1801.] 
thoufand fragments. -The length of that 
part of the tree, which was feparated from 
the trunk by the force. of the lightning, 
meafured upwards of ‘eighteen yards, 
Huge fragments were thrown in every 
direction, to the diftance of fixty or eighty 
yards. And though the turnpike-road, 
between this place and Kendail, led clofe 
by the tree, and the farm-houfe, in which 
were people, was at a very inconfiderable 
diftance, and not further than where the 
broken pieces reached, yet happily no 
other mifchief was done. 
Ravenficnedale, 
Fuly 9, 1801. 
a 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
N page 4.33 of your Magazine for July, 
Mr. Carey has attempted, with his 
ufual ingenuity and acutenels, toreconcile 
the numbers of two parinumeral dittichs. 
ina Greek epigram by conjectural emen- 
dations, to which fober criticifm, I think, 
muft refufe her affent. 
To fuppofe the N in e~efev to be merely 
paragogical, without producing a fingle 
example of fuch ufe, or any veftiges of 
fuch example, in this word, or its parallels, 
cedev and é0ev, from any poet or gramma- 
rian whatever, is an outrage furely fo all 
rational probability ; and we might, I 
think, with equal julice conceive the 
N in .ev, “ev, tumTowey, and whatever words 
you pleafe, to be alfo paragogical and 
not an effential letter, as well as in 
emedev. 
I confider his reafonings on asey as no lefs 
deftitute of probability : for, inthis pro- 
J. Rosrnson, 
vince of emendatory criticifm, with refpeG 
to. words fo familiarly employed, a reader 
has a right to be fatisfied, not only by 
what aualogy and erthography may render 
plaufidle, but by what the unexceptionable 
wje of approved writers has aZually fanc- 
tioned. - Otherwile, if no difficulty. re- 
mained beyond this word, we might fafe- 
Jy fubftitute ae: for ai, fince the Attic 
writers undoubtedly follow that orthogra-- 
phy without variation, whether they mean 
to lengthen or fhorten the former fyllable ; 
though in the former cafe the iota might . 
probably be fubdicribed, 
- With regard alfo tothe fubftitution of 
peeve for puyavos, Tmay prefume your rea. 
ders to revolt at once from fuch an arbi- 
trary and unauthorifed tran{mutation of a 
mof common word, i 
But, as I profefs myfelf diffatisfied with 
the folution of Mr. Carey, I may be 
deemed perhaps unjuftifiably cenforious by 
fome for this freedom, it unable to propofea 
; i 
Mr. Wakefield's Obfervations on Mr. Carey. 
03 
better, Without allowing the reafonable- 
nefs of this requifition, I fhall (ubmit, with 
deference to Mr. Carey and your readers, 
what appears to mylelf a fimple and 
decifive adjuftment of thé inconfitency in 
the prefent readings of the epigram. 
I need not mention the improbability of 
no error in the fo mer diftich, and not ‘lefs 
than three in the latter. 
Upon the former diftich I obferve thus : 
ANG» aro craritw/, 6 0 am nEg@, op 
aNO TovTe, 
EvmoAr, oo; wepemes Swen yevebrsoia 
If the nominative cale had been definite, 
and not indefinite, MavaG fuppole, in- 
ead of oAx@», the prefent tenle seperres 
would have been proper and unexception= 
able; but with the indeterminate words 
ahraG@-, 5, and Ge, a fuppo/ition is abfolutely 
necellary to the exigencies of legitimate 
compofition, and ween. therefore fhouid: 
be fubftituted for vexxet: Others perhaps 
MAY sEND fuch aud fuch things: it is 
fupicient for me, if 1 fezd—This mott ob- 
vious and reafonable alteration brings the 
“numbers of the diftichfrom 5953 to 5946, 
according to Mr. Carey’s computation ; 
or, including thetota, to 5956. 
Again, in the latter diftich : 
AAN? Excedev eZar Mecow oTsyov, 69 Tis Eo ater 
Mipnyor nas diring nea net euealeng * 
the fubjunétive mien is a form more regu. 
lar and legitimate afier deZar with é¢, than 
the optative wiv: in which correction 
the numeral difference between 1 and of - 
changes the total fum-ot the latter diftich 
from 6018 to 594.6 witout reckoning the 
fub{eribed iota; and, with that addition, 
to 5956: foas to effect the requived arith- 
metical correfpondence in both cafes be- 
tween the difiichs of the epigram. 
However, though I am compelled to 
differnt with much reluctance irom Mr. 
Carey’s decifions on this occalov, I 
fhould not forgive myfelf, if I negleed 
this opportunity of exprefiing the pl-afure 
and improvement, which I, in common, 
Tam perfuaded, with all your claffical rea- 
ders, never failto reap from the critical 
remarks of this gentleman 3; and to avow 
my fatisfattion at fleeing your repofitory 
enriched by fuch communications of io 
fagacious and accurate-a {cholar. 
Hackney Fuly3, GiLBERT WAKEFIELD. 
1801. 
—=a 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, x 
rANHE XIVth (etion of the fecond vo- 
L lume of Warton’s Hiftory of Eng- 
lifh Poetry, cloies with the following re- 
markabie paragraph i— 
&¢ A welle 
