'2-a S. V. 129., June 19. '68.] NOTES AND QUERIES. 



499 



F. J. L. endorses ! Now it is not my intention 

 to enter into any disquisition as to what constitutes 

 generosity or the reverse in such cases ; but I 

 think that no one who reads Dr. S.'s preface can 

 fail to see that his sole object in writing those 

 parts of it to which exception is taken by F. J. L., 

 was to explain why he considered it expedient 

 to compile a new Latin Dictionary — what were 

 the grounds on which he thought himself entitled 

 to public support in that undertaking. The 

 charge of want of generosity might fairly be re- 

 torted on F. J. L., who, by his sneering hypo- 

 thesis in reference to Dr. S.'s full and candid 

 avowal of his obligations to his Transatlantic pre- 

 decessor, would lead the reader to infer, in direct 

 opposition to the fact, that the acknowledgment 

 was made grudgingly and incompletely. 



F. J. L. considers that S. is " unfortunate " in 

 differing from A. "in omitting all proper names." 

 This, of course, is a matter of opinion, and much 

 may no doubt be said on both sides ; but your 

 correspondent has not correctly stated Dr. S.'s 

 reason for the omission, which, in his own words, 

 is, that " the short account of proper names that 

 can be given in a dictionary of this kind is of no 

 value to scholars, while they occupy valuable 

 space, and inconveniently increase the size of the 

 book." 



The next paragraph of F. J. L.'s communication, 

 beginning with " Again," is a remarkable collec- 

 tion of misstatements and mistakes. It hits a 

 blot, however, in the first instance : it is true that 

 composito is not, as it ought certainly to be, in its 

 alphabetical place, though cogitato and other ad- 

 verbs are ; but if F. J. L. has noted other exam- 

 ples of " the same inconsistency " it is a pity that 

 he has not given them. As foi- cogitato, I presume 

 that it is not Inserted because all modern editions 

 read cogitata in the only passage (Cfc. Off. i. 8. 

 fin.) in which it was ever supposed to occur. 

 Forcellini inserts cogitato, but expressly states 

 that that reading is now abandoned. Male Jidus, 

 male sanus are never in any decent modern edi- 

 tion " printed as single words," though male- 

 dictum and malevolens are ; and it may be worth 

 while to point out to F. J. L. the cause of this 

 difference : it is, that in the two former cases the 

 combinations are very rare, and the adverb has 

 an altogether peculiar meaning ; whereas such 

 words as maledictum are of frequent occurrence, 

 and each part of the compound retains its proper 

 signification. As to F. J. L.'s statement, that 

 " malejidiis, malesamis, are not to be found [in S.] 

 unAev Jidus, samis," it can only be accounted for 

 by that eagerness to display one's own acuteness 

 and accuracy by detecting other people's supposed 

 blunders, which seems to blind many critics to 

 what is perfectly plain to more disinterested 

 readers. If F. J. L. will take the trouble to refer 

 to the Dictionary, he will find under j^dus the 



passage of Virgil containing' the expression male 

 fida ; and under sanus no less than three exam- 

 ples of male sanus! " Cnicifigo, crucifixio, cruci- 

 fixus, are not, crudfixor is inserted." I presume 

 that F. J. L. thinks they ought to be, on the same 

 principle as malesanus. Now, though it is true 

 that in old editions the dative cruci is attached to 

 Jigo., &c., yet modern editors invariably adopt 

 the obviously correct mode of printing them se- 

 parately. Why, indeed, should this particular 

 dative be treated as a prefix, while thousands of 

 others, quite as intimately connected with the 

 governing words, retain their individuality? Is 

 it because we have converted the Latin into Eng- 

 lish words by slight changes in their endings ? 

 But no one can regard that as having anything to 

 do with the proper mode of writing the Latin 

 words. As to crucifixio, perhaps your correspon- 

 dent will have the kindness to say where he found 

 it. To me it appears that F. J. L. has imagined it, 

 for I cannot find it in any Latin Dictionary, nor 

 in the collections of barbarous words given in 

 Morell's Ainsworth and in Forcellini ; and fixio 

 occurs only in the glossaries. As to the insertion 

 of crucifixor, which seems to your correspondent 

 so inconsistent, the reason for it is plain : as no 

 \sov(\fixor exists, it was necessary to insert crud- 

 fixor as one word, or omit it altogether. " Parti- 

 ciples also used adjectively or not are sometimes 

 omitted, but generally not." This is a strangely- 

 expressed sentence, and I am not sure that I 

 rightly understand it ; but it appears to me that 

 the rule followed in S. as to participles is, that 

 they are invariably (allowing for unavoidable 

 oversight) given in their alphabetical places : 1st, 

 when they may be employed as adjectives ; 2nd, 

 when there is any such change of form as is likely 

 to obscure their connexion with the verbs. In 

 other cases they are omitted. " In all this, S. is 

 an accurate transcript of A." But as to the ar- 

 rangement of the participles, S. differs widely 

 from A. The latter inserts them, it is true, in 

 their alphabetical places, but always refers to the 

 verbs for any explanation of them, and even some- 

 times puts derived substantives under the same 

 head ; whereas S. pursues the better plan of sepa- 

 rating the adjectival uses of the participles alto- 

 gether from the verbs. In all such cases A. 

 denotes the adjectival signification by what to 

 me is the unmeaning abbreviation Pa., while S. 

 properly says Adj. So far isjthe latter from being 

 a mere " transcript " of A. F. J. L. winds up 

 this paragraph with the remark, " The adverb 

 prcEstanter is not found in S. at all." Nor is it 

 found in the classical writers at all — at least the 

 lexicographers have not yet discovered it. The 

 word prcestantissime occurs in Pliny, and that is 

 duly inserted and explained in S. F. J. L. might, 

 I believe, have found a good many more omissions 

 of this kind ; and it is a pity that Dr. S. did not 



