PREFACE

ΤΟ THE FIRST EDITION.

It will not be questioned by those, who are conversant in the study of philology, that the most successful means of acquiring a correct and critical acquaintance with a dead language, is to employ it, either in composition or translation, under the direction of a skilful master. Nor will it be doubted, that a capacity to express our own, or the sentiments of others, in a foreign tongue, with accuracy and elegance, is the most unequivocal proof of a perfect acquaintance with its grammar, its idiom, and its purest phraseology. A knowledge of the vocabulary, combined with a slender proficiency in the etymology and syntax, aided by a tolerably acute judgment, will enable a person to translate a foreign language into his own, with considerable correctness. Where a critical knowledge of the principles fails him, the context will frequently direct him to the meaning of the author; and, what the scientific translator executes by his critical skill, the other frequently is able to accomplish by the aid of sagacity, and an acquaintance with the subject. But the converse operation is a more arduous task. In translating into a foreign language, or employing it as the vehicle of our own thoughts, neither intuitive sagacity of intellect, nor the most intimate acquaintance with the subject will avail, without a perfect

knowledge of the grammar, the idiom, and the elegancies of the language. Hence we find many capable of translating a Greek or a Roman classic, with considerable facility and correctness, into their vernacular tongue, who are confessedly unable to render, with tolerable accuracy, a few sentences of their own language into Greek or Latin. To clothe Cicero or Virgil in an English dress is an office, to which many may be fully competent; but to render a correct translation of these into Virgilian hexameter, or Ciceronian prose, would surpass the powers of the most accomplished classical scholar.

To facilitate the attainment of a correct Latin prose style, as far as it is acquirable by us moderns, is the principal aim of the following pages. How mortifying soever it may be to our national pride, the charge alleged against us by some foreign critics, that the Latin prose, which has lately issued from the British press, is, with a few exceptions, glaringly disfigured with poetical idioms, palpable inaccuracies, and solecistic phraseology, is unquestionably an imputation, which, without the blindest partiality to ourselves, cannot be pronounced to be entirely groundless. Whether this impurity of diction be ascribable to a premature initiation into the practice of versification, or to an excessive attention devoted to this exercise, while Latin prose is comparatively neglected, the author does not presume to determine.-Thus much is certain, that there is a freedom of diction permitted to the poet, which is denied to the prose writer; and that, when this licence has been early and habitually indulged, it requires more than common vigilance in the translator, to prevent its insinuation into a species of style, from which it ought to be most carefully excluded. The poet, it is to be observed, adopts a vocabulary, which, either in respect to

the words themselves, or the sense in which he employs them, may be justly regarded as peculiarly his own. His diction possesses more of elevation and magnificence, than is suited to the grave and simple style of the philosopher, or the historian; and, when he condescends to employ, or is by necessity compelled to use, the humbler vocabulary of prose, he invests his words with a figurative meaning.His language is the expression of ardent feeling, vehement passion, or fervid imagination. The cause he denotes by its effect, the genus by the species, the whole by a part, and conversely; substituting also one symbol of thought, or perception, for the sign of another, if the subjects are related by resemblance, or contrariety. Fettered also by the metrical laws of his art, he assumes a licence to deviate from certain syntactical rules, to which the prose writer is strictly confined.

Such are the idiomatic licences of the poet; and, when the scholar has been early and much habituated to these, it is not to be wondered, if he transfer them into a species of composition, in which they can be regarded in no other light, than as palpable incongruities, or meretricious embellishments. In this way, perhaps, we may account for that grotesque commixture of poetic and prosaic idioms, which disfigures the diction of many of our modern writers of Latin prose.

By these observations, however, the author would not be understood to signify, that the study of prosody, or the practice of versification, is either useless, or unnecessary. Though, in estimating the merit of prosodical science, either by the talents necessary to acquire it, or by its tendency to improve the intellectual powers, or by its general comparative utility, the mere prosodian may, perhaps, be regarded as occupying a subordinate rank in the literary

scale, yet surely no person can be entitled to the appellation of" classic scholar," who has neglected the study of this science. To the skill of the prosodian we are indebted for many valuable emendations of the ancient poets; and he who reads Horace without a correct acquaintance with his metres, tastes but imperfectly the beauties of the poet. And, though a knowledge of quantity, and the rules of prosody in general, may doubtless be acquired by other means, than the practice of versification, it must be admitted that this exercise is not devoid of utility, having a direct tendency to invigorate the imagination, and to improve the taste. But still, if we consider, that the principal advantages, resulting from this practice, are attainable by other means, and if we reflect, how few there are, who are by nature qualified to become poets, and how rarely occasion presents itself for exhibiting a skill in the composition of Latin or Greek poetry, we cannot help regarding the art of versification, in its most classic style, as comparatively of secondary importance. Though Latin prose has now ceased to be the general medium of communication in the literary world, to write it with correctness is surely an accomplishment, which every classical scholar should be ambitious to attain. In translating a Greek author, and in critical annotations on a Roman classic, Latin prose is almost universally employed. And nothing, it is conceived, can be less consistent with propriety, or less creditable to the writer, in a work professedly critical on some ancient classic, or in a translation of some Greek author, than for the critic, or the translator, to betray, in every page, an ignorance of that language, in which he undertakes to exhibit his own sentiments, or to express the meaning of his original. Yet this is no uncommon fact. To produce examples would be

invidious. The object of the author is not to offend, but to admonish.

In the execution of this work, the author has endeavoured to accommodate his observations, as far as possible, to the capacity of the junior scholar, for whom chiefly this work is intended. In his selection of exercises, he has exemplified the several species of style, the colloquial, the epistolary, the historical, and the oratorical.-He thinks it necessary, at the same time, to observe, that though the exercises are chiefly extracted from the Latin classics, they are not to be regarded as mere translations. He has abridged the original, wherever it was necessary, in order to adapt the length of the exercise to the capacity of the scholar; and he has, on the contrary, occasionally introduced passages, which might serve to illustrate the critical observations. If, in the syntactical remarks, a few repetitions occur, he trusts the attentive and judicious reader will perceive, that they are found chiefly in those cases, in which, as the experienced teacher well knows, the young pupil is most prone to err.

In the explanation of synonymes, two different modes present themselves to our choice. The one is to exhibit the primary idea annexed to the word, and then to evolve the accessory conceptions, with which it is associated. This very often necessarily requires a detailed explanation. The other is to display, and to contrast with each other, the two principal subordinate conceptions. Each of these two modes possesses peculiar advantages. The latter recommends itself by an epigrammatic conciseness, which seizes the attention, and assists the memory. But it is liable to this great objection, that, when the term involves more than one accessory idea, this mode of distinguishing is necessarily defective; for it is an error to imagine, that, in