ANIMADVERSIONS UPON LILIES GRAMMAR, OR LILLY SCANNED. An Extract of Grammatical PROBLEMS. Gathered out of the Inquiries, and Disputes of the most judicious GRAMMARIANS. Set down by way of Question, and Answer. Wherein, Many difficult Knots in the English Rudiments, and Lilies Grammar are unloosed: many Obscurities enlightened: many Errors and Incogitancies discovered: many Deficiences supplied, the Original and Reason of many Terms of Art manifested, and not a few accessory Questions discussed with much brevity and perspicuity. Very necessary, and profitable for all those that desire to be exact Grammarians.  
LONDON Printed by W. Stansby for Richard Hawkins, and are to be sold at his Shop in Chancery Lane. 1625.   

Animadversions upon LILIES Grammar, OR LILLY scanned. An Extract of Grammatical PROBLEMS.  

Of Grammar, and the parts thereof.  
MAy every one that teacheth Lilies Grammar, be called Grammaticus in propriety of speech?  
No: If he be able to teach those Rudiments only, he is rather to be called Grammatista?  
What difference is there between Grammatista, and Grammaticus?  
Among the Ancients he was called Grammaticus, who did not only teach how to speak a tongue well, but also did examine, and discuss all the difficulties in Poets, Historians, Orators, Philosophers, etc. he that taught the Elements of Words, Letters, was called Grammatista. Grammaticus with them was as much as Literatus, a learned Scholar, or Critic, whom we now call a 
* Philologi audiunt Ludovicus Viues julius Scaliger, Casaubonus, nec non Ben. Ions●…ius Poetarum facile princeps, & non sine doctrinae, & humanitatis honorifica praefatione nominandus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joh. Seldenus.  Philologer; Grammatista as much as Literator, an Elementary Pedant. They differ in effect as much as a Fiddler, and an exact Musician. Sueton. de claris Grammaticis.  
May that speech, which is compared according to the rules of Grammar, be called congrua oratio, in the propriety of the latin tongue?  
So it is commonly called by most Schoolmasters: but to speak properly; loqui congruè, is to speak fitly, and oppositly to the purpose, which is the part of a Logician, an Orator, a Moralist: but to speak according to rule, is, Grammaticè loqui, which is not opposed to Barbarè loqui (for there may be a rude impolish and barbarous expression, where there is no breach of rule, and Priscian's head is untouched) but to castigate, or tersè, or emendatè loqui, to speak 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 fitness of the matter; Emendate loqui, the purity of the stile; Grammaticè loqui, the regularity of the construction.  
Is that division of Grammar into four parts, Orthographia, Etymol. Syntaxis, Prosop. an exact division?  
Priscian, Melancthon, and their followers so divided Grammar: but 
g Crassè.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rather than 
h Exactè.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it may more artificially and compendiously be divided into two parts, Etymology and Syntaxis: for these two do, as integral parts, take up the whole body of Grammar: the other two, Orthogr. and Prosodia, like Particles are contained in these, and spread through the whole Grammar.   

Of ORTHOGRAPHY.  
IS Orthography still the same?  
No: It hath been often changed, and therefore the rule of it must be custom. The Hebrews, Syrians, and Arabians, begin to write from the right hand to the left. They of China, from the top of the leaf to the bottom in a direct line. Other Nations, from the left hand to the right, which motion of the hand seems to be most natural.   

Of the Letters.  
How are diphthongs made?  
By the divers dispositions of the vowels.  
Whence have the diphthongs their names?  
Of the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, bis, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, loquor; because there is a conflation, and coalition of two vowels in a diphthong, which are to be uttered and breathed out as one entire syllable.  
What is the meaning of that passage in the first page of Lilies Grammar? S, suae cuiusdam potestatis litera est?  
Lily having divided the Consonants into Mutes, as b, c, d, etc. and semi-vowels, as l, m, n, r, s, x, z, he subdivideth the semi-vowels into liquids, and double consonants, and since (s) will not be changed in either of these ranks, he calleth it suae cuiusdam potestatis literam; such a letter as is (as it were) of its own head, sits by itself, will not be marshaled in that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 literarum.  
Why are x and z called, literae duplices?  
Because they have the force of two consonants, as x may be resolved into Cs, or gs, as appears by the genitive cases of nouns ending in x, Rex, Regis, Dux, Ducis. z is changed (being a greek letter originally) into ss, as Massa, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Patrisso, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
How many ways is the letter (I) taken?  
Three ways: as in this word ieiunium: in the first syllable, I is taken for a simple consonant, in the second for a double one, in the third for a vowel.  
How doth it appear that (I) between two vowels, is a double consonant?  
Because the Ancients, in stead of Mayor, Peior, were wont expressly to write Maijor, Peijor.  
Hath (I) between two vowels always the force of a double consonant, as Lily tells us here, and in the rules of Quantity?  
No: The rule is true only in simple words, not in words compound, for in such we find the syllable which comes immediately before I between two vowels, made short in the Poets: as in Bijugis, Quadrijugus.  
Martis equi bijuges, & magni currus Achilles. Virg.  
Centum quadrijugos agitabo ad flumina currus. Idem.  
Lily in the division of his letters, tells us, that two is a semivowell: how then comes it to pass, that anon after he saith, y & z, latinis dictionibus nunquam admiscentur.  
It is very strange a man should so soon forget himself: there is a manifest contradiction, from which I cannot acquit him.  
Are not k or y mixed amongst other latin letters, as Lily affirms?  
K is judged by the modern Grammarians to be an unprofitable letter, but 
* Haec tribus in Latio tantum addita nominibus.  Ausonius saith, it is prefixed before three latin words: which some assign to be, Kaput, a Chapter, Kalendae, Kalumnia: and as for y, if it be not mixed amongst latin letters, how is it that we find in Propria quae maribus, Tiber, Lybs, Tybur: proper names, Phryx, Gryps, Hydrops, Siren, Hiems, etc. appellatives: nay, how is it that in the very same page, where he affirms this, we find 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 Critics writ Agellius.  
B. among the Schoolmen, is put for Beatus.  
C. V Celsitudo Vestra.  
C. M. Caesarea Maiestas.  
D. Diws. Doctor, Dominus.  
E. T. Excellentia Tua.  
I C. jureconsultus.  
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. Reverenda Tua Dignitas.  
S. Sanctus. S. P. D. Salutem plurimam dicit.  
S C. Senatusconsultum.  
V.C. Vrbs condita etc. vid. Lilium.  
Is not a great decorum to be observed in the Poets, by the repetition of diverse letters, to express to the life the matters themselves?  
Yes. E. serves to express lamentation, and sorrow: as, Lachrymae peredere humour exangues genas.  
F. To express blowing: as, Terras turbine perflant.  
I. To express thin, and piercing things. Accipiunt inimicum imbrem, nimisque fatiscunt.  
L. To express low, and soft things.  
Qualem virgineo demeseum pollice florem  
Seu mollis violae, seu languentis Hiacynthi. Virg.  
M. To express great things: as, Dorsum immane mart summo: as also to express admiration. Deum immortalem! hominum! fidem!  
N. hath a contrary use; it contracts. Frangitur inque sinus scindit sese unde reductos.  
R. To express fury, and anger; and rough, and terrible things. Imprecor arma armis.  
S. By this Virgil describes the noise of a tempest, Emissamque hyemem sensit Neptunus, & imis stagnae refusa vadis.  
T. To express slowness: as, Nec nos obniti contra, nec tendere tantum.  
V To express obscure things: Tu plaeusu, fremituque virum, studijsque faventûm.  
What words are to be written with great letters?  
1. Proper names, and such as are thence derived, and the names of Arts.  
2. Beginnings of Sentences in Prose and Verses in Poems.  
3. Names of Offices, and Dignities.  
Is it lawful to mix letters of another tongue with latin letters?  
Yes sometimes, 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 severally pronounced?  
We may for want of a better term: but properly syllaba coming of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i concipere, signifieth a comprehension or uniting of diverse letters in pronunciation with one tone, or spirit.  
How many letters hath the largest syllable in the latin tongue?  
Not above six: as stirps.   

Of the distinction of Syllables.  
What rules have you for the distinction, or division of Syllables?  
diverse: first, in the division of a word, those letters are to be joined together, which may be joined in the beginning of a word: as in Magnus Aruspex, the last syllables must be gnus and spex, because gn and sp may be found in the beginnings of words, as gnatus, spectrum. Secondly, if a single consonant be put in the middle 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 Annus. Thirdly, if the latter syllable begin with a vowel, the former shall end in a vowel, as De-us.  
Doth not the second rule sometimes fail?  
Yes, in composition, as abutor, the former syllable ends in a consonant, the latter gins with a vowel; so abstemius, of abs and temetum.   

Of Pronunciation.  
Whence hath a tone its name?  
From the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to screw up, or slacken the strings of an instrument of music. 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 doubtful, 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, pictaeque volúcres.  
Is the accent to be placed in antepenultima in these words: Deinde, proinde, perinde, aliquando, siquando, nequando, hucusque, etc. as Lily would have it?  
No: for it is an undoubted rule received amongst the best Grammarians. Polysyllaba, quae habent penultimam positione longam penultimam acuunt ut deinceps, duntáxat, probléma, extémplo: and herein Lily thwarts his own third general rule of Tones: and he is thwarted by Quint. Instit. l. 1. c. 5. where he saith, Duabus longis sequentibus primam acui noster sermo non patitur.  
Have propémodum, ádmodum, nihilóminus the acute accent in antepenultima, for this reason only, to distinguish them from propemodum, admodum, nihilominus, as Lily bears us in hand?  
No: but the reason why they are so accented, is, because these by composition being made one word, have their penultima short by quantity.  
Lily tells us, that duntaxat, deinceps, deorsum, have the accent in antepenultima, to difference them from other words: Is that assertion true?  
No: for we read no where dun taxat, dein ceps, de orsum, as distinct words, as per inde, pro inde.  
How is amabo the adverb of flattering to be pronounced?  
Some pronounce it ámabo, to distinguish it from the verb amato, but better authority teacheth us to pronounce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mábo: as, Dic verum mihi Marce dic amabo. Mart. where amabo hath the penultima long by quantity.  
How is Ti before another vowel to be pronounced?  
Always 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 poetical infinitives, as mittier: fourthly, in borrowed words, as Politía, pragmatía.  
How are Greek words, being made latin, to be pronounced?  
According to their Quantity, not according to the tone, or accent they had in their own 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 quantity.   

Of the Quantity of Syllables.  
Are we to write patrizo, as Lily doth in the rule concerning words long by position, or patrisso.  
I think we are rather to write patrisso for z is not a letter proper to the latin tongue and I find other verbs of imitation ending in sso, as Platonisso, Philonisso, Atticisso: nay, Lily himself says in his rules of the species of verbs. Imitativa sunt etc. ut Patrisso etc.  
Is that rule, vocalis brevis ante mutam sequente liquida communis redditur, to be understood indifferently, and equally of all the four liquids, l, m, n, r?  
No: but of (l) and (r) very often, of (m) and (n) very seldom.  
When of l and r?  
In simple words, or such compounds whose mutes together with the liquids pertain to the same syllable: and this is very necessary to be observed for these words; obrodo, obrepo, obligo, obrumpo etc. though they have a short vowel before a mute, and a liquid, yet are they long, and are never found short, for as much as the liquid and mute in any of them, being compound words, do not concur to the constitution of a syllable: for these words are to be divided, thus: obrodo, obrepo, as appears 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.  
Give 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 save one in Caï, Vultei, Pompey, etc. long in Poets, whereas as one vowel comes before another?  
Lilies Grammar doth not except these words from the general rule vocalis ante alteram etc. but the reason of this production is, because amongst the Ancients they were written with (ji) and so were long by position, which manner of writing, though it be not now in use, yet the quantity of the syllable still remains.  
Do only innuba, pronuba, compounds derived of nubo; dejero, pejero, the compounds of juro, by composition change their long quantity to short?  
No: diverse other words also, as Omnipotens, Sacrosanctus, apud Buchan. Bardocucullus, Mart. integer, ab in, & aeger: aeviternus, ab aewm, & aeternus, nihilum, à ne, & hilum: the second syllables of which are short in composition, long out of composition: so siquidem,— siquidem ieiuna remansit. Ovid. iubeo, à ius, & habeo; whose first syllables become short by composition.  
Is that generally true: in t desinentia brevia sunt?  
No: such words are to be excepted which have a consonant before t, as amant, est, refert, and such as are long by contraction, as, Nomen abît, aut unde redît maiore triumpho. Lucan.  
If all nouns ending in e have e short by quantity, except the ablat. of the fifth declension, how is it that we find e in fame long in Virg. a noun of the third declension, as,  
Amissis (ut fama) apibus morboque fameque.  
It is not so made by Caesura, because it is not a syllable produced after a foot full and complete falling any of the kinds of Caesura in Grammar specified, we must therefore say that anciently (fames) was of the fift declension, but now used only in the third, yet here retains the same quantity which it had in former times, when it was of the fift.  
Is that true which Lily hath: Pes una cum compositis, ut praepes, bipes & c?  
No: Praepes signifieth swift, not on foot, but in flying, it is not compounded of prae, and pes, but derived rather of praepeto, to hasten to with speed: it is commonly used in the Poets, as an epithet of the Eagle, which is consecrated to Icue, Praepes adunca jovis, Ouid. In Tully, praepes avis, is the bird that first showeth himself to the Augur, whereby he declares things to come: it may appear by analogy very evidently, that praepes is no compound of pes: bipes makes bipedis, quadrupes quadrupedis in the genit. case, but praepes praepetis, not praepediss.  
Is that rule of Lily true, Longae sunt omnes voces quartae inflexionis in us praeter nom. & voc. sing.  
No: for the dat. and ablat. plural in us, of all words of the fourth declension are short, as well as the nom. and voc. singular.   

