Hoc si præstare possent homines, ut suo Vellent carere, tuti pósthàc viverent. Haud quisquam insidias nudo faceret corpori.' FABULA XXXI, Sequitur Fabula de Papilione et Vespá, quam judicavi ita obliteratam et tam miserè restitutam, ut illam prorsus omiserim. FABULA XXXII. Terraneola et Vulpes. AVIS quam dicunt Terraneolam rustici, Salve, inquit illa; cur me fugisti, obsecro, Præstò est. Quid metuas, rogo? Te multùm diligo 2 Quin sequeris prædam ? Etiam tibi committo meam. 'Nudo faceret corpori. Homini scilicet fortunis experti, bonis spoliato : nam quis nudum spoliat? Soli divites periculis obnoxii. 2 Quin sequeris prædam? Id est: Cur prædam tuam non sequeris? Imò ego prædam meam tibi relinquo; curæ tuæ committo. Gryllis vescere. 145 DR. CROMBIE'S REMARKS On the Notice of his "Gymnasium, sive Symbola Critica, 2 Vols. Oct. 11. 1s." Ir is not my intention to protract a discussion, which may have already perhaps become uninteresting to some of your readers. But in justice to the Reviewer, as well as to myself, I deem it incumbent upon me to offer a few observations, in reply to his answer in No. XXVI. of the Classical Journal. When I observed that the Oration Pro Domo carried with it sufficient evidence of good classical authority, I intended merely to signify, that it contains no word or phrase, no syntactical expression, as far as I have observed, which is not justified by Cicero himself, or writers of unquestionable reputation. Whether, or in what degree, it may have descended to us in a mutilated or interpolated state, I have not had sufficient leisure as yet to enquire. As I am not disposed to adhere pertinaciously to old opinions, so I am equally disinclined to renounce them without mature exami nation. When I remarked, that audar is uniformly used in an unfavorable sense, I ought to have added, that such at least is the usage of Cicero. Farther enquiry leads me to doubt, whether Cæsar, Livy, or Sallust, ever employ it in a favorable sense. With poetical usage I have no concern. I have said, that alta vor is a questionable expression, and it still appears to me in that light. Gesner has offered two hypotheses, in order to account for the origin of the expression. First, he conjectures that it took its rise, by analogical derivation, from the construction of the musical scale. Vox alta, says he, a musi corum diagrammatis primum dicta; and the expression summa vor, in the judgment of the learned Reviewer, seems in some degree to defend this opinion. From this explanation, as erroneous, I have already expressed my dissent; and I now repeat my persuasion, that Gesner's conjecture is wholly incorrect. The highest note in respect to place on the harp, as well as on the musical scale, was called gravissima, or the lowest in point of tone, and conversely. Baxter, as the Reviewer remarks, makes inár equivalent to gravissima, and Acron, in his annotations on Horace, (Sat. 1.2.) concurs with him. The words of Joannes Philoponus correspond to the modern mode of naming the strings, veárn (novissima) xopoa denoting the last or fourth string, the tone of which is acute, and ý úrάry (summa) the first or uppermost string, the tone NO. XXIX. CZ. J. VOL. XV. 1 K of which is grave. "In the first Mercurian lyre," says Dr. Bur ney," the longest string, which produced the lowest tone, from being placed higher on the instrument, as is the case in the modem harp, was called ónárn, the highest string and Nete for the same reason was afterwards, upon the extension of the scale, called lowest, though the most acute. For, says he, the adjective raт summus and viros imus, have manifestly been applied to sounds, more to express their situation on the lyre, than the length of the strings, of the graveness, or acuteness of their tones." To the same purpose are the words of Dr. Wallis. "The Greeks," says he, "called hypate supreme," though it is the lowest sound or string of the Tetrachord, and nete last or lowest, though the most acute; there fore, those, who made use of these names, applied them differently from us, calling grave high, and acute low. Suidas defines órán βαρὺν φθόγγον ἀποτελοῦσα, and νήτη sonum acutum edens. Boethius likewise, in his Treatise on Music, places in all his diagrams low sounds at the top, and high ones at the bottom. Rousseau, in his Dictionary of Music, delivers the same opinion. But it would be endless to multiply authorities. There can exist, I conceive, no doubt, whatever, of the accuracy of the general opinion, which I formerly stated, that low tones were at the top of the harp, and also of the musical scale, and low ones at the bottom of each. Gesuer therefore, in supposing that the expression alta vOI might derive its origin from the ancient musical scale, is wholly in error. That it may have been derived a visu, which is the other conjecture of Gesner, and which is adopted by the Reviewer, is possible, perhaps probable. But it is one thing to account for the origin of a word or phrase, and quite another thing to prove its consistency with good classic usage. The origin of a word or phrase it may be easy perhaps to ascertain; but it is not its origin, but its legitimacy, not its congruity with analogy of conception, but its employment by reputable writers, that determines its classic character. It is true, that as we find in Cicero the expression vox altius attollitur, reasoning from analogy we might be led to infer, that alta vor is a classical prose expression. But as I remarked in my former communication on this subject, it is not analogy, but the positive authority of classic usage that can justify the employment of any word or phrase. The expression alta vor occurs oftener than once, as Ol. Borrichius observes, in the dramatic compositions of Seneca: and also in Catullus, but as it is found, I believe, in no prose writer of either the Augustan or the