Animadversions upon Lily’s Grammar, or Lily Scanned

Animadversions Upon Lily’s Grammar, or Lily Scanned.

An Extract of Grammatical Problems.

Gathered out of the inquiries and disputes of the most judicious grammarians.

Set down by way of question and answer.

Wherein, many difficult knots in the English Rudiments and Lily’s Grammar are unloosed, many obscurities enlightened, many errors and incogitances discovered, many deficiencies supplied, the original and reason of many terms of art manifested, and not a few accessory questions discussed with much brevity and perspicuity. Very necessary 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 Chancery Lane. 1625.

{n. p.}

Animadversions upon Lily’s Grammar, or Lily scanned. An extract of grammatical problems.

Of Grammar, and the Parts Thereof.

May everyone that teacheth Lily’s Grammar be called grammaticus in propriety of speech?

No: If he be able to teach those Rudiments only, he is rather to be called grammatista?

What difference is there between grammatista and grammaticus?

Among the ancients he was called grammaticus who did not only teach how to speak a tongue well, {A3} but also did examine and discuss all the difficulties in poets, historians, orators, philosophers, etc.; he that taught the elements of words, letters, was called grammatista. Grammaticus with them was as much as literatus, a learned scholar or critic whom we now call a *philologer; grammatista as much as literator, an elementary pedant. They differ in effect as much as a fiddler, and an exact musician. Suet. De claris grammaticis.

May that speech which is compared according to the rules of grammar be called congrua oratio, in the propriety of the Latin tongue?

So it is commonly called by most schoolmasters; but to speak properly, loqui congrue, is to speak fitly, and oppositely to the purpose, which is the part of a logician, an orator, a moralist; but to speak according to rule is grammatice loqui, which is not opposed to barbare loqui (for there may be a rude unpolished and barbarous expression where there is no breach of rule, {n. p.} and Priscian’s head is untouched) but to castigate, or terse, or emendate loqui, to speak trimly and elegantly, according to the example of the purest authors. According to that saying, Aliud est grammatice, aliud latine loqui: congrue loqui respects the fitness of the matter; emendate loqui the purity of the stile; grammatice loqui the regularity of the construction.

Is that division of grammar into four parts – orthography, etymology, syntaxis, prosody – an exact division?

Priscian, Melancthon, and their followers so divided grammar; but ^gπαχυλῶς, rather than ^hκατ´ακρίζ?αν, it may more artificially and compendiously be divided into two parts, etymology and syntaxis: for these two do, as integral parts, take up the whole body of grammar; the other two, orthography and prosody, like particles are contained in these and spread through the whole grammar. {A4}

Of Orthography.

Is orthography still the same?

No, it hath been often changed, and therefore the rule of it must be custom. The Hebrews, Syrians, and Arabians begin to write from the right hand to the left. They of China from the top of the leaf to the bottom in a direct line. Other nations from the left hand to the right, which motion of the hand seems to be most natural.

Of the Letters.

How are diphthongs made?

By the diverse dispositions of the vowels.

Whence have the diphthongs their names?

Of the Greek words δίς, bis, and φθέγγομαι, loquor; because there is a conflation and coalition of two vowels in a diphthong, which are to be uttered and breathed out as one entire syllable.

What is the meaning of that passage {n. p.} in the first page of Lily’s Grammar: S, suae cuiusdam potestatis litera est?

Lily, having divided the consonants into mutes, as b, c, d, etc., and semi-vowels, as l, m, n, r, s, x, z, he subdivideth the semi-vowels into liquids and double consonants, and, since (s) will not be changed in either of these ranks, he calleth it suae cuiusdam potestatis literam; such a letter as is (as it were) of its own head, sits by itself, will not be marshalled in that συστοιχία literarum.

Why are x and z called literae duplices?

Because they have the force of two consonants, as x may be resolved into cs or gs, as appears by the genitive cases of nouns ending in x: rex, regis, dux, ducis. Z is changed (being a Greek letter originally) into ss, as massa, of μάζα, patrisso, of πατρίζω.

How many ways is the letter (I) taken?

Three ways, 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 vowel.

How doth it appear that (I) between two vowels is a double consonant?

Because the ancients, instead of maior, peior, were wont expressly to write maiior, peiior.

Hath (I) between two vowels always the force of a double consonant, as Lily tells us here and in the rules of quantity?

No, the rule is true only in simple words, not in words compound, for in such we find the syllable which comes immediately before I between two vowels, made short in the poets, as in biiugis, quadriiugus.

Martis equi biijuges, et magni currus Achillis. Verg. 

Centum quadriiugos agitabo ad flumina currus. Idem. 

Lily in the division of his letters tells us that two is a semi-vowel; how then comes it to pass that anon after he saith y et z, latinis dictionibus nunquam admiscentur?

It is very strange a man should so {n. p.} soon forget himself. There is a manifest contradiction, from which I cannot acquit him.

Are not k or y mixed amongst other Latin letters, as Lily affirms?

K is judged by the modern grammarians to be an unprofitable letter, but *Ausonius saith it is prefixed before three Latin words, which some assign to be kaput, a chapter, kalendae, kalumnia; and as for y, if it be not mixed amongst Latin letters, how is it that we find in propria quae maribus, Tybris, Lybs, Tybur, proper names, Phryx, Gryps, Hydrops, Syren, Hyems, etc. appellatives; nay, how is it that in the very same page, where he affirms this, we find these words, hymnus, trisyllaba, Hieronymus? Here as elsewhere, bonus dormitat Lilius.

What are the literae maiusculae put for when they are set alone?

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

B. among the schoolmen, is put for Beatus.

C. V. Celsitudo Vestra. {n. p.}

C. M. Caesarea Maiestas.

D. Divus, 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. Reverenda Tua Dignitas.

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

S C. Senatusconsultum.

V.C. Urbs condita etc. vid. Lilium.

Is not a great decorum to be observed in the poets, by the repetition of diverse letters, to express to the life the matters themselves?

Yes. E. serves to express lamentation and sorrow, as Lachrymae peredere humore exangues genas.

F. to express blowing, as Terras turbine perflant.

I. to express thin and piercing things, Accipiunt inimicum imbrem, nimisque fatiscunt. {n. p.}

L. to express low and soft things.

Qualem virgineo demessum pollice flore
Seu mollis violae, seu languentis hiacynthi. Verg. 

M. to express great things, as Dorsum immane mari summo; as also to express admiration, Deum immortalem! hominum! fidem! 

N. hath a contrary use; it contracts. Frangitur inque sinus scindit sese unda reductos. 

R. to express fury and anger, and rough and terrible things. Imprecor arma armis. 

S. by this Virgil describes the noise of a tempest, Emissamque hiemem sensit Neptunus, et imis stagna refusa vadis. 

T. to express slowness, as Nec nos obniti contra, nec tendere tantum. 

V. to express obscure things, Tum plausu, fremituque virum, studiisque faventum. 

What words are to be written with great letters? 

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

2. Beginnings of sentences in prose and verses in poems.

3. Names of offices and dignities.

Is it lawful to mix letters of another tongue with Latin letters?

Yes, sometimes, 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 severally pronounced?

We may for want of a better term; but properly syllaba, coming of συμαζεῖν, i.e. concipere, signifieth a comprehension or uniting of diverse letters in pronunciation with one tone or spirit.

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

Not above six, as stirps. {n. p.}

Of the Distinction of Syllables.

What rules have you for the distinction or division of syllables?

Diverse: first, in the division of a word, those letters are to be joined together, which may be joined in the beginning of a word; as in magnus aruspex, the last syllables must be gnus and spex, because gn and sp may be found in the beginnings of words, as gnatus, spectrum. Secondly, if a single consonant be put in the middle 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 begins with a vowel, the former shall end in a vowel, as de-us.

Doth not the second rule sometimes fail?

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 Pronunciation.

Whence hath a tone its name?

From the Greek word τείνειν, to screw up, or slacken the strings of an instrument of music. 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 doubtful 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, pictaeque volúcres.

Is the accent to be placed in antepenultima in these words, deinde, proinde, perinde, aliquando, siquando, nequando, hucusque, etc. as Lily would have it?

No, for it is an undoubted rule received amongst the best grammarians. Polysyllaba, quae habent penultimam positione longam penultimam {n. p.} acuunt ut deinceps, duntáxat, probléma, extémplo; and herein Lily thwarts his own third general rule of tones, and he is thwarted by Quint. Inst. l.1.c.5. where he saith, Duabus longis sequentibus primam acui noster sermo non patitur. 

Have propémodum, ádmodum, nihilóminus the acute accent in antepenultima for this reason only, to distinguish them from prope-modum, admodum, nihilo-minus, as Lily bears us in hand?

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

Lily tells us that duntaxat, deinceps, deorsum have the accent in antepenultima to difference them from other words; is that assertion true?

No, for we read nowhere dun taxat, dein ceps, de orsum as distinct words, as per inde, pro inde.

How is amabo, the adverb of flattering, to be pronounced?

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

How is ti before another vowel to be pronounced?

Always 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 comes before it, as iustior; thirdly, in the poetical infinitives, as mittier; fourthly, in borrowed words, as politía, pragmatía.

How are Greek words being made Latin to be pronounced?

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

Of the Quantity of Syllables.

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

I think we are rather to write patrisso, for z is not a letter proper to the Latin tongue and I find other verbs of imitation ending in sso, as platonisso, philonisso, atticisso; nay, Lily himself saith in his rules of the species of verbs, Imitativa sunt etc. ut patrisso etc.

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

No, but of l and r very often, of m and n very seldom.

When of l and r?

In simple words or such compounds whose mutes together with the liquids pertain to the same syllable, and this is very necessary to be observed for these words: obrodo, obrepo, obligo, obrumpo etc. Though they have a short vowel before a mute and a {B2} liquid, yet are they long and are never found short, for as much as the liquid and mute in any of them, being compound words, do not concur to the constitution of a syllable; for these words are to be divided thus: ob-rodo, ob-repo, as appears 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.

Give 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 save one in Caï, Vultei, Pompei, etc. long in poets, whereas as one vowel comes before another?

Lily’s Grammar doth not except these words from the general rule vocalis ante alteram etc. but the reason of this production is, because amongst the ancients they were written {n. p.} with (ii) and so were long by position, which manner of writing, though it be not now in use, yet the quantity of the syllable still remains.

Do only innuba, pronuba, compounds derived of nubo; deiero, peiero, the compounds of iuro, by composition change their long quantity to short?

No, diverse other words also, as omnipotens, sacrosanctus, apud Buchan.; bardocucullus, Mart.; integer, ab in et aeger; aeviternus, ab aevum et aeternus; nihilum, a ne et hilum, the second syllables of which are short in composition, long out of composition; so siquidem, ―siquidem ieiuna remansit. Ov. iubeo, a ius, et habeo; whose first syllables become short by composition.

Is that generally true, in t desinentia brevia sunt?

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

Nomen abit, aut unde redit maiore triumpho. Luc. 

If all nouns ending in e have e short {B3} by quantity, except the ablative of the fifth declension, how is it that we find e in fame long in Verg. a noun of the third declension, as,

Amissis (ut fama) apibus morboque fameque? 

It is not so made by caesura, because it is not a syllable produced after a foot full and complete falling any of the kinds of caesura in grammar specified, we must therefore say that anciently (fames) was of the fifth declension, but now used only in the third, yet here retains the same quantity which it had in former times when it was of the fifth.

Is that true which Lily hath, Pes una cum compositis, ut praepes, bipes etc?

No, praepes signifieth swift, not on foot, but in flying; it is not compounded of prae, and pes, but derived rather of praepeto, to hasten to with speed; it is commonly used in the poets, as an epithet of the eagle, which is consecrated to Jove, Praepes adunca Iovis, Ov. In Tully, praepes avis is the bird that first sheweth himself to the augur, {n. p.} whereby he declares things to come; it may appear by analogy very evidently that praepes is no compound of pes: bipes makes bipedis, quadrupes quadrupedis in the genitive case, but praepes praepetis, not praepedis.

Is that rule of Lily true, Longae sunt omnes voces quartae inflexionis in us praeter nominative and vocative singular?

No, for the dative and ablative plural in us of all words of the fourth declension are short, as well as the nominative and vocative singular.

Of Etymology.

What is the meaning of that definition of etymology in Lily, Etym. Est ratio cognoscendi casuum discrimina?

The meaning of it is this, that in Etymology is handled the differences of terminations of nouns, pronouns, and participles by declining of verbs by their conjugating 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 be taken in so strict an acceptation as it is afterwards, where it is said casus sunt sex, for it is attributed to a verb also, for the variation of the verb amo in all tenses, persons, and moods from its simple self are called in this definition casuum discrimina. But yet methinks the definition is too narrow, though we do stretch the words after this manner, and comprehendeth under it only the declinable parts of speech, for though almost all adverbs derived from adjectives be compared and so be varied in termination (yet they have this nature as derived rather than as adverbs) and some few prepositions, as supra, superior, etc., yet not any conjunction, or interjection admitteth of casuum discrimina and very hardly any adverb which is so primitively, and originally. {n. p.}

Of the Parts of Speech.

Of a Noun.

How are there eight parts of speech, since a pronoun and a participle have the same things which belong to a noun, to wit, number, case, gender, and declension?

A pronoun and a participle agree and communicate with a noun in these, but yet they have several and peculiar differences by which they are distinguished and constitute several parts of speech; a pronoun is distinguished from a noun by difference of person, and from a participle by time and signification.

