'r,'! 
 
 mm 
 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 7 
 7 
 
 i I> 
 
 PA 
 
 2087 
 
 D7iZ 
 
 Kzt *.-n.«iJ«r. ,-^'j^ <* vna(fcV:**i .-^i^j'. ,-j.". 
 
 _^r¥i-»S.-j.*\-.^ 
 
 DONALDSON 
 
 SOME REMARKS ON DR. 
 KENNEDY'S CRITICAL EX- 
 AMINATION OF THE 
 COMPLETE LATIN grammar!
 
 n 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 /y- 
 
 /jl,- X /^- / / 
 
 ^ 
 
 /? / 
 
 n- 
 
 u 
 
 SOME REMARKS 
 
 ON 
 
 DR. KENNEDY'S 
 
 CRITICAL EXAMINATION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 COMPLETE LATIN GRAMMAR 
 
 BY 
 
 ; /• 
 
 JOHN WILLIAM DONALDSON, D.D. 
 
 HEAD MASTER OF BUKT SCHOOL, 
 AND FORMERLY FELLOW OP TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 XOP. mq rtOpTi^wv "icyOi vvvi. AT. ^{jKofia^' vfiaq kyof 
 
 avTaTTOKTtviL y(i(J vftwv Ttov <pl\iuv tovq ^iXrurov^' 
 (og tx<)) y' vfiMV biii}QOVQ, oKiq airo(T<pd^it) Xa[3wv. 
 
 Aristoph. Ach. 325—8. 
 
 LONDON: 
 JOHN W. PAKKEll AND SON, WEST STRAND. 
 
 MDCCCLII.
 
 WOEKS BY JOHN W. DONALDSON, D.D. 
 
 Head Master of King Edward the Sixth's School, Hury St. Edmunds. 
 
 Complete Latin Grammar for Learners. 35. 6c?. 
 
 Exercises adapted to the Complete Latin Grammar. 2^. 6f/. 
 
 Grsecse Grammaticse Rudimenta. Constructionis Grsecae Prae- 
 
 cepta ; edltio altera, cui prasfixa est legitima declinandi conjugandique ratio. 
 2s. 6cZ. 
 
 Complete Greek Grammar for Learners. 4^. Q>d. 
 
 The New Cratylus; Contributions towards a more Accm-ate 
 
 Knowledge of the Greek Language. Second Edition. Octavo, much en- 
 larged. 18s. 
 
 Pindar's Epinician Odes, and the Fragments of his Lost Com- 
 positions ; with copious Notes and Indices. Octavo. 16s. 
 
 Antigone of Sophocles, in Greek and English; with Critical 
 
 and Explanatory Notes. Octavo. 9s. 
 
 London : Joitn W. Pakkek and Son, West Strand.
 
 p 
 
 A 
 
 REMARKS, ion 
 
 J~ 
 
 J)li 
 
 IN the preface to tlie Latin Grammar which I puhlished at 
 the beginning of tliis year, I thought it necessary to state, as 
 my chief reason for undertaking the compilation of a work of 
 such humble usefulness, that I was unable to find any elementary 
 treatise on the Latin language which I could, with perfect con- 
 fidence and satisfaction, place in the hands of my yoimger pupils. 
 If I had made no such statement, it would have been taken for 
 granted that I wished and hoped to produce a work, in some 
 respects at least, better than all its predecessors; and, in any 
 case, the pubHc might have been left to judge whether I had 
 succeeded or not. It seems, however, that these obvious con- 
 siderations have not occm'red to one of the most eminent of 
 those Hving authors of Latin Graromars with whom I have pre- 
 sumed to enter into rivalry. Dr. Kennedy, of Shrewsbmy, is 
 not content that others should be left to decide between liis book 
 and mine — that impartial critics shoidd discover liis merits and 
 my faults. Forgetting that he is personally interested in the ques- 
 tion, he has hastily assumed the functions of a judge, and has 
 issued from the press an elaborate Critical Examination of Dr. 
 Donaldson's Complete Latin Ch'ammar, for the avowed purpose 
 of comparing my pubhcation with his own. By taking this 
 step, he has not only invited, but compelled me to justify, as fai' 
 as he is concerned, the censure which I have passed on all. pre- 
 vious Latin Grammars, and to point out the improvements which 
 I have endeavoured to introduce. I hfite controversy, but I 
 trust I shall never say or do what I shall not be prepared to 
 defend if necessary ; and Dr. Kennedy must blame himself, not 
 me, if the results of his Critical Examination should prove tliat 
 he has undertaken a warfare without sitting down first and 
 counting the cost. 
 