succeeding age, I consider the expression as of too questionable a character to be admitted by any writer, who is ambitious of a prose style at once elegant and correct. The Reviewer thinks me incautious in saying, that neither Cicero nor Cæsar, Livy nor Sallust, ever employ the expression alta voce, but uniformly magna voce; and he quotes summa voce as used by Cicero. The learned Reviewer has here inadvertently committed a slight inaccuracy. Summa vox is not an expression precisely equivalent to alia vox. An attribute simply, and that attribute in the highest or lowest degree, are not one and the same; nor can terms, expressive of these different degrees, be considered as synonimous. Summa voce may be considered, as of the same import with maxima voce, or quam maxima voce, and Cicero employs these expressions indifferently: but alta vor cannot be considered as an expression, implying the same extension of voice, as maxima or summa vox. I repeat, therefore, that for alta vor these classic writers uniformly employ magna vor, as for vox altissima they use summa or maxima. When I remarked, that the verb adulari may properly refer to the fawning of dogs, but that the mode of tracing its significátion to this animal appears to me fanciful and unsatisfactory, I had no allusion whatever to the observations of the learned Reviewer; and I feel it my duty to express my regret that he should have misconceived my meaning. My remark referred particularly to the opinion of certain etymologists, who explain adulari as compounded of ad oupa (sc. canum), and that hence we have the verbs adorare and adulari. The explanation of the latter verb, as implying ad aulam, i. e. ad ollam ire, vel ollam sectari, more iis blandientium, a quibus catillones esse sinuntur, is more admissible, though still, as I conceive, unsatisfactory. Nonius refers the verb to the fawning of dogs, and in this opinion the ingenious Reviewer concurs.-This explanation, I candidly confess, now appears to me much more natural, as well as phi losophical, than the derivation given by Valla and Scaliger, which I formerly adopted. Whatever may have been the etymon of this verb, I agree entirely with the Reviewer, that it strictly refers to the fawning of dogs, and shall in future prefer this explanation. The Reviewer has, without any apparent necessity, expended much time, and adduced numerous examples for the purpose of proving the accuracy of that part of his definition of sodalis, respecting which there exists between us no difference of opinion." It is admitted that sodalitates or clubs were instituted for the purpose of celebrating the annual festivals of particular deities, and that these associations were originally composed of grave and virtuous men. It is agreed also, that they degenerated from their primitive character, and that many of them became seditious and factious meetings, aiming at the subversion of the state, assailing the reputation as well as the authority of private individuals, and practising all the arts of corruption at the public elections. It is evident also, that laws were enacted, by which these illicit and dangerous associations might be prevented. But, as I formerly remarked, the casual act, or even the general conduct of any society is to be distinguished from the avowed and express purpose of its institution. I have perused the examples adduced by the ingenious critic, with all the attention of which I am capable, but they do not appear to me to justify the extended signification, which he has assigned to the word sodalis, as denoting a member of a club instituted for the benefit of an individual. The Reviewer lays great stress on the authority of Forcellinus. I respect the judgment of this learned and sagacious lexicographer; but in all such cases, I desire to see not opinions but arguments, not authority, but evidence. Forcellinus quotes the words of Cato; whe informs us, that sodalitates, originally consisting of grave and good men, afterwards degenerated into confederacies against private in dividuals, and conspiracies against the state, and that the members, availing themselves of the opportunities, which their meetings afforded, formed plans for defeating the due administration of justice, for purchasing votes at an election, and subverting the es tablished government. Hence these clubs were prohibited; and the term sodalis became a term of reproach. The passages quoted from Pliny, respecting the stated assemblies of Christians, which are there included under the general name of Hetaeria, can be scarcely said to touch the question. How the passage, cited by the Reviewer from Justin 20. 5. can prove, that sodalis means a member of a society formed for the benefit of an individual, it exceeds my powers of penetration to discover. Yet the learned critic expresses his surprise at my want of faith in the accuracy of his definition, after his having produced this "important passage." Forcellinus concludes with delivering it as his opinion, that the word sodalitium is applied to meetings held for the purpose of purchasing votes, and that those who favored any particular candidate, were in the practice of distributing money for the purposes: of corruption, and compelling in some measure the people to vote for their favourite. But that these associations had for their object the benefit of the individual, rather than the promotion of their own factious views, through his means, appears to me to be a doubtful position. It would be too much to assert, that the West- ! minster Committee, for example, were associated for the benefit of their representatives, in parliament, it being more probable, that their chief object was to secure the election of two individuals whose political opinions accorded with theirs, and who, as they conceived, were by their principles and talents best qualified |