Why do you say that a noun admits not difference of persons, when as magister in the nominative case is of the third person, in the vocative of the second person, according to that rule the second person is spoken to as tu, thou, and of this person is every vocative case?

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

This answer is given by some to make Lily’s definition of a noun good, but in the definitions of Frischlin, Melanchthon, Scaliger, and Finkius there is no want of difference of person mentioned to difference it from other parts of speech.

’Tis true, the stream of best grammarians run that a noun hath persons, but thus is distinguished from a pronoun, which signifies a thing with difference of person as well as a noun; a noun signifies first a thing, secondarily a person; a pronoun first a person, secondarily a thing.

If all adverbs, conjunctions, etc. be parts indeclinable, how comes it to pass that some of them are the nominative cases to their verbs and have adjectives joined to them, agreeing with them in case, gender, and number, as in Martial: Dic mihi cras istud Posthume quando venit; and again, Magnum semper inane sophῶs; or thus, Et est coniunctio, Penes est praepositio. Vah est interjection? {n. p.}

Cras and Sophῶs and the other particles before the verb est are not nouns, but as it were nouns inasmuch as they supply the place of a nominative case before the verb they are not properly nouns, but τεχνικῶς, artificially as Melanchthon speaketh; and in the same manner are verbs sometimes used.

Matutinum portat ineptus ave. Mart. 

Quis expedivit psittaco suum χαῖρε. Pers.

Scire tuum nihil est. Idem. 

Do not the nouns hora, dies, mensis, annus signify difference of time as well as a participle? Doth not the time of an hour differ from the time of a day, and the space of a month from the space of a year? How is it then that Lily saith, a noun doth not signify difference of time?

’Tis true indeed, that these nouns, considered comparatively, among themselves do signify times which differ among themselves, but, considered absolutely, and each by itself, they do barely signify a space of time, not consignify time besides its prime signification, as a participle {n. p.} doth; as amans doth not only signify the action (or rather passion) of loving, but consignifies the present time.

Are not some substantives varied by three terminations?

Yes, we read syngraphus, syngrapha, syngraphum; intybus, intyba, intybum; vesper et vesperus, ra, rum.

How doth that definition of a noun substantive proper hold, Quod uni soli convenit, when as we read many proper names in the plural number?

The definition is true notwithstanding that exception, for a proper name in its own 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 Virgilii, Simones, Scipiones. Secondly, when a noun metaphorically noteth a property or similitude, as Catones for wise men. Thirdly, when the names of nations or families take upon them the nature of appellatives, as the Latini from Latinus, Fabii from Fabius, the authors and founders of that nation, this family. {n. p.}

Of the Accidents of a Noun.

Of Species.

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

A word is said to be of the primitive species, which is as the stem or root, whence other words as branches do sprout forth; or as the fountain, whence other words as rivulets do issue and flow forth, which are therefore called derivatives. As the noun of the primitive species is navis, of the derivative species are navigo, navicula.

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 itself 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 itself to {n. p.} the understanding, which is the eye of the soul in its prime estate, is a word of the primitive species, that which issues from the former of the derivative.

What is a noun collective?

A noun which collecteth, gathereth, and uniteth a company or multitude in the singular number, as exercitus, an army; grex, a flock of sheep; examen, a swarm of bees.

If quis be sometimes a noun interrogative, sometimes a noun indefinite, how comes it to pass that Lily claps it in amongst the pronouns afterwards, and subjoins to the rules of pronouns a catalogue of the compounds of quis?

It seems to be placed out of due order, unless peradventure it visits the pronouns by reason of some seeming affinity it hath with qui.

It is said in the English Rudiments that quid is always a substantive of the neuter gender, is that true?

No, quid is not a substantive, but is put sometimes substantively with a genitive case, as Quid novi? {n. p.}

Is not quid sometimes used for magnum?

 Yes, as, Nescio, quid certe est, et Hylax in limine latrat. Verg. 

Nescio, quid certe est, quod me tibi temperat astrum. Pers. 

So, among the Greeks, τί ?? used for μέγατι, as ὂιονται τί εἶναι, ἐδενὸς ὄντες ἂξιος, Plat. in ap. Socr.

Why are unus, duo, tres, quatuor, etc., the first kinds of numeral nouns of the primitive species, called cardinals?

Because the digit numbers are the first and chief numbers upon the which the rest do depend, and turn as the door upon the hinges, which in Latin are called cardines, the rest being but resumptions of them. So the four great and chief winds are called the cardinal winds, and the chief and main point in any business is called cardo causae.

Whence is a noun patronymic derived?

From the Greek words πατὴρ, a father, and ὂνυμα, a name: which hath its name from the father. So it only signifies, being strictly taken according to the etymology, as Tydides, the son of Tydeus; Pelides, the son of Peleus; but yet it is used in a larger extent, to signify many other relations by marriage, as Aeacides, the son or nephew of Aeacus; Nerine, the daughter or niece of Nereus; Menelais, the wife of Menelaus.

Of Figure.

What do grammarians mean when they ask that question, Cuius est figurae est hoc nomen?

They ask whether it be a simple noun, as parabilis, or a compound, as reparabilis, or a decompound, as irreparabilis.

Doth not composition sometimes change gender?

Yes, for τίμος is of the masculine gender, but atomus, the compound, is of the feminine; φθόγγος is of the masculine gender, but diphthongus is of the feminine.

Are there not diverse words which are used by Latin authors which are compounded of Greek and Latin words, and Latin and Greek words? {n. p.}

Yes, these are compounded of Greek and Latin words:

Monoculus,        Unoculus.

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

Anthropovorus,       Anthropophagus.

Archigubernus, protonotarius, archidux, etc. These of Latin and Greek words: * prologus, and therefore they make the first syllable long; epitogium, elogium, gravitona, semidiameter, bissyllabum, imbuo, ab in, and βύω, induo, ab in, and δύω, etc. vide Rod. Goclen. prob. Gram. l. 3. 29. p. 

Of Number.

Is that rule true concerning all nouns, the singular number speaketh of one, the plural of more than one?

No, some nouns are singular by position or termination, but plural in sense and understanding, as turba, concie, exercitus, etc. Again, some nouns are plural by position, and singular in sense, as Athenae, literae, etc. {C}

Of Case.

Is it necessary to make a seventh or eighth case?

No, the seventh which grammarians make by an ablative 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 dative put for the accusative with the preposition ad, as It clamor coelo, i.e. ad coelum. Verg. Quaerere sibi adiumenta honoribus, i.e. ad honores consequendos. Cic.

Why is the ablative called Latinus casus?

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

How then is it that we find in Tully Latin prepositions which govern only an ablative case construed with Greek nouns?

’Tis true, there is such syntax found in Tully, as Att. 13, Id ab ἐποχῇ est remotissimum, and elsewhere. Prudentia cum ἐυμενείᾳ, where the words ἐποχῇ and ἐυμενείᾳ, though they be the {n. p.} dative case, take upon them the nature of the ablative.

Of Gender.

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

Yes: hereof are diverse examples in authors. Pl. In Cist. IV.ii, Nisi quid … Eam (rem) vult suae matri, et patri, etc. ubi (suae) innuit (suo). 

Curtius is called Fama by Verg. In Culice. 

Hic et Fama vetus nunquam moritura per aevum, Curtius. 

Maiestas vestra is the ordinary title of a king.

Potestas doth signify magistrates and judges: Fen. C. 26. De procuratore Caesaris, caeterisque Romanis potestatibus. Suet. In Cl. Iurisdictionem de fidei-commissis quotannis, et tantum in urbe delegari magistratibus solitam in perpetuum, atque etiam per provincias potestatibus demandavit. So Saint Paul, Romans 13. 1, useth ἐξεσία ὑπερέχεσαι, which Beza renders potestates supereminentes to signify kings; {C2} so nobilitas is in Lucan put for the nobility, or peers of a land: Nobilitas cum plebe perit.

Are all names of males of the masculine gender, of females of the feminine, and all nouns that signify both sexes of both genders?

No, sometimes one and the same gender doth agree to both sexes, as is apparent in the names of birds, fishes, and other creatures whose sex is not set forth by several words, as in passer, aquila, ostreum. So liberi, though it be only of the masculine gender, is put both for sons and daughters, and mancipium of the neuter gender, only signifies a bondman or a bondwoman, a he or a she captive.

Is that a proper speech which is set down 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 noun, can be said to be declined; but every noun which is declinable is declared to be of the masculine gender, {n. p.} having the article hic prefixed.

Why are articles used in grammar?

Not to point out an individium or particular thing or person, nor to distinguish sex, for grammar considers not the natures of things, but the names only, as Lily himself confesseth, but to difference one gender from another: an article doth not make a noun of such or such a gender, but demonstrates it to be so; it is not the cause of the gender, but the sign.

Upon Propria quae maribus.

Is that marginal note true, which the poser of the Accidence hath in his margent upon the first general rule touching proper names, viz. Cocytus, the name of a fen in hell, is of the feminine gender?

No, I find it of the masculine gender in the most refined authors:

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

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

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

No, for I find it of the feminine gender in Martial: Aeriis imposta iugis, medicamque Epidaurum. 

How are the proper noun opus, a city, and the appellative opus, a work, distinguished?

By their genitive cases: opus, the noun proper, maketh opuntis; opus, the appellative, operis.

What is contained in the first general rule?

Thus much. These all are masculines: the names of gods, the names of men, of months, of winds, of floods.

Are none to be excepted?

Yes, Styx and Lethe, which are rivers of hell, found in the poets of the feminine gender: Styx inde novem circumflua campis, Stat.; Soporiferae biberem si pocula Lethes, Ov. We need not excuse Lily by saying they are fens, not rivers. So albula of the feminine gender, as albula pota deo, where we need not force a synchysis; the rule must be squared to the examples, {n. p.} not the examples to the rule.

What is contained in the second general rule?

Thus much: the names of women, earthly and divine, of regions, cities, isles are feminine.

Are none to be excepted?

Yes, besides those which are expressed, these: Londinum, Eboracum, Brundusium, Pergamon are of the neuter gender, as Verg. Miramur Troiae cineres, et flebile victis Pergamon. 

Of the General Rules of Appellatives.

If suber and siler be rightly placed in appellativa arborum etc. how is it that we find them again in the second exception of neuters, from the third special rule?

I cannot excuse Lily herein, it is a vain exception, or tautology.

Of Epicenes.

May not the rule sunt etiam volucrum etc. be spared?

Yes, as I conceive, 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, wild beasts, and fishes are to be known by the rules following. Thirdly, if this rule shows the gender of those nouns in the same specified, how is that we find the genders of them set down again, of birds, as halcyon, bubo, perdix, phoenix, nycticorax; of beasts, as elephas, linx; of fish, as halec.

If all nouns appellative ending in um be of the neuter gender, according to that rule, Omne quod exit in um, why doth Lily say again in the second exception from the first special rule, Et quot in on vel in um?

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

Neutrum nomen in e, si gignit is ut mare, rete.

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

Hippomanes, virus. Neutrum modo, mas modo vulgus.

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

Not only every substantive undeclined, as the poser of the Accidence speaks, but also all nomina τεχνικά, viz. all clauses which are the nominative case to the verb, as in that clause didicisse fideliter artes emollit mores; didicisse fideliter artes must be conceived to be of the neuter gender, as also all verbs of the infinitive mood used substantively, whether they come before their verb or follow after, as Velle suum cuique est, Pers.; Videamus beate vivere vestrum quale sit, Cic.; Pl. in Cur. 1. 1. Ita tuum conferto amare semper si sapis. Ne id quod ames, populus si sciat, tibi sit probro; Idem in Bac. 1. 2. Iamdudum. Hic vereri perdidit i.e., verecundiam. 

What do you think of that which is annexed to the first special rule, labes, labis; pestes, pestis?

Pestes is here set down by Lily (or I know not who) as the nominative case, which word is not found in any pure author, nor in any lexicon; and it seems rather to be an error of the composer than a slip of the printer, inasmuch as he would {n. p.} have pictis by analogy, the genitive case of pestes, as labis of labes; this hath passed in all editions that I have seen without correction, the true nominative case is pestis.

Doth Lily speak properly when he saith Scriba, Assecla, Lixa, etc. are the names of men?

No, for in propriety of speech they are not the names of men, but of the offices or employments of men.

Is that generally true, Mascula graecorum quot declinatio prima fundit, etc.?

No, for as learned Ramus observes in his Grammar, there be many words borrowed of the Greeks by the Latins, which, being of the masculine gender and first declension of the Greeks, are of the feminine gender in Latin authors; which I have comprised in this distich:

Foeminei generis sunt haec Graecanica. Charta, gausapa, margarita, catarracta, et catapulta.

Are funis and sentis of the masculine gender?

Ramus and Stephanus say they are {n. p.} of the common of two, so also Trebell. In Prompt., Sentis com. G., teste Phoca. Asprae sentes, Verg. A. 2. Funis tam masc. Quam foem. Teste Gellio 13. Citante vers. Lucr. Aurea de coelo demisit funis in arva. 

Is rete always of the neuter gender?

We read both retis and rete; rete is always of the neuter gender, retis of the masculine. Varro, this is a noun redundant, as also barbiton, for we read in Horace barbitus, of the feminine gender. Age dic Latinum barbite carmen. Carm. L. 1. Ode 32.

Is halcyonis of the doubtful gender, as Lily bears us in hand?

No, in this word Lily was foully deceived, and by this hath deceived others. First, he was deceived in that he took for a word which did not increase in the genitive case, whereas it is in true the genitive case of the nominative, halcyon, a kingfisher, so called because she buildeth her nest in the sea and there hatcheth her young. Secondly, in that he saith it is of the doubtful gender, where it is always found with a feminine epithet, {n. p.} as Verg. Dilectae Thetidi halcyones.