 The pamphlet which I am about to answer, is in the form 
 of a courteous letter to me. I have avoided an epistolary address, 
 not because I do not respond in the fidlcst manner to tlic kind 
 feelings of which Dr. Kennedy's letter contains many indications, 
 but l)ccause I fear that my counter-criticisms, if addi-cssed to him, 
 might appear, a.s some of his remarks appear to me, rather too 
 
 A 2 
 
 1 noo'^.oo
 
 magisterial and didactic. In expressing my opinions, I wish to 
 recollect that their correctness or value must be estimated by 
 those who are not parties to this little controversy. 
 
 In the first place, I cannot but be sui*prised that Dr. Ken- 
 nedy, of all persons in the world, should object, as he seems to 
 do, to my general strictures on previous Latin Grammars. In 
 the preface to his own Progressive Latin Grammar, he had made 
 remarks very similar to mine, not on Grammars in general, but 
 on his immediate predecessor and competitor, Dr. Wordsworth. 
 In King Edward the Sixth's Latin Grammar, he ' traced the 
 hand of a sound and accomplished scholar :' I acknowledged 
 ' much that is scholarlike and valuable^ in many of my prede- 
 cessors. He thought that Dr. Wordsworth's alterations went 
 ' too far in some respects, and not far enough in others :' I 
 declared that previous Latin Grammars all erred ' either in excess 
 or defect.' He complained of ' a defectively arranged syntax :' 1 
 have more generally denounced ' a faidty arrangement of the 
 materials.' In short, with the exception of those ' grave mistakes 
 both of principle and of detail,' and ' the time-honoured inaccu- 
 racies,' which I profess to have found in previous Latin Gram- 
 mars, my general censure is different in no respect from that 
 which Dr. Kennedy pronounced upon a book which was pub- 
 Hshed immediately before his own, and which he specially under- 
 took to supersede. But he is not contented with having exer- 
 cised, on the first appearance of his Grammar, the privilege of 
 censorship which he would refuse to me : he wishes to reign 
 soliis sine rivali ; and has undertaken, in a pamphlet of 128 
 octavo pages, to show, not only that he surpassed his forerunners, 
 but that he remams unsurpassed by me. As I never brought 
 my httle book into any direct comparison with his Grammar, I 
 might have been spared the office of vindicating my own per- 
 formance at his expense — but, vous Vavez voulu, vous Vavez voulu, 
 George Dandin, vous Vavez voulu! 
 
 There is another complaint on the part of Dr. Kennedy, of 
 which I must dispose at starting. He says (p. 5) ^ it is a strange 
 oversight, and one hardly fan- to me, that you should have 
 referred to a book now out of print [i. e. his Progressive Latin 
 Grammar), and not also to that which the facts of the case 
 entitle me to call my established School- Grammar.' To this 
 complaint I answer, that, on looking into his Elementary Latin 
 Grammar, of which until the last few days I did not myself
 
 possess a copy, I thought it so completely included in the Pro- 
 gressive Latin Grammar, that Avhat was true of the greater, 
 would be true, a fortiori, of the less. And I maintain, that the 
 errors Avhich Dr. Kennedy has repeated in the sixth edition now 
 before me (which is, I beheve, his seventh re\dsion of the sub- 
 ject), deserve to be considered as much moi'e reprehensible than 
 any shps which he might have made on his fii'st appearance as 
 a Latin grammarian. So that the counter-criticism, to which he 
 challenges me, will fall much more heavily than the oblique and 
 general censure of my preface, which seemed to be limited to 
 his original work, as it was in ISJ'Ji. The fact is, that I did 
 not wish to interfere ydih. Dr. Kennedy^ s pubhcations, farther 
 than was necessary to acknowledge my obligations to him and 
 to include him in the general expression of my dissatisfaction. 
 
 Dr. Kenned}^s pamphlet in\ites me to undertake the esta- 
 bhshment of two propositions : 
 
 (1.) That the strictm'cs in my preface, so far as he is con- 
 cerned in them, are justifiable by the facts ; 
 
 (2.) That my Latin Grammar is not amenable to the censure 
 which he has sought to transfer from himself to me. 
 
 He is entitled, if he chooses, to call upon me for a demon- 
 stration of the first of these propositions ; and he has given me 
 an excuse for saying as much or as little as I please about the 
 merits or demerits of my own work. But I must remind him 
 that the truth of the censures in my preface, so far as he is con- 
 cerned, is in no way dependent on his good or ill success in 
 disparaging my book. I have said, at the end of my preface, 
 that ^it is much easier to perceive the imperfections of existing 
 works than to realize the idea of desiderated excellence.' And 
 it may be the case that both he and I have more skill in dis- 
 covering faults than in avoiding them ; that we can contrive to 
 damage one another, without gainmg anytliing by the process. 
 Be this as it may, I shall frankly accept liis challenge. 
 
