Of Grammar, and the parts thereof.

MAy euery one that teacheth Lillies Grammar, bee called Grammaticus in proprietie of speech?

No: If he be able to teach those Rudiments onely, he is rather to be called Grammatista?

What difference is there betweene Grammatista, and Grammaticus?

Among the Ancients he was cal­led Grammaticus, who did not one­ly teach how to speake a tongue [Page 2] well, but also did examine, and dis­cusse all the difficulties in Poets, Hi­storians, Orators, Philosophers, &c. hee that taught the Elements of Words, Letters, was called Gram­matista. Grammaticus with them was as much as Literatus, a learned Scholar, or Criticke, whom we now call aPhilologi au­diunt Ludouicus Viues Iulius Scaliger, Casau­bonus, nec non Ben. Ions [...]ius Poetarum facile princeps, & non sine doctrinae, & humanitatis ho­norifica praefa­tione nominan­dus [...] Ioh. Seldenus. Philologer; Grammatista as much as Literator, an Elementarie Pedant. They differ in effect as much as a Fidler, and an exact Musitian. Sueton. de claris Grammaticis.

May that speech, which is compared according to the rules of Grammar, bee called congrua oratio, in the proprie­tie of the latine tongue?

So it is commonly called by most Schoole-masters: but to speake pro­perly; loqui congruè, is to speake fitly, and oppositly to the purpose, which is the part of a Logician, an Orator, a Moralist: but to speake according to rule, is, Grammaticè loqui, which is not opposed to Bar­barè loqui (for there may bee a rude impolisht and barbarous expressi­on, where there is no breach of rule, [Page 3] and Priscians head is vntoucht) but to castigate, or tersè, or emendatè lo­qui, to speake trimly and elegantly, according to the example of the pu­rest Authors; according to that say­ing, Aliud est Grammaticè, aliud la­tinè loqui: Congruè loqui, respects the fitnesse of the matter; Emendate lo­qui, the puritie of the stile; Gram­maticè loqui, the regularitie of the construction.

Is that diuision of Grammar into foure parts, Orthographia, Etymol. Syntaxis, Prosop. an exact diui­sion?

Priscian, Melancthon, and their followers so diuided Grammar: butCrassè. [...], rather thenExactè. [...], it may more artificially and com­pendiously bee diuided into two parts, Etymologie and Syntaxis: for these two doe, as integrall parts, take vp the whole body of Gram­mar: the other two, Orthogr. and Prosodia, like Particles are contay­ned in these, and spread through the whole Grammar.

Of ORTHOGRAPHIE.

IS Orthographie still the same?

No: It hath beene often chan­ged, and therfore the rule of it must be custome. The Hebrewes, Syrians, and Arabians, begin to write from the right hand to the left. They of China, from the top of the leafe to the bottome in a direct line. Other Nations, from the left hand to the right, which motion of the hand seemes to be most naturall.

Of the Letters.

How are diphthongs made?

By the diuerse dispositions of the vowels.

Whence haue the diphthongs their names?

Of the Greeke words [...], bis, and [...], loquor; because there is a conflation, and coalition of two vowels in a diphthong, which are to bee vttered and breathed out as one entire syllable.

What is the meaning of that passage [Page 5] in the first page of Lillies Grammar? S, suae cuiusdam potestatis litera est?

Lilly hauing diuided the Conso­nants into Mutes, as b, c, d, &c. and semi-vowels, as l, m, n, r, s, x, z, he subdiuideth the semi-vowels into liquids, and double consonants, and since (s) will not be changed in ei­ther of these rankes, hee calleth it suae cuiusdam potestatis literam; such a letter as is (as it were) of its owne head, sits by it selfe, will not be mar­shalled in that [...] literarum.

Why are x and z called, literae du­plices?

Because they haue the force of two consonants, as x may be resol­ued into Cs, or gs, as appeares by the genitiue cases of nounes ending in x, Rex, Regis, Dux, Ducis. z is chan­ged (being a greeke letter original­ly) into ss, as Massa, of [...]: Pa­trisso, of [...].

How many wayes is the letter (I) taken?

Three wayes: as in this word ie­iunium: in the first syllable, I is ta­ken for a simple consonant, in the [Page 6] second for a double one, in the third for a vowell.

How doth it appeare that (I) be­tweene two vowels, is a double conso­nant?

Because the Ancients, in stead of Maior, Peior, were wont expresly to write Maijor, Peijor.

Hath (I) betweene two vowels al­wayes the force of a double consonant, as Lilly tells vs here, and in the rules of Quantitie?

No: The rule is true only in sim­ple words, not in words compound, for in such wee finde the syllable which comes immediately before I between two vowels, made short in the Poets: as in Bijugis, Quadrijugus.

Lilly in the diuision of his letters, tells vs, that two is a semi-vowell: how then comes it to passe, that a­non after he saith, y & z, latinis di­ctionibus nunquam admiscentur.

It is very strange a man should so [Page 7] soone forget himselfe: there is a ma­nifest contradiction, from which I cannot acquit him.

Are not k or y mixed amongst o­ther latine letters, as Lilly affirmes?

K is iudged by the modern Grā ­marians to bee an vnprofitable let­ter, butHaec tribus in Latio tantum addita nomini­bus. Ausonius saith, it is pre­fixed before three latine wordes: which some assigne to bee, Kaput, a Chapter, Kalendae, Kalumnia: and as for y, if it be not mixed amongst la­tine letters, how is it that wee finde in Propria quae maribus, Tybris, Lybs, Tybur: proper names, Phryx, Gryps, Hydrops, Syren, Hyems, &c. appella­tiues: nay, how is it that in the very same page, where hee affirmes this, we finde these words: Hymnus, Tri­syllaba, Hieronymus. Here as else­where, bonus dormitat Lilius.

What are the literae majusculae put for when they are set alone?

A. for Aulus, as A. Gellius; Aulus G. but some Criticks write Agellius.

B. among the Schoole-men, is put for Beatus.

C. V. Celsitudo Vestra.

C. M. Caesarea Maiestas.

D. Diuus. Doctor, Dominus.

E. T. Excellentia Tua.

I C. Iureconsultus.

M. Marcus, and Magister.

N. Nomen ignotum, vel Nota.

P. C. Patres Conscripti.

P. L. Poeta Laureatus.

P. C. Poeta Coronatus, vel Palati­nus Comes.

R. Rabbi. R. T. D. Reuerenda Tua Dignitas.

S. Sanctus. S. P. D. Salutem plu­rimam dicit.

S C. Senatusconsultum.

V.C. Vrbs condita &c. vid. Lilium.

Is not a great decorum to bee obserued in the Poets, by the repetition of diuers letters, to expresse to the life the mat­ters themselues?

Yes. E. serues to expresse lamen­tation, and sorrow: as, Lachrymae peredere humore exangues genas.

F. To expresse blowing: as, Ter­ras turbine perflant.

I. To expresse thin, and peircing things. Accipiunt inimicum imbrem, nimis (que) fatiscunt.

L. To expresse lowe, and soft things.

M. To expresse great things: as, Dorsum immane mart summo: as also to expresse admiration. Deum im­mortalem! hominum! fidem!

N. hath a contrarie vse; it con­tracts. Frangitur in (que) sinus scindit se­se vnde reductos.

R. To expresse fury, and anger; and rough, and terrible things. Im­precor arma armis.

S. By this Virgil describes the noise of a tempest, Emissam (que) hye­mem sensit Neptunus, & imis stagnae refusa vadis.

T. To expresse slownesse: as, Nec nos obniti contra, nec tendere tantum.

V. To expresse obscure things: Tu plaeusu, fremitu (que) virum, studijs (que) fauentûm.

What wordes are to bee written with great letters?

1. Proper names, and such as are [Page 10] thence deriued, and the names of Arts.

2. Beginnings of Sentences in Prose and Verses in Poems.

3. Names of Offices, and Dig­nities.

Is it lawfull to mixe letters of ano­ther tongue with latine letters?

Yes somtimes, but very sparing­ly: as, Liber phrase [...]n, signum dioe­rése [...]s.

Of Syllables.

Can we say that ea, ei, and [...], are words of two and three syllables, when as they consist only of vowels simply, and seuerally pronounced?

Wee may for want of a better terme: but properly syllaba com­ming of [...] .i. concipere, signi­fieth a comprehension or vniting of diuers letters in pronuntiation with one tone, or spirit.

How many letters hath the largest syllable in the latine tongue?

Not aboue sixe: as stirps.

Of the distinction of Syllables.

What rules haue you for the distin­ction, or diuision of Syllables?

Diuers: first, in the diuision of a word, those letters are to be ioyned together, which may bee ioyned in the beginning of a word: as in Magnus Aruspex, the last syllables must bee gnus and spex, because gn and sp may bee found in the begin­nings of words, as gnatus, spectrum. Secondly, if a single consonant bee put in the midle betwixt two vow­els, it shall belong to the latter, as Pa-ter: if two consonants be gemi­nated, the first belongs to the first syllable, the latter to the latter, as An-nus. Thirdly, if the latter syl­lable begin with a vowell, the for­mer shall end in a vowell, as De-us.

Doth not the second rule sometimes faile?

Yes, in composition, as ab-utor, the former syllable ends in a conso­nant, the latter begins with a vowel; so abs-temius, of abs and temetum.

Of Pronuntiation.

Whence hath a tone its name?

From the Greeke word [...], to screw vp, or slacken the strings of an instrument of musick. As by the in­tention, or remission of the strings the sound is flat, or sharp: so accor­ding to the tone, or accent a syllable is shrilly, or depressedly pronoun­ced.

In a word, whose penultima syllaba is doubtfull, or common, where is the accent to be put?

In the antepenultima, as Célebris, Medíocris, Vólucris, Fúnebris, thus in Prose; but in Verse, the accent is according to the measure: as Pecu­des, pictae (que) volúcres.

Is the accent to be plac't in antepe­nultima in these words: Deinde, pro­inde, perinde, aliquando, siquando, nequando, hucvsque, &c. as Lilly would haue it?

No: for it is an vndoubted rule receiued amongst the best Gram­marians. Polysyllaba, quae habent pe­nultimam positione longam penultimam [Page 13] acuunt vt deinceps, duntáxat, probléma, extémplo: and herein Lilly thwarts his owne third generall rule of Tones: and hee is thwarted by Quint. Instit. l. 1. c. 5. where he saith, Duabus longis sequentibus primam acui noster sermo non patitur.

Haue propémodum, ádmodum, ni­hilóminus the acute accent in antepe­nultima, for this reason only, to distin­guish them from prope-modum, ad­modum, nihilo-minus, as Lilly beares vs in hand?

No: but the reason why they are so accented, is, because these by com­position being made one word, haue their penultima short by quantitie.

Lilly tells vs, that duntaxat, dein­ceps, deorsum, haue the accent in ante­penultima, to difference them from other words: Is that assertion true?

No: for wee reade no where dun taxat, dein ceps, de orsum, as distinct words, as per inde, pro inde.

How is amabo the aduerbe of flatte­ring to be pronounced?

Some pronounce it ámabo, to distin­guish it from the verb amato, but bet­ter [Page 14] authoritie teacheth vs to pro­nounce [...]mábo: as, Dic verum mihi Marce dic amabo. Mart. where ama­bo hath the penultima long by quan­titie.

How is Ti before another vowell to be pronounced?

Alwayes as in the word Oratio, where (t) doth liquescere, and is to be pronounced as z, as if it were writ­ten orazio, except first, in the begin­ning of a word, as tiara: secondly, if s come before it, as iustior: thirdly, in the poeticall infinitiues, as mittier: fourthly, in borrowed words, as Po­litía, pragmatía.

How are Greeke words, being made latine, to be pronounced?

According to their Quantitie, not according to the tone, or accent they had in their owne tongue: as, we are not to pronounce Nicódemus, but Ni­codémus; not Demónicus, but Demo­nícus; not Basílius, but Basilíus; not Caesárea, but Caesaréa; not Eúbulus, but Eubúlus: for the penultima of these is long by quantitie.

Of the Quantitie of Syllables.

Are we to write patrizo, as Lilly doth in the rule concerning words long by posi­tion, or patrisso.

I thinke we are rather to write pa­trisso for z is not a letter proper to the latine tongue and I find other verbes of imitation ending in sso, as Plato­nisso, Philonisso, Atticisso: nay, Lilly himselfe sai [...]h in his rules of the spe­cies of verbes. Imitatiua sunt &c. vt Patrisso &c.

Is that rule, vocalis breuis ante mu­tam sequente liquida communis red­ditur, to be vnderstood indifferently, and equally of all the foure liquids, l, m, n, r?

No: but of (l) and (r) very often, of (m) and (n) very seldome.

When of l and r?

In simple words, or such cōpounds whose mutes together with the li­quids pertaine to the same syllable: and this is very necessarie to bee ob­serued for these words; obrodo, obrepo, obligo, obrumpo &c. though they haue a short vowell before a mute, and a [Page 16] liquid, yet are they long, and are ne­uer found short, for as much as the li­quid and mute in any of them, being compound words, doe not concurre to the constitution of a syllable: for these words are to be diuided, thus: ob-rodo, ob-repo, as appeares by the rules of distinction of syllable before.

When of m and n?

In Greek words, as Cygnus, Progne, Atlas, or such as imitate greek words.

Giue some examples of l, r, put after liquids, making the precedent syllables common?

L is put after mutes in these words, Hybla, Agathocles, Abodlas, Ciniflo, Noegla, Locuples, Atlas.

R in these, Celebris, Volucris, Exe­dra, Africa, Denigno, Apri, Arbitror.

Why is the last syllable saue one in Caï, Vultei, Pompei, &c. long in Poets, whereas as one vowell comes before an­other?

Lillies Grammar doth not except these wordes from the generall rule vocalis ante alteram &c. but the reason of this production is, because a­mongst the Ancients they were writ­ten [Page 17] with (ji) and so were long by position, which manner of writing, though it bee not now in vse, yet the quantitie of the syllable still remains.

Doe onely innuba, pronuba, com­pounds deriued of nubo; dejero, pejero, the compounds of juro, by composition change their long quantitie to short?

No: diuers other words also, as Omnipotens, Sacrosanctus, apud Buchan. Bardocucullus, Mart. integer, ab in, & aeger: aeuiternus, ab aeuum, & aeternus, nihilum, à ne, & hilum: the second syl­lables of which are short in composi­tion, long out of composition: so si­quidem, —siquidem ieiuna remansit. O­uid. iubeo, à ius, & habeo; whose first syllables become short by composi­tion.

Is that generally true: in t desinentia breuia sunt?

No: such words are to be excepted which haue a consonant before t, as amant, est, refert, and such as are long by contraction, as, ‘Nomen abît, aut vnde redît maiore triumpho. Lucan.’

If all nounes ending in e haue e short [Page 18] by quantitie, except the ablat. of the fifth declension, how is it that wee finde e in fame long in Virg. a noune of the third declension, as,

Amissis (vt fama) apibus morbo (que) fame (que).

It is not so made by Caesura, because it is not a syllable produced after a foot full and compleat falling any of the kinds of Caesura in Grammar spe­cified, we must therefore say that an­ciently (fames) was of the fift declen­sion, but now vsed onely in the third, yet here retaines the same quantitie which it had in former times, when it was of the fift.

Is that true which Lilly hath: Pes vna cum compositis, vt praepes, bi­pes &c?

No: Praepes signifieth swift, not on foot, but in flying, it is not compoun­ded of prae, and pes, but deriued rather of praepeto, to hasten to with speed: it is commonly vsed in the Poets, as an epithite of the Eagle, which is conse­crated to Icue, Praepes adunca Iouis, Ouid. In Tully, praepes auis, is the bird that first sheweth himselfe to the Au­gur, [Page 19] whereby hee declares things to come: it may appeare by analogie very euidently, that praepes is no com­pound of pes: bipes makes bipedis, qua­drupes quadrupedis in the genit. case, but praepes praepetis, not praepedis.

Is that rule of Lilly true, Longae sunt omnes voces quartae inflexionis in us praeter nom. & voc. sing.

