§ 86. $87. $ 89. § 96. § 103. om, id esse mortale. deorum numero for d. natura. transpose sumpsisses tuo jure. Ba. and Sch.) superior aeri aetheriis (MSS vary, other conjectures by Any one who will take the trouble to compare the text of the N. D., as it now stands, with the text of the earlier editions from the Ed. Pr. of 1471 to the Variorum Ed. of 1818 will be astonished at the improvement which has been effected, owing in great part to judicious emendations by successive generations of scholars. The value and even the necessity of conjecture, as a means of restoring the text of this, as of other ancient writings, is sufficiently shown by the readings cited under the last head, but it may be proved even more conclusively by reference to other passages, which did not admit of the same brevity and simplicity of statement, such as § 24 quodque in deo, § 25 si di possunt, § 65 nihil est enim, in which it is confessed that the present text is wrong, though editors are not agreed on the right mode of restoring the true text. Whilst I am upon this subject, it may be well to give a few illustrations from the present book, of the commoner sources of corruption in MSS, so as to assist my younger readers in judging of the admissibility of any proposed emendation. The illustrations are taken from the various readings in Orelli's edition as well as from my own. I make no attempt at an exhaustive analysis, but simply group together examples of similar confusion. Addition or omission of final m: see critical notes on *speciem1 § 99, *figuram § 97, *quae § 89, exorientem § 79, imbecillitate § 122, tu § 112 and 106, offensionem § 85, facilem § 53, *simile and continente ardore § 28, *natura § 23, partum ortumque § 41. 1 An asterisk is prefixed wherever the reading is doubtful. Interchange of t and d: see on quot § 84, *inquit § 109, relinquit § 123, id § 113, aliquid § 57 and § 104, apud § 62, sed § 61; so at for ad in § 14, *§ 97; ad for at § 79 (twice), § 82, § 84, § 90, § 109, § 115, § 116, § 122. Interchange of final is and es; see on *intellegentis § 23, *religionis § 86, mares § 95, voluptatis § 113, *mentis § 120. Interchange of final of ¿ and e; see on cogitari § 24, *atqui § 16 and § 57, * familiari § 58, corpori § 78, liberari § 117. Interchange of e and ae: see on cur aquae § 25, quae *§ 89, § 92, § 97, § 110, ipsa § 110, terrenae § 103, illae § 101, equus § 77, aequilibritatem § 109. Omission or addition of prefix in: see on *inscientiam § 1, incontinentem § 26, lustrationem § 87, individuis, § 110. Omission or addition of initial H: see on orarum § 119, omnium § 108, and his below. Confusion between is, iis, his: see on § 2, § 3, § 7, § 10, § 11, § 12, § 31, § 50, § 55, § 61, § 66, § 103, § 113, § 116, § 122, § 123. Interchange of quid and quod: see on § 10, § 81, § 87. Confusion between est, sit, sint, sunt: see on disputatum est § 15, pulcherrima est § 48, aestimanda est § 55, aliquando est § 68, ausa est § 93, dicenda est § 95, natura est § 96, variae sunt § 1, *vero sint § 25, caelo sunt § 34, quidem sunt § 41, innumerabilia sint § 50, animis sunt § 103, sunt quae § 109. Interchange of parts of verbs generally, (1) of Subjunctive and Indicative moods: see on *sint and soleant § 120, *videmus § 117, *tribuant 101, aberrant § 100, *decreverint § 92, *fecerat § 85, negatis § 53, viderit § 49, fateamur § 44, *dixerat § 41, *appelletur § 36, cingat, revocet § 28. (2) of Singular and Plural: see on diceretur § 88, vident § 101, faciet § 109. (3) of Second and Third Person; see on inquit § 100 and *§ 109, attigeris § 104. Mistakes in the division of words: see notes on § 14 addubitare, § 18 descendisset, § 25 cur aquae, § 37 sententia est, qui aether, § 39 * universitatemque, § 63 posteaque, aperte, § 66 similiora, § 79 exorientem, at erat, § 81 *a parvis enim, § 89 *argumentis sententiam, § 103 homunculi similem, § 76 informatum. Omission of repeated words or syllables, and of words interposed between repeated words or syllables: see on § 13 omnium omnium, § 26 in infinito, *omnino in eo, § 25 *aquae adjunxit—aquam adjunxit, § 66 *hamata, § 71 quasi corpus aut quasi, § 78 formica formicae, § 81 apud eos-apud nos, § 82 *alia nobis, § 71 *in ceris diceretur, § 58 anteferret et, § 103 oportet et, § 49 *neque eadem ad, § 98 nisi in eo-nisi in eo, § 103 *superior aeri aetheriis, § 98 *moribus paribus, § 2 *natura trahimur. Construction altered through the influence of a nearer word: see on § 2 continet—in primis changed to continet est—in primisque, § 25 *mentem changed to et mente, § 36 vi divina, changed to ut divinam, § 49 docet changed to doceat after ut, § 70 esse changed to esset after utrum, fieret changed to fieri to suit following esse, § 71 quam for quod after mirabilius, § 73 inanes for inane to suit imagines, § 104 rationis for ratione to suit mentis. Substitution of synonyms: see on § 68 quia for quod, so igitur for ergo constantly in C. Interpolation, (1) by unintentional repetition: see on § 63 *aut before Neptuni suggested by aut Carbo, § 35 *immittendique after minuendi. (2) to complete construction: see on § 86 id esse mortale added after si quid sit, § 107 *quam inserted after minus probari possit. (3) owing to explanatory gloss: see on § 33 * Platone added to explain magistro, § 13 * Terentius, &c. added before Synephebis, § 34 * tum to explain modo, § 58 *L. Crasso to explain familiari, § 112 *nectar ambrosiamque to explain epulas, § 1 *id est principium philosophiae to explain the allusion to the Academics, § 28 * praeterea added to correct omne, § 25 *alia added to escape apparent inconsistency. (4) owing to