Nunc ego desertas alloquor halcyonas. Prop. 

Maestae halcyones lugubre dabant per littora carmen. Mant. 

Secondly, he deceived others, amongst them the construer of Lily’s rules, who swallowed down this fly, putting halcyonis for a kingfisher, and other ordinary schoolmasters following him are deceived also.

Is ficus for a disease of the doubtful gender?

No, *Martial, who knew the gender of it better than Lily, saith it is of the^a masculine gender.

Dicemus ficus, quas scimus in arbore nasci

Dicemus ficos, Caeciliane, tuos.

What is the meaning of the second special rule, Nomen crescentis etc.?

The poser of the Accidence saith this is the meaning: that every noun substantive common, increasing sharp, or long in the genitive case, that is, being lifted up in pronouncing or pronounced long, is of the feminine gender. {n. p.}

If Lily means by syllaba acuta a long syllable with an acute accent upon it, then many of the words put in the rules of exception are in vain excepted, for many of them increase short?

’Tis very true. Amongst the masculines excepted, these increase short: sal, salis; vir, viri; mas, maris; pes, pedis; grex, gregis; phryx, phrygis. Amongst the doubtful: scrobs, scrobis; grus, gruis. Amongst the common of two: dux, ducis; bos, bovis; sus, suis.

Why doth Lily say, Glis gliris habens genitivo?

To distinguish it from glis glissis, potter’s clay, and glis glitis, a thistle, both which words are of the feminine gender.

Is not that rule, Mascula in er, or, et os, faulty?

Yes, and it may be thus compendiously amended: Mascula in er, or, et os, seu crater, conditor, heros;

In dens, quale bidens, torens, nefrens, oriensque

Adde gigas, elephas, adamas, garamasque tapesque {n. p.}

Atque lebes, magnes, hydrops, dodransque meridi-

Es. Phoenix, bombyx, thorax, vervexque coraxque

Sunt haec foeminea in n et or, syren, soror, uxor.

Why do you turn out of this rule, Cures: quae componuntur ab asse ut dodrans, semis; et mulier?

First: Cures is no noun appellative, but a proper name of a town of the Sabines, which is read only in the plural number. Tatioque seni, Curibusque severis. Verg. Secondly, dodrans and semis are no compounds of as: first, dodrans is no compound, as appears by its signification, for it doth not signify nine pounds, which it should if it were compounded of dodra and as, but nine ounces; as also by analogy, as of decem and as comes decussis, of centum and as centussis, so by analogy of dodra and as should result dodrassis, not dodrans; and herein Lily forgot what he had written before in the first exception of the first special rule, that ab assenata were masculines, not increasing in the genitive {n. p.} case. Secondly, semis is not found in any pure writer as a simple word; it is not the nominative case of semissis, but semissis is itself the nominative case, compounded of semi and as, which semi is always found in composition, as semianimis, semivivus, semicircularis, semipedalis, semibovemque virum, semivirumque bovem, Ovid, and is derived of the Greek word ἥμι, which, being turned into Latin, instead of the asper spiritus, doth prefix s, as ὕπερ, super; ὕλη, sylva. Thirdly, mulier, though in modern poets it be made to increase long, yet in truth it doth increase short, and so the best critics pronounce it; that it increaseth short may be thus confirmed. First, it is found the last word in many verses in Terence, which do commonly end in an iambic foot. Secondly, it is found in any place of Virgil or Ovid’s works in any oblique case, and it is more than probable that a word of such common use would not have been baulked by them, had not the three first syllables in the oblique cases made a tribrachus, {n. p.} of which their verses are altogether uncapable. Thirdly, that iambic scazon in Martial where erum makes an iambus, for a scazon never admits of a spondeus in the second odd place, put all out of doubt. Amethystinasque mulierum vocat vestes. 

Is perdix of the doubtful gender?

It can scarce be found in any author of the masculine gender, ordinarily of the feminine as Ovid:

Garrula ramosa prospexit ab ilice perdix. 

Mart. Et picta perdix. 

Mant. Daedala perdix, etc. 

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

Thus: communis generis sunt haec infans adolescens,

Dux, illex, haeres, exlex, autorque parensque

Latro, cliens, custos, bos, fur, sus, atque sacerdos.

Why is bifrons turned out?

Because, though it be sometimes used substantively, yet indeed it is an adjective, an epithet of Janus. {n. p.}

Saturnusque senex, Ianique bifrontis imago. Verg. 

Is autor used only concerning persons?

No, sometimes concerning things, as Multi ingenio sibi autore dignitatem pepererunt. Cic. Calor autor levitatis. Cometa sideris autoris sui sequitur naturam. Scal. 

Is presbyter, which is called in grammar vox ecclesiastica, a good word or no?

No, it hath been used by modern writers but is in truth a barbarous word: the true Latin word is presbyterus, borrowed of the Greek πρεσβύτερος.

What feminines are excepted from the third special rule?

In do vel go, nomina hyperdisyllaba gignunt.

Quae Dinis, atque Ginis sicut dulcedo, propago. To which these may more completely be added:

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

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

What do you think of that rule, Graecula in as etc. caspis, cassis, cuspis?

I think that therein Lily was in part deceived, for cassis and cuspis are originally Latin words, not to be found in any Greek lexicographer.

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

Yes, if it increases short in the genitive case.

How is then that many grammarians have affirmed that polenta, though it increases not at all in the genitive case, is of the neuter gender?

It is true, Alexander, Sulpitius, Nebrissensis, Baptista Pius, and Calepine affirm so; and Mantuan, being deceived by the grammarians of his time, did use it so, saying Montibus artocreas, et pingue polenta comedi. But in Apuleius we find, polentae caseatae offula. In Varro, Obiciunt iis polentam hordeaceam; the error arose first from the misconstruction of that verse in Ovid’s Met., Dulce dedit tosta, quod coxerat ante polenta: they cozened with a comma after ante, put in by {n. p.} the non-intelligent printer, thought polenta the accusative, which was the ablative, as if the poet had meant dedit dulce polenta; which if it be searched into will be found nonsense, for polenta signifieth dried barley, with which beer is brewed, but is not of itself any liquid thing which may be drunk. The verse is thus to be construed: Dedit dulce i.e., dulcem potum, she gave to Ceres sweet drink, quod coxerat ante polenta, which before she had boiled with dried barley. Ovid takes dulce here in the neuter gender substantively, as afterwards, liquidum. Iuvenemque cum liquido mixta perfudit diva polenta, Ceres besprinkled the impudent boy which derided her with the dry barley mingled with the liquor. So Ninivita.

If verber be read, Robinson contradicts Lily, affirming that only verberis, and verbere are read.

It is no marvel though they disagree, since in patching up our grammar they did not confer their notes together.

Doth iter belong to the rule of neutral {D2} words, excepted from the third special rule, since it is declined iter itineris, whereas those which increase in the genitive case are to exceed the nominative only in one syllable and not in two?

The genitive case itineris is of an old word itiner, which is grown out of use, not of iter, which is succeeded in its room.

Pecus, pecoris seems to be of the feminine gender, as well as pecus, pecudis, by that verse of Ovid, Hoc pecus omne meum, multae stabulantur in antris. 

Multae, in this verse, doth not agree with pecora, but pecudes understood.

What is the meaning of Onyx cum prole?

That onyx with the offspring, or compound thereof, sardonyx, is of the doubtful gender.

Is it anywhere found in the feminine gender?

Nowhere, always in the masculine.

Et crocino nares myrrheus ungat onyx. Prop. 

In dextra candidus ardet onyx, etc. 

Are augur and aruspex used in the feminine gender as well as in the masculine? {n. p.}

I do not think any example can be showed where they are used in the feminine gender; the Romans had a college of augurs, but we never read of any woman admitted fellow there. Plautus would not use haruspex for a she-diviner, but haraspica.

Is princeps always a substantive of the common of two as it is in Lily?

I think that it is primarily a substantive, yet used sometime in the room and place of an adjective, as in that verse of Horace:

Principibus placuisse viris non ultima laus est. 

Of the First Declension.

Do all nouns of the first declension ending in a make the genitive in ae?

No, for we read paterfamilias, materfamilias, filiusfamilias in the genitive even in the best and purest authors; and in the ancients, vias, terras, the genitive of via, terra.

Why did they write so?

In imitation of the Greeks, amongst whom all substantives ending {D3} in δα, ϑα, ῥα, and α with a vowel before it form the genitive case by as.

It seems that some Latin words end in am, as well as Hebrew in the nominative case. I read in Plautus, Ego patriam te rogo quae sit tua, where patriam seems to be the nominative case; for if the sentence be construed, the words must be placed thus, Rogo te quae sit patriam tua?

The words cannot be so placed; but here is an antiptosis, the accusative put for the nominative, patriam for patria.

If all nouns of the first declension in as make the vocative in a, how is it that we read, in Terence, Pythias in the vocative case, Quid festinas, aut quem quaeris Pythias, in Eu. Act 4. Sc. 3.?

In this there is an Atticism: the Attics in all declensions make the vocative like the nominative, and yet we find regularly in the same scene, Paululum si cessassem Pythia, domi non offendissem. 

Are a musa, a magistro ablative cases?

The vulgar grammarians confound {n. p.} syntaxis with etymology, when in declining a noun that say in the ablative ab hac Musa, ab hoc Magistro; this is construction, not declining. If they will say, the preposition is prefixed only as a sign, I answer, that this sign is nor perpetual. This appears in Siquis, ecquis, nequis, nunquis, for none will say a siquo, ab ecquo, a nequo, a nunquo. Goclen. Problem. Gram. L. 1. P. 24. 

Doth not anima sometimes make the dative and ablative cases plural in abus, as well as Dea liberta etc.?

Yes, and sometimes in is also, for we read in Cicero Tullius Terentiae, et Pater Tulliolae duabus animis suis salutem dicit. 

Do not words of the first declension make the dative and ablative cases plural regularly in is?

Yes, but these which follow are to be excepted, whereof some make is and abus, as nouns redundant, others abus only; which for the help of memory I have reduced into this distich: {D4}

Filia, nata, anima is faciunt, atque abus, at abus tantum, ambae, atque duae, liberta, equa, sic dea, mula.

Of the Second Declension.

How many terminations be there of the second declension?

Eight; the examples of them I have compiled in this hexameter:

TemplUM, annUS, vIR, apER, satUR, OrphEUS, IliON, ArgOS.

Is there an imitation of the Attic dialect of the Greeks which forms the vocative like to the nominative, in that verse of Ovid, Latmius Endymion non est tibi Luna rubori, as Lily supposeth?

I see no reason for that supposal, for Latmius Endymion is the nominative case to the verb est, not the vocative; the poet, according to the true original copy, doth not direct his speech to Endymion, but to the Moon. The meaning is that Diana was not ashamed to descend to the loving embracements of Endymion on the hill Latmus. Endymion was an astronomer, and for the clearer sight {n. p.} of the stars did often go to the top of that mountain, which gave hint to the fable.

What words be those of the second declension, which make the vocative in e and in us?

These six, which to help the memory I have comprised in this verse:

Haec: vulgus, lucus, populus, fluvius, chorus, agnus.

Do not quercus and laurus form the vocative in e or us, as well as these?

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

Doth vulgus make the vocative in e and in us, as of the masculine gender?

No, it hath that double termination in a double consideration: as it makes e in the vocative it is of the masculine gender, as us of the neuter; and here also may be noted that the ending of the rest of the nouns in us in the vocative case is an archaism.

How do Greek words in os, as logos, make the vocative?

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

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

Because they come of Greek words in ὕς, which make υ in the vocative, which is rendered in Latin by u.

Of the Third Declension.

What nouns of the third declension make the accusative case in im only?

These, which for memory’s sake may thus rhyme:

Vim, ravim, sitim, tussim,

Charybdim, maguderim, et amussim.

What nouns make the accusative both in im and in em?

These: im, em. Faciunt, febris, buris,

Pelvis, puppis, et securis.

Torquis, turris, aqualis, navis.

Et bipennis, restis, clavis.

If the genitive case of the third declension end in is, how comes it to pass that we read duri miles Ulyssi, Immitis Achilli?

Concerning Ulyssi, which Verg. Useth in the genitive case in the second of his Aeneid (and the same is to be said also of Achilli), we must {n. p.} observe that it is of the third declension of the contracts amongst the Greeks, whose nominative ending in ευς, and genitive in έος, as Ulysseus, Ulysseos; the ancient grammarians were wont to divide εὕς into two syllables, whose genitive they made εἴ, divided also as Ulyssëus, Ulyssëi; and the vowels so divided, they did again contract into the diphthong ει by synecphonesis, as Ulysses for Ulyssei; and afterward by synaeresis they pronounced the diphthong by I, as Ulyssi for Ulyssei.

Do any nouns of the third declension decrease in the genitive case?

No, those that imagine that Iupiter makes Iovis in the genitive case are deceived; and those that decline it so, may as well say nominative Phoebus, genitive Apollinis, saith the grammarian. Probus Instituta l. 2. Iupiter is a synonym of the ancient nominative case Iovis, which was declined Iovis in the genitive case also, but now the nominative is out of use, and Iupiter used instead of it; but the other cases keep their ancient form. {n. p.}

Is that rule of Lily generally true, that adjectives, except those which end in is and en and make e in the neuter gender, make the ablative both e and i?

