funis, and ſentis of the maſcul. gender?

Ramus, and Stephanus ſay, they are {n. p.} of the Common of two: ſo alſo Trebell. in Prompt. Sentis com. g. teſte Phoca. aſpræ ſentes. Virg. Æneid. 2. Funis tam maſc. quam fœm. teste Gellio lib. 13. citante verſ. Lucret. Aurea de cœlo demiſit funis in arua.

Is rete alwayes of the neuter gender?

We reade both retis, and rete, rete is alwayes of the neuter gen. retis of the maſc. Varro. this is a noune redundant: as alſo, Barbiton, for wee reade in Horace, Barbitus, of the fem. gender. Age dic Latinum Barbite carmen. Carm. l. 1. Ode 32.

Is Halcyonis of the doubtfull gender, as Lilly beares vs in hand?

No: in this word Lilly was foulely deceiued, and by this hath deceiued others. Firſt, he was deceiued in that hee tooke for a word which did not encreaſe in the gen. caſe, where as it is in true the genitiue caſe of the nominatiue, Halcyon, a King-fiſher, ſo called, becauſe ſhee buildeth her neſt in the Sea, and there hatcheth her yong. Secondly, in that he ſaith it is of the doubtfull gender, where it is alwayes found with a femin. epithite. {n. p.} as Vir. Dilectæ Thetidi Halcyones.

Nunc ego deſertas alloquar Halcyonas. Proper. Mæſtæ.

Halcyones lugubre dabant per littora carmen. Mant.

Secondly, hee deceiued others, amongſt them the Conſtruer of Lillies Rules, who ſwallowed downe this flie, putting Halcyonis for a King-fiſher, and other ordinarie Schoolemaſters following him, are deceiued alſo.

Is ficus for a diſeaſe, of the doubtfull gender?

No: Martial⁷ who knew the gender of it better then Lilly, ſaith, it is of the⁸ maſc. gender.

Dicemus ficus, quas ſcimus in arbore naſci

Dicemus ficos, Cæciliane, tuos.

What is the meaning of the ſecond ſpeciall rule, Nomen creſcentis &c.

The Poſer of the Accidence, ſaith, this is the meaning: that euery noune ſubſtantiue cōmon, increaſing ſharpe, or long in the gen. caſe, that is, being lifted vp in pronouncing, or pronounced long, is of the feminine gender. {n. p.}

If Lilly meane by ſyllaba acuta, a long ſyllable with an acute accent vpon it, then many of the words put in the rules of exception, are in vaine excepted, for many of them increaſe ſhort?

’Tis very true: amongſt the maſculines excepted, theſe encreaſe ſhort, Sal, ſalis. Vir, viri. Mas, maris. Pes, pedis. Grex, gregis. Phryx, phrygis. Amongſt the doubtfull: Scrobs, ſcrobis. Grus, gruis. Amongſt the Common of two: Dux, ducis. Bos, bouis. Sus, ſuis.

Why doth Lilly ſay, Glis gliris habens genitiuo.

To diſtinguiſh it from Glis gliſſis, Potters clay, and Glis glitis, a Thiſtle, both which words are of the feminine gender.

Is not that rule, Maſcula in er, or, & os, faultie?

Yes, and it may bee thus compendiouſly amended: Maſcula in er, or, & os, ſeu Crater, conditor, heros;

In Dens, quale bidens: Torens, nefrens, orienſq_ȝ

Adde gigas, elephas, adamas, garamaſq_ȝ tapeſq́_ȝ {n. p.}

Atq_ȝ Lebes, magnes, hydrops, dodranſq́_ȝ meridi-

Es. Phœnix, bombyx, thorax, vervexq́_ȝ coraxq́_ȝ

Sunt hæc fœminea in n & or, Syren, ſoror, vxor.

Why doe you turne out of this rule, Cures: Quæ componuntur ab aſſe vt dodrans, ſemis; & Mulier?

Firſt: Cures⁹ is no noune appellatiue, but a proper name of a towne of the Sabines; which is read onely in the plurall number. Tutioq́_ȝ ſeni, Curibuſq́_ȝ ſeueris. Virg. Secondly, Dodrans, and Semis, are no compounds of As; firſt, Dodrans is no compound, as appeares by its ſignification, for it doth not ſignifie, nine pounds, which it ſhould if it were compounded of dodra and as, but nine ounces: as alſo by analogie; as of decem and as comes decuſſis, of centum and as, centuſſis; ſo by analogie of dodra and as, ſhould reſult dodraſſis, not dodrans: and herein Lilly forgot what hee had written before in the firſt exception of the firſt ſpeciall rule, that ab aſſenata were maſculines, not encreaſing in the genitiue {n. p.} caſe. Secondly, ſemis is not found in any pure Writer as a ſimple word; it is not the nom. caſe of Semiſſis, but ſemiſſis is it ſelfe the nom. caſe, compounded of ſemi and as, which ſemi is alwayes found in compoſition, as Semianimis, ſemivivus, ſemicircularis, ſemipedalis. Semibouemq́_ȝ virum, ſemivirumq́_ȝ bouem. Ouid. and is deriued of the greek word ἥμι, which being turned into latine, in ſtead of the aſper ſpiritus, doth prefixe ſ, as ὕπερ, ſuper; ὕλη, ſylua. Thirdly, Mulier, though in moderne Poets it bee made to encreaſe long, yet in truth it doth increaſe ſhort; and ſo the beſt Criticks pronounce it: that it increaſeth ſhort may bee thus confirmed. Firſt, it is found, the laſt word in many verſes in Terence, which doe commonly end in an Iambicke foote. Secondly, it is found, in any place of Virgil or Ouids works in any oblique caſe, and it is more then probable, that a word of ſuch common vſe would not haue beene baulked by them, had not the three firſt ſyllables in the oblique caſes made a tribrachus, {n. p.} of which their verſes are altogether vncapable. Thirdly, that Iambick Scazon in Martial, where (erum) makes an Iambus: for a Scazon neuer admits of a ſpondæus in the ſecond odde place, put all out of doubt. Amethyſtinaſq́_ȝ mulierum vocat veſtes.

Is perdix of the doubtfull gender?

It can ſcarce bee found in any Author of the maſculine gender, ordinarily of the femin. as Ouid.

Garrula ramoſa proſpexit ab ilice perdix.

Mart. Et picta perdix.

Mant. Dædala perdix, &c.

How may that rule, Sunt commune parens, &c. be bettered?

Thus: Communis generis ſunt hæc infans adoleſcens,

Dux, illex, hæres, exlex, autorq́_ȝ parenſq_ȝ

Latro, cliens, cuſtos, bos, fur, ſus, atq́_ȝ Sacerdos.

Why is Bifrons turned out?

Becauſe, though it bee ſometimes vſed ſubſtantiuely, yet indeed it is an adiectiue, an epithite of Ianus. {n. p.}

Saturnuſq́_ȝ ſenex, Iuniq́_ȝ bifrontis imago. Virg.

Is autor vſed onely concerning Perſons?

No: ſomtimes concerning Things, as, Multi ingenio ſibi autore dignitatem pepererunt. Cic. Calor autor leuitatis. Cometa ſideris autoris ſui ſequitur naturam. Scal.

Is Preſbyter, which is called in Grāmar, Vox Eccleſiaſtica, a good word or no?

No: it hath beene vſed by modern writers, but is in truth a barbarous word: the true latine word is Preſbyterus, borrowed of the greeke πρεσβύτερος.

What feminines are excepted from the third ſpeciall rule?

In Do, vel Go, Nomina hyperdiſyllaba gignunt.¹⁰

Quæ Dinis, atq_ȝ Ginis ſicut dulcedo, propago. To which theſe may more compleatly bee added:

Virgo, grando, fides, compes, teges, arbor, amazon,

Bacchar, hyems, mulier, ſyndon, gorgon, ſeges, icon. {D}

What doe you thinke of that rule, Græcula in as, &c. caſpis, caſſis, cuſpis.

I thinke that therein Lilly was in part deceiued, for caſſis and cuſpis are originally latine words, not to bee found in any greeke Lexicographer.

Is euery word, ſignifying a thing without life, ending in a, of the neuter gender?

Yes, if it encreaſe ſhort in the genitiue caſe.

How is then that many Grammarians haue affirmed, that polenta, though it encreaſe not at all in the genitiue caſe, is of the neuter gender?

It is true, Alexander, Sulpitius, Nebriſſenſis, Baptiſta Pius, and Calepine, affirme ſo; and Mantuan being deceiued by the Grammarians of his time, did vſe it ſo, ſaying: Montibus artocreas, & pingue polenta comedi. But in Apuleius wee finde, polentæ caſeatæ offula. In Varro, Obijciunt his polentam hordeacæm: the error aroſe firſt from the miſſe-conſtruction of that verſe in Ouids Metam. Dulce dedit testa, quod coxerat ante polenta: they cooſined with a comma after ante, put in by {n. p.} the non-intelligent Printer, thought polenta the accuſatiue, which was the ablatiue, as if the Poet had meant, dedit dulce polenta: which if it bee ſearcht into will be found non-ſenſe, for polenta ſignifieth dried barly, with which beere is brewed, but is not of it ſelfe any liquid thing which may bee drunke: the verſe is thus to bee conſtrued; Dedit dulce. i. dulcem potum, Shee gaue to Ceres ſweet drinke, quod coxerat ante polenta, which before ſhee had boyled with dried barly. Ouid takes dulce here in the neuter gender ſubſtantiuely, as afterwards, liquidum. Iuuenemq_ȝ cum liquido mixta perfudit Diua polenta;¹¹ Ceres beſprinkled the impudent boy which derided her, with the drie barly mingled with the liquor: ſo Niniuita.