No: for the dat. and ablat. plurall in us, of all words of the fourth de­clension are short, as well as the nom. and voc. singular.

Of ETYMOLOGIE.

WHat is the meaning of that de­finition of Etymologie in Lilly. Etym. est ratio cognoscendi casuum dis­crimina?

The meaning of it is this: that in Etymologie is handled the differen­ces of terminations of Nounes, Pro­nounes, and Participles, by declining of Verbes by their coniugating from their first themes: as for example, the variations of Musa in the oblique Cases, are called Casuum discrimina: [Page 20] so likewise the differences of endings of doctus, whether it be varied by de­clining as doctus, a, um; or by compa­rison, as doctus, ior, issimus, are called casuum discrimina. Casus here is not to bee taken in so strict an acception as it is afterwards, where it is said, Ca­sus sunt sex, for it is attributed to a verbe also, for the variation of the verbe Amo in all Tenses, Persons, and Moodes, from its simple selfe are cal­led in this definition, Casuum discri­mina. But yet mee thinkes the defini­tion is too narrow, though wee doe stretch the words after this manner, and comprehendeth vnder it onely the declineable parts of speech, for though almost all aduerbs deriued from adjectiues be compared, and so bee varied in termination (yet they haue this nature as deriued rather then as aduerbs) and some few pre­positions, as supra, superior, &c. yet not any conjunction, or interjection admitteth of Casuum discrimina, and very hardly any aduerbe which is so primitiuely, and originally.

Of the parts of Speech. Of a Noune.

How are there eight parts of speech, since a Pronoune, and a Participle haue the same things which belong to a Noune, to wit, Number, Case, Gender, and De­clension?

A Pronoune, & a Participle agree, and communicate with a Noune in these, but yet they haue seuerall and peculiar differences by which they are distinguished, and constitute se­uerall parts of speech: a Pronoune is distinguished from a Noune by diffe­rence of Person, and from a Parti­ciple by Time, and signification.

Why doe you say that a Noune admits not difference of persons: when as Magi­ster in the nominatiue case is of the third person, in the vocatiue of the second per­son, according to that rule. The second person is spoken to, as, Tu, Thou, and of this person is euery vocatiue case?

A vocatiue case is said to be of the second person, not because it is so of its proper signification, but by reason of the pronoune, Tu, with which it [Page 22] doth agree in the same case by appo­sition.

This answere is giuen by some to make Lillies definition of a noune good, but in the definitions of Frischline, Melanch­thon, Scaliger, and Finkius, there is no want of difference of Person mentioned to difference it from other parts of speech.

'Tis true: The streame of best Grammarians run, that a noune hath Persons, but thus is distinguished from a Pronoune, which signifies a thing with difference of Person as well as a Noune: a Noune signifies first, a Thing; secondarily, a Person: a Pronoune, first a Person; seconda­rily, a Thing.

If all Aduerbs, Coniunctions, &c. be parts indeclinable, how comes it to passe that some of them are the Nominatiue Cases to their Verbes, and haue Adie­ctiues ioyned to them, agreeing with them in case, gender, & number, as in Martial: Dic mihi cras istud Posthume quan­do venit: and againe, Magnum semper inane soph [...]s: or thus, Et est coniun­ctio, Penes est praepositio. Vah est interjectio.

Cras, and Soph [...]s, and the other par­ticles before the verbe est, are not nounes, but as it were nounes inas­much as they supply the place of a nomin. case before the verbe, they are not properly nounes, but [...], artificially as Melanchthon speaketh: and in the same manner are verbes sometimes vsed.

Doe not the nounes, Hora, Dies, Mensis, Annus, signifie difference of Time, as well as a participle; doth not the Time of an Houre differ from the Time of a Day, and the space of a Moneth from the space of an Yeere? how is it then that Lilly saith, a noune doth not signifie difference of Time?

'Tis true indeed, that these nounes considered cōparatiuely among them selues, doe signifie Times which dif­fer among themselues, but conside­red absolutely, and each by it selfe, they doe barely signifie a space of Time, not consignifie Time besides its prime signification, as a participle [Page 24] doth; as amans doth not onely signi­fie the action (or rather passion) of louing, but consignifies the present time.

Are not some substantiues varied by three terminations.

Yes: we reade Syngraphus, Syngra­pha, Syngraphum: Intybus, Intyba, In­tybum: Vesper, & vesperus, ra, rum.

How doth that definition of a noune substantiue proper, hold: Quod vni soli conuenit; when as we reade many pro­per names in the plurall number?

The definition is true notwith­standing that exception: for a proper name in its owne nature is attributed but to one in the same species, but by accident to many. First, when the same name agrees to many men: as, Virgilij, Simones, Scipiones. Secondly, when a noune metaphorically noteth a propertie or similitude: as, Catones, for Wise-men. Thirdly, when the names of Nations, or Families, take vpon them the nature of appellatiues, as the Latini from Latinus, Fabij from Fabius, the Authors and Founders of that Nation, this Familie.

Of the Accidents of a Noune. Of Species.

When is a word said to be of the pri­mitiue species?

A word is said to be of the primi­tiue species, which is as the stemme, or roote, whence other wordes as branches doe sprout forth; or as the fountaine, whence other words as ri­volets doe issue and flow forth, which are therefore called deriuatiues, as the noune of the primitiue species is nauis, of the deriuatiue species, are, nauigo, nauicula.

Is species taken properly in Grammar, or metaphorically?

Metaphorically: species properly signifies an image, picture, or resem­blance of any thing: the reason of borrowing this word, is this: as the image which represents it selfe to the eye of the body by a direct ray, is the prime image; that which is re­presented by a reflected ray is a se­cond image begot of the first: so that word which represents it selfe to [Page 26] the Vnderstanding (which is the Eye of the Soule in its prime estate, is a word of the primitiue species, that which issues from the former of the deriuatiue.

What is a noune collectiue?

A noune which collecteth, gathe­reth, and vniteth a companie, or mul­titude, in the singular number: as, Exercitus, an Armie; Grex, A flocke of sheepe; Examen, A swarme of Bees.

If Quis bee sometimes a noune inter­rogatiue, sometimes a noune indefinite; how comes it to passe that Lillie claps it in amongst the pronounes afterwards, and subioynes to the rules of pronounes a catalogue of the compounds of Quis?

It seemes to bee placed out of due order; vnlesse peraduenture it visite the pronounes by reason of some see­ming affinitie it hath with Qui.

It is said in the English Rudiments, that Quid is alwayes a substantiue of the neuter gender, is that true?

No: Quid is not a substantiue, but is put sometimes substantiuely with a genitiue case: as, Quid noui?

Is not Quid sometimes vsed for Ma­gnum?

Yes: as,

So among the Greekes, [...] vsed for [...], as [...], Plat. in ap. Socr.

Why are Vnus, Duo, Tres, Qua­tuor, &c. the first kindes of numerall nounes of the primitiue species, called Car­dinalls?

Because the digit numbers are the first and chiefe numbers, vpon the which the rest doe depend, and turne as the doore vpon the hinges, which in latine are called cardines, the rest being but resumptions of them. So the foure great and chiefe windes, are called the Cardinall windes, and the chiefe, and mayne point in any busi­nesse, is called, Cardo causae.

Whence is a noune Patronymicke de­riued?

From the Greeke words, [...], a Father; and [...], a Name; which hath its name from the father. So it [Page 28] onely signifies, being strictly taken according to the Etymon. as Tydides, the sonne of Tydeus; Pelides, the sonne of Peleus; but yet it is vsed in a larger extent, to signifie many other relations by marriage, as Aeacides, the sonne, or nephew of Aeacus; Ne­rine, the daughter or neece of Nereus; Menelais, the wife of Menelaus.

Of Figure.

What doe Grammarians meane when they aske that question: Cuius est figu­rae est hoc nomen?

They aske whether it bee a simple noune, as parabilis, or a compound as reparabilis, or a decompound as irre­parabilis.

Doth not composition sometimes change gender?

Yes: for [...] is of the mascul. gen. but atomus the compound is of the femin. [...], is of the mascu. gender, but diphthongus is of the femin.

Are there not diuers words which are vsed by latine Authors, which are com­pounded of greeke and latine words, and latine and greeke words?

Yes: these are compounded of greeke, and latine words:

• Monoculus, for which some had rather say Vnoculus.
• Bigamus, for which some had rather say Digamus.
• Anthropo­uorus, for which some had rather say Anthropo­phagus.

Archigubernus, Protonotarius, Archi­dux, &c. These of latine, and greeke words:Of this ranke Cooper in his Dictionarie makes Homo­capnus, which hee englisheth most ridicu­lously, One that sitteth al­wayes in the smoake, or by the fire, as it were a com­pound of homo and [...]: wheras indeed it is wholly a greeke word, and signifies, One that en­ioyes the same fire, or smoake with another, an epithite gi­uen to a wife by Arist. l. 1. Polit. Prologus, and there­fore they make the first syllable long; Epitogium, Elogium, Grauitona, Semi­diameter, Bissyllabum, Imbuo, ab in, & [...], Induo, ab in, & [...], &c. vide Rod. Boclen. prob. Gram. l. 3. 29. p.

Of Number.

Is that rule true concerning all nounes; the singular number speaketh of one, the plurall of more then one?

No: some nounes are singular by position, or termination, but plurall in sense and vnderstanding, as Turba, concie, exercitus, &c. Againe, some nounes are plurall by position, and singular in sense: as, Athenae, lite­rae, &c.

Of Case.

Is it necessarie to make a seuenth or eighth Case?

No: the seuenth which Gramma­rians make by an ablatiue case with a preposition, is altogether superfluous, for no preposition enters into the es­sence of a case, so likewise is their eighth case, for it is the datiue put for the accusatiue, with the preposition ad: In coelum is not a good in­terpretation. as, It clamor coelo. i. ad coelum. Virg. Quaerere sibi adiumenta honoribus. i. ad honores consequendos. Cic.

Why is the Ablatiue called Latinus Casus?

Because it is proper to the Latines; the Greeks altogether want it.

How then is it that we finde in Tully lat. prepositions which gouerne onely an ablatiue case, construed with greeke nounes?

'Tis true, there is such syntaxe found in Tully, as 13. Ep. ad Att. Id ab [...] est remotissimum: and elsewhere. Pru­dentia cum [...]: where the words [...] and [...], though they be the [Page 31] datiue case, take vpon them the na­ture of the ablatiue.

Of Gender.

Doth not the feminine gender some­times imply the masculine, as well as the masculine the feminine?

Yes; hereof are diuers examples in Authors. Plaut. in Cistell. Scen. Nisi quid. Eam (rem) vult suae matri, & patri, &c. vbi (suae) innuit (suo)

Curtius is called Fama by Virg. in Culice.

Hic & Fama vetus nunquam moritu­ra per aeuum. Curtius.

Maiestas vestra, is the ordinarie title of a King.

Potestas, doth signifie Magistrates, and Iudges: Fenest. c. 26. De Procu­ratore Caesaris, caeteris (que) Romanis pote­statibus. Sueton. in Claud. Caes. Iuris­dictionem de fidei-commissis quotannis, & tantum in vrbe delegari magistratibus solitam in perpetuum, at (que) etiam per pro­uincias potestatibus demandauit. So Saint Paul Rom. 13.1. vseth [...], which Beza renders, pote­states supereminentes, to signifie Kings: [Page 32] so Nobilitaes, is in Lucan put for the Nobilitie, or Peeres of a Land. No­bilitas cum plebe perit.

Are all names of Males of the masc. gender, of Females of the feminine; and all nounes that signifie both sexes of both genders?

No: sometimes one and the same gender doth agree to both sexes, as is apparant in the names of birds, fishes, and other creatures, whose sexe is not set forth by seuerall wordes: as in Passer, Aquila, Ostreum. So Liberi, though it bee onely of the masculine gender, is put both for sonnes and daughters, and mancipium of the neut. gender, onely signifies a bond-man, or a bond-woman, a Hee, or a Shee captiue.

Is that a proper speech which is set downe in the English Rudiments: the masculine gender is declined with this article, Hic?

No: it is very harsh and insolent; no gender, being the accident of a noune, can bee said to bee declined; but euery noune which is declinable is declared to bee of the masculine gender, [Page 33] hauing the article Hic prefixed.

Why are articles vsed in Grammar?

Not to point out an indiuidium, or particular Thing, or Person, nor to distinguish sexe, for Grammar consi­ders not the natures of things, but the names onely, as Lilly himselfe confes­seth, but to difference one gender from another: an article doth not make a noune of such, or such a gen­der, but demonstrates it to be so: it is not the cause of the gender, but the signe.

Vpon Propria quae maribus.

Is that marginall note true, which the Poser of the Accidence hath in his mar­gent vpon the first generall rule touching proper names, viz. Cocytus, the name of a Fenne in hell, is of the fem. gender.

No: I finde it of the masc. gender in the most refined Authors:

Visendus ater flumine languido Cocy­tus. Hor. 2. Car.

Inamaenum forte sedebat Cocytum iuxta. Stat. 1. Theb.

Is that exception of Stockwood to the second generall rule of proper names, [Page 34] good, viz. that Epidaurus, the name of a Citie is of the masc. gender?

No: for I finde it of the fem. gen­der in Martial. Aereis imposta iugis, medicam (que) Epidaurum.

How are the proper noune, Opus, a Citie, and the appellatiue, Opus, a worke, distinguished?

By their genitiue cases: Opus, the noune proper maketh Opuntis: Opus, the appellatiue, Operis.

What is contayned in the first generall rule?

Thus much: These all are mascu­lines: the names of Gods, the names of Men, of Moneths, of Windes, of Floods.

Are none to be excepted?

Yes: Styx, and Lethe, which are ri­uers of hell, found in the Poets of the femin. gen. —Styx inde nouem circum­flua campo. Stat. —soporiferae bi­berem si pocula Lethes. Ouid. we need not excuse Lilly, by saying they are Fennes, not Riuers. So Albula of the fem. gen. as, Albula pota Deo, where we neede not force a Syncheris; the rule must be squared to the examples, [Page 35] not the examples to the rule.

What is contayned in the second gene­rall rule?

Thus much: the names of women, Earthly and Diuine, of Regions, Ci­ties, Iles, are feminine.

Are none to be excepted?

Yes: besides those which are ex­pressed, these, Londinum, Eboracum, Brundusium, Pergamon, are of the neut. gen. as Virg. Miramur Troiae cineres, & flebile victis Pergamon.

Of the generall rules of Appellatiues.

If suber, and siler be rightly placed in appellatiua arborum &c. how is it that wee finde them againe in the second exception of neuters, from the third spe­ciall rule?

I cannot excuse Lilly herein, it is a vaine exception, or Tautologie.

Of Epicens.

May not the rule, sunt etiam volu­crum &c. be spared?

Yes, as I conceiue: for first, it be­longs [Page 36] not to a Grammarian, but to a Philosopher, to consider the diffe­rence of sexes. Secondly, the genders of the names of birds, wilde beasts, and fishes, are to bee knowne by the rules following. Thirdly, if this rule shew the gender of those nounes in the same specified, how is that wee finde the genders of them set downe againe: of birds, as Halcyon, Bubo, Perdix, Phoenix, Nycticorax: of beasts, as Elephas, Linx: of fish, as Halec.

If all nounes appellatiue ending in um, be of the neuter gender, according to that rule, Omne quod exit in um. why doth Lilly say againe in the second exception from the first speciall rule, Et quot in on vel in um.

I thinke that part touching nounes ending in um, might be spared, and the rule better thus contracted.

Neutrum nomen in e, si gignit Is vt mare, rete.

Et quot in on, sea Barbiton. Et pela­gus, lacoethes,

Hippomanes, virus. Neutrum modo, mas modo vulgus.

What is the meaning of Inuariabile nomen?