No, for adjectives ending in ns do not make the ablative promiscuously in e or i; in this we must be very observant of the use 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 ablative of the participle of the present tense, being joined with another word put absolutely, ends only in e; yet we may say, in another kind of construction, animo gaudenti, patienti, laetanti faciam. Goclen. Probl. gram. l. 1. pag. 16. 

Is that rule of Lily generally true, Comparativa bifariam facient ablativum in e vel i?

No, the comparatives of the feminine gender do most commonly make the ablative in e, as laetiore fame, secundiore fortuna, vocis contentione maiore, gravitate acriore, commodiore valetudine, longiore via. Comparatives {n. p.} of the neuter gender most commonly make the ablative 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 dative and the ablative cases plural in ubus?

These comprehended in this distich for memory’s sake.

Haec in ubus, ficus, portus,

partus, specus, arcus

Sic lacus, atque veru, sic

quercus, acus, tribus, artus.

Of the Fifth Declension.

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

No, it was a word anciently used, but now is exolete: if plebs be a noun redundant, as Robinson saith, then plebes must be the other nominative case, not plebis, as he saith in his rules of heteroclites: plebis is nowhere found but in the genitive of plebs. {n. p.}

Upon Quaegenus, etc.

What do you think of that rule, Haec genus, ac partim flexum variantia, etc.?

I think it might very well have been spared. Pergama seems to be the plural of Pergamon, found in Verg. rather than 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 he saith, Quod nisi plurali careat etc.

What are nouns aptote?

Not such as have no cases, but such as do not admit of difference of terminations in oblique cases; they are derived of α, a privative particle, and πίπτω, cado.

Are cornu and genu such?

Yes.

Yet we read that these have other terminations, as cornuum, cornibus, genuum, genibus.

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

What part of speech is fas?

A noun adjective, used only in the neuter gender; and of the same nature is nefas.

If instar be a noun, as Robinson saith, how comes it to pass that in the syntaxis of adverbs we find this rule, Instar aequiparationem, mensuram etc. significat, etc.

It is an evident contradiction, and no marvel, since our grammar is a cento made up of the shreds of several men.

Is not the rule touching Triptots faulty?

Yes, first in that he saith frugis and ditionis want their nominative 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 plural number complete and perfect: it is true, opes is read in all cases in the plural number, but it hath not any respect to opis, but is a feminine plural wanting the singular number, and is to be referred to that rule, Haec sunt faeminei generis, numerique secundi, etc. Again, {n. p.} the significations of opis and opes, though they have some kindred, yet they differ much: opis, help, opes, riches. If he will say that opis hath the plural number, he may as well say that delicium hath the plural number also, for deliciae is everywhere read; and that tricae, apinae, plugae hath the singular number, for trica, apina, pluga are found frequently in the singular number in different signification.

Doth omnis want the vocative case?

No, we read in the poet Diique Deaeque omnes. O all ye gods and goddesses.

Have no pronouns the vocative case, but only noster, nostras, meus and tu?

Yes, ipse hath the vocative case also; as in the poet,

Ipse meas aether suscipe summe preces. 

How may Robinson’s rule be mended?

Thus: Et pronomina, praeter

Quinque notanda. Meus, tu,

nostras, noster, et ipse.

What nouns want the plural number? {n. p.}

All, or the most part that for brevity’s sake are comprised in this distich:

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

4. Pensa, 5. Uda, 6. Figura.

7. Morbi, 8. Herbae, 9. Vitia,

10. Aetates, 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, avaritia. 10. Iuventa, senecta. 11. Triticum. 12. Aurum ferrum.

Is not sanguis read in the plural number?

Yes, in ecclesiastical writers, but then the word is forced to express a Hebraism, as vir sanguinum.

Lily saith that nemo is of the common of two, Robinson that it is of the masculine gender; what do you think of their variance?

Phocas and other grammarians side with Robinson, and they add that homo also is of the masculine gender, {E} of which nemo is a compound. Neither of these nouns are found with an adjective of the feminine gender; it is true that Terence hath in his Andria, Scio neminem peperisse hic; and Verg. nec vox hominem sonat, speaking of Venus; and Sulpicius in an epistle to Cicero (wherein he comforts him for the death of his daughter Tullia) hath these words, Quae si iam diem suum non obiijsset paulo post tam ei moriendum fuit, quam homo nata erat, where nata doth not agree with homo, but Tullia understood; and the derivative humanus is attributed to a woman in Horace, Humano capiti (to a woman’s head) cervicem pictor equinam iungere si vellet, etc. as appears by what follows, mulier formosa superne; but hence cannot be any infallible conclusion drawn that homo is of the feminine gender, and so neither by consequence that nemo is of that gender; in this let everyone follow what he himself seeth best grounds for.

Is it true that cassida, ae is formed of cassida, the accusative case of a Greek {n. p.} word cassis, cassidos; as panthera of panther, as Robinson would persuade us?

No, he and his brother Lily herein draw in the same line of error: cassis is primitively a Latin word.

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

No, for ador is only 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 tells us?

No, pubes is properly a sign of ripeness of age in men at fourteen years, in women at twelve, but puber signifies one that hath arrived at those years.

May those luxuriant adjectives which are derived of arma, iugum, nervus, etc. be used promiscuously?

No, for though they be found in old writers, yet many of them are rejected {E2} by those which have refined the Latin tongue; we must not use inermus so frequently as inermis, nor sublimus but sublimis, nor proclivus but proclivis, not synceris but syncerus only, not imbellus but imbellis.

Of Adjectives and their Comparisons.

How many terminations be there of adjectives in the positive degree?

Nine; all adjectives end as one of these adjectives:

SoleRS, excelleNS, locuplES,

sublimIS, et audAX.

BelligER, atque satUR, prefulgidUS, atque RavennAS.

And here we may note, by the way, that Ravennas, Arpinas are declined as nostras.

Is unus never used in the plural number, except it be joined with a word which wanteth the singular number?

Yes, among the poets, who for verse’s sake often use the plural number {n. p.} for the singular, as Verg. Satis una superque vidimus excidia. 

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

These: vulgaris, vetulus, balbus, sylvester, equester,

Delirus, crispus, claudus, canusque canorus,

Gallicus atque cicur, memor, almus, calvus, egenus, etc.

 What  adjectives are not compared at all by a proper comparison?  Those that end in us,  purum,  as egregius.  2. Participials in dus,  as colendus,  which is used by some in the superlative, colendissimus;  it were more pure to say maxime,  or admodum  colendus.  3. Adjectives in plex,  as quadruplex,  except simplex,  multiplex.  4. In imus,  as maritimus.  5. In ivus,  as fugitivus;  but yet we read festivior,  festivissimus.  6. Derivatives in inus,  as matutinus.  7. Compounds of fero  and gero,  as legifer,  corniger.

Is that true that the comparative doth {E3} signify the positive with magis?

No, for the comparative doth magis significare, i.e. hath a larger signification than the positive, though it doth not significare positivum cum magis, because the denominative doth not signify the noun from which it is derived, but the thing after another manner; so the comparative signifies a thing, not a noun.

Which adjectives want the positive degree?

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

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

Which adjectives want the comparative degree, yet have the superlative?

These: inclitus, atque sacer, falsus, fidus, meritusque

Nuper, et inviius, novus, et iurisconsultus, etc.

Which adjectives want the superlative, yet have the comparative?

These: longinquus, iuvenis, declivis, et infinitus. {n. p.}

Atque senex, ingens, adolescens, atque propinquus. etc.

What adjectives ending in dus may be compared?

Such as are primitively adjectives, as iucundus, ior, issimus; limpidus, ior, issimus; faecundus, ior, issimus; but nouns adjectives participials may not be compared. It is true that some modern writers have compared them according to analogy; but yet therein they have swerved from the use of the most pure authors, and this liberty they took to express the abundance of their ardent affection, respect and observance to their patrons and superiors; and therefore we seldom or never find them compared, except in the frontispieces of dedicatory epistles. But Certissima loquendi magistra consuetudo, saith Quintilian; we may not say reverendissimo viro, but reverendo; not Vir recolendissimae memoriae, but colendae, recolendae; nor venerandissimus, but cum primis, vel maxime venerandus. Goclen. Prob. l. 1. p. 22. {E4}

How are verbals in bilis to be compared?

Not beyond the comparative. We read formidabilis, formidabilior, but never formidabilissimus, so amabilis, amabilior, but never amabilissimus.

How can noun substantives be compared, since they cannot receive any increase of signification?

When a noun substantive is compared, the substance is not respected, but the quality: as paenior is as much as paeno vafrior, more crafty or unfaithful than a Carthaginian; Neronior, as much as Nerone saevior, more bloody and cruel than Nero; so oculissimus i.e. dilectissimus, as dear to one as his eyes.

Of a Pronoun.

Whence hath a pronoun its name?

Quod pro nomine ponatur. From being sometimes put in the room and place of a noun, 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 filia familias; the scholars of Pythagoras, being asked a reason of their assertions, answered, ἀυτὸς ἔφη, He hath said it, that is, Pythagoras. Pl. in Casina sc. si sapitis, Ipsam pro Hera dixit: Ego eo, quo me Ipsa misit; so we in English say, the stoutest he. For the most courageous, or one that bears his head highest.

Can one and the same pronoun be called a primitive, a demonstrative, and a relative?

Yes, but not in one and the same respect, as for example, the pronoun ille in respect of its original is a primitive, because it is not derived of any other; in respect of its demonstration, or pointing out of some person or thing, a demonstrative; in respect of its relation a relative, because it repeats or rehearses some thing or person of which there was mention before made.

How comes it to pass that nostri and vestri are used in the genitive case plural {n. p.} as well as nostrum and vestrum?

Because nostri and vestri in the genitive singular signify a multitude, therefore they are used promiscuously with nostrum and vestrum in the plural genitive.

We find in the English Rudiments Quo, qua, quo, vel qui. Is qui read in the ablative case in the neuter gender?

I think there can scarce any example be found of that kind; but qui is read in the ablative case of the masculine and feminine gender. Quicum omnia communicem. Nemo erat, quicum essem lubentius, Cic. and Verg. 2. Aeneid. Quicum partiri curas, id est, cum qua, speaking of a woman Acca, one of the associates of Camilla; this is, as I suppose, an archaism, rather to be observed than imitated.

Is that true which Lily hath, Martialis, pronomini ipse vocatiuum tribuere videtur, cum ait, ut Martis revocetur, etc. A te Iuno petat ceston, et ipsa Venus? {n. p.}

No, he was most grossly overseen in the construing of these verses: if ipsa be understood in the vocative case, Martial will be made to write plain nonsense; that the truth may appear, and none may by credulity suck in this error, I will subjoin the whole epigram with the translation thereof, it is to be found, Epigrammata, l. 6. ep. 13.

* Quis te Phidiaco formatam Iulia coelo,

Ut quis Palladiae non putet artis opus.

Candida non tacita respondet imagine lygdos;

Et placido fulget vivus in ore decor.

Ludit Acidalio sed non manus aspera nodo.

Quem rapuit collo parve Cupido tuo.

Ut Martis revocetur amor, saevique tonantis.

A te Iuno petat * ceston et ipsa Venus.

Julia, who e’er thy statue saw, but thought

It was a masterpiece by Phidias wrought? {n. p.}

Or artful Pollas? In thy beauteous face

Such lively cunning shines, such lovely grace,

That the white marble somewhat seems to say.

Thy smooth-sleek hand seems sportfully to play

With the pure Acidalian true love’s knot,

Which, pretty Cupid, from thy neck she hath got.

Venus, to regain Mars; and Juno, Jove,

May ask of thee the embroidered belt of love.

Why is cuias handled among the pronouns? Is it because cuius is there of which it seems to be derived?

No, cuias is no derivative pronoun, but a primitive noun gentile, and is referred to the fourth declension of pronouns because of the affinity of termination and declination with the pronouns nostras, vestras. {n. p.}

How is that true which is in Lily, that ego and nos only are of the first person, tu and vos of the second, whereas ipse is also both of the first and second person?

Ipse is not of the first person only or of the second person only, as ego and tu are, but indifferently as well of the third person as of the first, or second; the meaning of Lily is that none of the pronouns, except ego and tu, are only of the first and only of the second person.

Why may not egomet, tute, isthic, illic be numbered among the demonstratives as well as idem among the relatives?

I see no reason to the contrary, if it had pleased the composer of the Accidence so to have ranked them; if composition excludes them, it excludes idem also.

Of a Verb.

No sentence or proposition can be a part of speech; how can a verb then be {n. p.} a part of speech, since it is a sentence? All verbs of the first or second person are sentences, as also all verbs of the third person, as often as a certain person is understood; as pluit, ningit, grandinat, Deus scilicet, vel natura, vel aliquid simile?

Such propositions as these the logicians call implicit, which are resolved into explicit propositions by supplying the nominative case and resolving the verb into a participle of the present tense with the verb sum, thus: scribo, i.e., ego sum scribens; pugnas, tu es pugnans; pluit, coelum est pluens, etc. An explicit proposition cannot be a part of speech, but an implicit may, forasmuch as it cannot be complete without a supplement.

What is a verb deponent?

Such a verb as amongst ancient authors was a verb commune and had both active and passive signification, but now amongst purer writers, deposuit hath laid off that nature and signifies only actively having a passive {n. p.} termination, as meditor, obliviscor, aggredior, etc.

Is that true in the Accidence, such verbs as have no persons are called impersonals?

No, impersonals are not so called because they have no persons (for they have, as we see, very many of them the voice of the third person both active and passive), but because they have not any certain signification either of number or person, unless some noun or pronoun be joined to them in an oblique case; as oportet me seems to be of the first person and singular number, oportet nos of the first person plural, oportet te of the second person singular, oportet vos of the second person plural. So Lily.

