799-] 
with a double 7. ‘Whether perfeét or pre- 
terperfect tenfe, the quantity of the pre- 
pofition will be the fame. ‘The préterper- 
fect, to make the laft fyllable fhort, mutt 
indeed be the old reperz, like peperi, and 
not the common reperiz, which, when re- 
duced from reperiit to reperit, would cir- 
cumfiex the latt fyllable as zt does, 
Geo. 11. 23. Whatever Heyne and 
Brunck read, the Medicean MS. as pub- 
lifhed by Foggini, reads abjcindit. And 
jt does not read exfcidi, Ain. il. 177. 
“Nec poffe Argolicis exfcindi Pergama telis. 
Scindo in its feveral modifications is very 
frequent. Will your correfpondent few 
feidit any where but in_ the preteritum, 
where it is unqueftionably right.—He/pe- 
rium Siculo latus abfcidit, 7Bn. ili. 418. 
Will he give any inftance of this verb, 
either in the prefent, the participle, or the 
infinitive, where the z is omitted, and 
fupport it by the authority of an ancient 
Ms. 
G. il. 435. umbram. 
I had ftated my preference of this as 
more mufica] than wmbras; and this it is 
affuredly ; and efpecially before fufficiunt. 
This, in fuch a poet as VIRGIL, is no 
light prefumption for it. Didot might 
certainly follow Heyne and Brunck; who 
read umbras it feems. He might too have 
followed, with equal liberty, the Medi- 
cean MS, which reads uwmbram. ‘The 
elegant and very correct edition by PLan- 
T1iN*, 1589, adopts this reading. 
But 1 will give your correfpondent a 
much ftronger authority for wmbras than 
he feems to have found. ERYTHR.£US 
fo reads it in his Index: and Prerius 
fays, “* In omnibus wveteribus codicibus 
Jcriptum obfervavi UMBRAS, numero mul- 
titudinis.* But what fhall we fay to this, 
if there be an exception to be made of one 
of the moft ancient MSS in the world, the 
Medicean ? 
G. itl. 267, If your eorrefpondent has 
not found afumpfere for abfumpfere, the 
ftereotype Virgil has been benefited by the 
very correction I have indicated. I have 
only to add, my copy was purchafed in 
the beginning of April laft; and living in 
the country, I am content with collating 
the copy which I have: I cannot judge 
of the accuracy of thofe which are in Lon- 
don, The fame obfervations apply to 
Thetis for Tethys. : 
It is fomewhat ftrange that this zealous 
champion of Dipvor fhould be angry that 

* This perhaps is one of the fmalleft of 
books, and one of the moft valuable of edi- 
tiens. 
= 
Mr, Capel Lofft on Didot’s Virgil. 
679 
I have done what Didot very properly re- 
quelts may be done: ‘¢ Si malgré les foins 
les plus grands, et l’attentjon la plus {ui- 
vie, il étoit echappé quelques fautes 4 la 
premicre édition, des J infant méme 
qu’elles nous feront notifiées, nous nous 
emprefierons de les. corriger—on donnera 
méine gratnitement le carton, avec la 
faute corrigee, @ tous ceux qui voudront 
Payor.) 
Itis true, Didot has warned thofe read. 
ers who have Virgzl only in the little {chool 
editions, not to take for faults certain va- 
riations or peculiar readings, which, he 
affures them, are all authorized by good 
editions. I will here reverfe an Horatian 
line—** Eto; bona:—fed MaLA fi quis.” 
Certainly there are many good readings 
which are not in the common editions :— 
. but if a reading is zot good, it will not be 
the better for being uncommon. 
By this time your correfpondent may 
difcover, if you publifh this, what, by a 
little inquiry, he might probably have 
learnt before ;—that my remarks are not 
founded on the common ‘chool editions. 
As to the Delphin Virgil, he is peculiarly 
unfortunate in his guels; for though it is, 
with other editions, on my thelves, I rarely 
look into it: and, I believe, I did not 
once confult it on this occafion, But it 
is no wonder, if the readings that I defend 
are found in that edition; more good read- 
ings than bad will be found in any edi- 
tion. 
In Geo, 1. 150. ‘**Arbos,”’. and not 
arbor, will be found in the excellent edi- 
tion of Hizafius, th: very .aluable of Em- 
menchus 1680, the careful and in many 
refpegts judicious one of Cunningham, and 
the Medicean. The wonder is, if 
in any it be not found. I will go 
farther. I believe there will be difh- 
culty to find one good authority, except 
the Index of Erythrzus, for faying that 
arbor once occurs ia Virgil, He gives it 
iv. Geor, 142. R 
I think “* ze”? is printed for ec, and 
not merely the c omitted to be flruck, in 
my copy, En. iv. 307. I fhall be glad 
to learn it 1s corrected in other copies. 
Though fhort-fighted, my eyes are ex- 
aét; and I do not think the flop after 
amict. was a camma ftruck imperfectly. 
If it were, your correfpondent might have 
fhewn that in fome copy it is better 
ftruck. 
Whether adfo, ii. AEn. 303, fhould 
have a full ftop, we need not afk this or 
that editor. It is fufficient to read the 
paflage with attention to the principles 
of punctuation. 
4$2 The 