Of ETYMOLOGY.  
WHat is the meaning of that definition of Etymology in Lilly. Etym. est ratio cognoscendi casuum discrimina?  
The meaning of it is this: that in Etymology is handled the differences of terminations of Nouns, Pronouns, and Participles, by declining of Verbs by their coniugating from their first themes: as for example, the variations of Musa in the obliqne Cases, are called Casuum discrimina: so likewise the differences of end of doctus, whether it be varied by declining as doctus, a, 'em; or by comparison, as doctus, ior, issimus, are called casuum discrimina. Casus here is not to be taken in so strict an acception as it is afterwards, where it is said, Casus sunt sex, for it is attributed to a verb also, for the variation of the verb Amorett in all Tenses, Persons, and Moods, from its simple self are called in this definition, Casuum discrimina. But yet me thinks the definition is too narrow, though we do stretch the words after this manner, and comprehendeth under it only the declineable parts of speech, for though almost all adverbs derived from adjectives be compared, and so be varied in termination (yet they have this nature as derived rather than as adverbs) and some few prepositions, as supra, superior, etc. yet not any conjunction, or interjection admitteth of Casuum discrimina, and very hardly any adverb which is so primitively, and originally.   

Of the parts of Speech. Of a Noun.  
How are there eight parts of speech, since a pronoun, and a Participle have the same things which belong to a Noun, to wit, Number, Case, Gender, and Declension?  
A Pronoune, & a Participle agree, and communicate with a Noun in these, but yet they have several and peculiar differences by which they are distinguished, and constitute several parts of speech: a Pronoune is distinguished from a Noun by difference of Person, and from a Participle by Time, and signification.  
Why do you say that a Noun admits not difference of persons: when as Magister in the nominative case is of the third person, in the vocative of the second person, according to that rule. The second person is spoken to, as, Tu, Thou, and of this person is every vocative case?  
A vocative case is said to be of the second person, not because it is so of its proper signification, but by reason of the pronoun, Tu, with which it doth agree in the same case by apposition.  
This answer is given by some to make Lilies definition of a noun 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 stream of best Grammarians run, that a noun hath Persons, but thus is distinguished from a pronoun, which signifies a thing with difference of Person as well as a Noun: a Noun signifies first, a Thing; secondarily, a Person: a pronoun, first a Person; secondarily, a Thing.  
If all Adverbs, Conjunctions, etc. be parts indeclinable, how comes it to pass that some of them are the Nominative Cases to their Verbs, and have adjectives joined to them, agreeing with them in case, gender, & number, as in Martial: Dic mihi cras istud Posthume quando venit: and again, 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 verb est, are not nouns, but as it were nouns inasmuch as they supply the place of a nomin. case before the verb, they are not properly nouns, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, artificially as Melanchthon speaketh: and in the same manner are verbs sometimes used.  
Matutinum portat ineptus ave. Mart.  
Quis expedivit Psittico suum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Per.  
Scire tuum nihil est. Idem.  
Do not the nouns, Hora, Die, Mensis, Annus, signify difference of Time, as well as a participle; doth not the Time of an Hour differ from the Time of a Day, and the space of a Month from the space of an Year? how is it then that Lily saith, a noun doth not signify difference of Time?  
'Tis true indeed, that these nouns considered comparatively among themselves, do signify Times which differ among themselves, but considered absolutely, and each by itself, they do barely signify a space of Time, not consignify Time besides its prime signification, as a participle doth; as amans doth not only signify the action (or rather passion) of loving, but consignifies the present time.  
Are not some substantives varied by three terminations.  
Yes: we read Syngraphus, Syngrapha, Syngraphum: Intybus, Intyba, Intybum: Vesper, & vesperus, ra, rum.  
How doth that definition of a noun substantive proper, hold: Quod uni soli convenit; when as we read many proper names in the plural number?  
The definition is true notwithstanding that exception: for a proper name in its own 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 noun metaphorically noteth a property or similitude: as, Catones, for Wisemen. Thirdly, when the names of Nations, or Families, take upon them the nature of appellatives, as the Latini from Latinus, Fabiuses from Fabius, the Authors and Founders of that Nation, this Family.   

Of the Accidents of a Noun. Of Species.  
When is a word said to be of the primitive species?  
A word is said to be of the primitive species, which is as the stem, or root, whence other words as branches do sprout forth; or as the fountain, whence other words as rivulets do issue and flow forth, which are therefore called derivatives, as the noun of the primitive species is navis, of the derivative species, are, navigo, navicula.  
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 itself 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 itself to the Understanding (which is the Eye of the Soul in its prime estate, is a word of the primitive species, that which issues from the former of the derivative.  
What is a noun collective?  
A noun which collecteth, gathereth, and uniteth a company, or multitude, in the singular number: as, Exercitus, an Army; Grex, A flock of sheep; Examen, A swarm of Bees.  
If Quis be sometimes a noun interrogative, sometimes a noun indefinite; how comes it to pass that Lily claps it in amongst the pronouns afterwards, and subioynes to the rules of pronouns a catalogue of the compounds of Quis?  
It seems to be placed out of due order; unless peradventure it visit the pronouns by reason of some seeming affinity it hath with Qui.  
It is said in the English Rudiments, that Quid is always a substantive of the neuter gender, is that true?  
No: Quid is not a substantive, but is put sometimes substantively with a genitive case: as, Quid novi?  
Is not Quid sometimes used for Magnum?  
Yes: as, 
Nescio, quid certe est, & Hylax in limine latrat. Virg.  
Nescio, quid certè est, quod me tibi temperat astrum. Pers.   
So among the Greeks, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Plat. in ap. Socr.  
Why are Vnus, Duo, Tres, Quatuor, etc. the first kinds of numeral nouns of the primitive species, called Cardinals?  
Because the digit numbers are the first and chief numbers, upon the which the rest do depend, and turn as the door upon the hinges, which in latin are called cardines, the rest being but resumptions of them. So the four great and chief winds, are called the Cardinal winds, and the chief, and main point in any business, is called, Cardo causae.  
Whence is a noun Patronymicke derived?  
From the Greek words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Father; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Name; which hath its name from the father. So it only signifies, being strictly taken according to the Etymon. as Tydides', the son of Tydeus; Pelides, the son of Peleus; but yet it is used in a larger extent, to signify many other relations by marriage, as Aeacides, the son, or nephew of Aeacus; Nerine, the daughter or niece of Nereus; Menelais, the wife of Menelaus.   

Of Figure.  
What do Grammarians mean when they ask that question: Cuius est figurae est hoc nomen?  
They ask whether it be a simple noun, 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 diverse words which are used by latin Authors, which are compounded of greek and latin words, and latin and greek words?  
Yes: these are compounded of greek, and latin words: 

Monoculus, for which some had rather say Vnoculus.  
Bigamus, for which some had rather say Digamus.  
Anthropovorus, for which some had rather say Anthropophagus.    
Archigubernus', Protonotarius, Archidux, etc. These of latin, and greek words: 
* Of this rank Cooper in his Dictionary makes Homocapnus, which he englisheth most ridiculously, One that sitteth always in the smoke, or by the fire, as it were a compound of homo and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: whereas indeed it is wholly a greek word, and signifies, One that enjoys the same fire, or smoke with another, an epithet given to a wife by Arist. l. 1. Polit.  Prologus, and therefore they make the first syllable long; Epitogium, Elogium, Gravitona, Semidiameter, Bissyllabum, Imbuo, ab in, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Induo, ab in, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. vide Rod. Boclen. prob. Gram. l. 3. 29. p.   

Of Number.  
Is that rule true concerning all nouns; the singular number speaketh of one, the plural of more than one?  
No: some nouns are singular by position, or termination, but plural in sense and understanding, as Turba, concie, exercitus, etc. Again, some nouns are plural by position, and singular in sense: as, Athenae, literae, etc.   

Of Case.  
Is it necessary to make a seventh or eighth Case?  
No: the seventh which Grammarians make by an ablative 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 dative put for the accusative, with the preposition ad: 
* In coelum is not a good interpretation.  as, It clamour coelo. i. ad coelum. Virg. Quaerere sibi adiumenta honoribus. i. ad honores consequendos. Cic.  
Why is the Ablative called Latinus Casus?  
Because it is proper to the Latins; the Greeks altogether want it.  
How then is it that we find in Tully lat. prepositions which govern only an ablative case, construed with greek nouns?  
'Tis true, there is such syntax found in Tully, as 13. Ep. ad Att. Id ab 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est remotissimum: and elsewhere. Prudentia cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: where the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though they be the dative case, take upon them the nature of the ablative.   

Of Gender.  
Doth not the feminine gender sometimes imply the masculine, as well as the masculine the feminine?  
Yes; hereof are diverse examples in Authors. Plaut. in Cistell. Scen. Nisi quid. Eam (rem) vult suae matri, & patri, etc. ubi (suae) innuit (suo)  
Curtius is called Fama by Virg. in Culice.  
Hic & Fama vetus nunquam moritura per aewm. Curtius.  
Maiestas vestra, is the ordinary title of a King.  
Potestas, doth signify Magistrates, and judges: Fenest. c. 26. De Procuratore Caesaris, caeterisque Romanis potestatibus. Sueton. in Claud. Caes. jurisdictionem de fidei-commissis quotannis, & tantum in urbe delegari magistratibus solitam in perpetuum, atque etiam per provincias potestatibus demandavit. So Saint Paul Rom. 13.1. useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Beza renders, potestates supereminentes, to signify Kings: so Nobilitaes, is in Lucan put for the Nobility, or Peers of a Land. Nobilitas cum plebe perit.  
Are all names of Males of the masc. gender, of Females of the feminine; and all nouns that signify both sexes of both genders?  
No: sometimes one and the same gender doth agree to both sexes, as is apparent in the names of birds, fishes, and other creatures, whose sex is not set forth by several words: as in Passer, Aquila, Ostreum. So Liberi, though it be only of the masculine gender, is put both for sons and daughters, and mancipium of the neut. gender, only signifies a bondman, or a bondwoman, a He, or a She captive.  
Is that a proper speech which is set down 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 noun, can be said to be declined; but every noun which is declinable is declared to be of the masculine gender, having the article Hic prefixed.  
Why are articles used in Grammar?  
Not to point out an individium, or particular Thing, or Person, nor to distinguish sex, for Grammar considers not the natures of things, but the names only, as Lily himself confesseth, but to difference one gender from another: an article doth not make a noun of such, or such a gender, but demonstrates it to be so: it is not the cause of the gender, but the sign.   

Upon Propria quae maribus.  
Is that marginal note true, which the Poser of the Accidence hath in his margin upon the first general rule touching proper names, viz. Cocytus, the name of a Fen in hell, is of the fem. gender.  
No: I find 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 general rule of proper names, good, viz. that Epidaurus, the name of a City is of the masc. gender?  
No: for I find it of the fem. gender in Martial. Aereis imposta iugis, medicamque Epidaurum.  
How are the proper noun, Opus, a City, and the appellative, Opus, a work, distinguished?  
By their genitive cases: Opus, the noun proper maketh Opuntis: Opus, the appellative, Operis.  
What is contained in the first general rule?  
Thus much: These all are masculines: the names of Gods, the names of Men, of Months, of Winds, of Floods.  
Are none to be excepted?  
Yes: Styx, and Lethe, which are rivers of hell, found in the Poets of the femin. gen.— Styx inde novem circumflua campo. Stat.— soporiferae biberem si pocula Lethes. Ouid. we need not excuse Lily, by saying they are Fens, not Rivers. So Albula of the fem. gen. as, Albula pota Deo, where we need not force a Syncheris; the rule must be squared to the examples, not the examples to the rule.  
What is contained in the second general rule?  
Thus much: the names of women, Earthly and Divine, of Regions, Cities, Isles, are feminine.  
Are none to be excepted?  
Yes: besides those which are expressed, these, Londinum, Eboracum, Brundisium, Pergamon, are of the neut. gen. as Virg. Miramur Troiae cineres, & flebile victis Pergamon.   

Of the general rules of Appellatives.  
If suber, and siler be rightly placed in appellativa arborum etc. how is it that we find them again in the second exception of neuters, from the third special rule?  
I cannot excuse Lily herein, it is a vain exception, or Tautology.   

