EROI.]' 
verfes produced by him, as read in inverfe 
order, appeared. to me drawn too hattily, 
and added, that Mr. Carey feemed to have 
miftaken the fhift of the verfifier for a law 
of pronunciation. AndI think fo ftill. 
In ftri&t argument, the obfervations re- 
lated only to thofe verfes; and from any 
thing yet produced, I fee no reafon to 
change my opinion. I gave my reafons 
why I believed, that what Mr. Carey 
produced as examples to prove a point of 
crammar, were mere fhifts of the verfifier. 
And thofe reafons, in my humble opinion, 
were neither difprove’, nor weakened. 
Nay, Mr. Carey fcarcely, attempted to 
reply to them, but flew off to higher mat- 
ter, leaving the poor epigrams to fhift for 
themfelves. Other reafons might have 
been produced. It might have been fhewn 
(for the practice of the poets gives the 
law to grammarians) that in almof every 
one ef the epigrams there is a violation of 
the rules of profedy: and I could fill fur- 
ther have fhewn, both from. the icolnoo, 
and uaguwo, or crab-verfes, that what I 
faid of the fhift of the avticespavra was not 
fpoken at random. But ‘what leaves me 
unconvinced has convinced Mr. Jonn Ro- 
binfon. 
All that I know of the poets themfelves 
(nobody, I believe, knows much more) 
is this:—that Leonidas, a modern Greek 
poet, excelled in writing a {pecies. of verfe, 
the character of which it has been thought 
fearcely worth while to inquire into, and 
was dubbed peritus for it by his con- 
temporaries: and that another modern 
Greek poet, named Nicodemus (this is 
all, too, I know of him), wrote a few 
epigrams, that may be feen in the Greek 
Antholegia, abounding with fhifts, and, 
from the very nature of fuch attempts, 
with falfe quantities. Dulce eff defipere 
in Inco. But why fhould PHILOLOGY 
catch at fuch forry au’horities ? 
¥ fhould have troubled the Monthly Ma- 
gazine with my poor obfervations long ere 
this, had I not been informed, that Mr. 
Wakefield was printing a book (Nodes 
Carceraria) in which fomething was to be 
faid about the articgeoura. I have ac- 
cordingly waited to fee that publication. 
But, with all deference to thel earning of 
Mr. Wakefield, I fee no reafon to alter 
my opinion, that the evricespovra are verfes 
of mere fhifts, and nothing more. |: 
Indeed Mr. Wakefield’s oblervations 
confirm my cpinion. For perceiving in 
two of the epigrams quoted by him two 
violations of quantity (and his fagacity 
could not help perceiving them) Mr. 
Wakefield brings to their relief emenda- 
: z 
. Mr. Dyer’s Reply to Mr. Carey. 
319 
tory criticifm: becaufe, fays he, unlefs 
we read fo and fo, we fhall have a mon- 
fier, Whether Mr. Wakefield has any 
other authority for his:readings, than his 
own ikill in emendatory and conjectural 
criticilm, I do not determine. But as the 
lines now ftand (and I acknowledge my 
fufpicion, that there is no proper autho~ 
rity for altering them) they are at beft 
mere playful effufions; but, as to quan- 
tity, they are proper moniters, injudi- 
cioufly, in my humble opinion, introduced 
by Mr. Carey ina queftion concerning ac- 
cent and quantity. °° 
Stri€ily fpeaking, as before obferved, 
the obfervations related only to thofe epi-= 
grams: the general remark was merely 
incidental, “* he fubjeét of accentua- 
tion (thefe are the words of the letter) I 
leave untouched.’? I did, in fober truth, 
mean to deny, and do full, the authority 
of thofe verfes in a quefion of this kind, 
though I certainly could not mean to affert, 
that accent affected not language. The 
words of fentences, whether prefe or verfe, 
as well in Greek as in other lanouages, 
run, @sit were, into one another, as re= 
gulated by the paufe, ftop, and accent: 
but fuch approximation dces not exclu- 
fively affect the article and prepodfition. 
Nay, not being quite ignorant of the na- 
_ tural conneétion of the article and prepo- 
fition. with the noun, I did even allow, 
that there was a tendency in them to unite 
(accent being the foul of pronunciation) 
though I might deny that they were ac- 
tually fo united in the Greek language, as 
in fome of the Eaftern languages, by means 
of affixes and prefixes, and as they arein 
fome of the European languages, on prin- 
ciples direét, - vifible, and fyftematic. 
Quintilian’s obfervatfon referred to by 
Mr. Carey and Mr. John Robinfon does 
not amount to the a€tual union of the ar- 
ticle and prepofition with the fubftantive 
or governing word (fuch a union as that 
already alluded to). Quintilian only fays, 
tanquam in una voce, diffimulata diffinc- 
tione: this is all that is neceflary for Mr. 
Carey’s purpofe ; and I am ftill, conced- 
ing him that, left in poffeffion of all that 
I contended for. 
With refpect to the article (though I 
ftill keep in recollection the natural con- 
nection of the article with the governing 
word) it is well known to be agreeable to 
the genius of the Greek language for the 
article not immediately to precede the go- 
verning word: this may be feen in every 
page of every Greek writer. The three 
firt pages of Xenophon’s Cyropzdia 
afford abundant examples, It is utterly 
impoffible 