If verber be read, Robinſon contradicts Lilly, affirming, that onely verberis, and verbere are read.

It is no maruell though they diſagree, ſince in patching vp our Grammar they did not conferre their notes together.

Doth iter belong to the rule of neutrall {D2} words, excepted from the third ſpeciall rule, ſince it is declined iter itineris, whereas thoſe which encreaſe in the genitiue caſe, are to exceede the nom. onely in one ſyllable, and not in two?

The genitiue caſe Itineris is of an old word Itiner, which is growne out of vſe, not of iter, which is ſucceeded in its roome.

Pecus pecoris ſeemes to bee of the fem. gender, as well as pecus pecudis, by that verſe of Ouid. Hoc Pecus omne meum, multæ ſtabulantur in antris. Multæ, in this verſe, doth not agree with pecora, but pecudes vnderſtood.

What is the meaning of Onyx cum prole?

That onyx with the off-ſpring, or compound thereof, Sardonyx, is of the doubtfull gender.

Is it any where found in the feminine gender?

No where, alwayes in the maſc.

Et crocino nares myrrheus vngat onyx. Propert.

In dextra candidus ardet onyx, &c.

Are Augur and Aruſpex vſed in the fem. gender, as well as in the maſc. {n. p.}

I doe not thinke any example can be ſhewed, where they are vſed in the feminine gender: the Romanes had a Colledge of Augurs, but wee neuer reade of any woman admitted fellow there. Plautus would not vſe Haruſpex for a Shee-diuiner, but Haraſpica.

Is princeps alwayes a ſubſtantiue of the common of two, as it is in Lilly?

I thinke that it is primarily a ſubſtantiuely, yet vſed ſometime in the roome and place of an adiectiue, as in that verſe of Horace:

Principibus placuiſſe viris non vltima laus est.

Of the firſt declenſion.

Doe all nounes of the firſt declenſion, ending in a, make the genitiue in æ?

No: for wee reade Paterfamilias, Materfamilias, Filiusfamilias in the gen. euen in the beſt and pureſt Authors: and in the Ancients, vias, terras: the genitiue of via, terra.

Why did they write ſo?

In imitation of the Greekes, amongſt whom all ſubſtantiues ending {D3} in δα, ϑα, ῥα, and α with a vowell before it forme the genitiue caſe by as.

It ſeemes that ſome latine words end in am, as well as Hebrew in the nom. caſe. I reade in Plautus; Ego patriam te rogo quæ ſit tua, where patriam ſeemes to be the nominatiue caſe: for if the ſentence bee conſtrued, the words muſt bee placed thus; Rogo te quæ ſit patriam tua?

The words cannot bee ſo placed: but here is an Antiptoſis, the accuſatiue put for the nominatiue, patriam for patria.

If all nounes of the firstdeclenſion in as, make the vocatiue in a, how is it that we reade in Terence, Pythias in the vocatiue caſe, Quid feſtinas, aut quem quæris Pythias, in Ɛun. Act. 4. ſc. 3.

In this there is an Atticiſme: the Atticks in all declenſions make the vocatiue like the nominatiue, and yet we finde regularly in the ſame Scene; Paululum ſi ceſſaſſem Pythia, domi non offendiſſem.

Are à Muſa, à Magiſtro, ablatiue caſes?

The vulgar Grāmarians confound {n. p.} Syntaxis with Etymologie, when in declining a noune that ſay in the ablat. ab hac Muſa, ab hoc Magistro; this is conſtruction, not declining: if they will ſay, the prepoſition is prefixed onely as a ſigne; I anſwere, that this ſigne is nor perpetuall: this appeares in Siquis, ecquis. Nequis, nunquis: for none will ſay, à ſiquo, ab ecquo, à nequo, à nunquo. Goclen. problem. Gram. l. 1. p. 24.

Doth not anima ſometimes make the datiue, and ablatiue caſes plurall in abus, as well as Dea liberta &c.

Yes, and ſometimes in is alſo: for we reade in Cicero. Tullius Terentiæ, & Pater Tulliolæ duabus animis ſuis ſalutem dicit.

Doe not words of the firſt declenſion make the datiue and ablatiue caſes plurall, regularly in is?

Yes: but theſe which follow are to bee excepted, whereof ſome make is and abus, as nounes redundant; others abus onely: which for the helpe of memorie I haue reduced into this diſtich: {D4}

Filia, nata, anima is faciunt, atque abus, at abus Tantùm, Ambæ, atq́_ȝ duæ, liberta, equa, ſic dea, mula.

Of the ſecond Declenſion.

How many terminations bee there of the ſecond declenſion?

Eight: the examples of them I haue compiled in this Hexameter:

TemplVM, annVS, vIR, apER, SatVR, OrphEVS, IliON, ArgOS.

Is there an imitation of the Attick dialect of the Greekes, which formes the vocatiue like to the nominatiue, in that verſe of Ouid. Latmius Endymion non eſt tibi luna rubori, as Lilly ſuppoſeth.

I ſee no reaſon for that ſuppoſall, for Latmius Endymion is the nominatiue caſe to the verbe est, not the vocatiue: the Poet according to the true originall copie, doth not direct his ſpeech to Endymion, but to the Moone: the meaning is, that Diana was not aſhamed to deſcend to the louing embracements of Endymion on the hill Latmus. Endymion was an Aſtronomer, and for the cleerer ſight {n. p.} of the ſtarres, did often goe to the top of that mountaine, which gaue hint to the fable.

What words bee thoſe of the ſecond declenſion, which make the vocatiue in e and in us?

Theſe ſixe: which to helpe the memorie, I haue comprized in this verſe:

Hæc: vulgus, lucus, populus, fluuius, chorus, agnus.

Doe not Quercus, and Laurus, forme the vocatiue in e, or us, as well as theſe?

Yes; but not in the ſame reſpect: for they forme the vocatiue in e, as of the ſecond declenſion: and in us, as of the fourth declenſion.

Doth vulgus make the vocatiue in e, and in us, as of the maſc. gender.

No: it hath that double termination in a double conſideration: as it makes e in the voc. it is of the maſc. gender, as us of the neuter: and here alſo may be noted, that the ending of the reſt of the nounes in us in the vocatiue caſe, is an Archaiſme.

How doe greeke words in os, as Logos, make the vocatiue?

As the latine words in us regularly. {n. p.}

What is the reaſon that Panthus, and Oedipus, make the vocatiue in u?

Becauſe they come of greek words in ὕς, which make υ in the vocatiue, which is rendred in latine by u.

Of the third Declenſion.

What nounes of the third declenſion make the accuſatiue caſe in im onely?

Theſe; which for memories ſake may thus rime:

Ʋim, rauim, ſitim, tuſſim,

Charybdim, maguderim, & amuſſim.

What nounes make the accuſatiue both in im, and in em?

Theſe: Im, Ɛm. faciunt, febris, buris,

Peluis, puppis, & ſecuris.

Torquis, turris, aqualis, nauis.

Et bipennis, reſtis, clauis.

If the genitiue caſe of the third declenſion end in is, how comes it to paſſe that wee reade duri miles Vlyſſi. Immitis Achilli?

Concerning Vlyſſi, which Ʋirg. vſeth in the genitine caſe, in the ſecond of his Æneid. (and the ſame is to bee ſaid alſo of Achilli) wee muſt {n. p.} obſerue that it is of the third declenſion of the contracts amongſt the Greekes, whoſe nom. ending in ευς, and genit. in έος, as Vlyſſeus, Vlyſſeos; the ancient Grammarians were wont to diuide εὕς into two ſyllables, whoſe genitiue they made εἴ, diuided alſo, as Vlyſsëus, Vlyſsëi; and the vowels ſo diuided, they did againe contract into the diphthong ει, by Synecphoneſis, as Vlyſſes, for Vlyſſei: and afterward by Synæreſis they pronounced the diphthong by i, as Vlyſſi for Vlyſſei.

Doe any nounes of the third declenſion decreaſe in the genitiue caſe?

No: thoſe that imagine that Iupiter makes Iouis in the genitiue caſe, are deceiued; and thoſe that decline it ſo, may as well ſay. Nom. Phœbus. Gen. Apollinis, ſaith the Grammarian. Probus Inſtitut. l. 2. Iupiter is a Synonymon of the ancient nominat. caſe: Iouis, which was declined Iouis in the genitiue caſe alſo, but now the nominatiue is out of vſe, and Iupiter vſed in ſtead of it; but the other caſes keepe their ancient forme. {n. p.}

Is that rule of Lilly generally true, that Adiectiues, except thoſe which end in is, and en, and make e in the neuter gender, make the ablatiue both e and i?

No: for adiectiues ending in ns, doe not make the ablatiue promiſcuouſly in e or i: in this we muſt be very obſeruant of the vſe of authors, we may ſay, me perlubente, me imprudente; but we may not ſay, me perlubenti, me imprudenti: neither may we ſay gaudenti, libenti, patienti, abſenti illo factum eſt: for the ablatiue of the participle of the preſent tenſe, being ioyned with another word put abſolutely, ends onely in e: yet wee may ſay in another kinde of conſtruction, animo Gaudenti, patienti, lætanti faciam. Goclen. probl. gram. l. 1. pag. 16.

Is that rule of Lillie generally true. Comparatiua bifariam facient ablativum in e vel i?

No: the comparatiues of the fœminine gender doe moſt commonly make the ablatiue in e, as lætiore fame, ſecundiore fortuna, vocis contentione maiore, grauitate acriore, commodiore valetudine, longiore via. Comparatiues {n. p.} of the neuter gender moſt commonly make the ablatiue in i, as a Marori, a Pari, a fortiori; ardentiori ſtudio, Cic. vide Goclen. ibid.