 The only statements in my preface which apply to Dr. 
 Kennedy as a representative of those who have recently written 
 on the subject of Latin grammar in this country, arc the 
 following : — 
 
 P. vii. 1. 1. (a.) ' Latin scholarship is not flourishing in 
 England.' 
 
 P. viii. 1. 9. {b.) ' Latin prose composition is mucli neglected.' 
 
 P. vii. 1. 14. {c.) ' I am not acquainted witli any Latin
 
 Grammar, whether old or new, which does not exhibit a faulty 
 arrangement of the materials, and which is not deformed, more 
 or less, by grave mistakes both of prmciple and of detail/ (This 
 is repeated in effect at the end of the preface.) 
 
 P. vii. 1. 19. {d.) ' Every introduction to the study of Latin 
 which has fallen in my way, errs either in excess or defect — 
 either contains what is superfluous, or omits what is indispensable 
 to the young learner.' 
 
 On the first two of these statements of opinion Dr. Kennedy 
 does not request me to offer any evidence or arguments. I will 
 therefore only say, that I remember some years ago that the 
 Examiner, or some other paper, indulged in a hearty ridicule of 
 the following title-page^ which was considered as a conclusive 
 proof that English schoolmasters cannot write a simple sentence 
 in Latin without makmg some portentous blunder : Okmcm 
 Grammatic^e Institutio Prima. Rudimentis Etonensibus quan- 
 tulum potuit immutatis Syntaxin de suo addidit Benjamin 
 Hall Kennedy, S.T.P. Had I found Dr. Kennedy's quantulum 
 potuit in an exercise by one of my boys, I should have told him 
 that although quantulum visum est is good Latin^ quatitulum 
 potuit is not only bad Latin, but nonsense. As, however, this 
 sentence has been printed by a professed grammarian, Avho 
 assumes the right of criticizing his predecessors and contem- 
 poraries, I will only remark, that it is one of many proofs that 
 Latin scholarship is not flourishing in England. I do not wish 
 to be hypercritical ; but as Dr. Kennedy has favoured me with 
 what he imagines to be an improvement on one of my Latin 
 rules, I am obliged to tell him that his Latiuity is neither 
 perspicuous nor elegant. Instead of my rule 128, vii, {b) p. Ill, 
 he would write, by way of making it clearer (p. 88) : — 
 
 Locum * ubi,' ' unde,' ' quo' 
 Gubernat Prajpositio ; 
 Quae absit bis 
 Vocabulis, &c. 
 
 To say nothing of investing a preposition with the govern- 
 ment of a place, like Sancho at Barataria, I am bound to con- 
 clude that in the third line Dr. Kennedy has either made the 
 boyish confusion between the subjunctive mood and the direct 
 statement of permission, against which I have cautioned my 
 readers in 172, (1); or that he has violated the Latin idiom by
 
 introducing a prohibition into the relative sentence. But enough 
 of this. I will not fly my kite at such small game as the jejuna 
 scnqmlositas of Dr. KennctVs Latin stvle. 
 
 The maia question, in the discussion which Dr. Kennedy has 
 provoked, is how far his Grammar is imphcatcd in the charges 
 which I have brought against my predecessors in general — how 
 far it exhibits a faulty arrangement of the materials, how far it 
 is deformed by grave errors of principle and detaU, how far it 
 contains what is superfluous, or omits what is indispensable to 
 the young learner. 
 
 If I cannot show this, I am deprived of my reason for 
 writing a new book ; and instead of taking the trouble w^hich I 
 have imposed upon myself, and which I would gladly have avoided, 
 1 might have gratified Dr. Kennedy and his pubhshers by adding 
 Bury School to the nimiber of those which use his Grammar. 
 
 A faulty arrangement w^as my greatest comj)laint of previously 
 existing manuals. I could, with the pen or by directions to the 
 under masters, correct the special errors of any book employed 
 in the lower forms ; but if the arrangement of a grammar is 
 unscientific and calculated to mislead, from the fii'st page to the 
 last, I can do nothing with it ; and if all books are more or less 
 liable to this charge, I have no alternative but to teach orally or 
 to wiite a new book lor my boys. Now I cannot use Dr. Ken- 
 nedy's Grammar, because he has arranged the nouns in five 
 declensions, resting upon no principle, and contradicting, at the 
 outset, all that I shall have to teach my boys afterwards, if I 
 wish them to become sound grammarians, either in Greek or 
 Latin. It matters not that my arrangement involves principles 
 which I have discovered myself. Those principles will be found 
 argued out and demonstrably established in larger works of mine, 
 and I can only teach according to what I believe to be true. 
 And as I know, by my own experience as a teacher, that ' the 
 memory of boys is as tenacious of rational explanations as of 
 arbitrary rules' [Preface to the Comjjiete Greek Grammar, p. viii.), 
 I shall not, to please Dr. Kennedy, deal with my pupils as 
 parrots, when I might instruct them as reasonable beings. 
 