Not only euery substantiue vndeclined, as the Poser of the Accidence speaks: but also all nomina [...], viz. all clauses which are the nominatiue case to the verbe, as in that clause, didicisse fideliter artes Emollit mores; didicisse fi­deliter artes must be conceiued to be of the neuter gender, as also all verbs of the infinitiue moode vsed substan­tiuely, whether they come before their verbe, or follow after; as, Velle suum cui (que) est. Pers. Videamus beate viuere vestrum quale sit. Cicer. Plaut. in Curc. sc. 1. Ita tuum conferto amare semper si sapis. Ne id quod ames, popu­lus si sciat, tibi sit probro. Idem in Bac­chid. sc. Iamdudum. Hic vereri per­didit i, e, verecundiam.

What doe you thinke of that which is annexed to the first speciall rule, Labes, labis. Pestes, pestis.

Pestes is here set downe by Lilly (or I know not who) as the nomin. case, which word is not found in a­ny pure Author, nor in any Lexi­con: and it seemes rather to bee an error of the Composer then a slip of the Printer, inasmuch as hee would [Page 38] haue pictis by analogie, the gen. case of pestes, as labis of labes; this hath passed in all editions that I haue seene without correction: the true nomin. case is pestis.

Doth Lilly speake properly, when hee saith, Scriba, Assecla, Lixa, &c. are the names of men?

No: for in proprietie of speech they are not the names of men, but of the offices, or imployments of men.

Is that generally true, Mascula grae­corum quot declinatio prima fun­dit, &c.

No: for as learned Ramus obserues in his Grammar, there be many words borrowed of the Greeks by the La­tines, which being of the masculine gender and first declension, of the Greeks are of the feminine gender in latine Authors; which I haue com­prized in this Distich:

Foeminei generis sunt haec Graecani­ca. Charta, Gausapa, Margarita, Ca­tarracta, & Catapulta.

Are funis, and sentis of the mascul. gender?

Ramus, and Stephanus say, they are [Page 39] of the Common of two: so also Tre­bell. in Prompt. Sentis com. g. teste Pho­ca. asprae sentes. Virg. Aeneid. 2. Funis tam masc. quam foem. teste Gellio lib. 13. citante vers. Lucret. Aurea de coelo demisit funis in arua.

Is rete alwayes of the neuter gender?

We reade both retis, and rete, rete is alwayes of the neuter gen. retis of the masc. Varro. this is a noune re­dundant: as also, Barbiton, for wee reade in Horace, Barbitus, of the fem. gender. Age dic Latinum Barbite car­men. Carm. l. 1. Ode 32.

Is Halcyonis of the doubtfull gender, as Lilly beares vs in hand?

No: in this word Lilly was foulely deceiued, and by this hath deceiued others. First, he was deceiued in that hee tooke for a word which did not encrease in the gen. case, where as it is in true the genitiue case of the no­minatiue, Halcyon, a King-fisher, so called, because shee buildeth her nest in the Sea, and there hatcheth her yong. Secondly, in that he saith it is of the doubtfull gender, where it is alwayes found with a femin. epithite. [Page 40] as Vir. Dilectae Thetidi Halcyones.

Secondly, hee deceiued others, a­mongst them the Construer of Lillies Rules, who swallowed downe this flie, putting Halcyonis for a King-fi­sher, and other ordinarie Schoole­masters following him, are deceiued also.

Is ficus for a disease, of the doubtfull gender?

No:Màrtial E­pigr. l. 1. Ep. 66. Martial who knew the gender of it better then Lilly, saith, it is of theSic quibus­dam è plebe Grammaticis videtur: ego autem in Thomae Farnabij viri [...] sententiam pe­dibus eo; cuius verba in Notis ad hac Epigram­ma operaepreti­um erit recense­re. Cum nihil hic de genere moueatur, neque apud probae notae autorem quem­piam reperiatur ficus pro morbo in alio, quam foemineo genere, vt & [...] Graeca exponunt è suos liberos fa­mulos, pueros delicatos. masc. gender.

What is the meaning of the second spe­ciall rule, Nomen crescentis &c.

The Poser of the Accidence, saith, this is the meaning: that euery noune substantiue cōmon, increasing sharpe, or long in the gen. case, that is, being lifted vp in pronouncing, or pronoun­ced long, is of the feminine gender.

If Lilly meane by syllaba acuta, a long syllable with an acute accent vpon it, then many of the words put in the rules of exception, are in vaine excepted, for many of them increase short?

'Tis very true: amongst the mascu­lines excepted, these encrease short, Sal, salis. Vir, viri. Mas, maris. Pes, pe­dis. Grex, gregis. Phryx, phrygis. A­mongst the doubtfull: Scrobs, scrobis. Grus, gruis. Amongst the Common of two: Dux, ducis. Bos, bouis. Sus, suis.

Why doth Lilly say, Glis gliris ha­bens genitiuo.

To distinguish it from Glis glissis, Potters clay, and Glis glitis, a Thistle, both which words are of the femi­nine gender.

Is not that rule, Mascula in er, or, & os, faultie?

Yes, and it may bee thus compen­diously amended: Mascula in er, or, & os, seu Crater, conditor, heros;

In Dens, quale bidens: Torens, ne­frens, oriens (que)

Adde gigas, elephas, adam [...], ga­ramas (que) tapes (que)

At (que) Lebes, magnes, hydrops, do­drans (que) meridi-

Es. Phoenix, bombyx, thorax, ver­vex (que) corax (que)

Sunt haec foeminea in n & or, Syren, soror, vxor.

Why doe you turne out of this rule, Cu­res: Quae componuntur ab asse vt do­drans, semis; & Mulier?

Cures is a de­fectiue, as Ga­bij and Locri.First: Cures is no noune appella­tiue, but a proper name of a towne of the Sabines; which is read onely in the plurall number. Tutio (que) seni, Cu­ribus (que) seueris. Virg. Secondly, Do­drans, and Semis, are no compounds of As; first, Dodrans is no compound, as appeares by its signification, for it doth not signifie, nine pounds, which it should if it were compounded of dodra and as, but nine ounces: as also by analogie; as of decem and as comes decussis, of centum and as, centussis; so by analogie of dodra and as, should result dodrassis, not dodrans: and here­in Lilly forgot what hee had written before in the first exception of the first speciall rule, that ab assenata were masculines, not encreasing in the ge­nitiue [Page 43] case. Secondly, semis is not found in any pure Writer as a simple word; it is not the nom. case of Se­missis, but semissis is it selfe the nom. case, compounded of semi and as, which semi is alwayes found in com­position, as Semianimis, semivivus, se­micircularis, semipedalis. Semibouem (que) virum, semivirum (que) bouem. Ouid. and is deriued of the greek word [...], which being turned into latine, in stead of the asper spiritus, doth prefixe s, as [...], super; [...], sylua. Thirdly, Mulier, though in moderne Poets it bee made to encrease long, yet in truth it doth increase short, and so the best Criticks pronounce it: that it increaseth short may bee thus con­firmed. First, it is found, the last word in many verses in Terence, which doe commonly end in an Iambicke foote. Secondly, it is found, in any place of Virgil or Ouids works in any oblique case, and it is more then probable, that a word of such common vse would not haue beene baulked by them, had not the three first syllables in the oblique cases made a tribra­chus, [Page 44] of which their verses are alto­gether vncapable. Thirdly, that Iam­bick Scazon in Martial, where (erum) makes an Iambus: for a Scazon neuer admits of a spondaeus in the second odde place, put all out of doubt. A­methystinas (que) mulierum vocat vestes.

Is perdix of the doubtfull gender?

It can scarce bee found in any Au­thor of the masculine gender, ordi­narily of the femin. as Ouid.

Garrula ramosa prospexit ab ilice perdix.

Mart. Et picta perdix.

Mant. Daedala perdix, &c.

How may that rule, Sunt commune parens, &c. be bettered?

Thus: Communis generis sunt haec infans adolescens,

Dux, illex, haeres, exlex, autor (que) pa­rens (que)

Latro, cliens, custos, bos, fur, sus, at (que) Sacerdos.

Why is Bifrons turned out?

Because, though it bee sometimes vsed substantiuely, yet indeed it is an adiectiue, an epithite of Ianus.

Saturnus (que) senex, Iuni (que) bifrontis imago. Virg.

Is autor vsed onely concerning Per­sons?

No: somtimes concerning Things, as, Multi ingenio sibi autore dignitatem pepererunt. Cic. Calor autor leuitatis. Cometa sideris autoris sui sequitur natu­ram. Scal.

Is Presbyter, which is called in Grā ­mar, Vox Ecclesiastica, a good word or no?

No: it hath beene vsed by modern writers, but is in truth a barbarous word: the true latine word is Presby­terus, borrowed of the greeke [...].

What feminines are excepted from the third speciall rule? Ordo, though it make Dinis, is of the masc. gen. because it is not an hyper­dissyllabon: and Macedo is of the masc. gen­der, because though it be an hyperdissyll. yet it makes donis, not dinis, in the genitiue case.

In Do, vel Go, Nomina hyperdisylla­ba gignunt.

Quae Dinis, at (que) Ginis sicut dulcedo, propago. To which these may more compleatly bee added:

Virgo, grando, fides, compes, teges, arbor, amazon,

Bacchar, hyems, mulier, syndon, gor­gon, seges, icon.

What doe you thinke of that rule, Grae­cula in as, &c. caspis, cassis, cuspis.

I thinke that therein Lilly was in part deceiued, for cassis and cuspis are originally latine words, not to bee found in any greeke Lexicographer.

Is euery word, signifying a thing with­out life, ending in a, of the neuter gen­der?

Yes, if it encrease short in the ge­nitiue case.

How is then that many Grammarians haue affirmed, that polenta, though it encrease not at all in the genitiue case, is of the neuter gender?

It is true, Alexander, Sulpitius, Ne­brissensis, Baptista Pius, and Calepine, affirme so; and Mantuan being de­ceiued by the Grammarians of his time, did vse it so, saying: Montibus artocreas, & pingue polenta comedi. But in Apuleius wee finde, polentae caseatae offula. In Varro, Obijciunt his polentam hordeaceam: the error arose first from the misse-construction of that verse in Ouids Metam. Dulce dedit testa, quod coxerat ante polenta: they coosi­ned with a comma after ante, put in by [Page 47] the non-intelligent Printer, thought polenta the accusatiue, which was the ablatiue, as if the Poet had meant, dedit dulce polenta: which if it bee searcht into will be found non-sense, for polenta signifieth dried barly, with which beere is brewed, but is not of it selfe any liquid thing which may bee drunke: the verse is thus to bee construed; Dedit dulce .i. dulcem po­tum, Shee gaue to Ceres sweet drinke, quod coxerat ante polenta, which before shee had boyled with dried barly. O­uid takes dulce here in the neuter gen­der substantiuely, as afterwards, li­quidum. Iuuenem (que) cum liquido mixta perfudit Diua polenta; Vide Raphae­lem Regium, Ouidij Interp. in 5. Metam. Ceres besprink­led the impudent boy which derided her, with the drie barly mingled with the liquor: so Niniuita.

If verber be read, Robinson contra­dicts Lilly, affirming, that onely verbe­ris, and verbere are read.

It is no maruell though they disa­gree, since in patching vp our Gram­mar they did not conferre their notes together.

Doth iter belong to the rule of neutrall [Page 48] words, excepted from the third speciall rule, since it is declined iter itineris, whereas those which encrease in the geni­tiue case, are to exceede the nom. onely in one syllable, and not in two?

The genitiue case Itineris is of an old word Itiner, which is growne out of vse, not of iter, which is succeeded in its roome.

Pecus pecoris seemes to bee of the fem. gender, as well as pecus pecudis, by that verse of Ouid. Hoc Pecus omne meum, multae stabulantur in antris. Multae, in this verse, doth not agree with pecora, but pecudes vnderstood.

What is the meaning of Onyx cum prole?

That onyx with the off-spring, or compound thereof, Sardonyx, is of the doubtfull gender.

Is it any where found in the feminine gender?

No where, alwayes in the masc.

Et crocino nares myrrhcus vngat o­nyx. Propert.

In dextra candidus ardet onyx, &c.

Are Augur and Aruspex vsed in the fem. gender, as well as in the masc.

I doe not thinke any example can be shewed, where they are vsed in the feminine gender: the Romanes had a Colledge of Augurs, but wee neuer reade of any woman admitted fellow there. Plautus would not vse Haru­spex for a Shee-diuiner, but Hara­spica.

Is princeps alwayes a substantiue of the common of two, as it is in Lilly?

I thinke that it is primarily a sub­stantiuely, yet vsed sometime in the roome and place of an adiectiue, as in that verse of Horace:

Principibus placuisse viris non vlti­ma laus est.

Of the first declension.

Doe all nounes of the first declension, ending in a, make the genitiue in ae?

No: for wee reade Paterfamilias, Materfamilias, Filius familias in the gen. euen in the best and purest Au­thors: and in the Ancients, vias, ter­ras: the genitiue of via, terra.

Why did they write so?

In imitation of the Greekes, a­mongst whom all substantiues ending [Page 50] in [...], and α with a vowell be­fore it forme the genitiue case by as.

It seemes that some latine words end in am, as well as Hebrew in the nom. case. I reade in Plautus; Ego patriam te rogo quae sit tua, where patriam seemes to be the nominatiue case: for if the sen­tence bee construed, the words must bee placed thus; Rogo te quae sit patriam tua?

The words cannot bee so placed: but here is an Antiptosis, the accusa­tiue put for the nominatiue, patriam for patria.

If all nounes of the first declension in as, make the vocatiue in a, how is it that we reade in Terence, Pythias in the vo­catiue case, Quid festinas, aut quem quaeris Pythias, in Eun. Act. 4. sc. 3.

In this there is an Atticisme: the Atticks in all declensions make the vocatiue like the nominatiue, and yet we finde regularly in the same Scene; Paululum si cessassem Pythia, domi non offendissem.

Are à Musa, à Magistro, ablatiue cases?

The vulgar Grāmarians confound [Page 51] Syntaxis with Etymologie, when in declining a noune that say in the ab­lat. ab hac Musa, ab hoc Magistro; this is construction, not declining: if they will say, the preposition is pre­fixed onely as a signe; I answere, that this signe is nor perpetuall; this appeares in Siquis, ecquis. Nequis, nun­quis: for none will say, à siquo, ab ec­quo, à nequo, à nunquo. Goclen. pro­blem. Gram. l. 1. p. 24.

Doth not anima sometimes make the datiue, and ablatiue cases plurall in abus, as well as Dea liber [...]a &c.

Yes, and sometimes in is also: for we reade in Cicero. Tullius Terentiae, & Pater Tulliolae duabus animis suis sa­lutem dicit.

Doe not words of the first declension make the datiue and ablatiue cases plu­rall, regularly in is?

Yes: but these which follow are to bee excepted, whereof some make is and abus, as nounes redundant; o­thers abus onely: which for the helpe of memorie I haue reduced into this distich:

Filia, nata, anima is faciunt, atque abus, at abus Tantùm, Ambae, at (que) duae, liberta, equa, sic dea, mula.

Of the second Declension.

How many terminations bee there of the second declension?

Eight: the examples of them I haue compiled in this Hexameter:

TemplVM, annVS, vIR, apER, Sa­tVR, OrphEVS, IliON, ArgOS.

Is there an imitation of the Attick dialect of the Greekes, which formes the vocatiue like to the nominatiue, in that verse of Ouid. Latmius Endymion non est tibi luna rubori, as Lilly supposeth.

I see no reason for that supposall, for Latmius Endymion is the nomina­tiue case to the verbe est, not the vo­catiue: the Poet according to the true originall copie, doth not direct his speech to Endymion, but to the Moone: the meaning is, that Diana was not ashamed to descend to the louing embracements of Endymion on the hill Latmus. Endymion was an Astronomer, and for the cleerer sight [Page 53] of the starres, did often goe to the top of that mountaine, which gaue hint to the fable.

What words bee those of the second declension, which make the vocatiue in e and in us?

These sixe: which to helpe the me­morie, I haue comprized in this verse:

Haec: vulgus, lucus, populus, fluuius, chorus, agnus.

Doe not Quercus, and Laurus, forme the vocatiue in e, or us, as well as these?

Yes; but not in the same respect: for they forme the vocatiue in e, as of the second declension: and in us, as of the fourth declension.