Of Epicens'.  
May not the rule, sunt etiam volucrum etc. be spared?  
Yes, as I conceive: for first, it belongs not to a Grammarian, but to a Philosopher, to consider the difference of sexes. Secondly, the genders of the names of birds, wild beasts, and fishes, are to be known by the rules following. Thirdly, if this rule show the gender of those nouns in the same specified, how is that we find the genders of them set down again: of birds, as Halcyon, Bubo, Perdix, Phoenix, Nycticorax: of beasts, as Elephas, Linx: of fish, as Halec.  
If all nouns appellative ending in 'em, be of the neuter gender, according to that rule, Omne quod exit in 'em. why doth Lilly say again in the second exception from the first special rule, Et quot in on vel in 'em.  
I think that part touching nouns ending in 'em, might be spared, and the rule better thus contracted.  
Neutrum nomen in e, si gignit Is ut 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 every substantive undeclined, as the Poser of the Accidence speaks: but also all nomina 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, viz. all clauses which are the nominative case to the verb, as in that clause, didicisse fideliter artes Emollit mores; didicisse fideliter arts must be conceived to be of the neuter gender, as also all verbs of the infinitive mood used substantively, whether they come before their verb, or follow after; as, Velle suum cuique est. Pers. Videamus beat vivere 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. jamdudum. Hic vereri perdidit i, e, verecundiam.  
What do you think of that which is annexed to the first special rule, Labes, labis. Pests, pestis.  
Pests is here set down by Lily (or I know not who) as the nomin. case, which word is not found in any pure Author, nor in any Lexicon: and it seems rather to be an error of the Composer than a slip of the Printer, inasmuch as he would have pictis by analogy, the gen. case of pests, as labis of labes; this hath passed in all editions that I have seen without correction: the true nomin. case is pestis.  
Doth Lily speak properly, when he saith, Scriba, Assecla, Lixa, etc. are the names of men?  
No: for in propriety of speech they are not the names of men, but of the offices, or employments of men.  
Is that generally true, Mascula graecorum quot declinatio prima fundit, etc.  
No: for as learned Ramus observes in his Grammar, there be many words borrowed of the Greeks by the Latins, which being of the masculine gender and first declension, of the Greeks are of the feminine gender in latin Authors; which I have comprised 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 of the Common of two: so also Treble. in Prompt. Sentis come. g. teste Phoca. asprae sentes. Virg. Aeneid. 2. Funis tam masc. quam foem. teste Gellio lib. 13. citante verse. Lucret. Aurea de coelo demisit funis in arua.  
Is rete always of the neuter gender?  
We read both retis, and rete, rete is always of the neuter gen. retis of the masc. Varro. this is a noun redundant: as also, Barbiton, for we read in Horace, Barbitus, of the fem. gender. Age dic Latinum Barbite carmen. Carm. l. 1. Ode 32.  
Is Halcyonis of the doubtful gender, as Lily bears us in hand?  
No: in this word Lilly was foully deceived, and by this hath deceived others. First, he was deceived in that he took for a word which did not increase in the gen. case, where as it is in true the genitive case of the nominative, Halcyon, a King-fisher, so called, because she buildeth her nest in the Sea, and there hatcheth her young. Secondly, in that he saith it is of the doubtful gender, where it is always found with a femin. epithet. as Vir. Dilectae Thetidi Halcyones.  
Nunc ego desertas alloquar Halcyonas. Proper. Maestae.  
Halcyones lugubre dabant per littora carmen. Mant.  
Secondly, he deceived others, amongst them the Construer of Lilies Rules, who swallowed down this fly, putting Halcyonis for a King-fisher, and other ordinary Schoolmasters following him, are deceived also.  
Is ficus for a disease, of the doubtful gender?  
No: 
* Màrtial Epigr. l. 1. Ep. 66.  Martial who knew the gender of it better than Lily, saith, it is of the 
a Sic 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 moveatur, neque apud probae notae autorem quempiam reperiatur ficus pro morbo in alio, quam foemineo genere, ut & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Graeca exponunt è suos liberos famulos, pueros delicatos.  masc. gender.  
Dicemus ficus, quas scimus in arbore nasci  
Dicemus ficos, Caeciliane, tuos.  
What is the meaning of the second special rule, Nomen crescentis etc.  
The Poser of the Accidence, saith, this is the meaning: that every noun substantive common, increasing sharp, or long in the gen. case, that is, being lifted up in pronouncing, or pronounced long, is of the feminine gender.  
If Lily mean by syllaba acuta, a long syllable with an acute accent upon it, than many of the words put in the rules of exception, are in vain excepted, for many of them increase short?  
'Tis very true: amongst the masculines excepted, these increase short, Sal, salis. Vir, viri. Mass, maris. Pes, pedis. Grex, gregis. Phryx, phrygis. Amongst the doubtful: Scrobs, scrobis. Grus, gruis. Amongst the Common of two: Dux, ducis. Bos, bovis. Sus, suis.  
Why doth Lilly say, Glis gliris habens genitivo.  
To distinguish it from Glis glissis, Potter's clay, and Glis glitis, a Thistle, both which words are of the feminine gender.  
Is not that rule, Mascula in oer, or, & os, faulty?  
Yes, and it may be thus compendiously amended: Mascula in er, or, & os, seu Crater, conditor, heros;  
In Dens, quale bidens: Torens, nefrens, oriensque  
Add gigas, elephas, adam●…, garamasque tapesque  
Atque Lebes, magnes, hydrops, dodransque meridi-  
Es. Phoenix, bombyx, thorax, vervexque coraxque  
Sunt haec foeminea in n & or, Siren, soror, uxor.  
Why do you turn out of this rule, Cures: Quae componuntur ab asse ut dodrans, semis; & Mulier?  

Cures is a defective, as Gabijs and Locri.  First: Cures is no noun appellative, but a proper name of a town of the Sabines; which is read only in the plural number. Tutioque seni, Curibusque severis. Virg. Secondly, Dodrans, and Semis, are no compounds of As; first, Dodrans is no compound, as appears by its signification, for it doth not signify, nine pounds, which it should if it were compounded of dodra and as, but nine ounces: as also by analogy; as of decem and as comes decussis, of centum and as, centussis; so by analogy of dodra and as, should result dodrassis, not dodrans: and herein Lily forgot what he had written before in the first exception of the first special rule, that ab assenata were masculines, not increasing in the genitive 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 itself the nom. case, compounded of semi and as, which semi is always found in composition, as Semianimis, semivivus, semicircularis, semipedalis. Semibovemque virum, semivirumque bovem. Ouid. and is derived of the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which being turned into latin, in stead of the asper spiritus, doth prefix s, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, super; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sylua. Thirdly, Mulier, though in modern Poets it be made to increase long, yet in truth it doth increase short, and so the best Critics pronounce it: that it increaseth short may be thus confirmed. First, it is found, the last word in many verses in Terence, which do commonly end in an jambicke foot. Secondly, it is found, in any place of Virgil or Ovid's works in any obliqne case, and it is more than probable, that a word of such common use would not have been baulked by them, had not the three first syllables in the obliqne cases made a tribrachus, of which their verses are altogether uncapable. Thirdly, that jambick Scazon in Martial, where (erum) makes an jambus: for a Scazon never admits of a spondaeus in the second odd place, put all out of doubt. Amethystinasque mulierum vocat vestes.  
Is perdix of the doubtful gender?  
It can scarce be 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, etc.  
How may that rule, Sunt commune parens, etc. be bettered?  
Thus: Communis generis sunt haec infans adolescens,  
Dux, illex, haeres, exlex, autorque parensque  
Latro, cliens, custos, bos, fur, sus, atque Sacerdos.  
Why is Bifrons turned out?  
Because, though it be sometimes used substantively, yet indeed it is an adjective, an epithet of janus.  
Saturnusque senex, junique bifrontis imago. Virg.  
Is author used only concerning Persons?  
No: sometimes concerning Things, as, Multi ingenio sibi autore dignitatem pepererunt. Cic. Calor author levitatis. Cometa sideris autoris sui sequitur naturam. Scal.  
Is Presbyter, which is called in Grammar, Vox Ecclesiastica, a good word or no?  
No: it hath been used by modern writers, but is in truth a barbarous word: the true latin word is Presbyterus, borrowed of the greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
What feminines are excepted from the third special 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 genitive case.   
In Do, vel Go, Nomina hyperdisyllaba gignunt.  
Quae Dinis, atque Ginis sicut dulcedo, propago. To which these may more completely be added:  
Virgo, grando, fides, compes, teges, arbour, amazon,  
Bacchar, hyems, mulier, syndon, gorgon, seges, icon.  
What do you think of that rule, Graecula in as, etc. caspis, cassis, cuspis.  
I think that therein Lily was in part deceived, for cassis and cuspis are originally latin words, not to be found in any greek Lexicographer.  
Is every word, signifying a thing without life, ending in a, of the neuter gender?  
Yes, if it increase short in the genitive case.  
How is then that many Grammarians have affirmed, that polenta, though it increase not at all in the genitive case, is of the neuter gender?  
It is true, Alexander, Sulpitius, Nebrissensis, Baptista Pius, and Calepine, affirm so; and Mantuan being deceived by the Grammarians of his time, did use it so, saying: Montibus artocreas, & pingue polenta comedi. But in Apuleius we find, polentae caseatae offula. In Varro, Obijciunt his polentam hordeaceam: the error arose first from the misse-construction of that verse in Ovid's Metam. Dulce dedit testa, quod coxerat ante polenta: they coosined with a comma after aunt, put in by the non-intelligent Printer, thought polenta the accusative, which was the ablative, as if the Poet had meant, dedit dulce polenta: which if it be searched into will be found nonsense, for polenta signifieth dried barley, with which beer is brewed, but is not of itself any liquid thing which may be drunk: the verse is thus to be construed; Dedit dulce i dulcem potum, She gave to Ceres' sweet drink, quod coxerat ante polenta, which before she had boiled with dried barley. Ovid takes dulce here in the neuter gender substantively, as afterwards, liquidum. Iwenemque cum liquido mixta perfudit Diua polenta; 
Vide Raphaelem Regium, Ouidij Interp. in 5. Metam.  Ceres besprinkled the impudent boy which derided her, with the dry barley mingled with the liquor: so Ninivita.  
If verber be read, Robinson contradicts Lily, affirming, that only verberis, and verbere are read.  
It is no marvel though they disagree, since in patching up our Grammar they did not confer their notes together.  
Doth iter belong to the rule of neutral words, excepted from the third special rule, since it is declined iter itineris, whereas those which increase in the genitive case, are to exceed the nom. only in one syllable, and not in two?  
The genitive case Itineris is of an old word Itiner, which is grown out of use, not of iter, which is succeeded in its room.  
Pecus pecoris seems to be 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 understood.  
What is the meaning of Onyx cum prole?  
That onyx with the offspring, or compound thereof, Sardonyx, is of the doubtful gender.  
Is it any where found in the feminine gender?  
No where, always in the masc.  
Et crocino nares myrrhcus ungat onyx. Propert.  
In dextra candidus ardet onyx, etc.  
Are Augur and Aruspex used in the fem. gender, as well as in the masc.  
I do not think any example can be showed, where they are used in the feminine gender: the Romans had a College of Augurs, but we never read of any woman admitted fellow there. Plautus would not use Haruspex for a Shee-diviner, but Haraspica.  
Is princeps always a substantive of the common of two, as it is in Lily?  
I think that it is primarily a substantively, yet used sometime in the room and place of an adjective, as in that verse of Horace:  
Principibus placuisse viris non ultima laus est.   

Of the first declension.  
Do all nouns of the first declension, ending in a, make the genitive in ae?  
No: for we read Paterfamilias, Materfamilias', Filius familias in the gen. even in the best and purest Authors: and in the Ancients, vias, terras: the genitive of via, terra.  
Why did they write so?  
In imitation of the Greeks, amongst whom all substantives ending in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and α with a vowel before it form the genitive case by as.  
It seems that some latin words end in am, as well as Hebrew in the nom. case. I read in Plautus; Ego patriam te rogo quae sit tua, where patriam seems to be the nominative case: for if the sentence be construed, the words must be placed thus; Rogo te quae sit patriam tua?  
The words cannot be so placed: but here is an Antiptosis, the accusative put for the nominative, patriam for patria.  
If all nouns of the first declension in as, make the vocative in a, how is it that we read in Terence, Pythias in the vocative 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 vocative like the nominative, and yet we find regularly in the same Scene; Paululum si cessassem Pythia, domi non offendissem.  
Are à Musa, à Magistro, ablative cases?  
The vulgar Grammarians confound Syntaxis with Etymology, when in declining a noun that say in the ablat. ab hac Musa, ab hoc Magistro; this is construction, not declining: if they will say, the preposition is prefixed only as a sign; I answer, that this sign is nor perpetual; this appears 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 dative, and ablative cases plural in abus, as well as Dea liber●a etc.  
Yes, and sometimes in is also: for we read in Cicero. Tullius Terentiae, & Pater Tulliolae duabus animis suis salutem dicit.  
Do not words of the first declension make the dative and ablative cases plural, regularly in is?  
Yes: but these which follow are to be excepted, whereof some make is and abus, as nouns redundant; others abus only: which for the help of memory I have reduced into this distich:  
Filia, nata, anima is faciunt, atque abus, at abus Tantùm, Ambae, atque duae, liberta, equa, sic dea, mula.   