Of the fourth Declenſion.

What words of the fourth declenſion make the datiue, and the ablatiue caſes plural in ubus.

Theſe comprehended in this diſtich for memory ſake.

Hæc in vbus, ficus, portus,

partus, ſpecus, arcus

Sic lacus, atque veru, ſic

quercus, acus, tribus, artus.

Of the fift Declenſion.

Is plebes, plebei to be vſed by any one that would write purely?

No: it was a word anciently vſed, but now is exolete: if plebs be a noune redundant, as Robinſon ſaith, then plebes muſt be the other nominatiue caſe; not plebis, as he ſaith in his rules of Heteroclits: plebis is no where found but in the genitiue of plebs. {n. p.}

Vpon Quægenus, &c.

What doe you thinke of that rule, Hæc genus, ac partim flexum variantia, &c.

I thinke it might very well haue beene ſpared. Pergama ſeemes to be the plurall of Pergamon, found in Virg. rather then of Pergamus. Some ſay that ſupellectilia is the plural of ſupellex, but is ſcarce to be found in any pure author: it fell not within the verge of the reading of the compoſer of theſe rules, and therefore hee ſaith, Quod niſi plurali careat &c.

What are nounes aptote?

Not ſuch as haue no caſes, but ſuch as doe not admit of difference of terminations in oblique caſes, they are deriued of α, a priuatiue particle, and πίπτω, cado.

Are cornu and genu ſuch?

Yes.

Yet we reade that theſe haue other terminations, as cornuum, cornibus, genuum, genibus.

The rule is to be vnderſtood of theſe in the ſingular, not in the plurall number. {n. p.}

What part of ſpeech is fas?

A noune adiectiue, vſed onely in the neuter gender; and of the ſame natue is nefas.

If Inſtar be a noune, as Robinſon ſaith, how comes it to paſſe that in the ſyntaxis of aduerbs we finde this rule, Inſtar æquiparationem, menſuram &c. ſignificat, &c.

It is an euident contradiction, and no maruell, ſince our Grammer is a Cento made vp of the ſhreds of ſeuerall men.

Is not the rule touching Triptots faultie?

Yes: firſt in that hee ſaith, frugis, and ditionis want their nominatiue caſes, whereas fruges, and ditio are found in good authors, and are not ſcrupulouſly to be refuſed. Secondly, in that he ſaith opis, hath the plurall number compleate and perfect: it is true, opes is read in all caſes in the plurall number, but it hath not any reſpect to opis, but is a feminine plurall, wanting the ſingular number, and is to be referred to that rule, Hæc ſunt fæminei generis, numerique ſecundi, &c. Againe {n. p.} the ſignifications of opis & opes, though they haue ſome kinred, yet they differ much; opis, helpe, opes, riches. If he will ſay that opis hath the plurall number, hee may as well ſay that delicium hath the plurall number alſo, for deliciæ is euery where read: and that Tricæ, apinæ, plugæ, hath the ſingular number, for trica, apina, pluga are found frequently in the ſingular number in different ſignification.

Doth omnis want the vocatiue caſe?

No: we read in the Poet, Dijque Deæq_ȝ omnes. O all ye Gods and Goddeſſes.

Haue no Pronounes the vocatiue caſe,

but onely noſter, noſtras, meus & tu?

Yes: Ipſe hath the vocatiue caſe alſo; as in the Poet,

Ipſe meas æther ſuſcipe ſumme preces.

How may Robinſons rule be mended?

Thus: Et Pronomina, præter

Quinque notanda. Meus, tu,

nostras, noster, & ipſe.

What Nounes want the plurall number? {n. p.}

All, or the moſt part that for breuitie ſake are compriſed in this diſtich.

1. Propria, 2. Virtutes, 3. Artes,

4. Penſa, 5. Uda, 6. Figura.

7. Morbi, 8. Herbæ, 9. Uitia,

10. Ætates, 11. Frumenta, 12. Metella.

1. As Thomas, Richardus. 2. Prudentia, Iustitia. 3. Grammatica Logica. 4. Piper, Saccharum. 5. Aromatices. 6. Synecdoche, Metaphora. 7. Podagra, Cephalalgia. 8. Amaranthus, Amaracus. 9. Deſidia, Auaritia. 10. Iuuenta, Senecta. 11. triticum. 12. aurum ferrum.

Is not ſanguis read in the plurall number?

Yes, in eccleſiaſticall writers, but then the word is forced to expreſſe an Hebraiſme, as, vir ſanguinum.

Lilly ſaith that nemo is of the common of two, Robinſon that it is of the maſculine gender; what doe you thinke of their variance?

Phocas, and other Grammarians ſide with Robinſon, and they adde, that Homo alſo is of the maſculine gender, {E} of which nemo is a compound. Neither of theſe nounes are found with an adiectiue of the feminine gender: it is true that Terence hath in his Andria, Scio neminem peperiſſe hic: and Virg. nec vox hominem ſonat, ſpeaking of Venus: and Sulpicius in an Epiſtle to Cicero, (wherein hee comforts him for the death of his daughter Tullia) hath theſe words, Quæ ſi iam diem ſuum non obijſſet paulo poſt tam ei moriendū fuit, quam homo nata erat: where nata doth not agree with homo, but Tullia vnderſtood; and the deriuatiue humanus is attributed to a woman in Horace, Humano capite (to a womans head) ceruicem pictor equinam Iungere ſi vellet, &c. as appeares by what followes, mulier formoſa ſupernè; but hence cannot be any infallible concluſion drawne, that Homo is of the feminine gender; and ſo, neither by conſequence that nemo is of that gender: in this let euery one follow what hee himſelfe ſeeth beſt grounds for.

Is it true that Caſſida, æ, is formed of Caſſida, the accuſatiue caſe of a Greek {n. p.} word Caſſis caſſidos; as Panthera of Panther, as Robinſon would perſwade vs.

No: he, and his brother Lilly herein draw in the ſame line of error: caſſis is primitiuely a latine word.

Is that true which Robinſon hath in his rules of redundant nounes, that ador and ados are both read in the nominatiue caſe?

No: for ador is onely to be found, not ados; the rule may be corrected by putting odor for ador, odos for ados, for both theſe words are read in good authors.

Are puber and pubes of the ſame ſignification, as Robinſon tels vs?

No: pubes is properly a ſigne of ripeneſſe of age in men, at foureteene yeeres, in women at twelue, but puber ſignifies one that hath arriued at thoſe yeeres.

May thoſe luxuriant adiectiues which are deriued of Arma, iugum, neruus, &c. be vſed promiſcuouſly?

No: for though they be found in old writers, yet many of them are reiected {E2} by thoſe which haue refined the Latine tongue: we muſt not vſe inermus ſo frequently as inermis, nor ſublimus but ſublimis, nor procliuus but procliuis, not ſynceris but ſyncerus onely, not imbellus but imbellis.

Of Adiectiues and their Compariſons.

How many terminations be there of adiectiues in the poſitiue degree?

Nine: all adiectiues end as one of theſe adiectiues:

SoleRS, excelleNS, locuplES,

ſublimIS, & audAX.

BelligER, atque ſatVR, prefulgidVS, atque RauennAS.

and here wee may note by the way, that Rauennas, Arpinas are declined as Noſtras.

Is vnus neuer vſed in the plurall number, except it be ioyned with a word which wanteth the ſingular number.

Yes, among the Poets, who for verſe ſake often vſe the plurall number {n. p.} for the ſingular, as Uirg. ſatis vna ſuperque vidimus excidia.

What adiectiues be there which may be encreaſed, or diminiſhed in ſignification, and yet are not compared in pure writers?

Theſe; Uulgaris, vetulus, balbus, ſylueſter, equester,

Delirus, criſpus, claudus, canuſque canorus,

Gallicus atque cicur, memor, almus, caluus, egenus, &c.

What adiectiues are not compared at all by a proper compariſon?

1. Thoſe that end in us, purum, as egregius. 2. Participials in dus, as colendus, which is vſed by ſome in the ſuperlatiue, colendiſſimus: it were more pure to ſay, maxime, or admodum colendus. 3. Adiectiues in plex, as quadruplex, except ſimplex, multiplex. 4. In imus, as maritimus. 5. In ivus, as fugitiuus: but yet we read festiuior, feſtiuiſſimus. 6. Deriuatiues in inus, as matutinus. 7. Compounds of fero and gero, as legifer, corniger.

Is that true that the comparatiue doth {E3} ſignifie the poſitiue with magis.

No: for the comparatiue doth magis ſignificare. i. hath a larger ſignification then the poſitiue, though it doth not ſignificare poſitiuum cum magis, becauſe the denominatiue doth not ſignifie the Noune from which it is deriued, but the Thing after another manner: ſo the comparatiue ſignifies a thing, not a noune.

Which adiectiues want the poſitiue degree?

Beſides, deterior, potior, ac ocyor, thoſe which are deriued of theſe prepoſitions, comprehended in this verſe:

Ante, infra, ſupra, extra, intra, vltra, poſt, prope, citra.

Which adiectiues want the comparatiue degree, yet haue the ſuperlatiue?

Theſe: Inclytus, atq_ȝ ſacer, falſus, fidus, merituſq_ȝ

Nuper, & inuiius, nouus, & iuriſconſultus, &c.

Which adiectiues want the ſuperlatiue, yet haue the comparatiue?

Theſe: Longinquus, iuuenis, decliuis, & infinitus. {n. p.}

Atque ſenex, ingens, adoleſcens, atque propinquus. &c.