Doth vulgus make the vocatiue in e, and in us, as of the masc. gender.

No: it hath that double terminati­on in a double consideration: as it makes e in the voc. it is of the masc. gender, as us of the neuter: and here also may be noted, that the ending of the rest of the nounes in us in the vo­catiue case, is an Archaisme.

How doe greeke words in os, as Lo­gos, make the vocatiue?

As the latine words in us regular­ly.

What is the reason that Panthus, and Oedipus, make the vocatiue in u?

Because they come of greek words in [...], which make [...] in the vocatiue, which is rendred in latine by u.

Of the third Declension.

What nounes of the third declension make the accusatiue case in im onely?

These; which for memories sake may thus rime:

What nounes make the accusatiue both in im, and in em?

These:

If the genitiue case of the third declen­sion end in is, how comes it to passe that wee reade duri miles Vlyssi. Immitis Achilli?

Concerning Vlyssi, which Ʋirg. vseth in the genitine case, in the se­cond of his Aeneid. (and the same is to bee said also of Achilli) wee must [Page 55] obserue that it is of the third declen­sion of the contracts amongst the Greekes, whose nom. ending in [...], and genit. in [...], as Vlysseus, Vlysseos; the ancient Grammarians were wont to diuide [...] into two syllables, whose genitiue they made [...], diui­ded also, as Vlyssëus, Vlyssëi; and the vowels so diuided, they did againe contract into the diphthong [...], by Synecphonesis, as Vlysses, for Vlyssei: and afterward by Synaeresis they pro­nounced the diphthong by i, as Vlys­si for Vlyssei.

Doe any nounes of the third declension decrease in the genitiue case?

No: those that imagine that Iupi­ter makes Iouis in the genitiue case, are deceiued; and those that decline it so, may as well say. Nom. Phoebus. Gen. Apollinis, saith the Grammarian. Probus Institut. l. 2. Iupiter is a Syno­nymon of the ancient nominat. case: Iouis, which was declined Iouis in the genitiue case also, but now the nominatiue is out of vse, and Iupiter vsed in stead of it; but the other cases keepe their ancient forme.

Is that rule of Lilly generally true, that Adiectiues, except those which end in is, and en, and make e in the neuter gender, make the ablatiue both e and i?

No: for adiectiues ending in ns, doe not make the ablatiue promiscuously in e or i: in this we must be very ob­seruant of the vse of authors, we may say, me perlubente, me imprudente; but we may not say, me perlubenti, me im­prudenti: neither may we say gauden­ti, libenti, patienti, absenti illo factum est: for the ablatiue of the participle of the present tense, being ioyned with another word put absolutely, ends onely in e: yet wee may say in ano­ther kinde of construction, animo Gau­denti, patienti, laetanti faciam. Goclen. probl. gram. l. 1. pag. 16.

Is that rule of Lillie generally true. Comparatiua bifariam facient ablati­vum in e vel i?

No: the comparatiues of the foe­minine gender doe most commonly make the ablatiue in e, as laetiore fa­me, secundiore fortuna, vocis contentione maiore, grauitate acriore, commodiore valetudine, longiore via. Comparatiues [Page 57] of the neuter gender most commonly make the ablatiue in i, as a Marori, a Pari, a fortiori; ardentiori studio, Cic. vide Goclen. ibid.

Of the fourth Declension.

What words of the fourth declension make the datiue, and the ablatiue cases plural in ubus.

These comprehended in this distich for memory sake.

Of the fift Declension.

Is plebes, plebei to be vsed by any one that would write purely?

No: it was a word anciently vsed, but now is exolete: if plebs be a noune redundant, as Robinson saith, then ple­bes must be the other nominatiue case; not plebis, as he saith in his rules of He­teroclits: plebis is no where found but in the genitiue of plebs.

Vpon Quaegenus, &c.

What doe you thinke of that rule, Haec genus, ac partim flexum variantia, &c.

I thinke it might very well haue beene spared. Pergama seemes to be the plurall of Pergamon, found in Virg. rather then of Pergamus. Some say that supellectilia is the plural of supellex, but is scarce to be found in any pure author: it fell not within the verge of the reading of the composer of these rules, and therefore hee saith, ‘Quod nisi plurali careut &c.’

What are nounes aptote?

Not such as haue no cases, but such as doe not admit of difference of ter­minations in oblique cases, they are deriued of α, a priuatiue particle, and [...], cado.

Are cornu and genu such?

Yes.

Yet we reade that these haue other ter­minations, as cornuum, cornibus, ge­nuum, genibus.

The rule is to be vnderstood of these in the singular, not in the plurall number.

What part of speech is fas?

A noune adiectiue, vsed onely in the neuter gender; and of the same na­tue is nefas.

If Instar be a noune, as Robinson saith, how comes it to passe that in the syn­taxis of aduerbs we finde this rule, Instar aequiparationem, mensuram &c. signi­ficat, &c.

It is an euident contradiction, and no maruell, since our Grammer is a Cento made vp of the shreds of seue­rall men.

Is not the rule touching Triptots faultie?

Yes: first in that hee saith, frugis, and ditionis want their nominatiue cases, whereas fruges, and ditio are found in good authors, and are not scrupulously to be refused. Secondly, in that he saith opis, hath the plurall number compleate and perfect: it is true, opes is read in all cases in the plu­rall number, but it hath not any re­spect to opis, but is a fcminine plurall, wanting the singular number, and is to be referred to that rule, Haec sunt fae­minei generis, numerique secundi, &c. A­gaine [Page 60] the significations of opis: & opes, though they haue some kinred, yet they differ much; opis, helpe, opes, riches. If he will say that opis hath the plurall number, hee may as well say that delicium hath the plurall number also, for deliciae is euery where read: and that Tricae, apinae, plugae, hath the singular number, for trica, apina, pluga are found frequently in the singular number in different signification.

Doth omnis want the vocatiue case?

No: we read in the Poet, Dijque Deae (que) omnes. O all ye Gods and God­desses.

Haue no Pronounes the vocatiue case,

but onely noster, nostras, meus & tu?

Yes: Ipse hath the vocatiue case al­so; as in the Poet, ‘Ipse meas aether suscipe summe preces.’

How may Robinsons rule be men­ded?

Thus: Et Pronomina, praeter

Quinque notanda. Meus, tu, nostras, noster, & ipse.

What Nounes want the plurall num­ber?

All, or the most part that for bre­uitie sake are comprised in this di­stich.

1. Propria, 2. Virtutes, 3. Artes, 4. Pensa, 5. Ʋda, 6. Figura.

7. Morbi, 8. Herbae, 9. Ʋitia, 10. Aetates, 11. Frumenta, 12. Metella.

1. As Thomas, Richardus. 2. Pruden­tia, Iustitia. 3. Grammatica Logica. 4. Piper, Saccharum. 5. Aromatices. 6. Synecdoche, Metaphora. 7. Podagra, Cephalalgia. 8. Amaranthus, Ama­racus. 9. Desidia, Auaritia. 10. Iuuen­ta, Senecta. 11. triticum. 12. aurum ferrum.

Is not sanguis read in the plurall number?

Yes, in ecclesiasticall writers, but then the word is forced to expresse an Hebraisme, as, vir sanguinum.

Lilly saith that nemo is of the com­mon of two, Robinson that it is of the masculine gender; what doe you thinke of their variance?

Phocas, and other Grammarians side with Robinson, and they adde, that Homo also is of the masculine gender, [Page 62] of which nemo is a compound. Neither of these nounes are found with an ad­iectiue of the feminine gender: it is true that Terence hath in his Andria, Scio neminem peperisse hic: and Virg. nec vox hominem sonat, speaking of Venus: and Sulpicius in an Epistle to Cicero, (wherein hee comforts him for the death of his daughter Tullia) hath these words, Quae si iam diem suum non obijs­set paulo post tam ei moriendū fuit, quam homo nata erat: where nata doth not agree with homo, but Tullia vnder­stood; and the deriuatiue humanus is attributed to a woman in Horace, Hu­mano capite (to a womans head) cerui­cem pictor equinam Iungere si vellet, &c. as appeares by what followes, mulier formosa supernè; but hence cannot be any infallible conclusion drawne, that Homo is of the feminine gender; and so, neither by consequence that nemo is of that gender: in this let euery one follow what hee himselfe seeth best grounds for.

Is it true that Cassida, ae, is formed of Cassida, the accusatiue case of a Greek [Page 63] word Cassis cassidos; as Panthera of Panther, as Robinson would per­swade vs.

No: he, and his brother Lilly herein draw in the same line of error: cassis is primitiuely a latine word.

Is that true which Robinson hath in his rules of redundant nounes, that ador and ados are both read in the nomina­tiue case?

No: for ador is onely to be found, not ados; the rule may be corrected by putting odor for ador, odos for ados, for both these words are read in good authors.

Are puber and pubes of the same sig­nification, as Robinson tels vs?

No: pubes is properly a signe of ripenesse of age in men, at foureteene yeeres, in women at twelue, but puber signifies one that hath arriued at those yeeres.

May those luxuriant adiectiues which are deriued of Arma, iugum, neruus, &c. be vsed promiscuously?

No: for though they be found in old writers, yet many of them are re­iected [Page 64] by those which haue refined the Latine tongue: we must not vse iner­mus so frequently as inermis, nor subli­mus but sublimis, nor procliuus but pro­cliuis, not synceris but syncerus onely, not imbellus but imbellis.

Of Adiectiues and their Comparisons.

How many terminations be there of adiectiues in the positiue degree?

Nine: all adiectiues end as one of these adiectiues:

SoleRS, excelleNS, locuplES, sublimIS, & audAX.

BelligER, atque satVR, prefulgidVS, atque Rauenn AS.

and here wee may note by the way, that Rauennas, Arpinas are declined as Nostras.

Is vnus neuer vsed in the plurall number, except it be ioyned with a word which wanteth the singular num­ber.

Yes, among the Poets, who for verse sake often vse the plurall num­ber [Page 65] for the singular, as Ʋirg. satis vna superque vidimus excidia.

What adiectiues be there which may be encreased, or diminished in significa­tion, and yet are not compared in pure writers?

These; Ʋulgaris, vetulus, balbus, syluester, equester,

What adiectiues are not compared at all by a proper comparison?

1. Those that end in us, purum, as egregius. 2. Participials in dus, as co­lendus, which is vsed by some in the superlatiue, colendissimus: it were more pure to say, maxime, or admodum colendus. 3. Adiectiues in plex, as qua­druplex, except simplex, multiplex. 4. In imus, as maritimus. 5. In ivus, as fugitiuus: but yet we read festiuior, festiuissimus. 6. Deriuatiues in inus, as matutinus. 7. Compounds of fero and gero, as legifer, corniger.

Is that true that the comparatiue doth [Page 66] signifie the positiue with magis.

No: for the comparatiue doth magis significare. i. hath a larger sig­nification then the positiue, though it doth not significare positiuum cum magis, because the denominatiue doth not signifie the Noune from which it is deriued, but the Thing after another manner: so the compa­ratiue signifies a thing, not a noune.

Which adiectiues want the positiue de­gree?

Besides, deterior, potior, ac oeyor, those which are deriued of these pre­positions, comprehended in this verse: ‘Ante, infra, supra, extra, intra, vltra, post, prope, citra.’

Which adiectiues want the comparatiue degree, yet haue the superlatiue?

These: Inclytus, at (que) sacer, falsus, fidus, meritus (que)

Nuper, & inuiius, nouus, & iurisconsul­tus, &c.

Which adiectiues want the superlatiue, yet haue the comparatiue?

These: Longinguus, iuuenis, decliuis, & infinitus.

Atque senex, ingens, adolescens, at­que propinquus. &c.

What adiectiues ending in dus may be compared?

Such as are primitiuely adiectiues, as, Iucundus, ior, issimus: limpidus, ior, issimus: faecundus, ior, issimus: but nounes adiectiues participials may not be compared: it is true that some modern writers haue compared them according to Analogie; but yet there­in they haue swarued from the vse of the most pure authors; & this liberty they tooke to expresse the abundance of their ardent affection, respect and obseruance to their Patrons and Supe­riours; and therefore wee seldome or neuer finde them compared, except in the frontispices of Dedicatory Epi­stles. But Certissima loquendi magistra consuetudo, saith Quintilian: we may not say, reuerendissimo viro, but reue­rendo: not, Vir recolendissimae memo­riae, but colendae, recolendae: nor vene­randissimus, but cum primis, vel max­imè venerandus. Goclen. Prob. l. 1. p. 22.

How are verbals in bilis to be com­pared?

Not beyond the comparatiue. Wee read, formidabilis, formidabilior, but neuer, formidabilissimus, so amabi­lis, amabilior, but neuer amabilis­simus.

How can noune substantiues be compa­red, since they cannot receiue any increase of signification?

When a noune substantiue is com­pared, the substance is not respect­ed, but the qualitie: as paenior is as much as paeno vafrior, more crafty or vnfaithfull then a Carthaginian. Ne­ronior, as much as Nerone Saeuior, more bloudy and cruell then Nero: so oculissimus. i. dilectissimus; as deare to one as his eyes.

Of a Pronoune.

Whence hath a Pronoune its name?

Quòd pro nomine ponatur. From be­ing sometimes put in the roome and place of a noune, so Scaliger defines it, [Page 69] l. 6. de C. L. L. c. 27. Amongst the Lawyers ea, is put for mulier, and ipsa for filiafamilias: the Scholars of Py­thagoras being asked a reason of their Assertions, answered, [...]. Hee hath said it, that is, Pythagoras. Plaut. in Casina. sc. si sapitis. Ipsam pro hera dixit, Ego eo, quo me Ipsa misit: so wee in English say; the stoutest Hee. For the most couragious, or one that beares his head highest.

Can one, and the same pronoune bee called a primitiue, a demonstratiue, and a relatiue?

Yes: but not in one and the same respect, as for example: the pronoune Ille in respect of its originall is a pri­mitiue, because it is not deriued of a­ny other, in respect of its demonstra­tion, or pointing out of some Person, or Thing a demonstratiue, in respect of its relation, a relatiue, because it repeates, or rehearses some thing, or person, of which there was mention before made.

How comes it to passe that nostri, and vestri, are vsed in the genitiue case plu­rall, [Page 70] as well as nostrum, and vestrum.

Because nostri, and vestri, in the genitiue singular, signifie a multitude, therefore they are vsed promiscuous­ly with nostrum, and vestrum, in the plurall genitiue.

Wee finde in the English Rudiments. Quo, qua, quo, vel qui. Is Qui read in the ablatiue case in the neuter gen­der?

I thinke there can scarce any ex­ample bee found of that kinde: but, Qui is read in the ablatiue case of the masculine, and feminine gender. Qui­cum omnia communicem. Nemo erat, quicum essem lubentius, Cicer. And Virg. 2. Aeneid. Quicum partiri curas, id est, cum qua, speaking of a woman Acca, one of the associates of Ca­milla: this is, as I suppose, an Ar­chaisme, rather to bee obserued then imitated.

Is that true which Lilly hath; Mar­tialis, Pronomini Ipse vocatiuum tri­buere videtur, cum ait, vt Martis re­uocetur, &c. A te Iuno petat ceston, & ipsa Venus.

No: Hee was most grossely ouer­seene in the construing of these ver­ses: if ipsa bee vnderstood in the vo­catiue case, Martial will be made to write plaine non-sense: that the truth may appeare, and none may by cre­dulitie sucke in this error, I will sub­ioyne the whole Epigram with the translation thereof, it is to be found, Epig. l. 6. ep. 13.

Why is Cujas handled among the pronounes? is it because Cujus is there of which it seemes to be deriued?

No: Cuias is no deriuatiue pro­noune, but a primitiue noune gentile, and is referred to the fourth declen­sion of pronounes, because of the af­finitie of termination, and declinati­on with the pronounes, nostras, ve­stras.

How is that true which is in Lilly, that Ego, and Nos onely are of the first Person: Tu, and Vos of the second, whenas Ipse is also both of the first and second Person?