Are verbs commune now in use?

Very few, we shall scarce find any verbs in pure writers that signify both actively and passively; there were such amongst the ancients which in signification did answer the mean voice of the Greeks, {n. p.} as Linacer is of opinion.

Doth the indicative mood show a reason true or false, as the Accidence defines it?

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

Is not there a plain contradiction in Lily touching the potential mood?

Yes. In his Etymology, touching the moods of a verb, he hath these words: Potentialis neque ullum adverbium adiunctum habet, neque coniunctionem; in the Syntaxis, of an adverb these: Dum pro dummodo alias potententiali, alias subiunctivo nectitur; in the Syntaxis, of a conjunction these: Ut causalis, seu perfectiva coniunctio etc. nunc potentiali nunc subiunctivo iungitur; an evident contradiction.

Is that true which is in the Accidence, the subjunctive mood hath evermore some conjunction joined with him, as cum amarem, when I loved?

No, in this speech there are two errors. First, the subjunctive hath {n. p.} sometimes an adverb joined with him, as Lily affirms in his Syntaxis of adverbs. Ubi postquam etc. interdum indicativis, interdum subiunctivis verbis apponuntur. Again, Simulac etc. ind. et sub. adhaerent. Secondly, there is an error in the example, for when cum signifieth when it is not a conjunction, but an adverb of time, so saith Lily. Ubi, postquam, et cum, temporis adverbia etc. Cum canerem reges etc. Verg. 

To what purpose are the potential and subjunctive moods, since without these there is a perfect formation of verbs made?

If you respect the naked manner of forming and difference of termination, they do 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 use of these moods is very necessary.

If the infinitive mood has neither number nor person nor nominative case before it, to what purpose is that first {F} exception from verbum personale, etc. placed in the first concord, viz. Verba infiniti modi pro nominativo accusativum ante se statuunt?

I think that that exception is altogether superfluous, for how can a verb which hath no person nor number make an exception from a verb which hath both number and person? It is in effect as if Lily had said, from this rule can none be excepted, but such as are not capable of exception.

Whence hath the word tense its original?

From the French word temps, which signifies time, which is pronounced tans, and so tense.

The common and received division of time is in praesens, praeteritum, futurum; how comes it to pass then that grammar makes five tenses or times?

The philosophers speak otherwise than the grammarians: the philosophers, searching more narrowly into the truth and nature of things, divide all time into that which is {n. p.} past, present, and to come, because, if we would speak precisely, all time either is now, or hath been, or shall be hereafter; but the grammarians who do not so strictly and exactly weigh the natures of things have made, for more facility in teaching, five tenses of Latin verbs according to the propriety of the language. The Greeks have eight tenses, not according to the truth of the matter, but according to the use and propriety of their tongue.

What do you think of this passage in Lily, Futurum, quo res in futuro gerenda significatur. Hic promissivus modus a nonnullis vocatur?

It is very faulty. First, here is confusion of terms, for modus is here put for tempus. Secondly, the particle Hic hath reference to futurum, and so there is a solecism, or at least a soloecophanes. It may be thus corrected: Hoc tempus a nonnullis vocatur promissivum.

If deleo and impleo be compound verbs, whose simples are out of use, {F2} how is it that we find in As in praesenti this: Leo, les, levi, indeque, natum, deleo delevi, pleo, ples, plevi?

Lily did not well in concealing or omitting the abrogation and extermination of these words out of the Latin tongue; we may not use these out of composition any more than specio, lacio, or cumbo.

Doth edormisco signify inchoation or beginning of action?

No, it is put for a verb inchoative by Lily, but it doth not signify to begin to sleep, but to sleep so long until the vapours arising from wine are dispersed; so in Terence, in Ad., Edormiscam hoc villi. Like to this verb are many others which, though they end in sco, yet do not signify beginning of action or passion; which is evident, because the orators, poets, and historians set before some of them the verbs caepi, incipio, incepto, before others the adverbs paulatim, quotidie, magis, as for example:

Caepit crudescere morbus. Verg. i.e. Validior fieri. Servius. {n. p.}

Aegrescitque medendo i.e., inter medendum fit aegrius. 

Incipiunt agitata tumescere. Verg. 

Supercilia nonnunquam canescere incipiunt. Col. 

Cum incipit, oliva nigrescere. idem. 

Ubi convalescere caeperunt. idem. 

Cum maturescere frumenta inciperent. Caesar. 

Apud exteras gentes enitescere inceptabat. Gel. with them same verbs are, hiscere, lactescere, grandescere, clarescere, iuvenescere, found.

Tua iustitia florescat quotidie magis. Cic. 

Quotidie mihi augescit (i.e., augetur) magis de filio aegritudo. Ter. 

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

Is dormito a frequentative verb?

It is by termination and derivation, but not by signification: dormito signifies in Latin what νυστάζω doth in Greek, to take a nap, or to sleep dog’s sleep; Dormito desiderium potius somni, aut leviculum somnum, quam frequentem indicat, saith Peter Ramus, l. 16. Schol. Gram. and in that of Horace, {F3} Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus. Quandoque is a sign both of diminution and frequency, and so takes away the signification of frequency from dormito.

Whence hath conjugation its name?

A coniugando, because in every conjugation, after one and the same manner of varying of final terminations, many verbs are joined as it were under the same iugum, or yoke.

Have all verbs of the first conjugation a long before re and ris?

No, for do and some of its compounds, as pessundo, circundo, make dare: circundare, pessundare. Stockwood and the poser of the Accidence add secundo, secundare, but this is not a compound of do. Secundo signifies to make prosperous, derived of secundus, prosperous, favourable, and hath a long.

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

The meaning of that is, not that all verbs that in any mood have a long before re and ris be of the first conjugation, but such as have a long before re in the infinitive mood of the active form, as amare, and before ris in the second person of the present tense of the indicative mood of the passive form, as gratularis, are of the first conjugation.

Why do you say of the active and passive form, and not of the active and passive voice?

Because there be many verbs neuter which are not active and yet in conjugation follow the form of the active verbs, and many verbs deponent which, though they be not passive in signification, yet in conjugation follow the form of the passive verbs.

Upon As in Praesenti.

The verb lavo, which Lily saith is of the first conjugation, makes lavĕre in the infinitive, the last syllable save one short; and strideo, caveo, ferveo, making fervere, stridere, cavere, are found {F4} with e short before re in the infinitive of the second conjugation?

’Tis true, but lavĕre is not of lavo, lavas, but of lavo, lavis, which was of the third conjugation amongst the ancients, and so used by Virgil in his Georgics and Aeneid, and fervere and stridere are found with e short, but thus conjugated they are now grown out of use; we are not to imitate the old authors in these words.

Doth spondeo geminate the first syllable in the preterite and make spospondi?

No, herein Lily was deceived, and deceived the poser of the Accidence and the construer of Lily’s rules, who transcribe it so: in the refined copies of the most incorrupt authors, spondeo is found to make the preterite spopondi, not spospondi.*

Is crepo found of the third conjugation, as Lily affirmeth?

No, the pure writers, who are to be our presidents, use it in the first conjugation: Intestina tibi crepant. Pl. Quis post vina gravem militiam, aut pauperiem crepat. Hor. {n. p.}

Is quinisco found in any good author?

No, the true verb is conquinisco, which is a simple verb and so set down by Nebrissensis and Ramus, not a compound of con and quinisco, as Lily imagined, any more than condio or consulo, etc.

Is nexo, nexis, nexui read in the third conjugation, as Lily tells us?

No, it is only read in the first conjugation, nexo, nexas, nexare.

Is cambio, campsi found in any pure author?

No, it is a barbarous word, not to be used by any that would write pure Latin; it is only found in the old grammarian Priscian.

Doth praecurro make precucurri in the preterium?

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

Doth tracto always in composition change the first vowel into e?

No, for we read retracto: vulnera cruda retractet. Ov. Pedamenta retractare. Col. So likewise Pertracto. {n. p.} Pertractare philosophiam. Cic. 

Doth habeo always in composition change the first vowel into i, as Lily saith?

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

Is exculpo a compound of ex and scalpo?

It seems rather to be compounded of ex and sculpo, for the simple word sculpo is in use, as Ov. Arte mira sculpsit ebur. 

Is vulsum regularly formed of velli? According to that, Dat velli vulsum.

It seems rather to be formed of the other preterite of vello viz. vulsi.

How is that rule of Lily to be understood, Verba in or admittunt ex posteriore supino praeteritum?

It is to be understood of such verbs whose actives have the latter supine, of the which the preterperfect tense passive may be formed.

What then shall we say concerning verbs deponent and commune which end in or and have a preterperfect tense which they cannot form of a latter {n. p.} supine, since they have no verbs active?

Lily doth say nothing of this point. I am of opinion that verbs active are to be feigned, of whose latter supine these verbs would regularly form their preterperfect tense, if such actives were in use; as for example, suppose that there were such a verb as laeto, laetas, laetavi, of the latter supine of this verb laetatu regularly shall be formed laetatus sum, vel fui. So likewise of the supine criminatu, of the feigned verb crimino, nas we may form the preterite criminatus sum.

What is the meaning of that verse in grammar, Maereo sum maestus sed Phocae nomen habetur?

That the neutro-passive verb moereo hath moestus sum for its preterite, but the grammarian Phocas did think maestus rather to be a noun; this verse might very well be spared.

Of Gerunds.

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

Quod rei gerendae, et administrandae exprimat significationem. Because it expresseth the signification of a thing to be done or executed. Some would have the name to be given a gerenda duplici significatione, nempe activa et passiva sub una voce; but, since there are so few gerunds that signify passively, and those which do almost all grown out of use, I think that is not the reason of the name. In this and many other terms of art we are left to divine of the reasons of the imposition of the names.

Is that generally true which we find in the English Rudiments, gerunds have both the active and passive signification: as amandi, of loving or being loved; amando, in loving or in being loved; amandum, to love or to be loved?

No, the greatest part of gerunds are used actively, very few passively; and in that kind of use there seems to be an archaism. {n. p.}

Of the Supines.

Doth the latter supine signify passively only for the most part, as is in the Accidence?

No, it is always of a passive signification.

Of a Participle.

Since there are in truth but three tempora of participles, praesens, praeteritum, futurum, is it proper to say, Tempora participiorum sunt quatuor, by subdividing the future into the participle in rus, of the active and neutral signification, and the participle in dus, of the passive signification?

I think no: Lily might as well have said, as I suppose, there be five tempora, forasmuch as the participles of the future tense of a verb active and a verb neuter ending in rus do differ in time as much among themselves, as a participle of the future tense of a verb passive doth from either {n. p.} of them; if the active and passive signification do distinguish their times, he might then have said, in his division of tenses, Tempora sunt sex, praesens, imperfectum et futurum duplex, activae, et passivae vocis; nay, he might have said, Tempora sunt decem quinque activae, quinque passivae vocis; but of this let the judicious pass sentence. I speak with submission.

If in that example of the Accidence, Legendis veteribus proficis, a participle of the future in dus have the signification of a participle of the present tense, how is it that Lily in his Syntaxis saith that in a like example a gerund is turned into a noun adjective, as, Cur adeo delectaris criminibus inferendis?

Truth is but one; on which side truth weighs heavier, I leave to grammarians to determine.

Doth a perfect verb neuter form only 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, used only by the poets, whom it is not safe in all things to imitate.

But it seems that regularly there come of some neutrals three participles, as of gaudeo, gaudens, gavisus, gavisurus; of audeo, audens, ausus, ausurus; fido, fidens, fisus, fisurus, etc.

Those of which only two participles come must be only neutrals; such are not these, for these are neutro-passives, which, since they differ from them in the manner of conjugation, no marvel if they differ from them in forming their participles.

Why are they called neutro-passives?

Because though they be neuters, yet they form a preterite after the manner of verbs passive.

How do neutro-passives and passive-neutrals differ?

Neutro-passives, although they have the preterperfect tense of passives, yet they retain the signification {n. p.} of neuters, as, soleo, solitus sum; but passive-neutrals, though they end in o, yet they have a passive signification, and govern the same case that passives do, as vagulo, exulo.

But it seems there be some participles of the passive voice which come of verbs neuter; for we read excursus, aratus, laboratus excurrendus arandus, laborandus.

These are formed of impersonal neuters, which are only found in the third person of the passive voice, but when grammar saith that only two participles are formed of neuters, it means personal neuters of the active form.

Are not verbs and participles of the active signification sometimes used passively, et contra?

Yes, as for example, Voluens pro volutus, as Turneb. 30. Adversar. 19. saith: Certe hinc Romanos olim voluentibus annis. Verg. 1. Aen. Sparsus pro spargens; Prius haustus sparsus aquarum ore fove. Verg. 4. G. So Cerda. Velata pro velans. Sen. in Herc. O. {n. p.} sc. flete. Adesque sequi iussa sagittas totum pennis velata diem. Pl. in Mil. sc. satin. Irae leniunt, i.e. leniuntur. Verg. 2. Aeneid. Insinuat pro insinuatur, as Servius conceives. Tum vero tremefacta novis per pectora cunctis insinuat pavor. Idem. Vertere pro versa sunt. Et totae in solidam glaciem vertere lacunae. Vide Robig. Dict. Critic. L. 11. C. 7.

Of Adverbs.

Are not minus and male adverbs of denying?