What adiectiues ending in dus may be compared?

Such as are primitiuely adiectiues, as, Iucundus, ior, iſſimus: limpidus, ior, iſſimus: fæcundus, ior, iſſimus: but nounes adiectiues participials may not be compared: it is true that ſome modern writers haue compared them according to Analogie; but yet therein they haue ſwarued from the vſe of the moſt pure authors; & this liberty they tooke to expreſſe the abundance of their ardent affection, reſpect and obſeruance to their Patrons and Superiours; and therefore wee ſeldome or neuer finde them compared, except in the frontiſpices of Dedicatory Epiſtles. But Certiſſima loquendi magistra conſuetudo, ſaith Quintilian: we may not ſay, reuerendiſſimo viro, but reuerendo: not, Vir recolendiſſimæ memoriæ, but colendæ, recolendæ: nor venerandiſſimus, but cum primis, vel maximè venerandus. Goclen. Prob. l. 1. p. 22. {E4}

How are verbals in bilis to be compared?

Not beyond the comparatiue. Wee read, formidabilis, formidabilior, but neuer, formidabiliſſimus, ſo amabilis, amabilior, but neuer amabiliſſimus.

How can noune ſubſtantiues be compared, ſince they cannot receiue any increaſe of ſignification?

When a noune ſubſtantiue is compared, the ſubſtance is not reſpected, but the qualitie: as pænior is as much as pæno vafrior, more crafty or vnfaithfull then a Carthaginian. Neronior, as much as Nerone Sæuior, more bloudy and cruell then Nero: ſo oculiſſimus. i. dilectiſſimus; as deare to one as his eyes.

Of a Pronoune.

Whence hath a Pronoune its name?

Quòd pro nomine ponatur. From being ſometimes put in the roome and place of a noune, ſo Scaliger defines it, {n. p.} l. 6. de C. L. L. c. 27. Amongſt the Lawyers ea, is put for mulier, and ipſa for filiafamilias: the Scholars of Pythagoras being aſked a reaſon of their Aſſertions, anſwered, ἀυτὸς ἔφη. Hee hath ſaid it, that is, Pythagoras. Plaut. in Caſina. ſc. ſi ſapitis. Ipſam pro hera dixit, Ego eo, quo me Ipſa miſit: ſo wee in Engliſh ſay; the ſtoutest Hee. For the moſt couragious, or one that beares his head higheſt.

Can one, and the ſame pronoune bee called a primitiue, a demonſtratiue, and a relatiue?

Yes: but not in one and the ſame reſpect, as for example: the pronoune Ille in reſpect of its originall is a primitiue, becauſe it is not deriued of any other, in reſpect of its demonſtration, or pointing out of ſome Perſon, or Thing a demonſtratiue, in reſpect of its relation, a relatiue, becauſe it repeates, or rehearſes ſome thing, or perſon, of which there was mention before made.

How comes it to paſſe that noſtri, and veſtri, are vſed in the genitiue caſe plurall, {n. p.} as well as noſtrum, and veſtrum.

Becauſe nostri, and vestri, in the genitiue ſingular, ſignifie a multitude, therefore they are vſed promiſcuouſly with noſtrum, and veſtrum, in the plurall genitiue.

Wee finde in the Engliſh Rudiments. Quo, qua, quo, vel qui. Is Qui read in the ablatiue caſe in the neuter gender?

I thinke there can ſcarce any example bee found of that kinde: but, Qui is read in the ablatiue caſe of the maſculine, and feminine gender. Quicum omnia communicem. Nemo erat, quicum eſſem lubentius, Cicer. And Virg. 2. Æneid. Quicum partiri curas, id eſt, cum qua, ſpeaking of a woman Acca, one of the aſſociates of Camilla: this is, as I ſuppoſe, an Archaiſme, rather to bee obſerued then imitated.

Is that true which Lilly hath; Martialis, Pronomini Ipſe vocatiuum tribuere videtur, cum ait, vt Martis reuocetur, &c. A te Iuno petat ceſton, & ipſa Venus. {n. p.}

No: Hee was moſt groſſely ouerſeene in the conſtruing of theſe verſes: if ipſa bee vnderſtood in the vocatiue caſe, Martial will be made to write plaine non-ſenſe: that the truth may appeare, and none may by credulitie ſucke in this error, I will ſubioyne the whole Epigram with the tranſlation thereof, it is to be found, Epig. l. 6. ep. 13.

Quis ¹² te Phidiaco formatam Iulia cœlo,

Vt quis Palladiæ non putet artis opus.

Candida non tacita reſpondet imagine Lygdos;

Et placido fulget vinus in ore decor.

Ludit Acidalio ſed non manus aſpera nodo.

Quem rapuit collo parue Cupido tuo.

Vt Martis reuocetur amor, ſæuiq_ȝ Tonantis.

A te Iuno petat¹³ ceſton & ipſa Venus.

Iulia, who e’er thy ſtatue ſawe, but thought

It was a maiſter-peece, by Phidias wrought? {n. p.}

Or artfull Pollas? In thy beauteous face

Such liuely cunning ſhines, ſuch louely grace,

That the white marble ſome-what ſeemes to ſay.

Thy ſmooth-ſleek hand ſeemes ſportfully to play

With the pure Acedulian true-loues knot:

Which, pretie Cupid, from thy necke ſhee hath got.

Venus, to regayne Mars; and Iuno, Ioue,

May aſke of thee the embroidered Belt of loue.

Why is Cujas handled among the pronounes? is it becauſe Cujus is there of which it ſeemes to be deriued?

No: Cuias is no deriuatiue pronoune, but a primitiue noune gentile, and is referred to the fourth declenſion of pronounes, becauſe of the affinitie of termination, and declination with the pronounes, noſtras, veſtras. {n. p.}

How is that true which is in Lilly, that Ego, and Nos onely are of the firſt Perſon: Tu, and Vos of the ſecond, whenas Ipſe is alſo both of the firſt and ſecond Perſon?

Ipſe is not of the firſt perſon onely, or of the ſecond perſon onely, as Ego and Tu are, but indifferently as well of the third perſon as of the firſt, or ſecond; the meaning of Lilly is, that none of the pronounes, except Ego, and Tu, are onely of the firſt, and onely of the ſecond perſon.

Why may not Egomet, Tute, Iſthic, Illic, bee numbred among the demonſtratiues, as well as Idem among the relatiues?

I ſee no reaſon to the contrarie, if it had pleaſed the Compoſer of the Accidence, ſo to haue ranked them; if compoſition excludes them, it excludes Idem alſo.

Of a Verbe.

No ſentence or propoſition can bee a part of ſpeech: how can a verbe then bee {n. p.} a part of ſpeech ſince it is a ſentence. All verbes of the firſt or ſecond perſon, are ſentences, as alſo all verbes of the third perſon, as often as a certaine perſon is vnderſtood; as pluit, ningit, grandinat, Deus ſcilicet, vel natura, vel aliquid ſimile?

Such propoſitions as theſe, the Logicians call implicite, which are reſolued into explicite propoſitions, by ſupplying the nominatiue caſe, and reſoluing the verbe into a participle of the preſent tenſe with the verbe ſum, thus, ſcribo, .i. ego ſum ſcribens; pugnas, tu es pugnans; pluit, cœlum eſt pluens, &c. an explicite propoſition cannot bee a part of ſpeech, but an implicite may, foraſmuch as it cannot bee compleate without a ſupplement.

What is a verbe deponent?

Such a verbe, as amongſt ancient Authors was a verbe Commune, and had both actiue and paſſiue ſignification, but now amongſt purer writers, depoſuit hath laid off that nature, and ſignifies onely actiuely, hauing a paſſiue {n. p.} termination, as meditor, obliuiſcor, aggredior, &c.

Is that true in the Accidence: ſuch verbes as haue no perſons are called imperſonals?

No: Imperſonals are not ſo called becauſe they haue no perſons (for they haue as wee ſee) very many of them, the voyce of the third perſon both actiue and paſſiue, but becauſe they haue not any certaine ſignification either of number, or perſon, vnleſſe ſome noune, or pronoune be ioyned to them in an oblique caſe, as oportet me, ſeemes to be of the firſt perſon, and ſingular number. Oportet nos, of the firſt perſon plurall. Oportet te, of the ſecond perſon ſingular. Oportet vos, of the ſecond perſon plurall. So Lilly.

Are verbes Commune now in vſe?

Very few: we ſhall ſcarce finde any verbes in pure Writers, that ſignifie both actiuely, and paſſiuely: there were ſuch amongſt the Ancients, which in ſignification did anſwere the meane voyce of the Greekes, {n. p.} as Linacer is of opinion.

Doth the Indicatiue Moode ſhew a reaſon true or falſe, as the Accidence defines it?

No: for when I ſay, Amo, I loue: I make a ſimple affirmation by this word, not any confirmation of ought by reaſon.

Is not there a plaine contradiction in Lilly touching the potentiall Moode?

Yes: in his Etymologie, touching the moods of a verbe, hee hath theſe words: Potentialis neq_ȝ vllum aduerbium adiunctum habet, neq_ȝ coniunctionem. In the Syntaxis, of an aduerbe theſe: Dum pro dummodo alias potententiali, alias ſubiunctiuo nectitur. In the Syntaxis of a coniunction, theſe: Vt cauſalis, ſeu perfectiua coniunctio &c. nunc potentiali nunc ſubiunctiuo iungitur; an euident contradiction.

Is that true which is in the Accidence: the ſubiunctiue mood hath euermore ſome coniunction ioyned with him, as, Cum amarem, When I loued?