Ipse is not of the first person onely, or of the second person onely, as Ego and Tu are, but indifferently as well of the third person as of the first, or second; the meaning of Lilly is, that none of the pronounes, except Ego, and Tu, are onely of the first, and one­ly of the second person.

Why may not Egomet, Tute, Isthic, Illic, bee numbred among the demon­stratiues, as well as Idem among the re­latiues?

I see no reason to the contrarie, if it had pleased the Composer of the Accidence, so to haue ranked them; if composition excludes them, it ex­cludes Idem also.

Of a Verbe.

No sentence or proposition can bee a part of speech: how can a verbe then bee [Page 74] a part of speech since it is a sentence. All verbes of the first or second person, are sentences, as also all verbes of the third person, as often as a certaine person is vn­derstood; as pluit, ningit, grandinat, Deus scilicet, vel natura, vel aliquid simile?

Such propositions as these, the Lo­gicians call implicite, which are resol­ued into explicite propositions, by supplying the nominatiue case, and resoluing the verbe into a participle of the present tense with the verbe sum, thus, scribo, .i. ego sum scribens; pugnas, tu es pugnans; pluit, coelum est pluens, &c. an explicite proposition cannot bee a part of speech, but an implicite may, forasmuch as it can­not bee compleate without a supple­ment.

What is a verbe deponent?

Such a verbe, as amongst ancient Authors was a verbe Commune, and had both actiue and passiue significa­tion, but now amongst purer writers, deposuit hath laid off that nature, and signifies onely actiuely, hauing a pas­siue [Page 75] termination, as meditor, obliuiscor, aggredior, &c.

Is that true in the Accidence: such verbes as haue no persons are called im­personals?

No: Impersonals are not so called because they haue no persons (for they haue as wee see) very many of them, the voyce of the third person both actiue and passiue, but because they haue not any certaine significa­tion either of number, or person, vn­lesse some noune, or pronoune be ioy­ned to them in an oblique case, as o­portet me, seemes to be of the first per­son, and singular number. Oportet nos, of the first person plurall. Oportet te, of the second person singular. Opor­tet vos, of the second person plurall. So Lilly.

Are verbes Commune now in vse?

Very few: we shall scarce finde a­ny verbes in pure Writers, that signi­fie both actiuely, and passiuely: there were such amongst the Ancients, which in signification did answere the meane voyce of the Greekes, [Page 76] as Linacer is of opinion.

Doth the Indicatiue Moode shew a reason true or false, as the Accidence defines it?

No: for when I say, Amo, I loue: I make a simple affirmation by this word, not any confirmation of ought by reason.

Is not there a plaine contradiction in Lilly touching the potentiall Moode?

Yes: in his Etymologie, touching the moods of a verbe, hee hath these words: Potentialis ne (que) vllum aduer­bium adiunctum habet, ne (que) coniunctio­nem. In the Syntaxis, of an aduerbe these: Dum pro dummodo alias poten­tentiali, alias subiunctiuo nectitur. In the Syntaxis of a coniunction, these: Vt causalis, seu perfectiua coniunctio &c. nunc potentiali nunc subiunctiuo iungi­tur; an euident contradiction.

Is that true which is in the Acci­dence: the subiunctiue mood hath euer­more some coniunction ioyned with him, as, Cum amarem, When I loued?

No: in this speech there are two errors. First, the subiunctiue hath [Page 77] sometimes an aduerbe ioyned with him, as Lilly affirmes in his Syntaxis of Aduerbes. Vbi postquam &c. inter­dum indicatiuis, interdum subiunctiuis verbis apponuntur. Againe, Simulac &c. ind. & sub. adhaerent. Secondly, there is an errour in the example. For when Cum, signifieth When, it is not a coniunction, but an ad­uerbe of Time, so saith Lilly. Vbi, postquam, & cùm, temporis aduerbia &c. Cùm canerem reges &c. Virg.

To what purpose are the potentiall, and subiunctiue Moodes, since without these there is a perfect formation of verbs made?

If you respect the naked manner of forming, and difference of termi­nation, they doe not at all differ: but if you respect the signification (of which to the right interpretation of Authors, there is great consideration to be had) the vse of these Moodes is very necessarie.

If the Infinitiue Moode haue neither number nor person, nor nominatiue case before it, to what purpose, is that first [Page 78] exception from verbum personale, &c. placed in the first Concord, viz. Verba infiniti modi pro nominatiuo accusa­tiuum ante se statuunt?

I thinke that that exception is al­together superfluous; for how can a verbe which hath no person, nor number, make an exception from a verbe which hath both number, and person: it is in effect, as if Lilly had said; from this rule can none bee ex­cepted, but such as are not capable of exception.

Whence hath the word Tense its ori­ginall?

From the French word temps, which signifies Time, which is pro­nounced Tans, and so Tense.

The common and receiued diuision of Time is in praesens, praeteritum, futu­rum; how comes it to passe then that Grammar makes fiue Tenses or Times?

The Philosophers speake other­wise then the Grammarians: the Phi­losophers searching more narrowly into the truth, and nature of things, diuide all Time into that which is [Page 79] past, present, and to come, because if wee would speake precisely, all Time either is now, or hath beene, or shall bee hereafter: but the Gram­marians who doe not so strictly, and exactly weigh the natures of things, haue made for more facilitie in teach­ing, fiue Tenses of latine verbes, ac­cording to the proprietie of the lan­guage. The Greekes haue eight Ten­ses, not according to the truth of the matter, but according to the vse, and proprietie of their tongue.

What doe you thinke of this passage in Lilly? Futurum, quo res in futuro gerenda significatur. Hic promissivus modus à nonnullis vocatur.

It is very faultie. First, here is confusion of termes: for, modus is here put for tempus. Secondly, the particle Hic hath reference to futu­rum, and so there is a solaecisme, or at least a solaecophanes; it may bee thus corrected: Hoc tempus à nonnullis vocatur promissivum.

If Deleo, and Impleo, be compound verbes, whose simples are out of vse; [Page 80] how is it that wee finde in As in prae­senti, this: Leo, les, leui, inde (que) na­tum, Deleo deleui, pleo, ples, pleui?

Lilly did not well in concealing or omitting the abrogation, and exter­mination of these wordes out of the latine tongue; we may not vse these out of composition any more then specio, lacio, or cumbo.

Doth Edormisco signifie incohation, or beginning of action.

No: it is put for a verbe incohatiue by Lilly, but it doth not signifie to begin to sleepe, but to sleepe so long vntill the vapours arising from wine are dispersed: so in Terence, in Adelp. Edormiscam hoc villi: like to this verb are many others, which though they end in sco, yet doe not signifie begin­ning of action, or passion; which is euident, because the Orators, Poets, and Historians, set before some of them the verbs: Caepi, incipio, incepto; before others the aduerbs. Paulatim, quotidie, magis: as for example.

‘Caepit erudescere morbus. Virg. i.’ ‘Vali­dior fieri. Seruius.’

‘Aegrescit (que) medendo .i. inter medendum fit aegrius.’

‘Incipiunt agitata tumescere. Virg.’

‘Supercilia nonnunquam canescere inci­piunt. Columel.’

‘Cum incipit, oliua nigrescere. idem.’

‘Vbi conualescere caeperunt. idem.’

‘Cum maturescere frumenta inciperent. Caesar.’

‘Apud exteras gentes enitescere incepta­bat. Gell.’ with them same verbs are, hiscere, làctescere, grandescere, clarescere, iuuenescere, found.

‘Tua iustitia florescat quotidie magis. Cic.’

‘Quotidie mihi augescit (.i. augetur) ma­gis de filio aegritudo. Ter.’

‘Paulatim rubescens rosa delitescit, Plin.’ vide Goclen. Prob. l. 1. pag. 38. 39.

Is Dormito a frequentatiue verbe?

It is by termination, and deriua­tion, but not by signification: dormi­to signifies in latine what [...] doth in greeke, To take a nap, or to sleepe dogs sleepe; Dormito desiderium po­tius somni, aut leuiculum somnum, quam frequentem indicat, saith Peter Ramus, l. 16. Schol. Gram. and in that of Ho­race, [Page 82] Quando (que) bonus dormitat Home­rus: Quando (que), is a signe both of di­minution and frequency, and so takes away the signification of frequency from dormito.

Whence hath Coningation its name?

A coniugando: because in euery Conjugation after one, and the same manner of varying of finall termina­tions many verbes are ioyned, as it were vnder the same iugum, or yoake.

Haue all verbs of the first Coniuga­tion a long before re and ris?

No: for Do, and some of its com­pounds:To these may be also added, venundare, of venum & dare, as I suppose. as, Pessundo, circundo, make dăre. Circundăre, Pessundăre. Stock­wood, and the Poser of the Accidence, adde secundo, secundăre: but this is not a compound of Do. Secundo, sig­nifies to make prosperous, deriued of secundus, prosperous, fauourable, and hath a long.

If all verbs be of the first Coniugation, which haue a long before re and ris, then it seemes, doceare, docearis; au­diare, audiaris, be of the first Coniuga­tion?

The meaning of that is, not that all verbes that in any moode haue a long before re and ris, be of the first Coniugation, but such as haue a long before re in the infinitiue moode of the actiue forme, as amare, and before ris in the second person of the present Tense of the indicatiue moode of the passiue forme: as gratularis, are of the first Coniugation.

Why doe you say of the actiue, and pas­siue forme, and not of the actiue and pas­siue voyce?

Because there be many verbes neu­ter which are not actiue, and yet in coniugation follow the forme of the actiue verbes, and many verbes depo­nent, which though they be not pas­siue in signification, yet in cōiugation follow the forme of the passiue verbs.

Vpon As in Praesenti.

The verbe Lauo, which Lilly saith, is of the first Coniugation, makes lauĕre in the Infinit. the last syllable saue one short; and strideo, caveo, ferveo, ma­king fervere, stridere, cavere, are found [Page 84] with e short before re in the infinitiue of the second Coniugation?

'Tis true: but lauĕre is not of lauo, lavas, but of lauo lauis, which was of the third conjug. amongst the Anci­ents, and so vsed by Virgil in his Geor­gicks and Aeneids, and feruere, and stri­dere are found with e short, but thus conjugated, they are now growne out of vse; we are not to imitate the old Authors in these words.

Doth spondeo geminate the first syl­lable in the praeteritum, and make spo­spondi?

No: herein Lilly was deceiued, and deceiued the Poser of the Accidence, and the Construer of Lillies rules, who transcribe it so: in the refined copies of the most incorrupt Authors, spondeo is found to make the praeteritum spo­pondi, not spospondi. Pansa aut morte aut victo­ria se satisfactu­rum Re [...]p. spo­pondit Cic. Dependendum tibi est, quod mihi pro illo spo­pondisti. Idem.

Is crepo found of the third coniuga­tion, as Lilly affirmeth?

No: the pure Writers, who are to bee our Presidents, vse it in the first conjugation: Intestina tibi crepant. Plaut. Quis post vina grauem militiam, & pauperiem crepat. Hor.

Is quinisco found in any good au­thor?

No: the true verbe is conquinisco, which is a simple verbe, and so set downe by Nebrissensis, and Ramus, not a compound of con, and quinisco, as Lilly imagined, any more then condio, or consulo, &c.

Is nexo, nexis, nexui, read in the third coniugation, as Lilly tels vs?

No: it is onely read in the first con­iugation, nexo, nex as, nexare.

Is cambio campsi found in any pure author?

No: it is a barbarous word, not to be vsed by any that would write pure latine; it is onely found in the old Grammarian Priscian.

Doth Praecurro make Precucurri in the preterium?

No: it can scarce be so found in any good author.

Doth tracto alwaies in composition change the first vowell into e?

No: for we read retracto: vulnera cruda retractat. Ouid. Pedamenta re­tractare. Columel. So likewise Pertra­cto. [Page 86] Pertractare Philosophiam. Cic.

Doth habeo alwayes in composition change the first vowell into i, as Lilly saith?

No: for we read posthabeo: as, postha­beo famae pecuniam, in the Syntaxis.

Is exculpo a compound of ex and scalpo?

It seemes rather to be compounded of ex and sculpo: for the simple word sculpo is in vse, as Ouid. Arte Mira sculpsit ebur.

Is vulsum regularly formed of velli: according to that, Dat velli vulsum.

It seemes rather to be formed of the other preteritum of vello viz. vulsi.

How is that rule of Lilly to be vnder­stood, Verba in or admittunt ex poste­riore supino praeteritum.

It is to be vnderstood of such verbs whose actiues haue the latter supine, of the which the preterperfectense passiue may be formed.

What then shall wee say concerning verbes deponent, and commune, which end in or, and haue a preterperfect tense, which they cannot forme of a latter [Page 87] supine: since they haue no verbs actiue?

Lilly doth say nothing of this point. I am of opinion that verbs actiue are to be fained, of whose latter supine these verbs would regularly forme their preterperfect tense, if such actiues were in vse: as for example, suppose that there were such a verbe as laeto, laetas, laetaui, of the latter supine of this verbe laetatu, regularly shall be formed, laetatus sum, vel fui. So like­wise of the supine criminatu, of the fained verbe crimino, nas: wee may forme the preteritum, criminatus, sum.

What is she meaning of that verse in Grammer? Maereo sum maestus sed Phocae nomen habetur.

That the neutropassiue verbe moe­reo hath maestus sum for its preteritum; but the Grammarian Phocas did think maestus rather to be a noune: this verse might very well be spared.

Of Gerunds.

Whence hath a Gerund its name?

Quòd rei gerendae, & administrandae exprimat significationem. Because it ex­presseth the signification of a thing to be done, or executed. Some would haue the name to be giuen a gerenda duplici significatione, nempe actiua & passiua sub vna voce: but since there are so few Gerunds that signifie passiuely, and those which doe, almost all growne out of vse, I thinke that is not the reason of the name: in this, and many other tearmes of art we are left to diuine of the reasons of the imposi­tion of the names.

Is that generally true which wee finde in the English Rudiments. Gerunds haue both the actiue and passiue signification: as, amandi of louing, or being loued: a­mando, in louing, or in being loued: a­mandum, to loue, or to be loued?

No: the greatest part of Gerunds are vsed actiuely, very few passiuely; and in that kinde of vse, there seemes to be an Archaisme.

Of the Supines.

Doth the latter supine signifie pas­siuely onely, for the most part as is in the Accidence?

No: it is alwaies of a passiue signi­fication.

Of a Participle.

Since there are in truth but three tem­pora of Participles, praesens, praeteri­tum, futurum, is it proper to say, Tem­pora participiorum sunt quatuor, by subdiuiding the future into the participle in rus, of the actiue, and neutrall significa­tion; and the participle in dus, of the pas­siue signification?

I thinke no: Lilly might as well haue said, as I suppose, there be fiue tempora, forasmuch as the participles of the future tense of a verbe actiue, and a verbe neuter ending in rus, doe differ in time as much among them­selues, as a participle of the future tense of a verbe passiue doth from ei­ther [Page 88] of them: if the actiue and passiue signification do distinguish their times, hee might then haue said in his diuisi­on of Tenses, Tempora sunt sex, praesent, imperfectum & futurum duplex, actiuae, & passiuae vocis: nay, hee might haue said, Tempora sunt decem quinque acti­uae, quinque passiuae vocis: but of this let the iudicious passe sentence. I speake with submission.

If in that example of the Accidence, Legend is veteribus proficis, a partici­ple of the future in dus, haue the signifi­cation of a participle of the present tense: how is it that Lilly in his Syntaxis, saith that in a like example a Gerund is tur­ned into a noune adiectiue: as, Cur adeo delectaris criminibus inferendis?

Truth is but one, on which side truth weighs heauier, I leaue to Gram­marians to determine.

Doth a perfect verbe neuter forme onely two participles regularly, one of the present tense, and another of the fu­ture in rus?

Yes: for though we read vigilandus, carendus, participles in dus, and trium­phatus, [Page 89] regnatus: but some of these and the like may be ended in a man­ner irregular, vsed onely by the Poets, whom it is not safe in all things to imitate.