Of the second Declension.  
How many terminations be there of the second declension?  
Eight: the examples of them I have compiled in this Hexameter:  
TemplVM, annVS, uir, apER, SatVR, OrphEVS, IliON, ArgOS.  
Is there an imitation of the Attic dialect of the Greeks, which forms the vocative like to the nominative, in that verse of Ouid. Latmius Endymion non est tibi luna rubori, as Lily supposeth.  
I see no reason for that supposal, for Latmius Endymion is the nominative case to the verb est, not the vocative: the Poet according to the true original copy, doth not direct his speech to Endymion, but to the Moon: the meaning is, that Diana was not ashamed to descend to the loving embracements of Endymion on the hill Latmus. Endymion was an Astronomer, and for the clearer sight of the stars, did often go to the top of that mountain, which gave hint to the fable.  
What words be those of the second declension, which make the vocative in e and in us?  
These six: which to help the memory, I have comprised in this verse:  
Haec: vulgus, lucus, populus, flwius, chorus, agnus.  
Do not Quercus, and Laurus, form the vocative in e, or us, as well as these?  
Yes; but not in the same respect: for they form the vocative in e, as of the second declension: and in us, as of the fourth declension.  
Doth vulgus make the vocative 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 nouns in us in the vocative case, is an Archaisme.  
How do greek words in os, as Logos, make the vocative?  
As the latin words in us regularly.  
What is the reason that Panthus, and Oedipus, make the vocative in u?  
Because they come of greek words in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which make ●… in the vocative, which is rendered in latin by u.   

Of the third Declension.  
What nouns of the third declension make the accusative case in in only?  
These; which for memory's sake may thus rhyme: 
Vim, ravim, sitim, tussim,  
Charybdim, maguderim, & amussim.   
What nouns make the accusative both in in, and in 'em?  
These: 
In, Em. faciunt, febris, buris,  
Peluis, puppis, & securis.  
Torquis, turris, aqualis, navis.  
Et bipennis, restis, clavis.   
If the genitive case of the third declension end in is, how comes it to pass that we read duri miles Vlyssi. Immitis Achilli?  
Concerning Vlyssi, which Virg. useth in the genitine case, in the second of his Aeneid. (and the same is to be said also of Achilli) we must observe that it is of the third declension of the contracts amongst the Greeks, whose nom. ending in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and genit. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Vlysseus, Vlysseos; the ancient Grammarians were wont to divide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into two syllables, whose genitive they made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, divided also, as Vlyssëus, Vlyssëi; and the vowels so divided, they did again contract into the diphthong 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by Synecphonesis, as Ulysses, for Vlyssei: and afterward by Synaeresis they pronounced the diphthong by i, as Vlyssi for Vlyssei.  
Do any nouns of the third declension decrease in the genitive case?  
No: those that imagine that jupiter makes Iouis in the genitive case, are deceived; and those that decline it so, may as well say. Nom. Phoebus. Gen. Apollinis, saith the Grammarian. Probus Institut. l. 2. jupiter is a Synonymon of the ancient nominat. case: Iouis, which was declined Iouis in the genitive case also, but now the nominative is out of use, and jupiter used in stead of it; but the other cases keep their ancient form.  
Is that rule of Lily generally true, that adjectives, except those which end in is, and en, and make e in the neuter gender, make the ablative both e and i?  
No: for adjectives ending in ns, do not make the ablative promiscuously in e or i: in this we must be very observant of the use 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 ablative of the participle of the present tense, being joined with another word put absolutely, ends only in e: yet we may say in another kind of construction, animo Gaudenti, patienti, laetanti faciam. Goclen. probls. gram. l. 1. pag. 16.  
Is that rule of Lily generally true. Comparativa bifariam facient ablativum in e vel i?  
No: the comparatives of the feminine gender do most commonly make the ablative in e, as laetiore fame, secundiore fortuna, vocis contentione maiore, gravitate acriore, commodiore valetudine, longiore via. Comparatives of the neuter gender most commonly make the ablative in i, as a Marori, a Pari, a fortiori; ardentiori study, Cic. vide Goclen. ibid.   

Of the fourth Declension.  
What words of the fourth declension make the dative, and the ablative cases plural in ubus.  
These comprehended in this distich for memory sake.  
Haec in ubus, ficus, portus,  
partus, specus, arcus  
Sic lacus, atque veru, sic  
quercus, acus, tribus, artus.   

Of the fift Declension.  
Is plebes, plebei to be used by any one that would write purely?  
No: it was a word anciently used, but now is exolete: if plebs be a noun redundant, as Robinson saith, then plebes must be the other nominative case; not plebis, as he saith in his rules of Heteroclits: plebis is no where found but in the genitive of plebs.   

Upon Quaegenus, etc.  
What do you think of that rule, Haec genus, ac partim flexum variantia, etc.  
I think it might very well have been spared. Pergamon seems to be the plural of Pergamon, found in Virg. rather than 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 he saith, Quod nisi plurali careut etc.  
What are nouns aptote?  
Not such as have no cases, but such as do not admit of difference of terminations in obliqne cases, they are derived of α, a privative particle, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cado.  
Are cornu and genu such?  
Yes.  
Yet we read that these have other terminations, as cornuum, cornibus, genuum, genibus.  
The rule is to be understood of these in the singular, not in the plural number.  
What part of speech is fas?  
A noun adjective, used only in the neuter gender; and of the same native is nefass.  
If Instar be a noun, as Robinson saith, how comes it to pass that in the syntaxis of adverbs we find this rule, Instar aequiparationem, mensuram etc. significat, etc.  
It is an evident contradiction, and no marvel, since our Grammar is a Cento made up of the shreds of several men.  
Is not the rule touching Triptots faulty?  
Yes: first in that he saith, frugis, and ditionis want their nominative 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 plural number complete and perfect: it is true, opes is read in all cases in the plural number, but it hath not any respect to opis, but is a fcminine plural, wanting the singular number, and is to be referred to that rule, Haec sunt faeminei generis, numerique secundi, etc. Again the significations of opis: & opes, though they have some kindred, yet they differ much; opis, help, opes, riches. If he will say that opis hath the plural number, he may as well say that delicium hath the plural number also, for deliciae is every 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 vocative case?  
No: we read in the Poet, Dijque Deaeque omnes. O all ye Gods and Goddesses.  
Have no Pronouns the vocative case,  
but only noster, nostras, meus & tu?  
Yes: Ipse hath the vocative case also; as in the Poet, Ipse meas aether suscipe summe preces.  
How may Robinson's rule be mended?  
Thus: Et Pronomina, praeter  
Quinque notanda. Meus, tu, nostras, noster, & ipse.  
What Nouns want the plural number?  
All, or the most part that for brevity sake are comprised in this distich.  
1. Propria, 2. Virtutes, 3. Arts, 4. Pensa, 5. Vda, 6. Figura.  
7. Morbi, 8. Herbae, 9 Vitia, 10. Aetates, 11. Frumenta, 12. Metella.  
1. As Thomas, Richardus. 2. Prudentia, justitia. 3. Grammatica Logica. 4. Piper, Saccharum. 5. Aromatices. 6. Synecdoche, Metaphora. 7. Podagra, Cephalalgia. 8. Amaranthus, Amaracus. 9 Desidia, Auaritia. 10. Iwenta, Senecta. 11. triticum. 12. aurum ferrum.  
Is not sanguis read in the plural number?  
Yes, in ecclesiastical writers, but then the word is forced to express an Hebraisme, as, vir sanguinum.  
Lily saith that nemo is of the common of two, Robinson that it is of the masculine gender; what do you think of their variance?  
Phocas, and other Grammarians side with Robinson, and they add, that Homo also is of the masculine gender, of which nemo is a compound. Neither of these nouns are found with an adjective 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 he comforts him for the death of his daughter Tullia) hath these words, Quae si iam diem suum non obijsset paulo post tam ei moriendum fuit, quam homo nata erat: where nata doth not agree with homo, but Tullia understood; and the derivative humanus is attributed to a woman in Horace, Humano capite (to a woman's head) ceruicem pictor equinam jungere si vellet, etc. as appears by what follows, mulier formosa supernè; but hence cannot be any infallible conclusion drawn, that Homo is of the feminine gender; and so, neither by consequence that nemo is of that gender: in this let every one follow what he himself seethe best grounds for.  
Is it true that Cassida, ae, is form of Cassida, the accusative case of a Greek word Cassis cassidos; as Panthera of Panther, as Robinson would persuade us.  
No: he, and his brother Lilly herein draw in the same line of error: cassis is primitively a latin word.  
Is that true which Robinson hath in his rules of redundant nouns, that ador and adoes are both read in the nominative case?  
No: for ador is only to be found, not adoes; 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 tells us?  
No: pubes is properly a sign of ripeness of age in men, at fourteen years, in women at twelve, but puber signifies one that hath arrived at those years.  
May those luxuriant adjectives which are derived of Arma, iugum, neruus, etc. be used promiscuously?  
No: for though they be found in old writers, yet many of them are rejected by those which have refined the Latin tongue: we must not use inermus so frequently as inermis, nor sublimus but sublimis, nor procliws but proclivis, not synceris but syncerus only, not imbellus but imbellis.   

Of adjectives and their Comparisons.  
How many terminations be there of adjectives in the positive degree?  
Nine: all adjectives end as one of these adjectives:  
SoleRS, excelleNS, locuplES, sublimIS, & audAX.  
BelligER, atque satVR, prefulgidVS, atque Ravenn AS.  
and here we may note by the way, that Ravennas, Arpinas are declined as Nostras.  
Is unus never used in the plural number, except it be joined with a word which wanteth the singular number.  
Yes, among the Poets, who for verse sake often use the plural number for the singular, as Virg. satis una superque vidimus excidia.  
What adjectives be there which may be increased, or diminished in signification, and yet are not compared in pure writers?  
These; Vulgaris, vetulus, balbus, sylvester, equester,  
Delirus, crispus, claudus, canusque canorus,  
Gallicus atque cicur, memor, almus, caluus, egenus, etc.  
What adjectives 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 used by some in the superlative, colendissimus: it were more pure to say, maxim, or admodum colendus. 3. adjectives in plex, as quadruplex, except simplex, multiplex. 4. In imus, as maritimus. 5. In ivus, as fugitiws: but yet we read festivior, festivissimus. 6. Derivatives in inus, as matutinus. 7. Compounds of fero and gero, as legifer, corniger.  
Is that true that the comparative doth signify the positive with magis.  
No: for the comparative doth magis significare. i. hath a larger signification than the positive, though it doth not significare positiwm cum magis, because the denominative doth not signify the Noun from which it is derived, but the Thing after another manner: so the comparative signifies a thing, not a noun.  
Which adjectives want the positive degree?  
Besides, deterior, potior, ac oeyor, those which are derived of these prepositions, comprehended in this verse: Ant, infra, supra, extra, intra, ultra, post, prope, citra.  
Which adjectives want the comparative degree, yet have the superlative?  
These: Inclytus, atque sacer, falsus, fidus, meritusque  
Nuper, & inviius, nows, & iurisconsultus, etc.  
Which adjectives want the superlative, yet have the comparative?  
These: Longinguus, iwenis, declivis, & infinitus.  
Atque senex, ingens, adolescens, atque propinquus. etc.  
What adjectives ending in dus may be compared?  
Such as are primitively adjectives, as, jucundus, ior, issimus: limpidus, ior, issimus: faecundus, ior, issimus: but nouns adjectives participials may not be compared: it is true that some modern writers have compared them according to Analogy; but yet therein they have swerved from the use of the most pure authors; & this liberty they took to express the abundance of their ardent affection, respect and observance to their Patrons and Superiors; and therefore we seldom or never find them compared, except in the frontispieces of Dedicatory Epistles. But Certissima loquendi magistra consuetudo, saith Quintilian: we may not say, reverendissimo viro, but reverendo: 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 comparative. We read, formidabilis, formidabilior, but never, formidabilissimus, so amabilis, amabilior, but never amabilissimus.  
How can noun substantives be compared, since they cannot receive any increase of signification?  
When a noun substantive is compared, the substance is not respected, but the quality: as paenior is as much as paeno vafrior, more crafty or unfaithful than a Carthaginian. Neronior, as much as Nerone Saevior, more bloody and cruel than Nero: so oculissimus. i. dilectissimus; as dear to one as his eyes.   