No: in this ſpeech there are two errors. Firſt, the ſubiunctiue hath {n. p.} ſometimes an aduerbe ioyned with him, as Lilly affirmes in his Syntaxis of Aduerbes. Vbi poſtquam &c. interdum indicatiuis, interdum ſubiunctiuis verbis apponuntur. Againe, Simulac &c. ind. & ſub. adhærent. Secondly, there is an errour in the example. For when Cum, ſignifieth When, it is not a coniunction, but an aduerbe of Time, ſo ſaith Lilly. Vbi, postquam, & cùm, temporis aduerbia &c. Cùm canerem reges &c. Virg.

To what purpoſe are the potentiall, and ſubiunctiue Moodes, ſince without theſe there is a perfect formation of verbs made?

If you reſpect the naked manner of forming, and difference of termination, they doe not at all differ: but if you reſpect the ſignification (of which to the right interpretation of Authors, there is great conſideration to be had) the vſe of theſe Moodes is very neceſſarie.

If the Infinitiue Moode haue neither number nor perſon, nor nominatiue caſe before it, to what purpoſe, is that firſt {F} exception from verbum perſonale, &c. placed in the firſt Concord, viz. Verba infiniti modi pro nominatiuo accuſatiuum ante ſe ſtatuunt?

I thinke that that exception is altogether ſuperfluous; for how can a verbe which hath no perſon, nor number, make an exception from a verbe which hath both number, and perſon: it is in effect, as if Lilly had ſaid; from this rule can none bee excepted, but ſuch as are not capable of exception.

Whence hath the word Tenſe its originall?

From the French word temps, which ſignifies Time, which is pronounced Tans, and ſo Tenſe.

The common and receiued diuiſion of Time is in præſens, præteritum, futurum; how comes it to paſſe then that Grammar makes fiue Tenſes or Times?

The Philoſophers ſpeake otherwiſe then the Grammarians: the Philoſophers ſearching more narrowly into the truth, and nature of things, diuide all Time into that which is {n. p.} paſt, preſent, and to come, becauſe if wee would ſpeake preciſely, all Time either is now, or hath beene, or ſhall bee hereafter: but the Grammarians who doe not ſo ſtrictly, and exactly weigh the natures of things, haue made for more facilitie in teaching, fiue Tenſes of latine verbes, according to the proprietie of the language. The Greekes haue eight Tenſes, not according to the truth of the matter, but according to the vſe, and proprietie of their tongue.

What doe you thinke of this paſſage in Lilly? Futurum, quo res in futuro gerenda ſignificatur. Hic promiſſivus modus à nonnullis vocatur.

It is very faultie. Firſt, here is confuſion of termes: for, modus is here put for tempus. Secondly, the particle Hic hath reference to futurum, and ſo there is a ſolæciſme, or at leaſt a ſolæcophanes; it may bee thus corrected: Hoc tempus à nonnullis vocatur promiſſivum.

If Deleo, and Impleo, be compound verbes, whoſe ſimples are out of vſe; {F2} how is it that wee finde in As in præſenti, this: Leo, les, leui, indeq; natum, Deleo deleui, pleo, ples, pleui?

Lilly did not well in concealing or omitting the abrogation, and extermination of theſe wordes out of the latine tongue; we may not vſe theſe out of compoſition any more then ſpecio, lacio, or cumbo.

Doth Edormiſco ſignifie incohation, or beginning of action.

No: it is put for a verbe incohatiue by Lilly, but it doth not ſignifie to begin to ſleepe, but to ſleepe ſo long vntill the vapours ariſing from wine are diſperſed: ſo in Terence, in Adelp. Ɛdormiſcam hoc villi: like to this verb are many others, which though they end in ſco, yet doe not ſignifie beginning of action, or paſſion; which is euident, becauſe the Orators, Poets, and Hiſtorians, ſet before ſome of them the verbs: Cæpi, incipio, incepto; before others the aduerbs. Paulatim, quotidie, magis: as for example.

Cæpit erudeſcere morbus. Virg. i. Validior fieri. Seruius. {n. p.}

Ægreſcitq_ȝ medendo .i. inter medendum fit ægrius.

Incipiunt agitata tumeſcere. Virg.

Supercilia nonnunquam caneſcere incipiunt. Columel.

Cum incipit, oliua nigreſcere. idem.

Vbi conualeſcere cæperunt. idem.

Cum matureſcere frumenta inciperent. Cæſar.

Apud exteras gentes eniteſcere inceptabat. Gell. with them ſame verbs are, hiſcere, làcteſcere, grandeſcere, clareſcere, iuueneſcere, found.

Tua iuſtitia floreſcat quotidie magis. Cic.

Quotidie mihi augeſcit (.i. augetur) magis de filio ægritudo. Ter.

Paulatim rubeſcens roſa deliteſcit, Plin. vide Goclen. Prob. l. 1. pag. 38. 39.

Is Dormito a frequentatiue verbe?

It is by termination, and deriuation, but not by ſignification: dormito ſignifies in latine what νυστάζω doth in greeke, To take a nap, or to ſleepe dogs ſleepe; Dormito deſiderium potius ſomni, aut leuiculum ſomnum, quam frequentem indicat, ſaith Peter Ramus, l. 16. Schol. Gram. and in that of Horace, {F3} Quandoq́_ȝ bonus dormitat Homerus: Quandoq́_ȝ, is a ſigne both of diminution and frequency, and ſo takes away the ſignification of frequency from dormito.

Whence hath Coniugation its name?

A coniugando: becauſe in euery Conjugation after one, and the ſame manner of varying of finall terminations many verbes are ioyned, as it were vnder the ſame iugum, or yoake.

Haue all verbs of the first Coniugation a long before re and ris?

No: for Do, and ſome of its compounds: as, Peſſundo, circundo, make dăre. Circundăre, Peſſundăre.¹⁴ Stockwood, and the Poſer of the Accidence, adde ſecundo, ſecundăre: but this is not a compound of Do. Secundo, ſignifies to make proſperous, deriued of ſecundus, proſperous, fauourable, and hath a long.

If all verbs be of the firſt Coniugation, which haue a long before re and ris, then it ſeemes, doceare, docearis; audiare, audiaris, be of the first Coniugation? {n. p.}

The meaning of that is, not that all verbes that in any moode haue a long before re and ris, be of the firſt Coniugation, but ſuch as haue a long before re in the infinitiue moode of the actiue forme, as amare, and before ris in the ſecond perſon of the preſent Tenſe of the indicatiue moode of the paſſiue forme: as gratularis, are of the firſt Coniugation.

Why doe you ſay of the actiue, and paſſiue forme, and not of the actiue and paſſiue voyce?

Becauſe there be many verbes neuter which are not actiue, and yet in coniugation follow the forme of the actiue verbes, and many verbes deponent, which though they be not paſſiue in ſignification, yet in cōiugation follow the forme of the paſſiue verbs.

Vpon As in Præſenti.

The verbe Lauo, which Lilly ſaith, is of the first Coniugation, makes lauĕre in the Infinit. the last ſyllable ſaue one ſhort; and ſtrideo, caveo, ferveo, making fervere, ſtridere, cavere, are found {F4} with e ſhort before re in the infinitiue of the ſecond Coniugation?

’Tis true: but lauĕre is not of lauo, lavas, but of lauo lauis, which was of the third conjug. amongſt the Ancients, and ſo vſed by Virgil in his Georgicks and Æneids, and feruere, and ſtridere are found with e ſhort, but thus conjugated, they are now growne out of vſe; we are not to imitate the old Authors in theſe words.

Doth ſpondeo geminate the firſt ſyllable in the præteritum, and make ſpoſpondi?

No: herein Lilly was deceiued, and deceiued the Poſer of the Accidence, and the Conſtruer of Lillies rules, who tranſcribe it ſo: in the refined copies of the moſt incorrupt Authors, ſpondeo is found to make the præteritum ſpopondi, not ſpoſpondi.¹⁵

Is crepo found of the third coniugation, as Lilly affirmeth?

No: the pure Writers, who are to bee our Preſidents, vſe it in the firſt conjugation: Intestina tibi crepant. Plaut. Quis post vina grauem militiam, & pauperiem crepat. Hor. {n. p.}

Is quiniſco found in any good author?

No: the true verbe is conquiniſco, which is a ſimple verbe, and ſo ſet downe by Nebriſſenſis, and Ramus, not a compound of con, and quiniſco, as Lilly imagined, any more then condio, or conſulo, &c.

Is nexo, nexis, nexui, read in the third coniugation, as Lilly tels vs?

No: it is onely read in the firſt coniugation, nexo, nexas, nexare.

Is cambio campſi found in any pure author?

No: it is a barbarous word, not to be vſed by any that would write pure latine; it is onely found in the old Grammarian Priſcian.

Doth Præcurro make Precucurri in the preterium?

No: it can ſcarce be ſo found in any good author.

Doth tracto alwaies in compoſition change the first vowell into e?

No: for we read retracto: vulnera cruda retractat. Ouid. Pedamenta retractare. Columel. So likewiſe Pertracto. {n. p.} Pertractare Philoſophiam. Cic.

Doth habeo alwayes in compoſition change the first vowell into i, as Lilly ſaith?

No: for we read poſthabeo: as, poſthabeo famæ pecuniam, in the Syntaxis.

Is exculpo a compound of ex and ſcalpo?

It ſeemes rather to be compounded of ex and ſculpo: for the ſimple word ſculpo is in vſe, as Ouid. Arte Mira ſculpſit ebur.

Is vulſum regularly formed of velli: according to that, Dat velli vulſum.