But it seemes that regularly there come of some neutrals three participles; as of gaudeo, gaudens, gauisus, gauisurus: of audeo, audens, ausus, ausurus: fido, fidens, fisus, fisurus, &c.

Those of which onely two partici­ples come, must be onely neutrals; such are not these: for these are neutro passiues, which since they differ from them in the manner of coniugation, no maruell if they differ from them in forming their participles.

Why are they called Neutro-pas­siues?

Because though they be neuters, yet they forme a Praeteritum, after che manner of verbs passiue.

How doe neutro-passiues, and passiue-neutrals differ?

Neutro-passiues, although they haue the preterperfect tense of pas­siues, yet they retaine the significa­tion [Page 92] of neuters; as, soleo, solitus sum, but passiue neutrals, though they end in o, yet they haue a passiue signification, and gouern the same case that passiues doe, as vagulo, exulo.

But it seemes there be some participles of the passiue voyce, which come of verbs neuter; for wee read, excursus, aratus, laboratus excurrendus arandus, labo­randus.

These are formed of impersonall neuters, which are onely found in the third person of the passiue voice, but when Grammer saith, that onely two participles are formed of neuters, it meanes personall neuters of the actiue forme.

Are not verbs and participles of the actiue signification sometimes vsed pas­siuely, & contrà?

Yes; as for example, Voluens pro volutus, as Turneb. 30. Aduersar. 19. saith: Certè hinc Romanos olim voluen­tibus annis. Ʋirg. 1. Aen. Sparsus pro spargens. Priùs haustus sparsus aqua­rum ore fore. Virg. 4. Geor. So Cèrda▪ Velata pro velans. Senec. in Herc. At. [Page 93] Aet. sc. Flete. Ades (que) sequi iussa sagit­tas Totum pennis velata diem. Plaut. in M [...]l. Glorios. sc. satin'. Irae leniunt. i. leniuntur. Virg. 2. Aeneid. Insinuat pro insinuatur, as Seruius conceiues. Tum vero tremefacta nouis per pectora cunctis Insinuat pauor. idem. vertere pro versa sunt. Et totae in solidam glaciem vertere lacunae. vide Robig. Dict. Critic. l. 11. c. 7.

Of Aduerbs.

Are not minus and male aduerbs of denying?

Yes, though they bee omitted by Lilly: Minus pro non in Varro. Non mirum si caecutis minus, aurum enim non perstringit oculos. Si minus intelligitur, if men vnderstand not. Cic. So male. Petron. Quas struxit opes male susti­net. Malè sanus, not well in his wit. Male sobrius, not sober.

Doe not two negatiue aduerbs denie more strongly sometimes in latine, as well as in greeke?

Yes: So, Virg. 2. Georg.

Et Aeneid. 6. Ne pueri, ne tanta animis assuescite bella. Tull. 7. Epist. 1. Haec tibi ridicula videntur, non n. ades quae si vi­deres, lacrymas non teneres, non.

Doe not particles of denying some­times imply an affirmation, & contrà?

Yes: as for example, Virg. 2. Geor. Et pro neque. Nec scabie, & falsa laedit rubigine ferrum. Et pro Sed. Cic. Muto­rum causas non grauate & gratuito de­fendere. So Senec. Oratio ostendit illum non esse syncerum, & habere aliquid ficti. Aut. pro nec. Vir. 4. Aen. Sed nullis ille mouetur fletibus, aut vocos vllus tracta­bilis audit. Neque pro &, Ʋirg. 5. Ecl. Nulla neque amnem Libauit quadrupes nec graminis attigit herbam. Iuuenal. Sat. 5. Omnia Graecè. Cum sit tur­pe magis nostris nescire latinè: where in nescire the verbe sciuut is to be vn­derstood, which belongs to omnia Graece before. Mart. 5. Ep. 53. Exprimere Aue Latinum, [...] non [Page 95] potes Graecum: where in non potes, po­tes, which belongs to the former com­ma is to be vnderstood: so Tac. Ann. 13 Deesse nobis terra in quae viuimus, in qua moriamur non potest. Idem. Ann 12. A­grippina filio dare imperium, tolerare im­peritantem nequibat: out of nequibat, quibat is to be supplied. Robig. Dict. Crit. l. 12. c. 12.

Lilly makes sit ita, sit sane aduerbs of granting, id est, hoc est, quasi dicas, ad­uerbs of explaning: are they aduerbs in truth?

No: euery aduerbe is a simple sin­gle word, these are sentences, they be­long to the Syntaxis, not Etymologie.

Of Coniunctions.

Is not it a contradiction in adiecto, to say, a coniunction disiunctiue?

No: for a coniunction disiunctiue conioynes the words, by disioyning the matter.

Doth Lilly speake logically, when he saith sunt dictiones que nunc aduerbia, nunc coniunctiones, nunc praepositio­nes esse inueniuntur vt cum.

No: for there is no other word of that nature, except Come. He here­in speaks like that Grammarian, who made this rule in ol, masc. Suut. vt Sol. whereas it should haue run thus, in ol vnicum masculinum est, vt Sol.

Is que alwayes an Encliticke?

No: wee finde it sometimes put be­fore the word it couples, as that Epi­taph of Tibullus.

And in Ʋirg. Ipse ego cana legam tene­ra lanugine mala. Castaneas, que nuces. i. Castaneas & nuces. Castaneae, and nuces are distinguished, as saith Plinie, l. 15. c. 28. and so they are here too, as Scal. thinke. de C. LL. l. 12. c. 177. Ouid. l. 2. de Arte, alluding to this verse, makes a distinction betwixt them:

Of a Preposition.

Did Lilly doe well to handle the re­gimen of Prepositions in Etymologie.

No: herein he confounds Etymolo­gie and Syntaxis.

Of an Interiection.

Why is an Interiection so called?

Quod interijciatur: because it is cast in as a sodaine eiaculation, expressing in an abrupt fashion, some passion of the minde.

Of SYNTAXIS.

WHence hath Syntaxis its name?

From the Greeke word [...], con, and [...] ordinatio: because there­in is set out the fit and regular coordi­nation, and structure of simple words in clauses and sentences.

Of the first Concord.

What doe you thinke of the second ex­ception from verbum personale, viz. Im­personalia praecedentem, &c.

I thinke it might be spared as well as the first: either this place is im­proper to treate of impersonals, or else there is a tautologie in repeating the same rule afterward; nay, to speak truth, this exception is absurd: it is in effect thus much; all verbes personall agree with their nom. cases in number and person, except verbes impersonall, which are altogether vncapable of a nominatiue case before them, which is plaine non-sence.

Are not nounes which are not colle­ctiues sometimes construed as if they were such?

Yes: as for example; Plaut. in Bac­chid. Scen. Meamne. Et ego (Chrysalus) te, & illum mactamus infortunio: the Pronoune ego here is comprehensiue, as if Chrysalus being one, did oppose himselfe against two, and that hee [Page 99] might match them, he speaks of him­selfe as of two. Scal. de Caus. L. L. l. 6. c. 30. Ʋirg. 9. Aeneid. Ʋos o Calliope precor aspic [...]e canenti. Alcmena in Plaut. Amph. Sc. Satin. speaking to Amphitruo alone saith: Quis igitur nisi vos. The person of a King re­presents many: thence that forme, Nos Iacobus Dei gratia, &c. man­damus.

Is not sometimes the number of the verbs varied in the same comma, though referred to the same thing?

Yes: so we read in Tully, ad Att. l. 1. Ep. 2. Nunc fac vt sciam quo die te vi­suri sumus.

Of the second Concord.

May not an adiectiue put after two substantiues of diuers genders, or numbers sometimes agree with the latter, as well as with the former?

Yes: the adiectiue may sometimes indifferently accord with either of the substantiues; for we finde in Tully, Non omnis error stultitia est dicenda: and [Page 100] in Liuy, Gens vniuersa veneti appellati.

Is not an adiectiue sometimes put alone (as it were a substantiue) whose substantiue is to be vnderstood and sup­plied?

Yes: and that very elegantly: so we reade, tribuo tibi primas .i. primas partes. Amplecti ambabus .i. ambabus manibus: Aspergere frigida .i. frigida aqua: it is an immitation of the Greekes, who say [...] .i. [...] ad rectam .i. lineam, [...], ab vna .i. voce.

What if two adiectiues concur together in the same sentence?

Then one of them putteth on the nature of a substantiue: Crudelem me­dicum intemperans aeger faeit: here aeger is taken substantiuely.

If that the adiectiue is to agree with the substantiue in case, gender, and number, what thinke you of these exam­ples which seeme to ouerthrow that rule, est quod speremus Deos bonis benefa­cturum. Aruspices dixerunt omnia ex sententia processurum. Non putaui haec eam facturum?

Peter Ramus in his Grammaticall Scholia's saith, that in these, and in such like examples, those wordes which seeme to be Participles, are in­deed verbs of the infinitiue moode and future tense of the actiue forme, hauing esse vnderstood: in cuius sen­tentiam pedibus eo.

Is that true latine in Plautus, where he calls Venus, Deum indignam? In Paen. in Scen. Dij illum.

Yes: the Heathen did thinke all their gods were both Male and Fe­male, according to that of Orpheus.

So Venus, and other goddesses haue the title Deus giuen to them: so Virg. l. 2. Aeneid. Descendo, ac ducente Deo flammam inter, & hostes Expedior. Ma­crob. Sat. 3. c. 7. saith, it is so to bee read. Idem Aeneid. 2. Pollentem (que) Deum Venerem. Seruius and Acte­rianus doe approue of that reading. Heu fortuna quis est crudelior in nos Te Deus. Hor. 2. Ser. 8. Lucret. l. 2. [Page 102] Terram Deum matrem appellat. Sequi­tur superbos vltor à tergo Deus .i. Ne­mesis. Senec. Virg. Aeneid. 7. Alecto Deus appellatur. Nec dextrae erranti Deus abfuit. In like manner Iustinian for his effeminatenesse was called Vxorius: and Liuia for her wisedome was stiled, Stolatus Vlysses. Suet. vide Robig. Lex. Crit. l. 4. c. 17.

Are not two or three adiectiues some­times ioyned to one substantiue?

Yes: as for example. Crispisulcans igneum fulmen. Cic. Ob egregiam in­signem fidem. Idem. Ad domesticae exi­miae eius fiduciae acta veniamus. Val. Max. Sanctissimus genealis torus. Idem. Pulcherrima praepes Laeua volauit auis. Ennius apud Cic. de Diuin.

Are not somtimes two adiectiues cou­pled together, vsed for one?

Yes: as for example. Sarta-tecta praecepta. Plaut. Purus-putus asinus. Varro apud Nonium. Novum-vetus vinum bibo. Varro. Nouo-veteri mor­bo medeor. Idem. So, Deus optimus-maximus. Graio-Graeci. Ennius apud Festum. Ruta-caesa. apud Ies.

Of the third Concord.

If the Relatiue agree with the Ante­cedent, in Gender, Number, and Per­son; how is it that we finde in Terence. Vbi est ille scelus, qui me perdidit? Qui the Relatiue is of the mascul. gen­der, and scelus the Antecedent of the neuter?

Scelus is here put for scelestus, as elsewhere Senium for Senex by a Me­tonymie of the adjunct; so the sense is made good: or qui by the figure Hyponaea hath reference to scelestus, to bee vnderstood in scelus by the iudi­cious Readers.

In that example; Est locus in car­cere, quod Tullianum appellatur, and the like; as, Bene audiri, qui est recte factorū fructus omnes ferre volumus: and; Hodie, quae est altera dies Pen­tecostes, venit ad me nuntius, where the Relatiue put betweene two Substan­tiues, agrees with the latter, is the con­struction proper to the Latines?

No: it is an imitation of the greeks, [Page 104] who haue the same construction. So Isocrates, [...]: and thus Tully. Ne ap­pellaueris consilium, quae vis, ac necessitas appellanda est.

What doe you thinke of that example: Nostros vidisti flentis ocellos?

In it there is a solaecisme, or at least a solaecophanes, the Poet should haue said regularly, if his verse would haue suffered him, either nostros flentium, or meos flentis, to make vp the constru­ction: we must vnderstand in nostros, meos, in meos mei. vide Goclen. Prob. Gram. l. 3. p. 131.

Is Imperium, & dignitas quae pe­tijsti; a fit example of that rule in the English Syntaxis: many Antecedents singular hauing a coniunction copulatiue betweene them, will haue a relatiue plu­rall, which relatiue shall agree with the Antecedent of the most worthy Gender?

No: for here the relatiue agrees with the antecedent of the most vn­worthy gender, viz. the Neuter. A­gaine, if this bee a true example, that exception subjoyned of Things with­out [Page 105] life is superfluous, for it is an ex­ception to it selfe; for to speake truth, to that rule doth this example apper­taine Imperium, and Dignitas being things without life: of that rule ma­ny Antecedents, &c. this or the like example should haue beene giuen. Rex, & Regina, quos tu beatos praedicas, sunt mortales.

Is that example; Felix quem fa­ciunt aliena pericula cautum, properly rendred in English?

No: it should not haue beene ren­dred; Happy is he &c. to beware: for cautum is not here the first supine of caueo, neither can be (for it is not put after a verbe, signifying mouing to a place, but an adjectiue) the verse should therefore haue beene thus translated: Happy is hee whom others harmes make wary.

Of the construction of Noune Substantiues.

Doth not a Substantiue sometimes gouerne two genitiue cases, or more?

Yes: wee reade in Cicero. Iamne sentis bellua, quae sit hominum querela frontis tuae? where querela gouernes hominum, and frontis. Sed quae naturae principia sint societatis humanae repeten­dum altiùs videtur. idem. Procreatio Dei rerum humanarum. Aristotelis Philosophorum Principis arcanorum na­turae theoremata.

Are not two substantiues sometimes linked together by a line, which the Grā ­marians call Hyphen, vsed for one?

Yes: such wordes are found a­mongst the Lawyers; as, Placitum-consensum. Vlpian. Munus-donum. Modest. Actio-petitio. Callistrat. Lo­catio-conductio. Labeo. Obiurgat [...]-censor. Macrob.

Is not a noune in it selfe a compound, and so one, sometimes diuided in respect of construction?

Yes: as in this example. Ne (que) ille magis iurisconsultus quam iustitiae fuit. The word Iurisconsultus is one in it selfe, but to be diuided in the rection of iustitiae.

Are not adiectiues of the masculine [Page 107] or feminine gender vsed sometimes sub­stantiuely, as well as adiectiues of the neu­ter gender?

Yes: 1. Malc. as, die natalis sui. Marc. Humanus pro Homo. Cic. ad Att. l. 3. ep. 21. Ego autem tibi affir­mo (possum falli vt humanus) à me non habere. Phaethon, the epithite of the Sunne vsed substantiuely in Aenei. 5. saith Cerdo. Auroram Phaethontis equi iam luce vehebant, in Aeneid. 1. Im­perium Dido Tyria regit vrbe profecta Germanum (.i. fratrem) fugiens.

2. Foem. Virg. 1. Aeneid. Implen­tur veteris Bacchi, pinguis (que) ferinae .i. carnis ferinae, Senec. 1. de Benef. 5. Im­perator aliquem torquibus, muroli, & ci­uica donat .i. corona. & Plin. l. 8. Ni­grae lanarum nullum colorem bibunt.

3. Neutr. as, Strata viarum. A­mara curarum. Singula capitum. Pro­funda camporum. Praerupta collium. Montium ardua, opaca locorum, &c.

Are not sometimes substantiues put in the place of adiectiues?

Yes: so, Nihil pro Nullo apud Ʋl­pianum. & Virg. Aeneid. 1.

Regales inter mensas, laticemque Lyaeum .i. Bacchicum.

Doe not some substantiues verball go­uerne the same case that their verbs doe, of which they are deriued?