Of a pronoun.  
Whence hath a pronoun its name?  
Quòd pro nomine ponatur. From being sometimes put in the room and place of a noun, so Scaliger defines it, 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He hath said it, that is, Pythagoras. Plaut. in Casina. sc. si sapitis. Ipsam pro hera dixit, Ego eo, quo me Ipsa misit: so we in English say; the stoutest He. For the most courageous, or one that bears his head highest.  
Can one, and the same pronoun be called a primitive, a demonstrative, and a relative?  
Yes: but not in one and the same respect, as for example: the pronoun Ille in respect of its original is a primitive, because it is not derived of any other, in respect of its demonstration, or pointing out of some Person, or Thing a demonstrative, in respect of its relation, a relative, because it repeats, or rehearses some thing, or person, of which there was mention before made.  
How comes it to pass that nostri, and vestri, are used in the genitive case plural, as well as nostrum, and vestrum.  
Because nostri, and vestri, in the genitive singular, signify a multitude, therefore they are used promiscuously with nostrum, and vestrum, in the plural genitive.  
We find in the English Rudiments. Quo, qua, quo, vel qui. Is Qui read in the ablative case in the neuter gender?  
I think there can scarce any example be found of that kind: but, Qui is read in the ablative 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 be observed then imitated.  
Is that true which Lily hath; Martialis, Pronomini Ipse vocatiwm tribuere videtur, cum ait, ut Martis revocetur, etc. A te juno petat ceston, & ipsa Venus.  
No: He was most grossly overseen in the construing of these verses: if ipsa be understood in the vocative case, Martial will be made to write plain nonsense: that the truth may appear, and none may by credulity suck in this error, I will subioyne the whole Epigram with the translation thereof, it is to be found, Epig. l. 6. ep. 13.  


* Vide doctissimi Farnabij Notas in istud Epigramma.  Quis te Phidiaco formatam Iulia coelo,  
 quis Palladiae non putet artis opus.  
Candida non tacita respondet imagine Lygdos;  
Et placido fulget vinus in ore decor.  
Ludit Acidalio sed non manus aspera nodo.  
Quem rapuit collo parue Cupido tuo.  
 Martis revocetur amor, saevique Tonantis.  
A te juno petat 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur. i. à pungendo. Cestus' enim est baltheus veneris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 variegatus, & acupictus.  ceston & ipsa Venus.   

julia, who e'er thy statue saw, but thought  
It was a masterpiece, by Phidias wrought?  
Or artful Pollaes? In thy beauteous face  
Such lively cunning shines, such lovely grace,  
That the white marble somewhat seems to say.  
Thy smooth-sleek hand seems sportfully to play  
With the pure Acedulian truelove's knot:  
Which, pretty Cupid, from thy neck she hath got.  
Venus, to regain Mars; and juno, jove,  
May ask of thee the embroidered Belt of love.   
Why is Cujas handled among the pronouns? is it because Cujus is there of which it seems to be derived?  
No: Cuias is no derivative pronoun, but a primitive noun gentile, and is referred to the fourth declension of pronouns, because of the affinity of termination, and declination with the pronouns, nostras, vestras.  
How is that true which is in Lily, that Ego, and Nos only 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 only, or of the second person only, as Ego and Tu are, but indifferently as well of the third person as of the first, or second; the meaning of Lily is, that none of the pronouns, except Ego, and Tu, are only of the first, and only of the second person.  
Why may not Egomet, Tute, Isthic, Illic, be numbered among the demonstratives, as well as Idem among the relatives?  
I see no reason to the contrary, if it had pleased the Composer of the Accidence, so to have ranked them; if composition excludes them, it excludes Idem also.   

Of a Verb.  
No sentence or proposition can be a part of speech: how can a verb then be a part of speech since it is a sentence. All verbs of the first or second person, are sentences, as also all verbs of the third person, as often as a certain person is understood; as pluit, ningit, grandinat, Deus scilicet, vel natura, vel aliquid simile?  
Such propositions as these, the Logicians call implicit, which are resolved into explicit propositions, by supplying the nominative case, and resolving the verb into a participle of the present tense with the verb sum, thus, scribo, i ego sum scribens; pugnas, tu es pugnans; pluit, coelum est pluens, etc. an explicit proposition cannot be a part of speech, but an implicit may, forasmuch as it cannot be complete without a supplement.  
What is a verb deponent?  
Such a verb, as amongst ancient Authors was a verb Commune, and had both active and passive signification, but now amongst purer writers, deposuit hath laid off that nature, and signifies only actively, having a passive termination, as meditor, obliviscor, aggredior, etc.  
Is that true in the Accidence: such verbs as have no persons are called impersonals?  
No: Impersonals are not so called because they have no persons (for they have as we see) very many of them, the voice of the third person both active and passive, but because they have not any certain signification either of number, or person, unless some noun, or pronoun be joined to them in an obliqne case, as oportet me, seems to be of the first person, and singular number. Oportet nos, of the first person plural. Oportet te, of the second person singular. Oportet vos, of the second person plural. So Lilly.  
Are verbs Commune now in use?  
Very few: we shall scarce find any verbs in pure Writers, that signify both actively, and passively: there were such amongst the Ancients, which in signification did answer the mean voice of the Greeks, as Linacer is of opinion.  
Doth the Indicative Mood show a reason true or false, as the Accidence defines it?  
No: for when I say, Amo, I love: I make a simple affirmation by this word, not any confirmation of aught by reason.  
Is not there a plain contradiction in Lily touching the potential Mood?  
Yes: in his Etymology, touching the moods of a verb, he hath these words: Potentialis neque ullum adverbium adiunctum habet, neque coniunctionem. In the Syntaxis, of an adverb these: Dum pro dummodo alias potententiali, alias subiunctivo nectitur. In the Syntaxis of a conjunction, these:  causalis, seu perfectiva coniunctio etc. nunc potentiali nunc subiunctivo iungitur; an evident contradiction.  
Is that true which is in the Accidence: the subiunctive mood hath evermore some conjunction joined with him, as, Cum amarem, When I loved?  
No: in this speech there are two errors. First, the subiunctive hath sometimes an adverb joined with him, as Lily affirms in his Syntaxis of Aduerbes. Vbi postquam etc. interdum indicativis, interdum subiunctivis verbis apponuntur. Again, Simulac etc. ind. & sub. adhaerent. Secondly, there is an error in the example. For when Come, signifieth When, it is not a conjunction, but an adverb of Time, so saith Lilly. Vbi, postquam, & cùm, temporis adverbia etc. Cùm canerem reges etc. Virg.  
To what purpose are the potential, and subiunctive Moods, since without these there is a perfect formation of verbs made?  
If you respect the naked manner of forming, and difference of termination, they do 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 use of these Moods is very necessary.  
If the Infinitive Moode have neither number nor person, nor nominative case before it, to what purpose, is that first exception from verbum personale, etc. placed in the first Concord, viz. Verba infiniti modi pro nominativo accusatiwm ante se statuunt?  
I think that that exception is altogether superfluous; for how can a verb which hath no person, nor number, make an exception from a verb which hath both number, and person: it is in effect, as if Lily had said; from this rule can none be excepted, but such as are not capable of exception.  
Whence hath the word Tense its original?  
From the French word temps, which signifies Time, which is pronounced Tans, and so Tense.  
The common and received division of Time is in praesens, praeteritum, futurum; how comes it to pass then that Grammar makes five Tenses or Times?  
The Philosophers speak otherwise then the Grammarians: the Philosophers searching more narrowly into the truth, and nature of things, divide all Time into that which is past, present, and to come, because if we would speak precisely, all Time either is now, or hath been, or shall be hereafter: but the Grammarians who do not so strictly, and exactly weigh the natures of things, have made for more facility in teaching, five Tenses of latin verbs, according to the propriety of the language. The Greeks have eight Tenses, not according to the truth of the matter, but according to the use, and propriety of their tongue.  
What do you think of this passage in Lily? Futurum, quo res in futuro gerenda significatur. Hic promissivus modus à nonnullis vocatur.  
It is very faulty. First, here is confusion of terms: for, modus is here put for tempus. Secondly, the particle Hic hath reference to futurum, and so there is a solecism, or at least a solaecophanes; it may be thus corrected: Hoc tempus à nonnullis vocatur promissivum.  
If Deleo, and Impleo, be compound verbs, whose simples are out of use; how is it that we find in As in praesenti, this: Leo, les, levi, indeque natum, Deleo delevi, pleo, bless, plevi?  
Lily did not well in concealing or omitting the abrogation, and extermination of these words out of the latin tongue; we may not use these out of composition any more than specio, lacio, or cumbo.  
Doth Edormisco signify incohation, or beginning of action.  
No: it is put for a verb incohative by Lily, but it doth not signify to begin to sleep, but to sleep so long until 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 do not signify beginning of action, or passion; which is evident, because the Orators, Poets, and Historians, set before some of them the verbs: Caepi, incipio, incepto; before others the adverbs. Paulatim, quotidie, magis: as for example.  
Caepit erudescere morbus. Virg. i. Validior fieri. Servius.  
Aegrescitque medendo i inter medendum fit aegrius.  
Incipiunt agitata tumescere. Virg.  
Supercilia nonnunquam canescere incipiunt. Columel.  
Cum incipit, oliva nigrescere. idem.  
Vbi convalescere caeperunt. idem.  
Cum maturescere frumenta inciperent. Caesar.  
Apud exteras gentes enitescere inceptabat. Gell. with them same verbs are, hiscere, làctescere, grandescere, clarescere, iwenescere, 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 frequentative verb?  
It is by termination, and derivation, but not by signification: dormito signifies in latin what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth in greek, To take a nap, or to sleep dogs sleep; Dormito desiderium potius somni, aut leviculum somnum, quam frequentem indicat, saith Peter Ramus, l. 16. Scholar Gram. and in that of Horace, Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus: Quandoque, is a sign both of diminution and frequency, and so takes away the signification of frequency from dormito.  
Whence hath Coningation its name?  
A coniugando: because in every Conjugation after one, and the same manner of varying of final terminations many verbs are joined, as it were under the same iugum, or yoke.  
Have all verbs of the first Conjugation 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, add secundo, secundăre: but this is not a compound of Do. Secundo, signifies to make prosperous, derived of secundus, prosperous, favourable, and hath a long.  
If all verbs be of the first Conjugation, which have a long before re and ris, than it seems, doceare, docearis; audiare, audiaris, be of the first Conjugation?  
The meaning of that is, not that all verbs that in any mood have a long before re and ris, be of the first Conjugation, but such as have a long before re in the infinitive mood of the active form, as amare, and before ris in the second person of the present Tense of the indicative mood of the passive form: as gratularis, are of the first Conjugation.  
Why do you say of the active, and passive form, and not of the active and passive voice?  
Because there be many verbs neuter which are not active, and yet in conjugation follow the form of the active verbs, and many verbs deponent, which though they be not passive in signification, yet in conjugation follow the form of the passive verbs.   

Upon As in Praesenti.  
The verb Lavo, which Lily saith, is of the first Conjugation, makes lauĕre in the Infinite. the last syllable save one short; and strideo, caveo, ferveo, making fervere, stridere, cavere, are found with e short before re in the infinitive of the second Conjugation?  
'Tis true: but lauĕre is not of lavo, lavas, but of lavo lavis, which was of the third conjug. amongst the Ancients, and so used by Virgil in his Georgics and Aeneids, and feruere, and stridere are found with e short, but thus conjugated, they are now grown out of use; 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 Lily was deceived, and deceived the Poser of the Accidence, and the Construer of Lilies 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 conjugation, as Lily affirmeth?  
No: the pure Writers, who are to be our Precedents, use it in the first conjugation: Intestina tibi crepant. Plaut. Quis post vina gravem militiam, & pauperiem crepat. Hor.  
Is quinisco found in any good author?  
No: the true verb is conquinisco, which is a simple verb, and so set down by Nebrissensis, and Ramus, not a compound of con, and quinisco, as Lily imagined, any more than condio, or consulo, etc.  
Is nexo, nexis, nexui, read in the third conjugation, as Lily tells us?  
No: it is only read in the first conjugation, nexo, nex as, nexare.  
Is cambio campsi found in any pure author?  
No: it is a barbarous word, not to be used by any that would write pure latin; it is only 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 always in composition change the first vowel into e?  
No: for we read retracto: vulnera cruda retractat. Ouid. Pedamenta retractare. Columel. So likewise Pertracto. Pertractare Philosophiam. Cic.  
Doth habeo always in composition change the first vowel into i, as Lily saith?  
No: for we read posthabeo: as, posthabeo famae pecuniam, in the Syntaxis.  
Is exculpo a compound of ex and scalpo?  
It seems rather to be compounded of ex and sculpo: for the simple word sculpo is in use, as Ouid. Art Mira sculpsit ebur.  
Is vulsum regularly form of velli: according to that, Dat velli vulsum.  
It seems rather to be form of the other preteritum of vello viz. vulsi.  
How is that rule of Lily to be understood, Verba in or admittunt ex posteriore supino praeteritum.  
It is to be understood of such verbs whose actives have the latter supine, of the which the preterperfectense passive may be form.  
What then shall we say concerning verbs deponent, and commune, which end in or, and have a preterperfect tense, which they cannot form of a latter supine: since they have no verbs active?  
Lily doth say nothing of this point. I am of opinion that verbs active are to be feigned, of whose latter supine these verbs would regularly form their preterperfect tense, if such actives were in use: as for example, suppose that there were such a verb as laeto, laetas, laetavi, of the latter supine of this verb laetatu, regularly shall be form, laetatus sum, vel fui. So likewise of the supine criminatu, of the feigned verb crimino, nas: we may form the preteritum, criminatus, sum.  
What is she meaning of that verse in Grammar? Maereo sum maestus sed Phocae nomen habetur.  
That the neutropassive verb moereo hath maestus sum for its preteritum; but the Grammarian Phocas did think maestus rather to be a noun: 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 have the name to be given a gerenda duplici significatione, nempe activa & passiva sub una voce: but since there are so few Gerunds that signify passively, and those which do, almost all grown out of use, I think that is not the reason of the name: in this, and many other terms of art we are left to divine of the reasons of the imposition of the names.  
Is that generally true which we find in the English Rudiments. Gerunds have both the active and passive signification: as, amandi of loving, or being loved: amando, in loving, or in being loved: amandum, to love, or to be loved?  
No: the greatest part of Gerunds are used actively, very few passively; and in that kind of use, there seems to be an Archaisme.   