 Again, I cannot use Dr. Kennedy's Grammar, because, like 
 most others, it exhibits the verbs in a blundering and self-con- 
 tradictory order. For, although he is aware that audio is a 
 contracted verb as well as amo and moneo (see his Progressive 
 Grammar, Part III., p. 29, HI.,) and that consonant verbs,
 
 8 
 
 those which have u for their characteristic, and some in -i, are 
 uncoutracted, he still places them in an order Avhich is calculated 
 to prevent boys from coming to the true conchision. What 
 would he say to a Greek Grammar which arranged the conjuga- 
 tions thus : 1. Tlixdhi II. (piXeiD. III. TVTTTU)- IV. ^1j\6(0? 
 
 His own Elementary Greek Grammar, in which the consonant 
 verbs are kept separate from the vowel-verbs, and the former 
 arranged, like mine, in both the Latin and Greek Grammars, 
 according to the characteristic letters, is a sufficient condemna- 
 tion of the old fashioned, superannuated arrangement, or rather 
 jumble, which he has retained in his Latin Grammar. 
 
 Lastly, I cannot use Dr. Kennedy's Grammar, because neither 
 his Syntaxis Minor, nor his Sententiarum Constructio, is so ar- 
 ranged as to give a young student any coherent or even simple 
 notions of the use of predicates; because it is in fact a mere farrago 
 of statements, some true, and others inaccurate ; some belonging 
 to Grammar, others to Lexicography ; some generally, others 
 exceptionably valid, without one pervading principle of logical 
 analj^sis. A boy might perhaps learn Latin in spite of Dr. 
 Kennedy's Accidence ; but if he spent much time about the 
 Syntax of this Grammar, he would come with great disadvantages 
 to the higher study of either Greek or Latin Construction. 
 
 So much for Dr. Kennedy's 'faulty arrangement.' I now 
 turn to his ' grave errors of principle and detail.' Some of the 
 former are necessarily involved m his faults of arrangement. For 
 the sake of brevity, I will leave these to be discovered, as they 
 will be discovered, by all who agree with me in condemning the 
 rationale of declensions and conjugations, which Dr. Kennedy 
 has adopted or retained. 
 
 It is an error of principle to class together hie, ille, and is 
 (p. 21). If a boy is to write Latin, one of his first duties is to 
 understand the difference between the indicative pronouns hie, 
 iste, ille, (with the last of which, I have, for the first time, iden- 
 tified alius,) and the distinctive pronouns is, ideni^ and ipse. All 
 pronouns are demonstrative, as I have proved in the New 
 Cratylus ; and it is erroneous to restrict this term to one class, 
 and to include in this one class the very words which most require 
 discrimination. 
 
 It is an error of principle to say: Ablativus est casus qui cir- 
 evmstantia (in the Progressive Grammar, circumstantias) actionis 
 dejinit (§ 143), and a similar error of pruici^jle deforms all Dr. 
 Kennedy's definitions of the cases. Although in the Latin Ian-
 
 guage, as I have shown, idiomatic usage has introduced con- 
 siderable confusion in the genitive, ablative, and dative ; it is 
 not the less true that these cases had an original meaning, that 
 this original meaning is still retained in many important mstances, 
 and that the explanation of the prepositions and of all the usual 
 emplojTnents of the obhque cases is more easily and more 
 ti-uly given by referring to the simple and original meaning, than 
 by inventing such phrases as Dr. Kennedy has introduced. Is 
 the place from which I start on a jom'ney ' a circumstance of 
 the action V Are the instriunent and the agent both ' circum- 
 stances of the action T Is the danger fi'om which I hberate 
 my friend ' a circumstance of the action V Just as bad is Dr. 
 Kennedy's definition of the dative : Dativus est casus remotioris 
 objecti (§ 120). As the dative is the most adverbial of all the 
 cases, it connects itself most closely with the verb, as a secondary 
 predicate; and it is veiy amusing that Dr. Kennedy's first 
 example of its use should be ' non solum nobis divites esse volu- 
 mus.' The Shrewsbmy boys will of course conclude that there 
 must be some fallacy in the assertion : proximus sum egomet 
 mihi. The true definition of the dative is that which I have 
 given in my Greek Grammar (§ 455) : * The dative signifies that 
 the object referred to is considered as the point of juxtaposition 
 or immediate proximity — that it is receptive of accession or gain 
 — that something is being added to it.' And this is the direct 
 opposite of what Dr. Kennedy has said. I leave it to all real 
 scholars to decide between us. 
 