Yes: as for example; wee reade exul à patria, as well as exultat à pa­tria; Discessus ab vrbe, as well as di­scedere ab vrbe, We reade obtemperare legibus, and instituta est obtemperatio scriptis legibus: in Tully we reade in e­uery classicall Author, Capite dimi­nui, praefici praetorio, and Iulius Scaliger hath; Capite diminutio. Suetonius, Praefectus praetorio. Wee reade domum eo, redeo, and domum itio, reditio, in Cae­sar. Faueo authoritati &, fautor autho­ritati. Nascor à muliere, &, natiuitas à muliere: Vide Rod. Go­clen. obseru. Linguae Lat. p. 126. erudior à magistro; &, ab optimo magistro optima inuentutis eru­ditio.

What substantiues gouerne an abla­tiue case with the preposition Cum?

Such as signifie societie, conjun­ction, and friendship, as, Amicitia, familiaritas, consuetudo cum aliquo. [Page 109] Ciceroni cum Attico magna intercessit familiaritas.

Is not Opus read construed with an ablatiue case of the participle of the preter tense?

Yes, and that very elegantly: as for example, Priusquam incipias con­sulto, & vbi consuleris mature facto opus est, Salust. Opus est maturato, Liuie. Quod parato opus est para, Te­rence. Opus est viso, & cauto, Plau­tus.

Of the construction of Adiectiues.

May an adiectiue in the neuter gen­der put substantiuely, gouerne any other adiectiue also, put substantiuely in the genitiue case?

No: no adjectiue put as a sub­stantiue, can gouerne another adje­ctiue which is declined with three articles, but onely such a one as is varied by three terminations, there­fore we may say: Aliquid mali, ali­quid absurdi, honesti, boni, we cannot [Page 110] say, aliquid vtilis, aliquid impossibilis &c. neither can we say, Nihil talis for Nihil tale.

Doth Lilly speake properly, when hee expresseth certaine nounes of num­ber by certa numeralia?

No; he speakes barbarously: for certus is neuer put for quidam in any good and classicall Writer.

What doe you thinke of that rule, Comparatiua & superlatiua accepta partitiuè genitivum, vnde & genus sortiuntur, exigunt?

This rule is good: It had beene well Lilly would haue furnished vs with some examples of it; in these which follow, his defect shall bee supplied. Ignis omnium elementorum est efficacissimum, & violentissimum. Supremus, extremus (que) omnium affe­ctuum in foemina est zelotypia. Finis causarum omnium nobilissima est. Mors vltimum, summum, grauissi­mum, & acerbissimum omnium terri­bilium.

In these speeches, Magnam partem consulatus tui abfui. Cic. Illud tibi [Page 111] assentior. Idem. Menedemi vicem miseret. Ter. Solicitus vicem Impe­ratoris. Liu. Maestus suam vicem. Curt. Caetera bonus. Cic. Why are partem, Illud vicem, caetera, the ac­cusatiue case, and by what rule of Lilly?

Lilly hath no rule to shewe the reason of this construction: it is in truth a greeke Atticisme: for the greekes put the accusatiue case after verbes, and adiectiues after that manner: sic, [...], vi­cem alicuius irasci, [...], perdidisti nos quantum in te est. [...], omnibus sapiens.

When is an adiectiue construed with an accusatiue case, with a preposi­tion?

When Aptitude, propensitie, re­spect, object, or finall cause is signi­fied, as,

‘Cal­cei habiles ad pedes. Cic.’ Aptus natus ad singularem dicendi faculta­tem.

Is that example of adiectiua quae ad copiam, viz. at fessae referunt multa se nocte minores Crura thy­mo plena.

No: the Composer of the English Rudiments, and Lilly vnderstood not (as it seemes) Virgils Syntaxis, and therefore corrected the originall su­specting it to bee faultie: and the Construer of the Syntaxis so tran­scribes it, and translates it. But Virgil wrote not plena, but plenae: the verse is thus to be construed: the lesser Bees doe returne home wearie late at night (plenae crura .i. haben­tes crura plena thyme) Hauing their shankes full of thyme; in which there is a Synechdoche, or figure, of­ten vsed by that excellent Poet, asEcl. 1. Sepes Byb [...]aeis apibus florem depasta salicti .i. habens florem depastū. So likewise: Os humeros (que) Deo similis. idē. So, Faciem mu­tatus & ora .i. habens faciem mutatam; or it maybe there is an imitation of the Greekes who in such speeches make an ellipsis of [...].

Doe not adiectiues of comparing or exceeding, gouerne an ablatiue case of the word, which signifies the measure of exceeding, as well as verbes?

Yes: for wee may as well say, Cicero praestantior est omnibus oratori­bus multis gradibus, as, Cicero praestat omnes oratores multis gradibus.

May not an adiectiue of the po­sitiue degree with magis, or minus, haue an ablutiue case after it, as well as one of the comparatiue?

Yes: so Terence in Eunucho. Hoc nemo fuit minus ineptus, nec magis se­uerus quisquam .i. quam hic. & Virg. O luce magis dilecta sorori .i. quam lux.

Of the construction of Pronounes.

Is not Meus, and Noster, some­times vsed passiuely?

Yes: Plaut. in Pen. sc. Negotij Ecce odium meum.

Quid me vis? pro, odium mei; twice in the same Scene. [Page 114] Cicero pro Rosc. Amer. Haec conficta arbitror à poetis esse vt effictos mores nostros in alienos personis, expressam (que) imaginam nostram (.i. nostri) vitae quotidianae videremus.

Ne (que) minus est spartiates Agefilaus ille prohibendus, qui neque pictam ne (que) fictam imaginem suam (.i. sui) passus est. Idem.

Et digna speculo fiat imaego tua .i. tui. Mart. This is to bee obserued, not imitated.

Are not proper and appellatiue nounes sometimes put in stead of pronounes?

Yes: Plautus in Paenul. scen, satis spectatum. puts syncerastum pro me, and Tuus amicus, for, Ego.

Milph. Heus synceraste. Sync. Syn­cerastum qui vocat?

Mi. Tuus amicus.

Is not Noster sometimes put for Meus & contrà?

Yes: as for example. Nostrum consilium iure laudandum est quod meos ciues seruis armatis obijci nolue­rim. Cicer. where nostrum is put for meum. —Strati (que) per herbam.

Hic meus est dixere dies. Senec. in Suasor. 2. where Meus is put for Noster.

Are not relatiue pronounes some­times put for reciprocall, & contrà?

Yes: as for example. Principio generi animantium omni est à natura tributum vt se, vitam, corpus (que) tuea­tur, declinet (que) quae ei .i. Sibi nociturae videantur. Cic.

Praeceptor amat discipulos ipsum (.i. se) excitantes.

Non petit vt illum (.i. se) miserum putetis. Quintil. Here relatiues are put for reciprocals.

Plaut. in Capt. scen. Quo illum. Is est seruus ipse, ne (que) praeter se (.i. ipsum) vnquam ei seruus fuit.

Respice Laerten vt iam sua (.i. eius) lumina conda [...].

Non ex oratione, sed suis ex mori­bus spectare debetis pro, eius. Cicer. here reciprocals are put for rela­tiues.

How are those two rules in Linacer, and Lilly to bee reconciled. Ipse ex pronominibus solum trium persona­rum [Page 116] significationem repraesentat. And, Idem etiam omnibus personis iungi potest: they seeme to contradict each other.

Thus. Ipse onely of all those pro­nounes, which truly and properly are pronounes, or which are simple pronounes, doth represent the signi­fication of three persons: but Idem is no simple pronoune but a com­pound, not a naturall and genuine pronoune, but addititious, as Lilly saith: one of these distinctions must be admitted or else a manifest con­tradiction cannot be auoided.

If it bee true that onely ego, and nos, be of the first person onely, as is set downe in the English Rudiments: and Idem, and Ipse, doe represent the signi­fication of three persons, according to your distinction. How comes it to passe that we finde in Tully, is, in the first person, as, Is nullo in loco praedoni­bus iam pares esse poteramus: and in Liuie, De pace agitur, agimusque ij quorum & maxime interest pacem esse: and, Vidistis in vincula duci v­niuersi [Page 117] eum, qui a singulis vobis peri­cula depulerim.

Since the pronoune idem is vsed in three persons, which is compoun­ded of is, & the syllabical particle dem I am of opinion that is, the simple pronoune may be vsed so likewise, as appeareth by the precedent ex­amples.

Since wee may very easily erre in the vse of Pronounes reciprocall, what rules haue you to steare and direct vs in the right vse of them?

Diuers; for which you are behol­den to Rodolphus Goclenius in his ob­seruations of the Latine tongue, which for memory sake I will con­tract.

1. In a simple reciprocation .i. such as is made with one verbe, a Pro­noune of the first or second person is neuer added to the verbe, but al­wayes one of the third: for we can­not say, Ego fui secum, but cum eo, nor, Tu nouisti suum fratrem, but eius.

2. A reciprocall pronoune reflects [Page 118] the action of the verbe vpon it selfe as the agent: as, mulier sibi nimium placet .i. sibi muliere.

3. When the possessour workes vpon the thing possessed, or the thing possessed vpon the possessor, the pos­sessiue suus is vsed: saepe in magistrum scelera redierunt sua. Senec. and, & sua riserunt secula Meomdem.

4. In a compound reciprocation .i. such as is made with many verbes, when the action of the verbe fol­lowing is reflected vpon the person of the verbe afore going, it is expres­sed by sui, as Caesar rogat vt veniam ad se .i. ad Caesarem rogantem. Rogat vt ignoscam sibi .i. sibi roganti.

5. When in the construction of two verbes, the action of the latter verbe passeth vpon the person of the former, as the possessor, suus is vsed. Rogat me vt suum (.i. eius ipsius qui rogat) instituam filium.

6. The actiue construction may be changed into the passiue by a re­ciprocall pronoune: as wee may say, Antonium deseruerunt sui collegae, and [Page 119] Aut. desertus est a suis collegis. Amat patrem filius suis, and, Amatur pater a filio suo.

Of the construction of Verbes.

Is the construction of the infinitiue moode of a verbe substantiue the same after a verbe personall and imper­sonall?

No: except an accusatiue case be expressed before the infinitiue of a verbe substantiue, which is gouerned of a verbe personall, the word which followes shall not be the accusatiue, but the nominatiue; as, wee cannot say, Malo esse diuitem, though me be vnderstood, but malo esse diues, but when me is expressed, wee say, malo me esse diuitem: but if an infinitiue be gouerned of a verbe impersonall, the word that follows the infinitiue, may be the accusatiue case, though the word comming before it be not expressed; for wee may say, Iuuat [Page 120] esse disertos, as well as Iuuat nos esse disertos.

In those examples, Adolescentis est maiores natu reuereri; and, Regum est parcere subiectis, is est a verb per­sonall or impersonall?

It is a verbe impersonall, and therefore these examples are mis­placed, they belong to the first rule of impersonals, Interest, refert, & est, and there Lilly hath set downe a pa­ralell example: Prudentis est multa dissimulare.

What rule haue you for this constru­ction, Commendo te virtutis, vitupe­ro ignauiae, castigo negligentiae, mi­ror prudentiae, &c.

In these and the like, there is a Graecisme, causa, or ergô, is to be vn­derstood, as [...] often amongst the Greekes: as [...] i. [...], Beatum te praedico prop­ter fidem.

In that of Terence, Rerum suarum sa tagit; why doth satagit gouerne a genetiue case?

The genetiue case seemes to de­pend [Page 121] vpon the particle sat, in com­position; and so the verbe being of it selfe a compound, and one; by reason of construction is diuided.

What verbes gouerne a datiue case?

These, and all of the like or con­trary signification: Commodo, compo­no, noreo, do, comparo, reddo, polliceor, soluo, confudo, obtempero, dico impero, & indignor, minor, ac irascor, adulor, &c.

What kinde of datiue doe these com­monly gouerne?

A datiue of the person, not of the thing, vnlesse the thing take vpon it the nature of a person; as, ponti indig­natur Araxes.

What prepositions be those wherewith verbes compounded gouerne a datiue case?

These in this hexamiter: ‘Ad, prae, con, ob, & in, simul hae, post, ante, sub, inter.’

Doth not habeo put for est go­uerne a datiue case, as well as est for habeo?

Yes: as for example, Est mihi lu­dibrio, habeo illum ludibrio. Habeo vo­luptat [Page 122] literarum studia, literarum stu­dia sunt (mihi) voluptati.

Doth Praeuineo gouerne an accusa­tiue case, though it be compounded with prae, as Lilly tels vs.

No: it is a barbarous word, not found in any pure writer, or Lexico­grapher.

If all verbes transitiue gouerne an accusatiue case, how is it that we reade in Plautus, Consequor with a datiue, as, Voluptati meror vt comes conse­quitur?

In this there is a grecisme, for the Greekes vse [...] sequor, with a da­tiue, as [...]: so they say, [...]: and Plautus elsewhere, decere alicui: and Cicero hath the like grecisme, Comitari huic viae.

Doe any verbes of asking gouerne an ablatiue case without a praeposi­tion?

No: and therefore these words, cum praepositione should be added to that rule, verba rogandi interdum mu­tant alterum, &c.

In that example, Est virtus placi­tis [Page 123] abstinuisse bonis: is bonis the da­tiue case, as Lilly informes vs?

Linacer de Emend. struct. Lat. p, 267. l. 4. saith it is the ablatiue case, and I rather side with him.

In that example, Deforme existi­mabat quos dignitate praestaret, ab ijs virtutibus superari: doth either of those verbes gouerne an ablatiue case of the measure of exceeding, according to the rule?

No: those verbes doe gouerne an ablatiue case of the matter of excesse, not of the measure of exceeding, this or the like example would better fitthe rule, Multis parasangis omnes ora­tores precurrit Cicero.

Of an Adiectiue gouerning three ablatiue cases.

Can any one adiectiue gouerne three ablatiue cases, according to three seue­rall rules in Grammer?

Yes: as in this example, Oxonia est insignior Louanio literarum studijs multis parasangis.

Of Verbes gouerning diuerse of the same cases by se­uerall rules of Grammer.

Can you giue an example of a verbe gouerning three datiue cases?

Yes: as for example, Neroni (.i. a Nerone) probis viris crimini vertitur innocentia.

Can any one verbe gouerne fiue ab­latiue cases, according to the rules of Grammer?

Yes: as for example; Ab artifice arte fabrili summa diligentia politis pe­dibus ex vlmeo ligno lectulos fieri iussit Titius.

Can a verbe gouerne three ablatiue cases with three prepositions.

Yes: as for example; Accusatur de furto a vicino summo cum rigore.

Of the Construction of the Infinitiue Moode.

If two verbes come together, shall the latter be alwayes of the Infinitiue moode?

No: sometimes two verbes are ioyned together in the same tense and number by an Hyphen. as, quem­nam te esse dicam-feram. Varro apud Noniū. Reddas-restituas, amongst the Lawyers. Qui fecerit sculpserit Mo­destinus: so Vtimini-foruimini, whence the substantiue vsus fructus.

May not sometimes two verbes of the infinitiue moode be ioyned toge­ther?

Yes: as for example, Ter. in And. Sc. Adhuc. Dare bibere: and dixit Iu­reconsultus non oportere ius ciuile ca­lumniari neque verba captare, sed qua mente quid diceretur animaduertere conuenire. So Dico vti frui licere.

Is not the infinitiue moode sometimes vsed as well for the present tense of the [Page 126] Indicatiue, as for the preter tense, or pre­terimperfect tence?

Yes: as for example, Virg. Ae­neid. 10. — Multi seruare recursus,

Languentis pelagi, & breuibus se cre­dere saltu. where seruare is put for seruant, credere for credunt. So Ouid. 4. Metam. — Rutulis collucent igni­bus aedes falsaque saeuarum simulachra vlulare ferarum: where vlulare is put for vtulant.

Salust. Rursus Imperator contra po­stulata Bocchi nuntios mittit, ille proba­re partem, alia abnuere, eo modo ab v­traque missis, remissisque nuntijs tem­pus procedere, & ex Metelli voluntate bellum intactum trahi: where proba­re, abnuere, procedere, trahi, are put for probat, abnuit procedit, trahitur.

Are not verbes of the infinite moode, as also verbes finite, vsed sometimes as nounes, and with the same construction.