Of the Supines.  
Doth the latter supine signify passively only, for the most part as is in the Accidence?  
No: it is always of a passive 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 subdividing the future into the participle in rus, of the active, and neutral signification; and the participle in dus, of the passive signification?  
I think no: Lily might as well have said, as I suppose, there be five tempora, forasmuch as the participles of the future tense of a verb active, and a verb neuter ending in rus, do differ in time as much among themselves, as a participle of the future tense of a verb passive doth from either of them: if the active and passive signification do distinguish their times, he might then have said in his division of Tenses, Tempora sunt sex, present, imperfectum & futurum duplex, activae, & passivae vocis: nay, he might have said, Tempora sunt decem quinque activae, quinque passivae vocis: but of this let the judicious pass sentence. I speak with submission.  
If in that example of the Accidence, Legend is veteribus proficis, a participle of the future in dus, have the signification of a participle of the present tense: how is it that Lily in his Syntaxis, saith that in a like example a Gerund is turned into a noun adjective: as, Cur adeo delectaris criminibus inferendis?  
Truth is but one, on which side truth weighs heavier, I leave to Grammarians to determine.  
Doth a perfect verb neuter form only 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, regnatus: but some of these and the like may be ended in a manner irregular, used only by the Poets, whom it is not safe in all things to imitate.  
But it seems that regularly there come of some neutrals three participles; as of gaudeo, gaudens, gavisus, gavisurus: of audeo, audens, ausus, ausurus: fido, fidens, fisus, fisurus, etc.  
Those of which only two participles come, must be only neutrals; such are not these: for these are neutro passives, which since they differ from them in the manner of conjugation, no marvel if they differ from them in forming their participles.  
Why are they called Neutro-passives?  
Because though they be neuters, yet they form a Praeteritum, after i manner of verbs passive.  
How do neutro-passives, and passive-neutrals differ?  
Neutro-passives, although they have the preterperfect tense of passives, yet they retain the signification of neuters; as, soleo, solitus sum, but passive neutrals, though they end in o, yet they have a passive signification, and govern the same case that passives do, as vagulo, exulo.  
But it seems there be some participles of the passive voice, which come of verbs neuter; for we read, excursus, aratus, laboratus excurrendus arandus, laborandus.  
These are form of impersonal neuters, which are only found in the third person of the passive voice, but when Grammar saith, that only two participles are form of neuters, it means personal neuters of the active form.  
Are not verbs and participles of the active signification sometimes used passively, & contrà?  
Yes; as for example, Voluens pro volutus, as Turneb. 30. Aduersar. 19 saith: Certè hinc Romanos olim voluentibus annis. Virg. 1. Aen. Sparsus pro spargens. Priùs haustus sparsus aquarum ore fore. Virg. 4. Geor So Cèrda▪ Velata pro velans. Senec. in Herc. At. Aet. sc. Flete. Adesque 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 Servius conceives. Tum vero tremefacta novis per pectora cunctis Insinuat pavor. idem. vertere pro versa sunt. Et totae in solidam glaciem vertere lacunae. vide Robig. Dict. Critic. l. 11. c. 7.   

Of Adverbs.  
Are not minus and male adverbs of denying?  
Yes, though they be omitted by Lily: Minus pro non in Varro. Non mirum si caecutis minus, aurum enim non perstringit oculos. Si minus intelligitur, if men understand not. Cic. So male. Petron. Quas struxit opes male sustinet. Malè sanus, not well in his wit. Male sobrius, not sober.  
Do not two negative adverbs deny more strongly sometimes in latin, as well as in greek?  
Yes: So, Virg. 2. Georg.  
Non ego cuncta meis amplecti versibus opto,  
Non mihi si linguae centum sint, oraque centum.  
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.  
Do 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 gravate & gratuito defendere. So Senec. Oratio ostendit illum non esse syncerum, & habere aliquid ficti. Aut. pro nec. Vir. 4. Aen. Sed nullis ille movetur fletibus, aut vocos ullus tractabilis audit. Neque pro &, Virg. 5. Ecl. Nulla neque amnem Libavit quadrupes nec graminis attigit herbam. Iwenal. Sat. 5. Omnia Graecè. Cum sit turpe magis nostris nescire latinè: where in nescire the verb sciwt is to be understood, which belongs to omnia Graece before. Mart. 5. Ep. 53. Exprimere Aue Latinum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non potes Graecum: where in non potes, potes, which belongs to the former comma is to be understood: so Tac. Ann. 13 Deesse nobis terra in quae vivimus, 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.  
Lily makes sit ita, sit sane adverbs of granting, id est, hoc est, quasi dicas, adverbs of explaining: are they adverbs in truth?  
No: every adverb is a simple single word, these are sentences, they belong to the Syntaxis, not Etymology.   

Of Conjunctions.  
Is not it a contradiction in adiecto, to say, a conjunction disiunctive?  
No: for a conjunction disiunctive conjoines the words, by disjoining the matter.  
Doth Lily speak logically, when he saith sunt dictiones que nunc adverbia, nunc coniunctiones, nunc praepositiones esse inveniuntur ut 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. ut Sol. whereas it should have run thus, in ol unicum masculinum est, ut Sol.  
Is que always an Encliticke?  
No: we find it sometimes put before the word it couples, as that Epitaph of Tibullus.  
Hic iacet immiti consumptus morte Tibullus,  
Messalam terra dùm sequitur, que mari.  
And in Virg. Ipse ego cana legam tenera lanugine mala. Castaneas, que nuces. i. Castaneas & nuces. Castaneae, and nuces are distinguished, as saith Pliny, l. 15. c. 28. and so they are here too, as Scal. think. de C. LL. l. 12. c. 177. Ouid. l. 2. the Art, alluding to this verse, makes a distinction betwixt them: 
Affert aut uras, aut quas Amacillis amabit,  
Et nunc castaneas, nunc amat illa nuces.    

Of a Preposition.  
Did Lily do well to handle the regimen of Prepositions in Etymology.  
No: herein he confounds Etymology and Syntaxis.   

Of an Interjection.  
Why is an Interjection so called?  
Quod interijciatur: because it is cast in as a sudden ejaculation, expressing in an abrupt fashion, some passion of the mind.   

Of SYNTAXIS.  
WHence hath Syntaxis its name?  
From the Greek 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 do you think of the second exception from verbum personale, viz. Impersonalia praecedentem, etc.  
I think it might be spared as well as the first: either this place is improper to treat of impersonals, or else there is a tautology in repeating the same rule afterward; nay, to speak truth, this exception is absurd: it is in effect thus much; all verbs personal agree with their nom. cases in number and person, except verbs impersonal, which are altogether uncapable of a nominative case before them, which is plain nonsense.  
Are not nouns which are not collectives sometimes construed as if they were such?  
Yes: as for example; Plaut. in Bacchid. Scen. Meamne. Et ego (Chrysalus) te, & illum mactamus infortunio: the pronoun ego here is comprehensive, as if Chrysalus being one, did oppose himself against two, and that he might match them, he speaks of himself as of two. Scal. de Caus. L. L. l. 6. c. 30. Virg. 9 Aeneid. Vos o Calliope precor aspic●…e canenti. Alcmene in Plaut. Amph. Sc. Satin. speaking to Amphitruo alone saith: Quis igitur nisi vos. The person of a King represents many: thence that form, Nos Iacobus Dei gratia, etc. 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 ut sciam quo die te visuri sumus.   

Of the second Concord.  
May not an adjective put after two substantives of diverse genders, or numbers sometimes agree with the latter, as well as with the former?  
Yes: the adjective may sometimes indifferently accord with either of the substantives; for we find in Tully, Non omnis error stultitia est dicenda: and in Livy, Gens universa veneti appellati.  
Is not an adjective sometimes put alone (as it were a substantive) whose substantive is to be understood and supplied?  
Yes: and that very elegantly: so we read, tribuo tibi primas i primas parts. Amplecti ambabus i ambabus manibus: Aspergere frigida i frigida aqua: it is an imitation of the Greeks, who say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad rectam i lineam, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ab una i voce.  
What if two adjectives concur together in the same sentence?  
Then one of them putteth on the nature of a substantive: Crudelem medicum intemperans aeger faeit: here aeger is taken substantively.  
If that the adjective is to agree with the substantive in case, gender, and number, what think you of these examples which seem to overthrew that rule, est quod speremus Deos bonis benefacturum. Aruspices dixerunt omnia ex sententia processurum. Non putavi haec eam facturum?  
Peter Ramus in his Grammatical Scholia's saith, that in these, and in such like examples, those words which seem to be Participles, are indeed verbs of the infinitive mood and future tense of the active form, having esse understood: in cuius sententiam pedibus eo.  
Is that true latin in Plautus, where he calls Venus, Deum indignam? 
In Paen. in Scen. Dij illum.   
Yes: the Heathen did think all their gods were both Male and Female, according to that of Orpheus.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
jupiter & mas est, & nescia foemina mortis.  
So Venus, and other goddesses have the title Deus given to them: so Virg. l. 2. Aeneid. Descendo, ac ducente Deo flammam inter, & hosts Expedior. Macrobius. Sat. 3. c. 7. saith, it is so to be read. Idem Aeneid. 2. Pollentemque Deum Venerem. Servius and Acterianus do approve of that reading. Heu fortuna quis est crudelior in nos Te Deus. Hor. 2. Ser. 8. Lucret. l. 2. Terram Deum matrem appellat. Sequitur superbos ultor à tergo Deus i Nemesis. Senec. Virg. Aeneid. 7. Allecto Deus appellatur. Nec dextrae erranti Deus abfuit. In like manner justinian for his effeminateness was called Vxorius: and Livia for her wisdom was styled, Stolatus Ulysses. Suet. vide Robig. Lex. Crit. l. 4. c. 17.  
Are not two or three adjectives sometimes joined to one substantive?  
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 Laeva volavit avis. Ennius' apud Cic. de Diuin.  
Are not sometimes two adjectives coupled together, used for one?  
Yes: as for example. Sarta-tecta praecepta. Plaut. Purus-putus asinus. Varro apud Nonium. Novum-vetus vinum bibo. Varro. Novo-veteri morbo medeor. Idem. So, Deus optimus-maximus. Graio-Graeci. Ennius' apud Festum. Ruta-caesa. apud Ies.   

Of the third Concord.  
If the Relative agree with the Antecedent, in Gender, Number, and Person; how is it that we find in Terence. Vbi est ille scelus, qui me perdidit? Qui the Relative 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 Metonymy of the adjunct; so the sense is made good: or qui by the figure Hyponaea hath reference to scelestus, to be understood in scelus by the judicious Readers.  
In that example; Est locus in carcere, quod Tullianum appellatur, and the like; as, Bene audiri, qui est recte factorum fructus omnes ferre volumus: and; Hodie, quae est altera dies Pentecostes, venit ad me nuntius, where the Relative put between two Substantives, agrees with the latter, is the construction proper to the Latins?  
No: it is an imitation of the greeks, who have the same construction. So Isocrates, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and thus Tully. Ne appellaveris consilium, quae vis, ac necessitas appellanda est.  
What do you think of that example: Nostros vidisti flentis ocellos?  
In it there is a solecism, or at least a solaecophanes, the Poet should have said regularly, if his verse would have suffered him, either nostros flentium, or meos flentis, to make up the construction: we must understand 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 having a conjunction copulative between them, will have a relative plural, which relative shall agree with the Antecedent of the most worthy Gender?  
No: for here the relative agrees with the antecedent of the most unworthy gender, viz. the Neuter. Again, if this be a true example, that exception subjoined of Things without life is superfluous, for it is an exception to itself; for to speak truth, to that rule doth this example appertain Imperium, and Dignitas being things without life: of that rule many Antecedents, etc. this or the like example should have been given. Rex, & Regina, quos tu beatos praedicas, sunt mortales.  
Is that example; Felix quem faciunt aliena pericula cautum, properly rendered in English?  
No: it should not have been rendered; Happy is he etc. to beware: for cautum is not here the first supine of caveo, neither can be (for it is not put after a verb, signifying moving to a place, but an adjective) the verse should therefore have been thus translated: Happy is he whom others harms make wary.   