Yes, though they be omitted by Lily: Minus pro non in Varro. Non mirum si caecutis minus, aurum enim non perstringit oculos. Si minus intelligitur, if men understand not. Cic. So male. Petr. Quas struxit opes male sustinet. Male sanus, not well in his wit. Male sobrius, not sober.

Do not two negative adverbs deny more strongly sometimes in Latin as well as in Greek?

Yes, so Verg. 2. Georg. {G}

Non ego cuncta meis amplecti versibus opto,

Non mihi si linguae centum sint, oraque centum. 

Et Aeneid. 6. Ne pueri, ne tanta animis assuescite bella. Cic. 7. Epist. 1. Haec tibi ridicula videntur, non n. ades quae si videres, lacrymas non teneres, non.

Do not particles of denying sometimes imply an affirmation, et contra?

Yes, as for example Verg. 2. Geor. Et pro neque. Nec scabie, et falsa laedit robigine ferrum. Et pro Sed. Cic. Multorum causas non gravate et gratuito defendere. So Sen. Oratio ostendit illum non esse syncerum, et habere aliquid ficti. Aut. Pro nec. Verg. 4. Aen. Sed nullis ille movetur fletibus, aut voces ullas tractabilis audit. Neque pro et, Verg. 5. Ecl. Nulla neque amnem libavit quadrupes nec graminis attigit herbam. Juv. Sat. 5. Omnia Graece. Cum sit turpe magis nostris nescire latine, where in nescire the verb sciunt is to be understood, which belongs to omnia Graece before. Mart. 5. 53. Exprimere Ave Latinum, χαῖρε non {n. p.} potest Graecum, wherein non potes, potes, which belongs to the former comma, is to be understood; so Tac. Ann. 13 Deesse nobis terra in qua vivimus, 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.

Lily makes sit ita, sit sane adverbs of granting, id est, hoc est, quasi dicas adverbs of explaining; are they adverbs in truth?

No, every adverb is a simple single word, these are sentences, they belong to the Syntaxis, not Etymology.

Of Conjunctions.

Is not it a contradiction in adiecto to say a conjunction disjunctive?

No, for a conjunction disjunctive conjoins the words by disjoining the matter.

Doth Lily speak logically when he saith sunt asculin que nunc asculine, nunc coniunctiones, nunc praepositiones esse inveniuntur ut 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 asculine sunt, ut sol, whereas it should have run thus, in ol unicum masculinum est, ut sol.

Is que always an enclitic?

No, we find it sometimes put before the word it couples, as that epitaph of Tibullus.

Hic iacet immiti consumptus morte Tibullus,
Messalam terra dum sequitur, que mari.

And in Verg. Ipse ego cana legam tenera lanugine mala. Castaneas, que nuces, i.e. Castaneas et nuces. Castaneae and nuces are distinguished, as saith Pliny, l. 15. c. 28. and so they are here too, as Scal. think. de C. LL. l. 12. c. 177. Ov. l. 2. Ars, alluding to this verse, makes a distinction betwixt them:

Afferat aut uvas, aut quas Amaryllis amabat,
Et nunc castaneas, nunc amat illa nuces.

Of a Preposition.

Did Lily do well to handle the regimen of prepositions in Etymology?

No, herein he confounds etymology and syntaxis.

Of an Interjection.

Why is an interjection so called?

Quod interiiciatur: because it is cast in as a sudden ejaculation, expressing in an abrupt fashion some passion of the mind.

---

Of Syntaxis.

Whence hath syntaxis its name?

From the Greek 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.

Of the First Concord.

What do you think of the second exception from verbum personale, viz. impersonalia praecedentem, etc.?

I think it might be spared as well as the first: either this place is improper to treat of impersonals, or else there is a tautology in repeating the same rule afterward. Nay, to speak truth, this exception is absurd, it is in effect thus much; all verbs personal agree with their nom. cases in number and person, except verbs impersonal, which are altogether uncapable of a nominative case before them, which is plain nonsense.

Are not nouns which are not collectives sometimes construed as if they were such?

Yes, as for example Pl. in Bac. scen. Meamne. Et ego (Chrysalus) te, et illum mactamus infortunio; the pronoun ego here is comprehensive, as if Chrysalus being one did oppose himself against two, and that he {n. p.} might match them, he speaks of himself as of two. Scal. de Caus. L. L. l. 6. c. 30. Verg. 9. Aeneid. Vos o Calliope precor aspirate canenti. Alcmena in Pl. Am. sc. satin. speaking to Amphitryon alone saith: Quis igitur nisi vos. The person of a king represents many, thence that form, Nos Iacobus Dei gratia, etc. 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 ut sciam quo die te visuri sumus.

Of the Second Concord.

May not an adjective put after two substantives of diverse genders or numbers sometimes agree with the latter, as well as with the former?

Yes, the adjective may sometimes indifferently accord with either of the substantives; for we find in Tully, Non omnis error stultitia est dicenda; and {G4} in Livy, Gens universa Veneti appellati. 

Is not an adjective sometimes put alone, as it were a substantive, whose substantive is to be understood and supplied?

Yes, and that very elegantly; so we read, tribuo tibi primas i.e., primas partes. Amplecti ambabus i.e., ambabus manibus; Aspergere frigida i.e., frigida aqua; it is an imitation of the Greeks, who say πρὸς ὀρϑήν i.e., γραμμήν ad rectam i.e., lineam, ἀπὸ μιάς φωνῆς, ab una i.e., voce.

What if two adjectives concur together in the same sentence?

Then one of them putteth on the nature of a substantive. Crudelem medicum intemperans aeger facit: here aeger is taken substantively.

If that the adjective is to agree with the substantive in case, gender, and number, what think you of these examples which seem to overthrow that rule, est quod speremus Deos bonis benefacturum; Aruspices dixerunt omnia ex sententia processurum; Non putavi haec eam facturum? {n. p.}

Peter Ramus in his grammatical scholia saith that in these and in such like examples those words which seem to be participles are indeed verbs of the infinitive mood and future tense of the active form, having esse understood: in cuius sententiam pedibus eo.

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

Yes, the heathen did think all their gods were both male and female, according to that of Orpheus.

Ζεὺς ἄρσην γένετο, Ζεὺς ἄμβροτος ἔπλετο νύμφη.

Iupiter et mas est, et nescia foemina mortis.

So Venus and other goddesses have the title deus given to them; so Verg. l. 2. Aeneid. Descendo, ac ducente deo flammam inter, et hostes expedior. Macr. Sat. 3. c. 7. saith it is so to be read. Idem Aeneid. 2. Pollentemque deum Venerem. Servius and Acterianus do approve of that reading. Heu fortuna quis est crudelior in nos te deus. Hor. 2. Ser. 8. Lucr. l. 2. {n. p.} Terram Deum matrem appellat. Sequitur superbos ultor a tergo Deus i.e., Nemesis. Sen. Verg. Aeneid. 7 Alecto deus appellatur: Nec dextrae erranti deus abfuit. In like manner Justinian for his effeminateness was called Uxorius, and Livia for her wisdom was styled Stolatus Ulysses. Suet. vide Robig. Lex. Crit. l. 4. c. 17.

Are not two or three adjectives sometimes joined to one substantive?

Yes, as for example Crispisulcans igneum fulmen. Cic. Ob egregiam insignem fidem. Idem. Ad domesticae eximiae eius fiduciae acta veniamus. V. Max. Sanctissimus genialis torus. Idem. Pulcherrima praepes laeva volavit avis. Ennius apud Cic. de Divin.

Are not sometimes two adjectives, coupled together, used for one?

Yes, as for example Sarta-tecta praecepta, Pl.; Purus-putus asinus, Varro apud Nonium; Novum-vetus vinum bibo, Varro; Novo-veteri morbo medeor, Idem; so, Deus optimus-maximus. Graio-Graeci; Ennius apud Festum; Ruta-caesa, apud Ies. {n. p.}

Of the Third Concord.

If the relative agree with the antecedent in gender, number, and person, how is it that we find in Terence Ubi est ille scelus, qui me perdidit; qui, the relative, is of the masculine gender, and scelus, the antecedent, of the neuter?

Scelus is here put for scelestus, as elsewhere senium for senex by a metonymy of the adjunct, so the sense is made good; or qui by the figure hyponoia hath reference to scelestus, to be understood in scelus by the judicious readers.

In that example Est locus in carcere, quod Tullianum appellatur and the like, as Bene audiri, qui est recte factorum fructus omnes ferre volumus, and Hodie, quae est altera dies Pentecostes, venit ad me nuntius, where the relative put between two substantives agrees with the latter, is the construction proper to the Latins?

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

What do you think of that example, Nostros vidisti flentis ocellos?

In it there is a solecism, or at least a soloecophanes; the poet should have said regularly, if his verse would have suffered him, either nostros flentium or meos flentis, to make up the construction; we must understand in nostros meos, in meos mei. vide Goclen. Prob. Gram. l. 3. p. 131.

Is Imperium, et dignitas quae petiisti a fit example of that rule in the English syntaxis: many antecedents singular, having a conjunction copulative between them, will have a relative plural, which relative shall agree with the antecedent of the most worthy gender?

No, for here the relative agrees with the antecedent of the most unworthy gender, viz. the neuter. Again, if this be a true example, that exception subjoined of things without {n. p.} life is superfluous, for it is an exception to itself; for, to speak truth, to that rule doth this example appertain, imperium and dignitas being things without life; of that rule many antecedents, etc. this or the like example should have been given. Rex et regina, quos tu beatos praedicas, sunt mortales.

Is that example Felix quem faciunt aliena pericula cautum properly rendered in English?

No, it should not have been rendered Happy is he etc. to beware, for cautum is not here the first supine of caveo, neither can be (for it is not put after a verb, signifying moving to a place, but an adjective); the verse should therefore have been thus translated: Happy is he whom others’ harms make wary.

Of the Construction of Noun Substantives.

Doth not a substantive sometimes govern two genitive cases or more? {n. p.}

Yes, we read in Cicero Iamne sentis belva, quae sit hominum querela frontis tuae? where querela governs hominum and frontis. Sed quae naturae principia sint societatis humanae repetendum altius videtur. idem. Procreatio dei rerum humanarum. Aristotelis philosophorum principis arcanorum naturae theoremata. 

Are not two substantives sometimes linked together by a line, which the grammarians call hyphen, used for one?

Yes, such words are found amongst the lawyers; as, placitum-consensum, Ulpian; munus-donum, Modestus; actio-petitio, Call.; locatio-conductio, Labeo; obiurgator-censor, Macr. 

Is not a noun in itself a compound, and so one sometimes divided in respect of construction?

Yes, as in this example, Neque ille magis iurisconsultus quam iustitiae fuit. The word iurisconsultus is one in itself, but to be divided in the rection of iustitiae.

Are not adjectives of the masculine {n. p.} or feminine gender used sometimes substantively, as well as adjectives of the neuter gender?

Yes, 1. Masculine, as, die natalis sui, Marc. Humanus pro homo, Cic. ad Att. l. 3. ep. 21. Ego autem tibi affirmo (possum falli ut humanus) a me non habere. Phaethon, the epithet of the sun used substantively in Aeneid 5. saith Cerdo. Auroram Phaethontis equi iam luce vehebant, in Aeneid. 1. Imperium Dido Tyria regit urbe profecta Germanum (i.e., fratrem) fugiens. 

2. Feminine, Verg. 1. Aeneid. Implentur veteris Bacchi, pinguisque ferinae i.e., carnis ferinae, Sen. 1. Ben. 5. Imperator aliquem torquibus, murali, et civica donat i.e., corona. and Plin. l. 8. Nigrae lanarum nullum colorem bibunt. 

3. Neuter, as strata viarum, amara curarum, singula capitum, profunda camporum, praerupta collium, montium ardua, opaca locorum, etc.

Are not sometimes substantives put in the place of adjectives?

Yes, so nihil pro nullo apud Ulpianum and Verg. Aeneid. 1. {n. p.}

Regales inter mensas, laticemque Lyaeum i.e., Bacchicum.

Do not some substantives verbal govern the same case that their verbs do, of which they are derived?

Yes, as for example, we read exul a patria, as well as exultat a patria; discessus ab urbe, as well as discedere ab urbe; we read obtemperare legibus and instituta est obtemperatio scriptis legibus in Tully; we read in every classical author Capite diminui, praefici praetorio, and Julius Scaliger hath Capite diminution, Suetonius Praefectus praetorio; we read domum eo, redeo, and domum itio, reditio, in Caesar; faveo authoritati et, fautor authoritati; nascor a muliere, et, nativitas a muliere; erudior a magistro; et, ab optimo magistro optima inventutis eruditio.

What substantives govern an ablative case with the preposition cum?

Such as signify society, conjunction, and friendship, as amicitia, familiaritas, consuetudo cum aliquo. {n. p.} Ciceroni cum Attico magna intercessit familiaritas.

Is not opus read construed with an ablative case of the participle of the preter tense?

Yes, and that very elegantly, as for example, Priusquam incipias consulto, et ubi consulueris mature facto opus est, Sallust. Opus est maturato, Livy. Quod parato opus est para, Terence. Opus est viso, et cauto, Plautus. 

Of the Construction of Adjectives.

May an adjective in the neuter gender put substantively govern any other adjective also put substantively in the genitive case?

No, no adjective put as a substantive can govern another adjective which is declined with three articles, but only such a one as is varied by three terminations, therefore we may say aliquid mali, aliquid absurdi, honesti, boni; we cannot {H} say, aliquid utilis, aliquid impossibilis etc., neither can we say, nihil talis for nihil tale.

Doth Lily speak properly when he expresseth certain nouns of number by certa numeralia?