Yes: as in these examples: First, Verbes finite are vsed as Nounes. Tull. pro Mur. illud, licet consulere, perdidistis. Aue mihi dixit .i. salutem. Liu. l. 6. faxo, ne iuuet vox ista veto .i. [Page 127] ne iuuet prohibitio. Plaut. in Paen. Sc. Negotij. Si tacuisses, iam istuc Taceo non natum foret. Sapientia vsque ad Plaudite viuendum, in Cat. Mai.

Secondly, verbes of the infinitiue moode are vsed for nounes. Virg. in 9. Ille suo moriens dat habere nepoti. Cic. Inhibere illud tuum quod valde mihi arriserat, vehementer displicet. Pers. Sat. 1. Sed fas Tunc cum ad canici­em, & nostrum illud viuere triste. As­pexi: where wee may note also that the preposition ad is praefixed before viuere. Ipsum illud peccare quoque te verteris vnum est. Cic.

Of construction by a Periphrasis.

Doe not pure latine Authors some­times make a Periphrasis of a verbe, go­uerne the same case which the verbe it selfe would doe?

Yes: as Ter. Id studiose dat operam. .i. id curat. Id ne estis autores mihi? .i. idne suadetis mihi. Idem. Caesar Senatui dicto audiens futurus i. obtem­peraturus. [Page 128] Cic. Fac me has res certio­rem .i. edoce me has res. Idem. Quid tibi hanc rem curatio est? .i. quid hanc rem curas. Plaut. Quid malum tibi istanc tactio est? .i. quid tangis eam. Idem.

Of construction by Ap­position.

May not the word which might be put in the same case with the word wherewith it is ioyned by apposition be put in the datiue case?

Yes: and that very elegantly, as Cui nunc cognomen Iülo. Virg. Est illi nomen Capitoni. Cic.

Is it not necessary sometimes that in Apposition the same gender and number be obserued?

Yes: for we must say, Voluptas perpetuae comes summi boni, not perpe­tuus. Manus vltrix, not vltor, vir­tus assertrix, not assertor. Inuentri­ces literarum Athenae, not Inuen­tores.

What if the diuers gender of a noune [Page 129] substantiue, whioh is called substan­tiuum mobile .i. such a one as is vari­ed in termination, and sex, as Magister, & magistra, discipulus, discipula be to be ioyned by Apposition with a word of the neuter gender, is it to be vsed in the masculine, or in the feminine gender?

In the masculine, as the more worthy; as Tempus Magister arti­um, & discipulus rerum, not discipula, or magistra, but if the substantiue to be coupled be not substantiuum mobile, sometimes a noune of the fe­minine gender may be added, as ver­bum nota animi, vitium labes animi. Sometimes of the masculine, as vi­num absynthites, vel aromatites .i. aro­matibus conditum.

When may substantiues coupled in the same case by Apposition be of diuers numbers?

Either when one of the substan­tiues wants the plurall or singular number, as Diuitiae gluten amicorum. Passer deliciae: or is a noune colle­ctiue, as Angeli agmen forte: or [Page 130] some one single thing either ioyned with others, or multiplied, is signi­fied, as Nata mea vices. Vxor mea gaudia. Pulmones instrumentum (not instrumenta (respirationis: for there is but one lung in a liuing creature, but the ancients said pulmones in the plurall number, because that part of the body which drawes in, and lets forth the breath is cleft, as the hoof of an Oxe.

Are substantiues ioyned by Apposi­tion alwaies put in the same case?

No: the latter substantiue which doth explaine or declare the former is sometimes put in the ablatiue case, and the word explained in the gene­tiue or datiue; as, Ʋiuis Patauij vrbe scientiarum laude celeberrima. Romae lupinari communi habitas. Oxoniae A­cademia clarissima crematus est Cran­merus. Lacedaemoni oppido insigni seni­bus honor maximus habebatur.

Of the construction of Gerunds and Supines.

Is that rule generally true, Gerunds and Supines gouerne the same case that the verbes that they come of?

No: it is to be vnderstood onely of gerunds signifying actiuely, and the first supines: for gerunds which signifie passiuely, and the latter su­pines are scarce to be found with a­ny cases after them.

How may this, and the like English phrases be rendred in Latine, viz. I came in dinner time.

Very elegantly by the gerund in dum, with the preposition inter; as, veni inter prandendum.

In these formes of speech, accusatum oportuit factum oportet: volo da­tum; how may it appeare that accusa­tum, factum, datum, are participles, not supines?

Thus: because wee finde parti­ciples varied in all genders in this [Page 132] forme of speech, whereas supines want all genders, and flexion. Ter. in Heauton. Interemptam oportuit, & in Andr. Nonne prius communicatum oportuit. Sic, cupio hunc defensum, & hanc defensam. Here the verbe esse is to be supplied.

What doe you thinke of these su­pines, Do venum, do nuptum, which Lilly saith haue latentem mo­tum?

Nuptum signifiesNubit vxor, ducit vxorem vir. passiuely: do nuptum, I giue in marriage, or to be married. It is questinable whether venum be a supine of veneo, or an aduerbe like to pessum; the analo­gie seemes to insinuate so much; as wee say pessundare, and pessum da­re; so wee say venundare, and venum dare, sed de hoc amplian­dum est.

In those examples, Actum est, Itum est, Cessatum est, is the first supine put absolutely with the verbe est, as Lilly tels vs?

No: herein hee is fouly deceiued, hee might as well say, placitum [Page 133] est, libitum est, puditum est, &c. are Supines, which he affirms are Verbs impersonall of the passiue voyce, in his rules of Etymologie, touching Impersonals, and such are these also.

Of Place.

Is that rule: Omne verbum ad­mittit genitiuum proprij nominis loci in quo fit actio, &c. true, con­cerning all proper names of places of the first, or second declension, and sin­gular number?

No: it extends only to proper names of Cities, and Townes, not to vast Regions: for wee may not say, Numidiae acriter pugnatum est, but in Numidia.

By what rule of Lillies Syntaxis, is terra-marique the ablatiue case, in that of Cicero; Quantas ille res ter­ra, mariquegesserat?

There is not any rule for that manner of construction, but it is of kin to that of ruri, and rure.

Is domi neuer read with any other genitiue case, except meae, tuae, &c. as Lilly affirmes?

Yes: it is read with other posses­siues also: we may say, Domi subur­banae, regiae, paterna, as well as Domi meae, &c.

Of verbes Impersonall.

In those clauses, vt videre est, vt legere est apud Aristotelem. Ne (que) est te fallere cuiquam, Virg. How comes it to passe that est is put for licet?

It is an imitation of the Greeks, who put [...] and [...] for [...], licet. so Chrysost. [...] (vel [...]) [...].

Of Participles.

Are all participles changed not nounes, when they cease to signifie Time?

So Lilly teacheth vs in his Gram­mar.

Why then doth hee in his Syntaxis put downe, that exosus, perosus, are construed with an accusatiue case, when they signifie actiuely; and a datiue when they signifie passiuely; and Per­taesus with an accusatiue: Why are Natus, prognatus, &c. said to be con­strued with an ablatiue case as parti­ciples, when as none of these doe signifie Time any more then homo laudatus, or puer amandus?

It may be those two rules of exo­sus, perosus, &c. and natus, &c. are exceptions from that generall rule placed before them, viz. Participio­rum voces cum fiunt nomina, &c. Par­ticiples when they are made nounes require a genitiue case: and they are made nounes foure wayes: first, when they gouerne not the same case that the verbes doe that they come of. Secondly, when they are compounded with prepositions that their verbs cannot be compounded with. Thirdly, when they are com­pared. Fourthly, when they leaue of [Page 136] to signifie difference of Time: in this respect exosus, perosus, &c. and natus, &c. it may bee are excepted from the precedent generall rule.

It may be so: but this is onely a con­iecture to saue Lillies credit.

Indeede I must needes confesse that Lilly is not so distinct, punctuall, and exact as he should bee, but wee must make the best of him, till some other more Grammarian shall compose vs a better Grammar: and here I will adde this also, that that generall of participials gouerning a genitiue, is not to be vnderstood of any participials in Dus, or Tus, for they gouerne a datiue case: as, He­ros celebrandus omnibus poetis. Hoc est notum lippis & tonsoribus.

The construction of Aduerbs.

Doth contrà, being put without case, and so becomming an aduerbe onely, retaine and not augment the sig­nification [Page 137] which it had, being a preposi­tion, as other prepositions doe, coram, post, clam, &c.

No: for it doth not onely signi­fie opposition, as, si homo est ridere potest, & contrà, si non est homo ridere non potest, but reciprocation, con­uersion, or alternation: as, si ridere potest est homo, & contrà, si est homo potest ridere, where contrà is equiua­lent to vicissim, or vicissim retro: as also in this of Terence: In eo oblecto me solùm, & carum ille vt item contrà me habeat facio sedulo: & Virg. Ae­neid. 1. Aeolus haec contrà: where Aeolus in his speech doth not con­tradict, but assent to Iuno.

May not an Aduerbe, as well as an Adiectiue put partitiuely, gouerne a genitiue case?

Yes: as for example. Manuum fortiùs se habet dextra. Omnium pla­netarum sol splendet lucidissimè.

Is not the aduerbe Parum some­times added very elegantly to an ad­iectiue, and sometimes to a substan­tiue?

Yes: as Cic. ad Att. Vide ne dum pudet te parum optimatem esse, parum diligenter quod optimum est eligas, Quint. Inst. l. 5. Mollis, & parum vici signa. Scal. in Exerc. Parum Philosophi, parum Physici. Minus, vel parum firma fuit valetudine.

In those examples: Castra propiùs vrbem mouentur; and, Proximè Hispaniam sunt Mauri, are, Propiùs, and Proximè, properly aduerbs, go­uerning an accusatiue case?

I thinke not: they rather seeme to be prepositions compared gouer­ning an accus. as the originall word, or theame Prope doth. Propiùs can­not bee deriued of propior in this Syntaxis; for wee finde in Liuie, propior vero propiùs vero, and propior is the comparatiue of propis, an ab­solute word, as prior of pris. So Go­clen. Problem. Gram. l. 3. p. 145.

May not an Aduerbe deriued of an Adiectiue which gouerneth an Accu­satiue case with a Preposition, gouerne the same case?

Yes: as for example. Poeta si ap­posite [Page 139] ad delectationem, Orator ad fi­dem Philosophus ad vitam dicat, im­plesse munus suum videntur. Iust. Lipsius.

In that clause of the fable of Esops Cocke, granum hordei mallem om­nibus gemmis; why is gemmis the ablatiue case?

It is the ablatiue case by reason of the word magis, which lyeth se­cretly couched in the word mallem, which may bee resolued into magis vellem.

Are not sometimes nounes put for aduerbs, & contrà?

Yes: first, Nounes put for Ad­uerbes. Nullus pro Non, by the fi­gure called Antemeria. Philoti­mus nullus venit. Cic. Quaerit ex proximo vicino num feriae quaedam pis­catorum essent, Vox hominem sonat .i. huma­niter. Virg. Viuunt Baccha­nalia .i. Baccha­naliter. Iuu. vide Linac. de Emend. struct. Lat. l. 2. p. 94. quod eos nullos vide­ret. Idem. Etsi nullus diceris. Terent. At tu dolebis cum rogaberis nulla. Catullus. This is an elegant kinde of expression. Nemo pro Non. Tac. 4. Ann. Ferrum, & caedes quonam modo occultaretur nemo reperiebat.

Multus pro multum. Multus in li­bris. In opere multus. Salust. Totus pro totaliter. Totus displiceo mihi. Ter. Totus est alienus à Physicis. Cicer. Plurimus pro plurimùm. In toto pluri­mus orbe legor.

Secondly, Aduerbs put for nounes. Satis vir, pro magnanimo. Senec. Plus­quam viri, pro virorum partes exce­dentibus. Parum fides, pro parua. Plaut.

In those examples. Multò aliter, paulo secus, longe secus: are multò, paulò, longè, ablatiue cases?

Lilly did ill to surmise so; that rule is altogether superfluous; in like manner hee was deceiued be­fore, when in the rules of Adie­ctiues, he affirmed, that in that ex­ample, Quantò doctior es, tantò te ge­ras submissius; quantò, and tantò, were of the ablatiue case, whereas they are aduerbs.

May not the forme, or manner of a thing, bee put after an aduerbe in the ablatiue case, as well as after an ad­iectiue?

Yes: as, agit fortiter verbis, factis ignauè.

Of Coniunctions.

In those Clauses of Plautus and Terence. Absque hoc esset, absque eo foret; how come the verbes to bee of the subiunctiue moode?

By reason of the particle si vn­derstood, which is to bee supplyed, to make perfect construction.

After what verbes are those par­ticles vsed, quod, vt, ne.

After these, and the like: for we say, Puto quod, Iubeo vt, Metuo ne.

Doe ac, and atque, alwayes come before in a clause?

Alwayes, except in composition: as, simulac, simulat (que), after the greeke manner, [...].

Doth not a coniunction sometimes gouerne a case as a noune?

Yes: as Virg. Illius ergô Veni­mus: Amoris, Honoris, Virtutis ergô.

Of Prepositions.

Is not procul, when it is construed with Case, a Preposition?

Some learned men thinke so: it is read with and accusatiue or abla­tiue case; as in Curtius. Procul vr­bem. in Liuie, Locus procul muros; and in the same Authors: Procul muro. Procul mari. Procul discordi­bus armis. Virg.

Are not sometimes prepositions put before other prepositions?

Yes: as, Vs (que) sub obscurum noctis. Vs (que) ex Aethiopia. De Quinto fratre nuntij nobis tristes venerant ex ante diem Nonarum Iuniarum vs (que) ad Pri­die Calend. Septemb. The titles of chapters amongst the Ciuilians, are. De in ius vocando. De in diem addi­ctione: and, Gell. 1. 10. In de Analo­gia libro scriptum est.

Is not a preposition sometimes put for a coniunction, and an aduerbe for a preposition?

Yes: first, a preposition is put for a conjunction in Salust. Praeter re­rum [Page 143] rum capitalium condemnatis: praeter for praeterquam.

Secondly, an aduerbe for a prepo­sition in Virg. Aen. 7. Tali intus tem­plo diuum, patriaque latinus sede sedens, vide Linac. de Emen [...]. struct. Lat. Ser. l. 1. p. 109.

Is not a coniunction sometimes put in the place of a pronounce with a prepo­sition?

Yes: as, A me vero ita diligitur, vt tibi vni concedam praeterea nemini .i. praeter te. Cic. Eundem ab hostibus metui, praeterea neminem i. praeter eum. Idem.

Of an Interiection.

In this sentence; Egregium vero Philosophum qui inter solem, & ig­nem quid interesset parum curauit intelligere: why is Egregium Philo­sophum the accusatiue case?

Because therein there is an ellipsis of the interiection O.

What interiections gouerne an accu­satiue case, besides those expressed in Lillies Syntaxe?

These: Eheu, hem, apage; as Eheu conditionem huius temporis. Cic. Hem. being an Ironicall interiection; as, Hem astutias. Ter. O subtile deuise Apage te. Ter. Apage istiusmodi sa­lutem. Plaut.

Are all things that are written by the ancient Authors to be exactly exa­mined and scanned according to rule?

No: for some had faults which of set purpose they loued & defended: Tantus error est in omnibus studijs, maxime in eloquentia, cuius regula in­certa est, vt vitia quidam sua & intelli­gant, & ament: there is so great er­ror in all studies, especially in elo­quence, the rule of which is vncer­taine, in so much as some both know and affect their fai [...] saith Seneca: [...] 2. Contr. 20. [...] [...]. G [...]n [...]. [...]ect. Virg [...] & [...]e [...] ­dom ad [...]. Georg. versum [...] O qui m [...] gel [...]dis in [...]allibus, Hemi. Ʋerbis licenter in carmini­bus vsus est Naso, in quibus non ignora­uit vitia sua, sed amauit, &c. Ouid was somewhat bold, and licentious in the vse of some words in his ver­ses; wherein, he was not ignorant of the fault, but liked it, & often would say that a Mole misbecame not a