Of the construction of Noun Substantives.  
Doth not a Substantive sometimes govern two genitive cases, or more?  
Yes: we read in Cicero. jamne 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 substantives sometimes linked together by a line, which the Grammarians call Hyphen, used for one?  
Yes: such words are found amongst the Lawyers; as, Placitum-consensum. Ulpian. Munus-donum. Modest. Actio-petitio. Callistrat. Locatio-conductio. Labeo. Obiurgat●…-censor. Macrob.  
Is not a noun in itself a compound, and so one, sometimes divided in respect of construction?  
Yes: as in this example. Neque ille magis iurisconsultus quam iustitiae fuit. The word jurisconsultus is one in itself, but to be divided in the rection of iustitiae.  
Are not adjectives of the masculine or feminine gender used sometimes substantively, as well as adjectives 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 ut humanus) à me non habere. Phaethon, the epithet of the Sun used substantively in Aenei. 5. saith Cerdo. Auroram Phaethontis equi iam luce vehebant, in Aeneid. 1. Imperium Dido Tyria regit urbe profecta Germanum (i fratrem) fugiens.  
2. Foem. Virg. 1. Aeneid. Implentur veteris Bacchi, pinguisque ferinae i carnis ferinae, Senec. 1. de Benef. 5. Imperator aliquem torquibus, muroli, & civica 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, etc.  
Are not sometimes substantives put in the place of adjectives?  
Yes: so, Nihil pro Nullo apud Vlpianum. & Virg. Aeneid. 1.  
Regales inter mensas, laticemque Lyaeum i Bacchicum.  
Do not some substantives verbal govern the same case that their verbs do, of which they are derived?  
Yes: as for example; we read exul à patria, as well as exultat à patria; Discessus ab urbe, as well as discedere ab urbe, We read obtemperare legibus, and instituta est obtemperatio scriptis legibus: in Tully we read in every classical Author, Capite diminui, praefici praetorio, and julius Scaliger hath; Capite diminutio. Suetonius, Praefectus praetorio. We read domum eo, redeo, and domum itio, reditio, in Caesar. Faveo authoritati &, fautor authoritati. Nascor à muliere, &, nativitas à muliere: 
Vide Rod. Goclen. obseru. Linguae Lat. p. 126.  erudior à magistro; &, ab optimo magistro optima inventutis eruditio.  
What substantives govern an ablative case with the preposition Cum?  
Such as signify society, conjunction, and friendship, as, Amicitia, familiaritas, consuetudo cum aliquo. Ciceroni cum Attico magna intercessit familiaritas.  
Is not Opus read construed with an ablative case of the participle of the preter tense?  
Yes, and that very elegantly: as for example, Priusquam incipias consulto, & ubi consuleris mature facto opus est, Sallust. Opus est maturato, Livy. Quod parato opus est para, Terence. Opus est viso, & cauto, Plautus.   

Of the construction of adjectives.  
May an adjective in the neuter gender put substantively, govern any other adjective also, put substantively in the genitive case?  
No: no adjective put as a substantive, can govern another adjective which is declined with three articles, but only such a one as is varied by three terminations, therefore we may say: Aliquid mali, aliquid absurdi, honesti, boni, we cannot say, aliquid utilis, aliquid impossibilis etc. neither can we say, Nihil talis for Nihil tale.  
Doth Lily speak properly, when he expresseth certain nouns of number by certa numeralia?  
No; he speaks barbarously: for certus is never put for quidam in any good and classical Writer.  
What do you think of that rule, Comparativa & superlativa accepta partitiuè genitivum, unde & genus sortiuntur, exigunt?  
This rule is good: It had been well Lily would have furnished us with some examples of it; in these which follow, his defect shall be supplied. Ignis omnium elementorum est efficacissimum, & violentissimum. Supremus, extremusque omnium affectuum in foemina est zelotypia. Finis causarum omnium nobilissima est. Mors ultimum, summum, gravissimum, & acerbissimum omnium terribilium.  
In these speeches, Magnam partem consulatus tui abfui. Cic. Illud tibi assentior. Idem. Menedemi vicem miseret. Ter. Solicitus vicem Imperatoris. Liu. Maestus suam vicem. Curt. Caetera bonus. Cic. Why are partem, Illud vicem, caetera, the accusative case, and by what rule of Lily?  
Lily hath no rule to show the reason of this construction: it is in truth a greek Atticisme: for the Greeks put the accusative case after verbs, and adjectives after that manner: sic, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vicem alicuius irasci, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, perdidisti nos quantum in te est. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, omnibus sapiens.  
When is an adjective construed with an accusative case, with a preposition?  
When Aptitude, propensity, respect, object, or final cause is signified, as, 
Proclivis à labore ad libidinem.  
Furtum ingeniosus ad omne.  Assuetus ad bellum. Rudis ad arma. Study eloquentiae non aliud in civitate nostra, vel ad utilitatem fructuosius, vel ad dignitatem amplius, vel ad urbis famam pulchrius, vel ad totius imperij, atque omnium gentium notitiam illustrius excogitari potest. Quint. Calcei habiles ad pedes. Cic. Aptus natus ad singularem dicendi facultatem.  
Is that example of adiectiva quae ad copiam, viz. at fessae referunt multa se nocte minores Crura thymo plena.  
No: the Composer of the English Rudiments, and Lily understood not (as it seems) Virgil's Syntaxis, and therefore corrected the original suspecting it to be faulty: 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 do return home weary late at night (plenae crura i habentes crura plena thyme) Having their shanks full of thyme; in which there is a Synecdoche, or figure, often used by that excellent Poet, as 
* Ecl. 1. Sepes Byb●aeis apibus florem depasta salicti i habens florem depastum. So likewise: Os humerosque Deo similis. idem. So, Faciem mutatus & ora i habens faciem mutatam; or it maybe there is an imitation of the Greeks who in such speeches make an ellipsis of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   
Do not adjectives of comparing or exceeding, govern an ablative case of the word, which signifies the measure of exceeding, as well as verbs?  
Yes: for we may as well say, Cicero praestantior est omnibus oratoribus multis gradibus, as, Cicero praestat omnes oratores multis gradibus.  
May not an adjective of the positive degree with magis, or minus, have an ablutive case after it, as well as one of the comparative?  
Yes: so Terence in Eunucho. Hoc nemo fuit minus ineptus, nec magis severus quisquam i quam hic. & Virg. O luce magis dilecta sorori i quam lux.   

Of the construction of Pronouns.  
Is not Meus, and Noster, sometimes used passively?  
Yes: Plaut. in Pen. sc. Negotij Ecce odium meum.  
Quid me vis? pro, odium mei; twice in the same Scene. Cicero pro Rosc. Amer. Haec conficta arbitror à poetis esse ut effictos mores nostros in alienos personis, expressamque imaginam nostram (i nostri) vitae quotidianae videremus.  
Neque minus est spartiates Agefilaus ille prohibendus, qui neque pictam neque fictam imaginem suam (i sui) passus est. Idem.  
Et digna speculo fiat imaego tua i tui. Mart. This is to be observed, not imitated.  
Are not proper and appellative nouns sometimes put in stead of pronouns?  
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.— Stratique per herbam.  
Hic meus est dixere dies. Senec. in Suasor. 2. where Meus is put for Noster.  
Are not relative pronouns sometimes put for reciprocal, & contrà?  
Yes: as for example. Principio generi animantium omni est à natura tributum ut se, vitam, corpusque tueatur, declinetque quae ei i Sibi nociturae videantur. Cic.  
Praeceptor amat discipulos ipsum (i se) excitantes.  
Non petit ut illum (i se) miserum putetis. Quintil. Here relatives are put for reciprocals.  
Plaut. in Capt. scen. Quo illum. Is est seruus ipse, neque praeter se (i ipsum) unquam ei seruus fuit.  
Respice Laerten ut iam sua (i eius) lumina conda●.  
Non ex oratione, sed suis ex moribus spectare debetis pro, eius. Cicer. here reciprocals are put for relatives.  
How are those two rules in Linacer, and Lily to be reconciled. Ipse ex pronominibus solum trium personarum significationem repraesentat. And, Idem etiam omnibus personis iungi potest: they seem to contradict each other.  
Thus. Ipse only of all those pronouns, which truly and properly are pronouns, or which are simple pronouns, doth represent the signification of three persons: but Idem is no simple pronoun but a compound, not a natural and genuine pronoun, but addititious, as Lily saith: one of these distinctions must be admitted or else a manifest contradiction cannot be avoided.  
If it be true that only ego, and nos, be of the first person only, as is set down in the English Rudiments: and Idem, and Ipse, do represent the signification of three persons, according to your distinction. How comes it to pass that we find in Tully, is, in the first person, as, Is nullo in loco praedonibus iam pares esse poteramus: and in Livy, De pace agitur, agimusque ij quorum & maxim interest pacem esse: and, Vidistis in vincula duci universi eum, qui a singulis vobis pericula depulerim.  
Since the pronoun idem is used in three persons, which is compounded of is, & the syllabical particle dem I am of opinion that is, the simple pronoun may be used so likewise, as appeareth by the precedent examples.  
Since we may very easily err in the use of Pronouns reciprocal, what rules have you to steer and direct us in the right use of them?  
diverse; for which you are beholden to Rodolphus Goclenius in his observations of the Latin tongue, which for memory sake I will contract.  
1. In a simple reciprocation i such as is made with one verb, a pronoun of the first or second person is never added to the verb, but always one of the third: for we cannot say, Ego fui secum, but cum eo, nor, Tu novisti suum fratrem, but eius.  
2. A reciprocal pronoun reflects the action of the verb upon itself as the agent: as, mulier sibi nimium placet i sibi muliere.  
3. When the possessor works upon the thing possessed, or the thing possessed upon the possessor, the possessive suus is used: saepe in magistrum scelera redierunt sua. Senec. and, & sua riserunt secula Meomdem.  
4. In a compound reciprocation i such as is made with many verbs, when the action of the verb following is reflected upon the person of the verb afore going, it is expressed by sui, as Caesar rogat ut veniam ad se i ad Caesarem rogantem. Rogat ut ignoscam sibi i sibi roganti.  
5. When in the construction of two verbs, the action of the latter verb passeth upon the person of the former, as the possessor, suus is used. Rogat me ut suum (i eius ipsius qui rogat) instituam filium.  
6. The active construction may be changed into the passive by a reciprocal pronoun: as we may say, Antonium deseruerunt sui collegae, and Aut. desertus est a suis collegis. Amat patrem filius suis, and, Amatur pater a filio suo.   

Of the construction of Verbs.  
Is the construction of the infinitive mood of a verb substantive the same after a verb personal and impersonal?  
No: except an accusative case be expressed before the infinitive of a verb substantive, which is governed of a verb personal, the word which follows shall not be the accusative, but the nominative; as, we cannot say, Malo esse divitem, though me be understood, but malo esse diues, but when me is expressed, we say, malo me esse divitem: but if an infinitive be governed of a verb impersonal, the word that follows the infinitive, may be the accusative case, though the word coming before it be not expressed; for we may say, Iwat esse disertos, as well as Iwat nos esse disertos.  
In those examples, Adolescentis est maiores natu revereri; and, Regum est parcere subiectis, is est a verb personal or impersonal?  
It is a verb impersonal, and therefore these examples are misplaced, they belong to the first rule of impersonals, Interest, refert, & est, and there Lily hath set down a parallel example: Prudentis est multa dissimulare.  
What rule have you for this construction, Commendo te virtutis, vitupero ignaviae, castigo negligentiae, miror prudentiae, etc.  
In these and the like, there is a Graecisme, causa, or ergô, is to be understood, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often amongst the Greeks: as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Beatum te praedico propter fidem.  
In that of Terence, Rerum suarum sa tagit; why doth satagit govern a genitive case?  
The genitive case seems to depend upon the particle sat, in composition; and so the verb being of itself a compound, and one; by reason of construction is divided.  
What verbs govern a dative 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, etc.  
What kind of dative do these commonly govern?  
A dative of the person, not of the thing, unless the thing take upon it the nature of a person; as, ponti indignatur Araxes.  
What prepositions be those wherewith verbs compounded govern a dative case?  
These in this hexamiter: Ad, prae, con, ob, & in, simul hae, post, ante, sub, inter.  
Doth not habeo put for est govern a dative case, as well as est for habeo?  
Yes: as for example, Est mihi ludibrio, habeo illum ludibrio. Habeo voluptat literarum studia, literarum studia sunt (mihi) voluptati.  
Doth Praevineo govern an accusative case, though it be compounded with prae, as Lily tells us.  
No: it is a barbarous word, not found in any pure writer, or Lexicographer.  
If all verbs transitive govern an accusative case, how is it that we read in Plautus, Consequor with a dative, as, Voluptati meror ut comes consequitur?  
In this there is a grecisme, for the Greeks use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sequor, with a dative, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: so they say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and Plautus elsewhere, decere alicui: and Cicero hath the like grecisme, Comitari huic viae.  
Do any verbs of ask govern an ablative case without a preposition?  
No: and therefore these words, cum praepositione should be added to that rule, verba rogandi interdum mutant alterum, etc.  
In that example, Est virtus placitis abstinuisse bonis: is bonis the dative case, as Lily informs us?  
Linacer de Emend. struck. Lat. p, 267. l. 4. saith it is the ablative case, and I rather side with him.  
In that example, Deform existimabat quos dignitate praestaret, ab ijs virtutibus superari: doth either of those verbs govern an ablative case of the measure of exceeding, according to the rule?  
No: those verbs do govern an ablative case of the matter of excess, not of the measure of exceeding, this or the like example would better fitthe rule, Multis parasangis omnes oratores precurrit Cicero.   