No, he speaks barbarously, for certus is never put for quidam in any good and classical writer.

What do you think of that rule, Comparativa et superlativa accepta partitive genitivum, unde et genus sortiuntur, exigunt?

This rule is good; it had been well Lily would have furnished us with some examples of it. In these which follow, his defect shall be supplied: Ignis omnium elementorum est efficacissimum, et violentissimum. Supremus, extremusque omnium affectuum in foemina est zelotypia. Finis causarum omnium nobilissima est. Mors ultimum, summum, gravissimum, et 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, Liv.; Maestus suam vicem, Curt.; Caetera bonus, Cic., why are partem, Illud vicem, caetera the accusative case, and by what rule of Lily?

Lily hath no rule to shew the reason of this construction; it is in truth a Greek Atticism, for the Greeks put the accusative case after verbs and adjectives 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 adjective construed with an accusative case with a preposition?

When aptitude, propensity, respect, object, or final cause is signified, as,

Proclivis a labore ad libidinem.

Furtum ingeniosus ad omne.

Assuetus ad bellum. Rudis ad arma. Studio eloquentiae non aliud in civitate nostra, vel ad utilitatem fructuosius, vel {n. p.} ad dignitatem amplius, vel ad urbis famam pulchrius, vel ad totius imperii, atque omnium gentium notitiam illustrius excogitari potest. Quint. Calcei habiles ad pedes. Cic. Aptus natus ad singularem dicendi facultatem. 

Is that example of adiectiva quae ad copiam, viz. at fessae referunt multa se nocte minores crura thymo plena?

No, the composer of the English Rudiments and Lily understood not (as it seems) Virgil’s syntaxis, and therefore corrected the original suspecting it to be faulty; and the construer of the Syntaxis so transcribes it and translates it. But Virgil wrote not plena, but plenae; the verse is thus to be construed: the lesser bees do return home weary late at night (plenae crura i.e., habentes crura plena thymo) having their shanks full of thyme; in which there is a synecdoche, or figure, often used by that excellent poet, as* {n. p.}

Do not adjectives of comparing or exceeding govern an ablative case of the word, which signifies the measure of exceeding, as well as verbs?

Yes, for we may as well say, Cicero praestantior est omnibus oratoribus multis gradibus, as, Cicero praestat omnes oratores multis gradibus.

May not an adjective of the positive degree with magis or minus have an ablative case after it, as well as one of the comparative?

Yes, so Terence in Eunucho: Hoc nemo fuit minus ineptus, nec magis severus quisquam i.e., quam hic. and Verg. O luce magis dilecta sorori i.e., quam lux.

Of the Construction of Pronouns.

Are not meus and noster sometimes used passively?

Yes, Pl. in Poen. sc. negotii, Ecce odium meum. 

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

Cicero pro Roscio Amerino, Haec conficta arbitror a poetis esse ut effictos mores nostros in alienis personis, expressamque imaginam nostram (i.e., nostri) vitae quotidianae videremus. 

Neque minus est Spartiates Agesilaus ille prohibendus, qui neque pictam neque fictam imaginem suam (i.e., sui) passus est. Idem. 

Et digna speculo fiat imago tua i.e., tui. Mart. This is to be observed, not imitated.

Are not proper and appellative nouns sometimes put instead of pronouns?

Yes, Plautus in Poen. scen, satis spectatum puts syncerastum pro me and tuus amicus for ego.

Milph. Heus Synceraste. Sync. Syncerastum qui vocat?
Milph. Tuus amicus. 

Is not noster sometimes put for meus et contra?

Yes, as for example Nostrum consilium iure laudandum est quod meos cives servis armatis obiici noluerim. Cic., where nostrum is put for meum. Stratique per herbam. {n. p.}

Hic meus est dixere dies. Sen. in Suas. 2. where meus is put for noster.

Are not relative pronouns sometimes put for reciprocal, et contra?

Yes, as for example Principio generi animantium omni est a natura tributum ut se, vitam, corpusque tueatur, declinetque quae ei i.e., Sibi nociturae videantur. Cic. 

Praeceptor amat discipulos ipsum (i.e., se) excitantes.

Non petit ut illum (i.e., se) miserum putetis. Quint. Here relatives are put for reciprocals.

Pl. in Capt. scen. Quo illum. Is est servus ipse, neque praeter se (i.e., ipsum) umquam ei servus fuit. 

Respice Laerten ut iam sua (i.e., eius) lumina condas. 

Non ex oratione, sed suis ex moribus spectare debetis pro, eius. Cic. Here reciprocals are put for relatives.

How are those two rules in Linacer and Lily to be reconciled: Ipse ex pronominibus solum trium personarum {H4} significationem repraesentat, and Idem etiam omnibus personis iungi potest? They seem to contradict each other.

Thus: ipse only of all those pronouns, which truly and properly are pronouns or which are simple pronouns, doth represent the signification of three persons; but idem is no simple pronoun but a compound, not a natural and genuine pronoun, but addititious, as Lily saith; one of these distinctions must be admitted or else a manifest contradiction cannot be avoided.

If it be true that only ego and nos be of the first person only, as is set down in the English Rudiments, and idem and ipse do represent the signification of three persons, according to your distinction, how comes it to pass that we find in Tully is in the first person, as Ei nullo in loco praedonibus iam pares esse poteramus, and in Livy De pace agitur, agimusque ii quorum et maxime interest pacem esse, and Vidistis in vincula duci universi {n. p.} eum, qui a singulis vobis pericula depuleram?

Since the pronoun idem is used in three persons, which is compounded of is and the syllabic particle dem, I am of opinion that is the simple pronoun may be used so likewise, as appeareth by the precedent examples.

Since we may very easily err in the use of pronouns reciprocal, what rules have you to steer and direct us in the right use of them?

Diverse, for which you are beholden to Rodolphus Goclenius in his observations of the Latin tongue, which for memory’s sake I will contract:

1. In a simple reciprocation i.e., such as is made with one verb, a pronoun of the first or second person is never added to the verb, but always one of the third, for we cannot say Ego fui secum, but cum eo, nor Tu novisti suum fratrem, but eius.

2. A reciprocal pronoun reflects {n. p.} the action of the verb upon itself as the agent, as mulier sibi nimium placet i.e., sibi muliere.

3. When the possessor works upon the thing possessed, or the thing possessed upon the possessor, the possessive suus is used: saepe in magistrum scelera redierunt sua. Sen. and et sua riserunt secula Meonidem. 

4. In a compound reciprocation i.e., such as is made with many verbs when the action of the verb following is reflected upon the person of the verb afore going, it is expressed by sui, as Caesar rogat ut veniam ad se i.e., ad Caesarem rogantem. Rogat ut ignoscam sibi i.e., sibi roganti.

5. When in the construction of two verbs the action of the latter verb passeth upon the person of the former as the possessor, suus is used. Rogat me ut suum (i.e., eius ipsius qui rogat) instituam filium.

6. The active construction may be changed into the passive by a reciprocal pronoun; as we may say, Antonium deseruerunt sui collegae, and {n. p.} Antonius desertus est a suis collegis. Amat patrem filius suis, and Amatur pater a filio suo.

Of the Construction of Verbs.

Is the construction of the infinitive mood of a verb substantive the same after a verb personal and impersonal?

No, except an accusative case be expressed before the infinitive of a verb substantive, which is governed of a verb personal, the word which follows shall not be the accusative, but the nominative; as we cannot say malo esse divitem, though me be understood, but malo esse dives, but when me is expressed we say malo me esse divitem; but, if an infinitive be governed of a verb impersonal, the word that follows the infinitive may be the accusative case, though the word coming before it be not expressed; for we may say iuvat {n. p.} esse disertos as well as iuvat nos esse disertos.

In those examples, Adolescentis est maiores natu revereri and Regum est parcere subiectis, is est a verb personal or impersonal?

It is a verb impersonal, and therefore these examples are misplaced, they belong to the first rule of impersonals, interest, refert, et est, and there Lily hath set down a parallel example: Prudentis est multa dissimulare.

What rule have you for this construction, Commendo te virtutis, vitupero ignaviae, castigo negligentiae, miror prudentiae, etc.?

In these and the like, there is a Graecism: causa, or ergo, is to be understood as ἕνεκα often amongst the Greeks; as μακαρίζω σε τῆς πίστεως i.e. ἕνεκα τῆς πίστεως, Beatum te praedico propter fidem.

In that of Terence, Rerum suarum satagit, why doth satagit govern a genitive case?

The genitive case seems to depend {n. p.} upon the particle sat in composition; and so the verb, being of itself a compound, and one by reason of construction, is divided.

What verbs govern a dative case?

These and all of the like or contrary signification: commodo, compono, noreo, do, comparo, reddo, polliceor, solvo, confudo, obtempero, dico, impero, et indignor, minor, ac irascor, adulor, etc.

What kind of dative do these commonly govern?

A dative of the person, not of the thing, unless the thing takes upon it the nature of a person; as, ponti indignatur Araxes.

What prepositions be those wherewith verbs compounded govern a dative case?

These in this hexameter:

Ad, prae, con, ob, et in, simul hae, post, ante, sub, inter.

Doth not habeo put for est govern a dative case, as well as est for habeo?

Yes, as for example Est mihi ludibrio, habeo illum ludibrio. Habeo voluptati {n. p.} literarum studia, literarum studia sunt (mihi) voluptati.

Doth praevinco govern an accusative case, though it be compounded with prae, as Lily tells us?

No, it is a barbarous word, not found in any pure writer or lexicographer.

If all verbs transitive govern an accusative case, how is it that we read in Plautus consequor with a dative, as Voluptati meror ut comes consequitur?

In this there is a Graecism, for the Greeks use ἕπομαι, sequor, with a dative, as ἕπεοϑαι τῇ ἡδονῇ, so they say πρέπειν τινì; and Plautus elsewhere, decere alicui, and Cicero hath the like Graecism, Comitari huic viae.

Do any verbs of asking govern an ablative case without a preposition?

No, and therefore these words cum praepositione should be added to that rule, verba rogandi interdum mutant alterum, etc.

In that example, Est virtus placitis {n. p.} abstinuisse bonis, is bonis the dative case as Lily informs us?

Linacer de Emend. struct. Lat. p. 267. l. 4. saith it is the ablative case, and I rather side with him.

In that example, Deforme existimabat quos dignitate praestaret, ab iis virtutibus superari, doth either of those verbs govern an ablative case of the measure of exceeding, according to the rule?

No, those verbs do govern an ablative case of the matter of excess, not of the measure of exceeding; this or the like example would better fit the rule, Multis parasangis omnes oratores precurrit Cicero.

Of an Adjective Governing Three Ablative Cases.

Can any one adjective govern three ablative cases, according to three several rules in grammar?

Yes, as in this example, Oxonia est insignior Lovanio literarum studijs multis parasangis. n. p.}

Of Verbs Governing Diverse of the Same Cases by Several Rules of Grammar.

Can you give an example of a verb governing three dative cases?

Yes, as for example, Neroni (i.e., a Nerone) probis viris crimini vertitur innocentia.

Can any one verb govern five ablative cases, according to the rules of grammar?

Yes, as for example, Ab artifice arte fabrili summa diligentia politis pedibus ex ulmeo ligno lectulos fieri iussit Titius.

Can a verb govern three ablative cases with three prepositions?

Yes, as for example, Accusatur de furto a vicino summo cum rigore.

Of the Construction of the Infinitive Mood.

If two verbs come together, shall the latter be always of the infinitive mood?

No, sometimes two verbs are joined together in the same tense and number by a hyphen, as quemnam te esse dicam-feram. Varro apud Nonium. Reddas-restituas, amongst the lawyers. Qui fecerit sculpserit Modestinus; so utimini-fruimini, whence the substantive usus fructus.

May not sometimes two verbs of the infinitive mood be joined together?

Yes, as for example Ter. in An. sc. Adhuc. Dare bibere, and dixit iureconsultus non oportere ius civile calumniari neque verba captare, sed qua mente quid diceretur animadvertere convenire. So Dico uti frui licere. 

Is not the infinitive mood sometimes used as well for the present tense of the {I} indicative as for the preter tense or preterimperfect tense?

Yes, as for example, Verg. Aeneid. 10, Multi servare recursus,

Languentis pelagi, et brevibus se credere saltu. where servare is put for servant, credere for credunt. So Ov. 4. Met., Rutilis collucent ignibus aedes falsaque saevarum simulachra ululare ferarum, where ululare is put for utulant.

Sallust, Rursus Imperator contra postulata Bocchi nuntios mittit, ille probare partim, alia abnuere, eo modo ab utraque missis, remissisque nuntiis tempus procedere, et ex Metelli voluntate bellum intactum trahi; where probare, abnuere, procedere, trahi are put for probat, abnuit, procedit, trahitur.

Are not verbs of the infinite mood as also verbs finite used sometimes as nouns, and with the same construction?

Yes, as in these examples: first, verbs finite are used as nouns; Cic. Mur. illud, licet consulere, perdidistis. Ave mihi dixit i.e., salutem. Liv. l. 6. faxo, ne iuvet vox ista veto i.e., {n. p.} ne iuvet prohibitio. Pl. in Poen. sc. negotij. Si tacuisses, iam istuc taceo non gnatum foret. Sapientia usque ad Plaudite vivendum, in Cat. Mai. 

