1800.] On Greek Articles—Dr. 
multitude of readers. Perhaps I may be 
fortunate enough to obtain fome degree of 
approbation, at leaft for my intentions, 
from the incomparable and ingenuous 
writer. A A HOR DS shes 
— 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SiR 
O'the queftion propofed by N. K. in 
JL page 535, Vol. TX it may, per- 
haps fatisfactorily, be replied, that the 
exiftence of the article in the writings, 
and of courfe in the age, of Homer is iuf- 
ficiently proved by the inftances which 
your correfpondent has himfelf produced ; 
and that the unfrequency of its ufe is to be 
attributed to a peculiar licence of heroic 
poetry, as will appear from the confider- 
ation that it is very fparingly ufed by the 
later heroic poets. Apollonius Rhodius 
will fuffice for an example. Nay, in the 
iambics of the tragic poets, the article 
is frequently omitted, when in a profe 
writer it would have been inferted. 
Allow me another moment to correét 
a falfe tranflation of line 78 of the firft 
book of the Iliad ; 
n yap oiopras avdpa yohwreey. 
which ought to be rendered, not, with 
Dr. Clarke, ‘‘ For I think that a man will 
be angry,”’ but, “I think that I. fhall 
provoke a man.” ‘The accufative cafe 
of the pronoun is omitted, becaule ofouas 
and xorwceey refpect the fame perton. 
This is a fimple matter, but the greatelt 
critics have not been fufiiciently aware of 
it. That admirable fcholar Mr. Mark- 
land, for inftance, has feveral times vio- 
lated this propriety of the Greek language 
in his conjectures, v. g. Iph. in Aul. v. 
475, where Scaliger and Aldus were mif- 
taken before him ; again, on the Supplices, 
¥. 504. andonverfe t192. | 
It may be curious to remark, that when 
the Greck poets ufe the formula ica yais, 
&c. for ouyuus yacav and the like, they ftill 
omit the pronoun as though the other 
form had been adopted. Vide Mofchus, 
Meg. v. 75 et fequeat. Homer, Od. v. 
184 et fequent. Apoll. Rhod. iv. g5 et 
fequent. 
But in reality it is the nominative which 
is underftood in this conftruétion*. Vide 
Eur, Med. 751. and following, from 

* I mean, if a verb and an infinitive mood 
following refpect the fame perfon, a pronoun 
or adje€tive appertaining to that perfon will 
ftand before the infinitive in the nominative 
‘safe. .V. Hoogyv. ad Vigerum. p. 207. 
fentrury Mac. No 62. 
Reid’s Anfwer to’ Mis Hays. 83 
ovy down to Execiw Tpww. Soph. Antig. 
897, 898, Ed. Brunk. gro, 911, of the 
new edition of Mufgrave. This peculia- 
rity was mifapprehended by Heath: and 
Henry Stephens on Eur. Cyclops, v. 266. 
and has been offended againit by Brunk, 
in a conjecture on Theoc. xxvii34. Thefe_ 
hints may be of ufe to young proficients 
in the Greek language. 
Chefbunt, I am, Sir, your’s, 
Fuly 7, 1800. E. COGAN. 

To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
N the laft Number of your Magazine 
fome obfervations on my paper on in- 
fanity were inferted by a lady of confider- 
able literary reputation. 
After'a tew preliminary remarks, your 
correfpondent proceeds to fiate, that ‘* By 
ancient fages, the ethcacy of reafon as an 
antidote to paffion has been ftrongly urged. 
Modern inquirers have, with greater 
acutenefs and more fagacity, confidered 
paffion as a defpot, in pofleflion of power, 
deaf to the claims of juftice, and blind to 
the fplendour of truth: or, as poffefling 
means of corruption but too abundant, 
and arts of perverfion but too infidious, 
for converting into an auxiliary its moft 
formidable opponent. To wage.an equal 
war, to repel force with force, and paffion 
by pafflion, to combat the enemy with his 
own weapons, carries with it a more fpe- 
cious profpect of fuccefs; and it is againft 
this hypothefis that the remarks of your 
correfpondent are levelled.” 
As to the firft of thefe methods of 
checking the violence of paffion, that is by 
the influence of reafon, it mult appear ab- 
furd, in a difeafe the very eflence of 
which confifts in not admitting the operas | 
tion of that faculty. 
The fecond, Milfs Hays fays, ‘carries 
with it a more fpecious profpect of fuc- 
cefs;°? and, of courfe, fhe expreffes a dif- 
approbation of my objections to it. 
The manner in which my objections 
have been anfwered, fhall now be exhibited 
by literal quotations from the paper of your 
corre{pondent. 
“¢ ObjeGting, he urges, and not with- 
out a foundation in truth, the danger left 
the new paffion, in its failure, fhould give 
additional force to that by which it is ab- 
forbed. This, in melancholy tempera- 
ments, in difpofitions of peculiar tenacity, 
and in fingular circumftances, is but too 
probable.” 
Now the cafes here defcribed are evi- 
dently 