Of an adjective governing three ablative cases.  
Can any one adjective govern three ablative cases, according to three several rules in Grammar?  
Yes: as in this example, Oxonia est insignior Louanio literarum studijs multis parasangis.   

Of Verbs governing divers of the same cases by several rules of Grammar.  
Can you give an example of a verb governing three dative cases?  
Yes: as for example, Neroni (i a Nerone) probis viris crimini vertitur innocentia.  
Can any one verb govern five ablative cases, according to the rules of Grammar?  
Yes: as for example; Ab artifice arte fabrili summa diligentia politis pedibus ex ulmeo ligno lectulos fieri iussit Titius.  
Can a verb govern three ablative cases with three prepositions.  
Yes: as for example; Accusatur de furto a vicino summo cum rigore.   

Of the Construction of the Infinitive Moode.  
If two verbs come together, shall the latter be always of the Infinitive mood?  
No: sometimes two verbs are joined together in the same tense and number by an Hyphen. as, quemnam te esse dicam-feram. Varro apud Nonium. Reddas-restituas, amongst the Lawyers. Qui fecerit sculpserit Modestinus: so Vtimini-foruimini, whence the substantive usus fructus.  
May not sometimes two verbs of the infinitive mood be joined together?  
Yes: as for example, Ter. in And. Sc. Adhuc. Dare bibere: and dixit jureconsultus non oportere ius ciuile calumniari neque verba captare, sed qua ment quid diceretur animaduertere convenire. So Dico uti frui licere.  
Is not the infinitive mood sometimes used as well for the present tense of the Indicative, as for the preter tense, or preterimperfect tense?  
Yes: as for example, Virg. Aeneid. 10.— Multi seruare recursus,  
Languentis pelagi, & brevibus se credere saltu. where seruare is put for servant, credere for credunt. So Ouid. 4. Metam.— Rutulis collucent ignibus aedes falsaque saevarum simulachra ululare ferarum: where ululare is put for utulant.  
Sallust. Rursus Imperator contra postulata Bocchi nuntios mittit, ille probare partem, alia abnuere, eo modo ab utraque 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 verbs of the infinite mood, as also verbs finite, used sometimes as nouns, and with the same construction.  
Yes: as in these examples: First, Verbs finite are used as Nouns. Tull. pro Mur. illud, licet consulere, perdidistis. Aue mihi dixit i salutem. Liu. l. 6. faxo, ne iwet vox ista veto i ne iwet prohibitio. Plaut. in Paen. Sc. Negotij. Si tacuisses, iam istuc Taceo non natum foret. Sapientia usque ad Plaudite vivendum, in Cat. Mai.  
Secondly, verbs of the infinitive mood are used for nouns. 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 vivere triste. Aspexi: where we may note also that the preposition ad is prefixed before vivere. Ipsum illud peccare quoque te verteris unum est. Cic.   

Of construction by a Periphrasis.  
Do not pure latin Authors sometimes make a Periphrasis of a verb, govern the same case which the verb itself would do?  
Yes: as Ter. Id studiose dat operam. i id curate. Id ne estis autores mihi? i idne suadetis mihi. Idem. Caesar Senatui dicto audiens futurus i obtemperaturus. 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 joined by apposition be put in the dative 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 observed?  
Yes: for we must say, Voluptas perpetuae comes summi boni, not perpetuus. Manus ultrix, not ultor, virtus assertrix, not assertor. Inuentrices literarum Athenae, not Inuentores.  
What if the diverse gender of a noun substantive, whioh is called substantiwm mobile i such a one as is varied in termination, and sex, as Magister, & magistra, discipulus, discipula be to be joined by Apposition with a word of the neuter gender, is it to be used 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 substantive to be coupled be not substantiwm mobile, sometimes a noun 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 substantives coupled in the same case by Apposition be of diverse numbers?  
Either when one of the substantives wants the plural or singular number, as Divitiae gluten amicorum. Passer deliciae: or is a noun collective, as Angeli agmen forte: or some one single thing either joined 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 living creature, but the ancients said pulmones in the plural number, because that part of the body which draws in, and let's forth the breath is cleft, as the hoof of an Ox.  
Are substantives joined by Apposition always put in the same case?  
No: the latter substantive which doth explain or declare the former is sometimes put in the ablative case, and the word explained in the genitive or dative; as, Vivis Patavij urbe 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 govern the same case that the verbs that they come of?  
No: it is to be understood only of gerunds signifying actively, and the first supines: for gerunds which signify passively, and the latter supines are scarce to be found with any cases after them.  
How may this, and the like English phrases be rendered in Latin, viz. I came in dinner time.  
Very elegantly by the gerund in dumb, with the preposition inter; as, veni inter prandendum.  
In these forms of speech, accusatum oportuit factum oportet: volo datum; how may it appear that accusatum, factum, datum, are participles, not supines?  
Thus: because we find participles varied in all genders in this form of speech, whereas supines want all genders, and flexion. Ter. in Heauton. Interemptam oportuit, & in Andr. Nun prius communicatum oportuit. Sic, cupio hunc defensum, & hanc defensam. Here the verb esse is to be supplied.  
What do you think of these supines, Do venum, do nuptum, which Lily saith have latentem motum?  
Nuptum signifies 
* Nubit uxor, ducit uxorem vir.  passively: do nuptum, I give in marriage, or to be married. It is questinable whether venum be a supine of veneo, or an adverb like to pessum; the analogy seems to insinuate so much; as we say pessundare, and pessum dare; so we 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 verb est, as Lily tells us?  
No: herein he is foully deceived, he might as well say, placitum est, libitum est, puditum est, etc. are Supines, which he affirms are Verbs impersonal of the passive voice, in his rules of Etymology, touching Impersonals, and such are these also.   

Of Place.  
Is that rule: Omne verbum admittit genitiwm proprij nominis loci in quo fit actio, etc. 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 Towns, not to vast Regions: for we may not say, Numidiae acriter pugnatum est, but in Numidia.  
By what rule of Lilies Syntaxis, is terra-marique the ablative 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 never read with any other genitive case, except meae, tuae, etc. as Lily affirms?  
Yes: it is read with other possessives also: we may say, Domi suburbanae, regiae, paterna, as well as Domi meae, etc.   

Of verbs Impersonal.  
In those clauses, ut videre est, ut legere est apud Aristotelem. Neque est te fallere cuiquam, Virg. How comes it to pass 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 nouns, when they cease to signify Time?  
So Lily teacheth us in his Grammar.  
Why then doth he in his Syntaxis put down, that exosus, perosus, are construed with an accusative case, when they signify actively; and a dative when they signify passively; and Pertaesus with an accusative: Why are Natus, prognatus, etc. said to be construed with an ablative case as participles, when as none of these do signify Time any more than homo laudatus, or puer amandus?  
It may be those two rules of exosus, perosus, etc. and natus, etc. are exceptions from that general rule placed before them, viz. Participiorum voces cum fiunt nomina, etc. Participles when they are made nouns require a genitive case: and they are made nouns four ways: first, when they govern not the same case that the verbs do 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 leave of to signify difference of Time: in this respect exosus, perosus, etc. and natus, etc. it may be are excepted from the precedent general rule.  
It may be so: but this is only a conjecture to save Lilies credit.  
Indeed I must needs confess that Lily is not so distinct, punctual, and exact as he should be, but we must make the best of him, till some other more Grammarian shall compose us a better Grammar: and here I will add this also, that that general of participials governing a genitive, is not to be understood of any participials in Dus, or Tus, for they govern a dative case: as, Heros celebrandus omnibus poetis. Hoc est notum lippis & tonsoribus.   

The construction of Adverbs.  
Doth contrà, being put without case, and so becoming an adverb only, retain and not augment the signification which it had, being a preposition, as other prepositions do, coram, post, clam, etc.  
No: for it doth not only signify opposition, as, si homo est ridere potest, & contrà, si non est homo ridere non potest, but reciprocation, conversion, or alternation: as, si ridere potest est homo, & contrà, si est homo potest ridere, where contrà is equivalent to vicissim, or vicissim retro: as also in this of Terence: In eo oblecto me solùm, & carum ille ut item contrà me habeat facio sedulo: & Virg. Aeneid. 1. Aeolus haec contrà: where Aeolus in his speech doth not contradict, but assent to juno.  
May not an adverb, as well as an adjective put partitively, govern a genitive case?  
Yes: as for example. Manuum fortiùs se habet dextra. Omnium planetarum sol splendet lucidissimè.  
Is not the adverb Parum sometimes added very elegantly to an adjective, and sometimes to a substantive?  
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 urbem moventur; and, Proximè Hispaniam sunt Mauri, are, Propiùs, and Proximè, properly adverbs, governing an accusative case?  
I think not: they rather seem to be prepositions compared governing an accus. as the original word, or theme Prope doth. Propiùs cannot be derived of propior in this Syntaxis; for we find in Livy, propior vero propiùs vero, and propior is the comparative of propis, an absolute word, as prior of pris. So Goclen. Problem. Gram. l. 3. p. 145.  
May not an adverb derived of an adjective which governeth an Accusative case with a Preposition, govern the same case?  
Yes: as for example. Poeta si apposite ad delectationem, Orator ad fidem Philosophus ad vitam dicat, implesse munus suum videntur. Iust. Lipsius.  
In that clause of the fable of Esop's Cock, granum hordei mallem omnibus gemmis; why is gemmis the ablative case?  
It is the ablative case by reason of the word magis, which lieth secretly couched in the word mallem, which may be resolved into magis vellem.  
Are not sometimes nouns put for adverbs, & contrà?  
Yes: first, Nouns 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. Viwnt Bacchanalia i Bacchanaliter. juu. vide Linac. de Emend. struck. 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 kind of expression. Nemo pro Non. Tac. 4. Ann. Ferrum, & caedes quonam modo occultaretur nemo reperiebat.  
Multus pro multum. Multus in libris. In opere multus. Sallust. Totus pro totaliter. Totus displiceo mihi. Ter. Totus est alienus à Physicis. Cicer. Plurimus pro plurimùm. In toto plurimus orbe legor.  
Secondly, Adverbs put for nouns. Satis vir, pro magnanimo. Senec. Plusquam viri, pro virorum partes excedentibus. Parum fides, pro parua. Plaut.  
In those examples. Multò aliter, paulo secus, long secus: are multò, paulò, longè, ablative cases?  
Lily did ill to surmise so; that rule is altogether superfluous; in like manner he was deceived before, when in the rules of adjectives, he affirmed, that in that example, Quantò doctior es, tantò te geras submissius; quantò, and tantò, were of the ablative case, whereas they are adverbs.  
May not the form, or manner of a thing, be put after an adverb in the ablative case, as well as after an adjective?  
Yes: as, agit fortiter verbis, factis ignauè.   

Of Conjunctions.  
In those Clauses of Plautus and Terence. Absque hoc esset, absque eo foret; how come the verbs to be of the subiunctive mood?  
By reason of the particle si understood, which is to be supplied, to make perfect construction.  
After what verbs are those particles used, quod, ut, ne.  
After these, and the like: for we say, Puto quod, jubeo ut, Metuo ne.  
Do ac, and atque, always come before in a clause?  
Always, except in composition: as, simulac, simulatque, after the greek manner, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Doth not a conjunction sometimes govern a case as a noun?  
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 think so: it is read with and accusative or ablative case; as in Curtius. Procul urbem. in Livy, 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, Vsque sub obscurum noctis. Vsque ex Aethiopia. De Quinto fratre nuntij nobis tristes venerant ex ante diem Nonarum juniarum usque ad Pridie Calend. Septemb. The titles of chapters amongst the Civilians, 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 conjunction, and an adverb for a preposition?  
Yes: first, a preposition is put for a conjunction in Sallust. Praeter rerum rum capitalium condemnatis: praeter for praeterquam.  
Secondly, an adverb for a preposition in Virg. Aen. 7. Tali intus templo diwm, patriaque latinus sede sedens, vide Linac. de Emen●…. struck. Lat. Ser. l. 1. p. 109.  
Is not a conjunction sometimes put in the place of a pronounce with a preposition?  
Yes: as, A me vero ita diligitur, ut tibi uni concedam praeterea nemini i praeter te. Cic. Eundem ab hostibus metui, praeterea neminem i praeter eum. Idem.   

Of an Interjection.  
In this sentence; Egregium vero Philosophum qui inter , & ignem quid interesset parum curavit intelligere: why is Egregium Philosophum the accusative case?  
Because therein there is an ellipsis of the interjection O.  
What interjections govern an accusative case, besides those expressed in Lilies Syntaxe?  
These: Eheu, him, apage; as Eheu conditionem huius temporis. Cic. Hem. being an Ironical interjection; as, Hem astutias. Ter. O subtle devise 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 loved & defended: Tantus error est in omnibus studijs, maxim in eloquentia, cuius regula incerta est, ut vitia quidam sua & intelligant, & ament: there is so great error in all studies, especially in eloquence, the rule of which is uncertain, 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.  Verbis licenter in carminibus usus est Naso, in quibus non ignoravit vitia sua, sed amavit, etc. Ovid was somewhat bold, and licentious in the use 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