It ſeemes rather to be formed of the other preteritum of vello viz. vulſi.

How is that rule of Lilly to be vnderſtood, Verba in or admittunt ex poſteriore ſupino præteritum.

It is to be vnderſtood of ſuch verbs whoſe actiues haue the latter ſupine, of the which the preterperfectenſe paſſiue may be formed.

What then ſhall wee ſay concerning verbes deponent, and commune, which end in or, and haue a preterperfect tenſe, which they cannot forme of a latter {n. p.} ſupine: ſince they haue no verbs actiue?

Lilly doth ſay nothing of this point. I am of opinion that verbs actiue are to be fained, of whoſe latter ſupine theſe verbs would regularly forme their preterperfect tenſe, if ſuch actiues were in vſe: as for example, ſuppoſe that there were ſuch a verbe as læto, lætas, lætaui, of the latter ſupine of this verbe lætatu, regularly ſhall be formed, lætatus ſum, vel fui. So likewiſe of the ſupine criminatu, of the fained verbe crimino, nas: wee may forme the preteritum, criminatus, ſum.

What is the meaning of that verſe in Grammer? Mæreo ſum mæſtus ſed Phocæ nomen habetur.

That the neutropaſſiue verbe mœreo hath mæstus ſum for its preteritum; but the Grammarian Phocas did think mæstus rather to be a noune: this verſe might very well be ſpared.

Of Gerunds.

Whence hath a Gerund its name? {n. p.}

Quòd rei gerendæ, & administrandæ exprimat ſignificationem. Becauſe it expreſſeth the ſignification of a thing to be done, or executed. Some would haue the name to be giuen a gerenda duplici ſignificatione, nempe actiua & paſſiua ſub vna voce: but ſince there are ſo few Gerunds that ſignifie paſſiuely, and thoſe which doe, almoſt all growne out of vſe, I thinke that is not the reaſon of the name: in this, and many other tearmes of art we are left to diuine of the reaſons of the impoſition of the names.

Is that generally true which wee finde in the Engliſh Rudiments. Gerunds haue both the actiue and paſſiue ſignification: as, amandi of louing, or being loued: amando, in louing, or in being loued: amandum, to loue, or to be loued?

No: the greateſt part of Gerunds are vſed actiuely, very few paſſiuely; and in that kinde of vſe, there ſeemes to be an Archaiſme. {n. p.}

Of the Supines.

Doth the latter ſupine ſignifie paſſiuely onely, for the moſt part as is in the Accidence?

No: it is alwaies of a paſſiue ſignification.

Of a Participle.

Since there are in truth but three tempora of Participles, præſens, præteritum, futurum, is it proper to ſay, Tempora participiorum ſunt quatuor, by ſubdiuiding the future into the participle in rus, of the actiue, and neutrall ſignification; and the participle in dus, of the paſſiue ſignification?

I thinke no: Lilly might as well haue ſaid, as I ſuppoſe, there be fiue tempora, foraſmuch as the participles of the future tenſe of a verbe actiue, and a verbe neuter ending in rus, doe differ in time as much among themſelues, as a participle of the future tenſe of a verbe paſſiue doth from either {n. p.} of them: if the actiue and paſſiue ſignification do diſtinguiſh their times, hee might then haue ſaid in his diuiſion of Tenſes, Tempora ſunt ſex, præſens, imperfectum & futurum duplex, actiuæ, & paſſiuæ vocis: nay, hee might haue ſaid, Tempora ſunt decem quinque actiuæ, quinque paſſiuæ vocis: but of this let the iudicious paſſe ſentence. I ſpeake with ſubmiſſion.

If in that example of the Accidence, Legendis veteribus proficis, a participle of the future in dus, haue the ſignification of a participle of the preſent tenſe: how is it that Lilly in his Syntaxis, ſaith that in a like example a Gerund is turned into a noune adiectiue: as, Cur adeo delectaris criminibus inferendis?

Truth is but one, on which ſide truth weighs heauier, I leaue to Grammarians to determine.

Doth a perfect verbe neuter forme onely two participles regularly, one of the preſent tenſe, and another of the future in rus?

Yes: for though we read vigilandus, carendus, participles in dus, and triumphatus, {n. p.} regnatus: but ſome of theſe and the like may be ended in a manner irregular, vſed onely by the Poets, whom it is not ſafe in all things to imitate.

But it ſeemes that regularly there come of ſome neutrals three participles; as of gaudeo, gaudens, gauiſus, gauiſurus: of audeo, audens, auſus, auſurus: fido, fidens, fiſus, fiſurus, &c.

Thoſe of which onely two participles come, muſt be onely neutrals; ſuch are not theſe: for theſe are neutro paſſiues, which ſince they differ from them in the manner of coniugation, no maruell if they differ from them in forming their participles.

Why are they called Neutro-paſſiues?

Becauſe though they be neuters, yet they forme a Præteritum, after the manner of verbs paſſiue.

How doe neutro-paſſiues, and paſſiue-neutrals differ?

Neutro-paſſiues, although they haue the preterperfect tenſe of paſſiues, yet they retaine the ſignification {n. p.} of neuters; as, ſoleo, ſolitus ſum, but paſſiue neutrals, though they end in o, yet they haue a paſſiue ſignification, and gouern the ſame caſe that paſſiues doe, as vagulo, exulo.

But it ſeemes there be ſome participles of the paſſiue voyce, which come of verbs neuter; for wee read, excurſus, aratus, laboratus excurrendus arandus, laborandus.

Theſe are formed of imperſonall neuters, which are onely found in the third perſon of the paſſiue voice, but when Grammer ſaith, that onely two participles are formed of neuters, it meanes perſonall neuters of the actiue forme.

Are not verbs and participles of the actiue ſignification ſometimes vſed paſſiuely, & contrà?

Yes; as for example, Voluens pro volutus, as Turneb. 30. Aduerſar. 19. ſaith: Certè hinc Romanos olim voluentibus annis. Uirg. 1. Æn. Sparſus pro ſpargens. Priùs hauſtus ſparſus aquarum ore fore. Virg. 4. Geor. So Cèrda Velata pro velans. Senec. in Herc. At. {n. p.} Æt. ſc. Flete. Adeſq́_ȝ ſequi iuſſa ſagittas Totum pennis velata diem. Plaut. in Mil. Glorioſ. ſc. ſatin. Iræ leniunt. i. leniuntur. Virg. 2. Æneid. Inſinuat pro inſinuatur, as Seruius conceiues. Tum vero tremefacta nouis per pectora cunctis Inſinuat pauor. idem. vertere pro verſa ſunt. Ɛt totæ in ſolidam glaciem vertere lacunæ. vide Robig. Dict. Critic. l. 11. c. 7.

Of Aduerbs.

Are not minus and male aduerbs of denying?

Yes, though they bee omitted by Lilly: Minus pro non in Varro. Non mirum ſi cæcutis minus, aurum enim non perſtringit oculos. Si minus intelligitur, if men vnderſtand not. Cic. So male. Petron. Quas ſtruxit opes male ſuſtinet. Malè ſanus, not well in his wit. Male ſobrius, not ſober.

Doe not two negatiue aduerbs denie more ſtrongly ſometimes in latine, as well as in greeke?

Yes: So, Virg. 2. Georg. {G}

Non ego cuncta meis amplecti verſibus opto,

Non mihi ſi linguæ centum ſint, oraque centum.

Et Æneid. 6. Ne pueri, ne tanta animis aſſueſcite bella. Tull. 7. Epiſt. 1. Hæc tibi ridicula videntur, non n. ades quæ ſi videres, lacrymas non teneres, non.

Doe not particles of denying ſometimes imply an affirmation, & contrà?

Yes: as for example, Virg. 2. Geor. Et pro neque. Nec ſcabie, & falſa lædit rubigine ferrum. Et pro Sed. Cic. Mutorum cauſas non grauate & gratuito defendere. So Senec. Oratio oſtendit illum non eſſe ſyncerum, & habere aliquid ficti. Aut. pro nec. Vir. 4. Æn. Sed nullis ille mouetur fletibus, aut vocos vllus tractabilis audit. Neque pro &, Ʋirg. 5. Ecl. Nulla neque amnem Libauit quadrupes nec graminis attigit herbam. Iuuenal. Sat. 5. Omnia Græcè. Cum ſit turpe magis nostris neſcire latinè: where in neſcire the verbe ſciunt is to be vnderſtood, which belongs to omnia Græce before. Mart. 5. Ep. 53. Exprimere Aue Latinum, χαῖρε non {n. p.} potes Græcum: where in non potes, potes, which belongs to the former comma is to be vnderſtood: ſo Tac. Ann. 13 Deeſſe nobis terra in qua viuimus, in qua moriamur non poteſt. Idem. Ann 12. Agrippina filio dare imperium, tolerare imperitantem nequibat: out of nequibat, quibat is to be ſupplied. Robig. Dict. Crit. l. 12. c. 12.

Lilly makes ſit ita, ſit ſane aduerbs of granting, id eſt, hoc eſt, quaſi dicas, aduerbs of explaning: are they aduerbs in truth?

No: euery aduerbe is a ſimple ſingle word, theſe are ſentences, they belong to the Syntaxis, not Etymologie.

Of Coniunctions.

Is not it a contradiction in adiecto, to ſay, a coniunction diſiunctiue?

No: for a coniunction diſiunctiue conioynes the words, by diſioyning the matter.

Doth Lilly ſpeake logically, when he ſaith ſunt ditiones que nunc aduerbia, nunc coniunctiones, nunc præpoſitiones eſſe inueniuntur vt cum. {G2}

No: for there is no other word of that nature, except Come. He herein ſpeaks like that Grammarian, who made this rule in ol, maſc. Suut. vt Sol. whereas it ſhould haue run thus, in ol vnicum maſculinum eſt, vt Sol.