controversial gloss: see on § 19 *animi added as an answer to the question quibus oculis, on § 21 * quod ne-tempus esset possibly an answer to the preceding intellegi potest. I proceed now to discuss the question of spelling. This has caused me some difficulty, as I am aware that my own feeling, or perhaps I should rather call it my prejudice, is opposed to the theory and practice of the most eminent both amongst our own and foreign scholars. I think however it is not mere obstinacy which prompts me to follow my own course in this matter, even against the advice of friends for whose judgement I have the highest respect, and who have studied the subject far more deeply than I can pretend to have done. It appears to me that this apparently unimportant question is not obscurely connected with the larger question whether the Classics are still to form the staple of higher education amongst us. If their claim to do so is to be allowed, they must show good reasons for it, and they must at the same time leave room for other more immediately pressing studies. I believe that this claim will be allowed in so far as the study of the Classics supplies the necessary instrument for entering into the life and thought of the ancient world, and one of the best instruments for learning the laws which regulate the expression of thought. But the Universities will have to see to it that this is done far more thoroughly than it has yet been done; and for this purpose it will be necessary to drop some of the impedimenta which now occupy the time of the learner without tending, in any corresponding degree, to discipline and feed the mind. Yet, of late years, it seems to me that the burden of the impedimenta has been added to rather than reduced by the new importance which has been given to questions of etymology and orthography. No doubt a wonderful advance has been made in these departments, and, as special subjects for investigation, they naturally and rightly attract to themselves the attention of leisured scholars, but I cannot think they should be made so prominent as they have been in College and University examinations. Viewed in relation to the main ends of a classical education, I hold that spelling is simply a necessary evil, and that, for practical purposes, the best spelling is that which obtrudes itself least, and least diverts the attention of the reader from the thought of the writer. In books therefore which are printed for ordinary reading, we should not seek to reproduce the spelling of a particular age or of a particular author, except where, as in Chaucer, it may be needed to show the scansion of a line, but we should endeavour to give the normal spelling of the language after it assumed a fixed and stationary form; just as we do not in our common Shakespeares reproduce the inconsistent spelling of the early folios and quartos, though for the purpose of studying the history of the language we rightly print facsimiles of these'. In Latin it is generally agreed that the 1 See on this subject the very sensible remarks of Ritschl, Opusc. 11 pp. 722 foll. and 728. I can but echo his final words, spoken with reference to the language attained its highest formal development in the period which may be named after Quintilian, between Nero and Hadrian, according to Brambach (Hülfsbüchlein f. Lat. Rechtschreibung, p. VII), between the death of Augustus and that of Trajan, according to L. Meyer (Orthographiae Latinae Summarium p. 5). The latter lays down the following rules for our modern spelling of Latin: ne inaequalitate scribendi aut oculi offendantur legentium aut in errorem inducantur animi, scriptura nostra reddi oportet ad certae usum ac morem aetatis, et quidem ejus, qua ipsa lingua scriptorum pariter ingeniis et studiis grammaticorum ad summam est adducta perfectionem; and in p. 6, praeterea ut in sermone, ita in scriptura tamquam scopulum nos fugere oportet quaevis inusitata. Adopting these rules, it will follow first, that we need not trouble ourselves to frame a conjectural text, such as Cicero might have written, but should use the undoubted spelling of the latter half of the first century A.D.; and secondly, that where this spelling itself was variable, as in the u or i of the superlative terminations, and the i or e of the accusative plural of i-nouns, we should select one mode and adhere steadily to that. In making the selection I should myself wish to apply to our own case the principle suggested by Meyer's second rule, that, of two allowable spellings, that should be preferred which is usitatius, least of a novelty to ordinary English readers. Turning now to Müller's text I find there several examples of inconsistent, and some of unusual and, as I believe, incorrect spelling. This is the more to be wondered at, because in his excellent review of Baiter and Halm's ed. in the Jahrb. f. Cl. Philol. for 1864, vol. 89, p. 261 foll, he condemns a similar inconsistency in them. The following are the points in which the spelling in my edition. will be found to differ from that in Müller's : (1) I have always given the superlative termination in -imus; Müller at times has the form in -umus. Thus we find facillume § 9, but facillimum § 61; turpissume § 29, but turpissime § 93; simillumus § 49, but simillimus § 98; praestantissumus § 47, but praestantissimus § 96; also levissumus § 13, vaferrumus § 39. attempt to expel the old German forms 'genitiv', 'Virgil': möge doch nicht deutscher Pedantismus einen Schatten auf deutsche Wissenschaft werfen, der gegen diese selbst den Spott des weitern Kreises der Gebildeten herausfordern muss! |