Secondly, verbs of the infinitive mood are used for nouns. Verg. in 9. Ille suo moriens dat habere nepoti. Cic. Inhibere illud tuum quod valde mihi arriserat, vehementer displicet. Pers. Sat. 1. Sed fas tum cum ad canitiem, et nostrum illud vivere triste. Aspexi; where we may note also that the preposition ad is prefixed before vivere. Ipsum illud peccare quoque te verteris unum est. Cic. 

Of Construction by a Periphrasis.

Do not pure Latin authors sometimes make a periphrasis of a verb, govern the same case which the verb itself would do?

Yes, as Ter. Id studiose dat operam. i.e., id curat. Id ne estis autores mihi? i.e., idne suadetis mihi. Idem. Caesar Senatui dicto audiens futurus i.e. obtemperaturus. {I2} Cic. Fac me has res certiorem i.e., edoce me has res. Idem. Quid tibi hanc rem curatio est? i.e., quid hanc rem curas. Pl. Quid malum tibi istanctactio est? i.e., quid tangis eam. Idem. 

Of Construction by Apposition.

May not the word which might be put in the same case with the word wherewith it is joined by apposition be put in the dative case?

Yes, and that very elegantly, as Cui nunc cognomen Iulo. Verg. Est illi nomen Capitoni. Cic. 

Is it not necessary sometimes that in apposition the same gender and number be observed?

Yes, for we must say Voluptas perpetuae comes summi boni, not perpetuus; manus ultrix, not ultor; virtus assertrix, not assertor; inventrices literarum Athenae, not Inventores.

What if the diverse gender of a noun {n. p.} substantive, which is called substantivum mobile i.e., such a one as is varied in termination and sex, as magister and magistra, discipulus, discipula be to be joined by apposition with a word of the neuter gender, is it to be used in the masculine or in the feminine gender?

In the masculine, as the more worthy; as tempus magister artium, et discipulus rerum, not discipula, or magistra; but if the substantive to be coupled be not substantivum mobile, sometimes a noun of the feminine gender may be added, as verbum nota animi, vitium labes animi, sometimes of the masculine, as vinum absynthites, vel aromatites i.e., aromatibus conditum.

When may substantives coupled in the same case by apposition be of diverse numbers?

Either when one of the substantives wants the plural or singular number, as divitiae gluten amicorum. passer deliciae, or is a noun collective, as angeli agmen forte, or {I3} some one single thing, either joined with others or multiplied, is signified, as nata mea vices; uxor mea gaudia; pulmones instrumentum (not instrumenta) respirationis; for there is but one lung in a living creature, but the ancients said pulmones in the plural number, because that part of the body which draws in and lets forth the breath is cleft, as the hoof of an ox.

Are substantives joined by apposition always put in the same case?

No, the latter substantive which doth explain or declare the former is sometimes put in the ablative case, and the word explained in the genitive or dative, as vivis Patavii urbe scientiarum laude celeberrima; Romae lupinari communi habitas; Oxoniae academia clarissima crematus est Cranmerus; Lacedaemoni oppido insigni senibus honor maximus habebatur.

Of the Construction of Gerunds and Supines.

Is that rule generally true, gerunds and supines govern the same case that the verbs that they come of?

No, it is to be understood only of gerunds signifying actively and the first supines; for gerunds which signify passively and the latter supines are scarce to be found with any cases after them.

How may this and the like English phrases be rendered in Latin, viz. I came in dinner time?

Very elegantly by the gerund in dum with the preposition inter; as veni inter prandendum.

In these forms of speech, accusatum oportuit factum oportet, volo datum, how may it appear that accusatum, factum, datum are participles, not supines?

Thus: because we find participles varied in all genders in this {I4} form of speech, whereas supines want all genders and flexion. Ter. In Hau. Interemptam oportuit, et in An. Nonne prius communicatum oportuit. Sic, cupio hunc defensum, et hanc defensam. Here the verb esse is to be supplied.

What do you think of these supines, do venum, do nuptum, which Lily saith have latentem motum?

Nuptum signifies* passively do nuptum, I give in marriage or to be married. It is questionable whether venum be a supine of veneo or an adverb like to pessum; the analogy seems to insinuate so much. As we say pessundare and pessum dare, so we say venundare and venum dare, sed de hoc ampliandum est.

In those examples, actum est, itum est, cessatum est, is the first supine put absolutely with the verb est as Lily tells us?

No, herein he is foully deceived; he might as well say placitum {n. p.} est, libitum est, puditum est, etc. are supines, which he affirms are verbs impersonal of the passive voice in his rules of etymology, touching impersonals and such are these also.

Of Place.

Is that rule, Omne verbum admittit genitivum proprii nominis loci in quo fit actio, etc., true, concerning all proper names of places of the first or second declension and singular number?

No, it extends only to proper names of cities and towns, not to vast regions; for we may not say, Numidiae acriter pugnatum est, but in Numidia.

By what rule of Lily’s Syntaxis is terra-marique the ablative case in that of Cicero, Quantas ille res terra, marique gesserat?

There is not any rule for that manner of construction, but it is of kin to that of ruri and rure. {n. p.}

Is domi never read with any other genitive case except meae, tuae, etc. as Lily affirms?

Yes, it is read with other possessives also; we may say, domi suburbanae, regiae, paternae as well as domi meae, etc.

Of Verbs Impersonal.

In those clauses, ut videre est, ut legere est apud Aristotelem. Neque est te fallere cuiquam, Verg., how comes it to pass that est is put for licet?

It is an imitation of the Greeks, who put ἐστι and ἔνι for ἔξεστι, licet. so Chrysost. μὲν χρημὰτων τήν ζημίαν πάλιν ἔνι (vel ἐστι) λαβεῖν.

Of Participles.

Are all participles changed not nouns, when they cease to signify time?

So Lily teacheth us in his grammar. {n. p.}

Why then doth he in his Syntaxis put down that exosus, perosus are construed with an accusative case when they signify actively, and a dative when they signify passively, and pertaesus with an accusative? Why are natus, prognatus, etc. said to be construed with an ablative case as participles, when as none of these do signify time any more than homo laudatus or puer amandus?

It may be those two rules of exosus, perosus, etc. and natus, etc. are exceptions from that general rule placed before them, viz. participiorum voces cum fiunt nomina, etc. Participles when they are made nouns require a genitive case, and they are made nouns four ways: first, when they govern not the same case that the verbs do that they come of; secondly, when they are compounded with prepositions that their verbs cannot be compounded with; thirdly, when they are compared; fourthly, when they leave of {n. p.} to signify difference of time. In this respect exosus, perosus, etc. and natus, etc., it may be, are excepted from the precedent general rule.

It may be so, but this is only a conjecture to save Lily’s credit.

Indeed I must needs confess that Lily is not so distinct, punctual, and exact as he should be, but we must make the best of him, till some other more grammarian shall compose us a better grammar; and here I will add this also, that that general of participials governing a genitive is not to be understood of any participials in dus, or tus, for they govern a dative case, as heros celebrandus omnibus poetis. Hoc est notum lippis et tonsoribus.

The Construction of Adverbs.

Doth contra, being put without case and so becoming an adverb only, retain and not augment the signification {n. p.} which it had being a preposition as other prepositions do, coram, post, clam, etc.?

No, for it doth not only signify opposition, as si homo est ridere potest, et contra, si non est homo ridere non potest, but reciprocation, conversion, or alternation, as, si ridere potest est homo, et contra, si est homo potest ridere, where contra is equivalent to vicissim or vicissim retro; as also in this of Terence: In eo oblecto me solum, et carum ille ut item contra me habeat facio sedulo; and Verg. Aeneid. 1. Aeolus haec contra, where Aeolus in his speech doth not contradict, but assent to Juno.

May not an adverb, as well as an adjective put partitively, govern a genitive case?

Yes, as for example, Manuum fortius se habet dextra. Omnium planetarum sol splendet lucidissime.

Is not the adverb parum sometimes added very elegantly to an adjective, and sometimes to a substantive? {n. p.}

Yes, as Cic. ad Att. Vide ne dum pudet te parum optimatem esse, parum diligenter quod optimum est eligas, Quint. Inst. l. 5. Mollis, et parum viri signa. Scal. in Exerc. Parum philosophi, parum physici. Minus, vel parum firma fuit valetudine. 

In those examples, castra propius urbem moventur, and proxime Hispaniam sunt Mauri, are propius and proxime properly adverbs governing an accusative case?

I think not, they rather seem to be prepositions compared governing an accus. as the original word or theme prope doth. Propius cannot be derived of propior in this syntaxis, for we find in Livy propior vero propius vero, and propior is the comparative of propis, an absolute word, as prior of pris. So Goclen. Problem. Gram. l. 3. p. 145.

May not an adverb derived of an adjective which governeth an accusative case with a preposition govern the same case?

Yes, as for example Poeta si apposite {n. p.} ad delectationem, orator ad fidem philosophus ad vitam dicat, implesse munus suum videntur. Iust. Lipsius. 

In that clause of the fable of Aesop’s Cocke, granum hordei mallem omnibus gemmis, why is gemmis the ablative case?

It is the ablative case by reason of the word magis, which lieth secretly couched in the word mallem, which may be resolved into magis vellem.

Are not sometimes nouns put for adverbs, et contra?

Yes: first, nouns put for adverbs. Nullus pro non, by the figure called anthimeria; Philotimus nullus venit. Cic. Quaerit ex proximo vicino num feriae quaedam piscatorum essent, quod eos nullos videret. Idem. Etsi nullus diceris. Ter. At tu dolebis cum rogaberis nulla. Catullus. This is an elegant kind of expression. Nemo pro non. Tac. 4. Ann. Ferrum, et caedes quonam modo occultaretur nemo reperiebat. {n. p.} Multus pro multum. Multus in libris. In opere multus. Sallust. Totus pro totaliter: Totus displiceo mihi. Ter. Totus est alienus a physicis. Cic. Plurimus pro plurimum. In toto plurimus orbe legor. 

Secondly, adverbs put for nouns. Satis vir, pro magnanimo. Sen. Plusquam viri, pro virorum partes excedentibus. Parum fides, pro parva. Pl. 

In those examples, multo aliter, paulo secus, longe secus, are multo, paulo, longe, ablative cases?

Lily did ill to surmise so; that rule is altogether superfluous. In like manner he was deceived before, when, in the rules of adjectives, he affirmed that in that example, quanto doctior es, tanto te geras submissius, quanto and tanto were of the ablative case, whereas they are adverbs.

May not the form or manner of a thing be put after an adverb in the ablative case, as well as after an adjective? {n. p.}

Yes, as agit fortiter verbis, factis ignave.

Of Conjunctions.

In those clauses of Plautus and Terence, Absque hoc esset, absque eo foret, how come the verbs to be of the subjunctive mood?

By reason of the particle si understood, which is to be supplied to make perfect construction.

After what verbs are those particles used, quod, ut, ne?

After these and the like, for we say puto quod, iubeo ut, metuo ne.

Do ac and atque always come before in a clause?

Always, except in composition, as simulac, simulatque, after the Greek manner, ἅμα καὶ.

Doth not a conjunction sometimes govern a case as a noun?

Yes, as Verg. Illius ergo venimus: amoris, honoris, virtutis ergo. {K}

Of Prepositions.

Is not procul, when it is construed with case, a preposition?

Some learned men think so; it is read with and accusative or ablative case, as in Curtius, procul urbem; in Livy, locus procul muros; and in the same authors procul muro; procul mari; procul discordibus armis. Verg. 

Are not sometimes prepositions put before other prepositions?

Yes, as usque sub obscurum noctis; usque ex Aethiopia; de quinto fratre nuntii nobis tristes venerant ex ante diem nonarum iuniarum usque ad pridie calend. Septemb. The titles of chapters amongst the civilians are De in ius vocando, De in diem addictione; and Gel. 1. 10. In de Analogia libro scriptum est.

Is not a preposition sometimes put for a conjunction, and an adverb for a preposition?

Yes: first, a preposition is put for a conjunction in Sallust, Praeter rerum {n. p.} capitalium condemnatis; praeter for praeterquam.

Secondly, an adverb for a preposition in Verg. Aen. 7. Tali intus templo divum, patriaque Latinus sede sedens, vide Linac. de Emend. struct. Lat. Ser. l. 1. p. 109. 

Is not a conjunction sometimes put in the place of a pronoun with a preposition?

Yes, as A me vero ita diligitur, ut tibi uni concedam praeterea nemini i.e., praeter te. Cic. Eundem ab hostibus metui, praeterea neminem i.e. praeter eum. Idem. 

Of an Interjection.

In this sentence, Egregium vero philosophum qui inter solem, et ignem quid interesset parum curavit intelligere, why is Egregium philosophum the accusative case?

Because therein there is an ellipsis of the interjection O.

What interjections govern an accusative case, besides those expressed in Lily’s syntax? {K2}

These: eheu, hem, apage; as, Eheu conditionem huius temporis. Cic.; hem, being an ironical interjection, as Hem astutias. Ter., O subtle device; Apage te. Ter. Apage istiusmodi salutem. Pl. 

Are all things that are written by the ancient authors to be exactly examined and scanned according to rule?

No, for some had faults which of set purpose they loved and defended; Tantus error est in omnibus studiis, maxime in eloquentia, cuius regula incerta est, ut vitia quidam sua et intelligant, et ament; there is so great error in all studies, especially in eloquence, the rule of which is uncertain, insomuch as some both know and affect their faults, saith Seneca.* Verbis licenter in carminibus usus est Naso, in quibus non ignoravit vitia sua, sed amavit, etc. Ovid was somewhat bold and licentious in the use of some words in his verses, wherein he was not ignorant of the fault, but liked it and often would say that a mole misbecame not a face, …

[End]