Is que alwayes an Encliticke?

No: wee finde it ſometimes put before the word it couples, as that Epitaph of Tibullus.

Hic iacet immiti conſumptus morte Tibullus,

Meſſalam terra dùm ſequitur, que mari.

And in Ʋirg. Ipſe ego cana legam tenera lanugine mala. Castaneas, que nuces. i. Castaneas & nuces. Caſtaneæ, and nuces are diſtinguiſhed, as ſaith Plinie, l. 15. c. 28. and ſo they are here too, as Scal. thinke. de C. LL. l. 12. c. 177. Ouid. l. 2. de Arte, alluding to this verſe, makes a diſtinction betwixt them:

Affert aut vras, aut quas Amacillis amabit,

Et nunc castaneas, nunc amat illa nuces.

Of a Prepoſition.

Did Lilly doe well to handle the regimen of Prepoſitions in Etymologie.

No: herein he confounds Etymologie and Syntaxis.

Of an Interiection.

Why is an Interiection ſo called?

Quod interijciatur: becauſe it is caſt in as a ſodaine eiaculation, expreſſing in an abrupt faſhion, ſome paſſion of the minde.

---

Of SYNTAXIS.

WHence hath Syntaxis its name?

From the Greeke word σὺν, con, and τάξις ordinatio: becauſe therein is ſet out the fit and regular coordination, and ſtructure of ſimple words in clauſes and ſentences. {G3}

Of the firſt Concord.

What doe you thinke of the ſecond exception from verbum perſonale, viz. Imperſonalia præcedentem, &c.

I thinke it might be ſpared as well as the firſt: either this place is improper to treate of imperſonals, or elſe there is a tautologie in repeating the ſame rule afterward; nay, to ſpeak truth, this exception is abſurd: it is in effect thus much; all verbes perſonall agree with their nom. caſes in number and perſon, except verbes imperſonall, which are altogether vncapable of a nominatiue caſe before them, which is plaine non-ſence.

Are not nounes which are not collectiues ſometimes conſtrued as if they were ſuch?

Yes: as for example; Plaut. in Bacchid. Scen. Meamne. Et ego (Chryſalus) te, & illum mactamus infortunio: the Pronoune ego here is comprehenſiue, as if Chryſalus being one, did oppoſe himſelfe againſt two, and that hee {n. p.} might match them, he ſpeaks of himſelfe as of two. Scal. de Cauſ. L. L. l. 6. c. 30. Ʋirg. 9. Æneid. Ʋos o Calliope precor aſpicate canenti. Alcmena in Plaut. Amph. Sc. Satin. ſpeaking to Amphitruo alone ſaith: Quis igitur niſi vos. The perſon of a King repreſents many: thence that forme, Nos Iacobus Dei gratia, &c. mandamus.

Is not ſometimes the number of the verbs varied in the ſame comma, though referred to the ſame thing?

Yes: ſo we read in Tully, ad Att. l. 1. Ep. 2. Nunc fac vt ſciam quo die te viſuri ſumus.

Of the ſecond Concord.

May not an adiectiue put after two ſubstantiues of diuers genders, or numbers ſometimes agree with the latter, as well as with the former?

Yes: the adiectiue may ſometimes indifferently accord with either of the ſubſtantiues; for we finde in Tully, Non omnis error ſtultitia eſt dicenda: and {G4} in Liuy, Gens vniuerſa veneti appellati.

Is not an adiectiue ſometimes put alone (as it were a ſubstantiue) whoſe ſubſtantiue is to be vnderſtood and ſupplied?

Yes: and that very elegantly: ſo we reade, tribuo tibi primas .i. primas partes. Amplecti ambabus .i. ambabus manibus: Aſpergere frigida .i. frigida aqua: it is an immitation of the Greekes, who ſay πρὸς ὀρϑήν .i. γραμμήν ad rectam .i. lineam, ἀπὸ μιάς φωνῆς, ab vna .i. voce.

What if two adiectiues concur together in the ſame ſentence?

Then one of them putteth on the nature of a ſubſtantiue: Crudelem medicum intemperans æger facit: here æger is taken ſubſtantiuely.

If that the adiectiue is to agree with the ſubſtantiue in caſe, gender, and number, what thinke you of theſe examples which ſeeme to ouerthrow that rule, eſt quod ſperemus Deos bonis benefacturum. Aruſpices dixerunt omnia ex ſententia proceſſurum. Non putaui hæc eam facturum? {n. p.}

Peter Ramus in his Grammaticall Scholia's ſaith, that in theſe, and in ſuch like examples, thoſe wordes which ſeeme to be Participles, are indeed verbs of the infinitiue moode and future tenſe of the actiue forme, hauing eſſe vnderſtood: in cuius ſententiam pedibus eo.

Is that true latine in Plautus, where he calls Venus, Deum indignam?¹⁶

Yes: the Heathen did thinke all their gods were both Male and Female, according to that of Orpheus.

Ζεὺς ἄρσην γένετο, Ζεὺς ἄμβροτος ἔπλετο νύμφη.

Iupiter & mas eſt, & neſcia fœmina mortis.

So Venus, and other goddeſſes haue the title Deus giuen to them: ſo Virg. l. 2. Æneid. Deſcendo, ac ducente Deo flammam inter, & hostes Ɛxpedior. Macrob. Sat. 3. c. 7. ſaith, it is ſo to bee read. Idem Æneid. 2. Pollentemq_ȝ Deum Venerem. Seruius and Acterianus doe approue of that reading. Heu fortuna quis eſt crudelior in nos Te Deus. Hor. 2. Ser. 8. Lucret. l. 2. {n. p.} Terram Deum matrem appellat. Sequitur ſuperbos vltor à tergo Deus .i. Nemeſis. Senec. Virg. Æneid. 7. Alecto Deus appellatur. Nec dextræ erranti Deus abfuit. In like manner Iuſtinian for his effeminateneſſe was called Vxorius: and Liuia for her wiſedome was ſtiled, Stolatus Vlyſſes. Suet. vide Robig. Lex. Crit. l. 4. c. 17.

Are not two or three adiectiues ſometimes ioyned to one ſubſtantiue?

Yes: as for example. Criſpiſulcans igneum fulmen. Cic. Ob egregiam inſignem fidem. Idem. Ad domeſticæ eximiæ eius fiduciæ acta veniamus. Val. Max. Sanctiſſimus genealis torus. Idem. Pulcherrima præpes Læua volauit auis. Ennius apud Cic. de Diuin.

Are not ſomtimes two adiectiues coupled together, vſed for one?

Yes: as for example. Sarta-tecta præcepta. Plaut. Purus-putus aſinus. Varro apud Nonium. Novum-vetus vinum bibo. Varro. Nouo-veteri morbo medeor. Idem. So, Deus optimus-maximus. Graio-Græci. Ennius apud Feſtum. Ruta-cæſa. apud Ieſ. {n. p.}

Of the third Concord.

If the Relatiue agree with the Antecedent, in Gender, Number, and Perſon; how is it that we finde in Terence. Vbi eſt ille ſcelus, qui me perdidit? Qui the Relatiue is of the maſcul. gender, and ſcelus the Antecedent of the neuter?

Scelus is here put for ſcelestus, as elſewhere Senium for Senex by a Metonymie of the adjunct; ſo the ſenſe is made good: or qui by the figure Hyponæa hath reference to ſcelestus, to bee vnderſtood in ſcelus by the iudicious Readers.

In that example; Eſt locus in carcere, quod Tullianum appellatur, and the like; as, Bene audiri, qui eſt recte factorū fructus omnes ferre volumus: and; Hodie, quæ eſt altera dies Pentecoſtes, venit ad me nuntius, where the Relatiue put betweene two Subſtantiues, agrees with the latter, is the conſtruction proper to the Latines?

No: it is an imitation of the greeks, {n. p.} who haue the ſame conſtruction. So Iſocrates, λόγοι ἐν ἑκάστοις ἡμῶν εἰσì ἅι ἐλπίδας ὀνομάζομων: and thus Tully. Ne appellaueris conſilium, quæ vis, ac neceſſitas appellanda est.

What doe you thinke of that example: Noſtros vidiſti flentis ocellos?

In it there is a ſolæciſme, or at leaſt a ſolæcophanes, the Poet ſhould haue ſaid regularly, if his verſe would haue ſuffered him, either nostros flentium, or meos flentis, to make vp the conſtruction: we muſt vnderſtand in noſtros, meos, in meos mei. vide Goclen. Prob. Gram. l. 3. p. 131.

Is Imperium, & dignitas quæ petijſti; a fit example of that rule in the Engliſh Syntaxis: many Antecedents ſingular hauing a coniunction copulatiue betweene them, will haue a relatiue plurall, which relatiue ſhall agree with the Antecedent of the most worthy Gender?

No: for here the relatiue agrees with the antecedent of the moſt vnworthy gender, viz. the Neuter. Againe, if this bee a true example, that exception ſubjoyned of Things without {n. p.} life is ſuperfluous, for it is an exception to it ſelfe; for to ſpeake truth, to that rule doth this example appertaine Imperium, and Dignitas being things without life: of that rule many Antecedents, &c. this or the like example ſhould haue beene giuen. Rex, & Regina, quos tu beatos prædicas, ſunt mortales.

Is that example; Felix quem faciunt aliena pericula cautum, properly rendred in Engliſh?

No: it ſhould not haue beene rendred; Happy is he &c. to beware: for cautum is not here the firſt ſupine of caueo, neither can be (for it is not put after a verbe, ſignifying mouing to a place, but an adjectiue) the verſe ſhould therefore haue beene thus tranſlated: Happy is hee whom others harmes make wary.

Of the conſtruction of Noune Subſtantiues.

Doth not a Subſtantiue ſometimes gouerne two genitiue caſes, or more? {n. p.}

Yes: wee reade in Cicero. Iamne ſentis bellua, quæ ſit hominum querela frontis tuæ? where querela gouernes hominum, and frontis. Sed quæ naturæ principia ſint ſocietatis humanæ repetendum altiùs videtur. idem. Procreatio Dei rerum humanarum. Aristotelis Philoſophorum Principis arcanorum naturæ theoremata.

Are not two ſubſtantiues ſometimes linked together by a line, which the Grāmarians call Hyphen, vſed for one?

Yes: ſuch wordes are found amongſt the Lawyers; as, Placitum-conſenſum. Vlpian. Munus-donum. Modeſt. Actio-petitio. Calliſtrat. Locatio-conductio. Labeo. Obiurgator-cenſor. Macrob.

Is not a noune in it ſelfe a compound, and ſo one, ſometimes diuided in reſpect of conſtruction?

Yes: as in this example. Neq_ȝ ille magis iuriſconſultus quam iuſtitiæ fuit. The word Iuriſconſultus is one in it ſelfe, but to be diuided in the rection of iustitiæ.

Are not adiectiues of the maſculine {n. p.} or feminine gender vſed ſometimes ſubſtantiuely, as well as adiectiues of the neuter gender?

Yes: 1. Maſc. as, die natalis ſui. Marc. Humanus pro Homo. Cic. ad Att. l. 3. ep. 21. Ego autem tibi affirmo (poſſum falli vt humanus) à me non habere. Phaethon, the epithite of the Sunne vſed ſubſtantiuely in Ænei. 5. ſaith Cerdo. Auroram Phaethontis equi iam luce vehebant, in Æneid. 1. Imperium Dido Tyria regit vrbe profecta Germanum (.i. fratrem) fugiens.

2. Fœm. Virg. 1. Æneid. Implentur veteris Bacchi, pinguiſq_ȝ ferinæ .i. carnis ferinæ, Senec. 1. de Benef. 5. Imperator aliquem torquibus, muroli, & ciuica donat .i. corona. & Plin. l. 8. Nigræ lanarum nullum colorem bibunt.

3. Neutr. as, Strata viarum. Amara curarum. Singula capitum. Profunda camporum. Prærupta collium. Montium ardua, opaca locorum, &c.

Are not ſometimes ſubſtantiues put in the place of adiectiues?

Yes: ſo, Nihil pro Nullo apud Ʋlpianum. & Virg. Æneid. 1. {n. p.}

Regales inter menſas, laticemque Lyæum .i. Bacchicum.

Doe not ſome ſubſtantiues verball gouerne the ſame caſe that their verbs doe, of which they are deriued?

Yes: as for example; wee reade exul à patria, as well as exultat à patria; Diſceſſus ab vrbe, as well as diſcedere ab vrbe, We reade obtemperare legibus, and inſtituta est obtemperatio ſcriptis legibus: in Tully we reade in euery claſſicall Author, Capite diminui, præfici prætorio, and Iulius Scaliger hath; Capite diminutio. Suetonius, Præfectus prætorio. Wee reade domum eo, redeo, and domum itio, reditio, in Cæſar. Faueo authoritati &, fautor authoritati. Naſcor à muliere, &, natiuitas à muliere:¹⁷ erudior à magistro; &, ab optimo magiſtro optima inuentutis eruditio.

What ſubſtantiues gouerne an ablatiue caſe with the prepoſition Cum?

Such as ſignifie ſocietie, conjunction, and friendſhip, as, Amicitia, familiaritas, conſuetudo cum aliquo. {n. p.} Ciceroni cum Attico magna interceſſit familiaritas.

Is not Opus read conſtrued with an ablatiue caſe of the participle of the preter tenſe?

Yes, and that very elegantly: as for example, Priuſquam incipias conſulto, & vbi conſuleris mature facto opus est, Saluſt. Opus est maturato, Liuie. Quod parato opus eſt para, Terence. Opus eſt viſo, & cauto, Plautus.

Of the conſtruction of Adiectiues.

May an adiectiue in the neuter gender put ſubſtantiuely, gouerne any other adiectiue alſo, put ſubſtantiuely in the genitiue caſe?

No: no adjectiue put as a ſubſtantiue, can gouerne another adjectiue which is declined with three articles, but onely ſuch a one as is varied by three terminations, therefore we may ſay: Aliquid mali, aliquid abſurdi, honeſti, boni, we cannot {H} ſay, aliquid vtilis, aliquid impoſſibilis &c. neither can we ſay, Nihil talis for Nihil tale.

Doth Lilly ſpeake properly, when hee expreſſeth certaine nounes of number by certa numeralia?

No; he ſpeakes barbarouſly: for certus is neuer put for quidam in any good and claſſicall Writer.

What doe you thinke of that rule, Comparatiua & ſuperlatiua accepta partitiuè genitivum, vnde & genus ſortiuntur, exigunt?

This rule is good: It had beene well Lilly would haue furniſhed vs with ſome examples of it; in theſe which follow, his defect ſhall bee ſupplied. Ignis omnium elementorum eſt efficaciſſimum, & violentiſſimum. Supremus, extremuſq_ȝ omnium affectuum in fœmina eſt zelotypia. Finis cauſarum omnium nobiliſſima eſt. Mors vltimum, ſummum, grauiſſimum, & acerbiſſimum omnium terribilium.

In theſe ſpeeches, Magnam partem conſulatus tui abfui. Cic. Illud tibi {n. p.} aſſentior. Idem. Menedemi vicem miſeret. Ter. Solicitus vicem Imperatoris. Liu. Mæſtus ſuam vicem. Curt. Cætera bonus. Cic. Why are partem, Illud vicem, cætera, the accuſatiue caſe, and by what rule of Lilly?

Lilly hath no rule to ſhewe the reaſon of this conſtruction: it is in truth a greeke Atticiſme: for the greekes put the accuſatiue caſe after verbes, and adiectiues after that manner: ſic, τινὸς μέρος ὀργίζεϑαι, vicem alicuius iraſci, ἡμαῖ ἀπόλεσαι τὸ σὸν μέρος, perdidiſti nos quantum in te eſt. ἅπο??ασοφος, omnibus ſapiens.

When is an adiectiue conſtrued with an accuſatiue caſe, with a prepoſition?

When Aptitude, propenſitie, reſpect, object, or finall cauſe is ſignified, as,

Procliuis à labore ad libidinem.

Furtum ingenioſus ad omne.

Aſſuetus ad bellum. Rudis ad arma. Studio eloquentiæ non aliud in ciuitate noſtra, vel ad vtilitatem fructuoſius, {n. p.} vel ad dignitatem amplius, vel ad vrbis famam pulchrius, vel ad totius imperij, atq_ȝ omnium gentium notitiam illuſtrius excogitari poteſt. Quint. Calcei habiles ad pedes. Cic. Aptus natus ad ſingularem dicendi facultatem.

Is that example of adiectiua quæ ad copiam, viz. at feſſæ referunt multa ſe nocte minores Crura thymo plena.

No: the Compoſer of the Engliſh Rudiments, and Lilly vnderſtood not (as it ſeemes) Virgils Syntaxis, and therefore corrected the originall ſuſpecting it to bee faultie: and the Conſtruer of the Syntaxis ſo tranſcribes it, and tranſlates it. But Virgil wrote not plena, but plenæ: the verſe is thus to be conſtrued: the leſſer Bees doe returne home wearie late at night (plenæ crura .i. habentes crura plena thymo) Hauing their ſhankes full of thyme; in which there is a Synechdoche, or figure, often vſed by that excellent Poet, as¹⁸ {n. p.}

Doe not adiectiues of comparing or exceeding, gouerne an ablatiue caſe of the word, which ſignifies the meaſure of exceeding, as well as verbes?

Yes: for wee may as well ſay, Cicero præſtantior estst omnibus oratoribus multis gradibus, as, Cicero præſtat omnes oratores multis gradibus.

May not an adiectiue of the poſitiue degree with magis, or minus, haue an ablatiue caſe after it, as well as one of the comparatiue?

Yes: ſo Terence in Eunucho. Hoc nemo fuit minus ineptus, nec magis ſeuerus quiſquam .i. quam hic. & Virg. O luce magis dilecta ſorori .i. quam lux.

Of the conſtruction of Pronounes.

Is not Meus, and Noſter, ſometimes vſed paſſiuely?

Yes: Plaut. in Pen. ſc. Negotij Ecce odium meum.

Quid me vis? pro, odium mei; twice in the ſame Scene. {H3}

Cicero pro Roſc. Amer. Hæc conficta arbitror à poetis eſſe vt effictos mores nostros in alienos perſonis, expreſſamq́_ȝ imaginam nostram (.i. noſtri) vitæ quotidianæ videremus.

Neq_ȝ minus est ſpartiates Ageſilaus ille prohibendus, qui neque pictam neq_ȝ fictam imaginem ſuam (.i. ſui) paſſus eſt. Idem.

Et digna ſpeculo fiat imægo tua .i. tui. Mart. This is to bee obſerued, not imitated.

Are not proper and appellatiue nounes ſometimes put in ſtead of pronounes?

Yes: Plautus in Pænul. ſcen, ſatis ſpectatum. puts ſyncerastum pro me, and Tuus amicus, for, Ego.