 Again, it is an error of principle to distinguish subordi- 
 nate sentences, [El Gh\ p. 120, § 19,) as (1) substantival: 
 (2) adverbial : (3) adjectival. All suborduiate sentences are 
 of the natm'e of secondary predications, and, therefore, they 
 are adverbial, as I have shown in my Greek Grammar and else- 
 where. In general, I do not share in Dr. Kennedy's admira- 
 tion of his doctrine of compound sentences, by the help of which 
 he hopes to teach me something in Latin syntax. He will not 
 be surprised to hear that I prefer my own >iews on the subject ; 
 and that I may make some retm-n for the syntactical instruction 
 which he so kindlv oiicrs to mc, I will venture to refer him to 
 my Complete Greek Grammar, to my Construe tionis Grcec<B 
 Preecepta {editio altera, 1850), or to the New Cratylus, second 
 Edition, Book III, Chap. Y. When he says [Grit. Ex. p. 87,) 
 in reference to my phrase praetlicata primaria, that he prefers 
 
 A '6
 
 10 
 
 the term copulative verb for the class of words by which these 
 predicates are joined to the subject, and that 'possibly, if he 
 (Dr. K.) had been a drinker of the Rhine, the Elbe, or the 
 Oder, I might not have disdained to adopt so convenient an 
 appellation,^ I must observe, in the first place, that this desig- 
 nation is implied in my Greek Grammar, rule 416, Constr. 
 Pr. 29; and that, as my boys begin Greek and Latin together, 
 the explanations of one Grammar axe sufficient for both. 
 But I must also repel the insinuation that I am a bigoted 
 and blind follower of the Germans, and can see nothing good 
 in the works of my own countrymen. Dr. Kennedy will find, 
 in the New Cratylus, § 30, that I have furnished him and 
 others, to whom German literature is not so well known 
 as it is to me, with emphatic cautions against a preference of 
 German to English scholarship ; and as I can claim to have 
 made more real discoveries in the higher departments of pure 
 philology than all the Germans put together, I dechne to be 
 placed by Dr. Kennedy among their humble and prejudiced 
 admirers. I do not wish to attach any value to my opinion on 
 the subject, but it is a fact that I have often mentioned Dr. 
 Kennedy^s name among those of a fevr Englishmen whose Greek 
 scholarship I consider equal, if not superior, to that of any Ger- 
 man professors. And if I do not think so highly of his attain- 
 ments in general philology, I merely accuse him ' of neglecting 
 much that he might easily have known. ^ {Gr. Gr. Pref. p. vi.) 
 
 But, lastly, it is the gravest error of principle which a Latin 
 grammarian could commit, to believe that fuero and fuerim, 
 mnavero and amaverini, are different tenses, and that one belongs 
 to the indicative, the other to the subjunctive mood. As Dr. 
 Kennedy has confidently joined issue with me on this point, and 
 as one of my main objects in compihng a new Latin Grammar 
 was to set this matter right, I shall bestow a few words on the 
 nature of the error in which he still persists. 
 
 There are two forms of error in regard to fuero, fuerim. The 
 old Eton Grammar makes them past and future tenses of the 
 subjunctive mood — a great cause of perplexity to ms in my 
 younger days. Dr. Kennedy, following most of the modern 
 Grammars, not only maintains that one is perfect and the other 
 future, but increases the confusion by placing the latter in the 
 indicative, the former in the subjunctive mood. To say nothing 
 of philology, what can be more hopeless than to teach Latin out 
 of a Grammar which makes fuerit both past and future, both
 
 11 
 
 subjunctive and indicative? If we fall back upon the highest 
 kind of pliilology, we come to the conclusion that the distinction 
 of moods has no etymological existence, but belongs to the clas- 
 sification of methodical syntax (A^. Crat. § 388), Thus the 
 Greek conjunctive and optative stand related only as future 
 and aorist. "With regard to the tenses, I, of course, add Dr. 
 Kennedy ^s tense system (§ 179) to his grave errors of principle. 
 The time theory is that which I accepted many years ago, and 
 which is due to J. L. Burnouf ; and if Dr. Kennedy will I'ead 
 what I have said about it in the N. Crat. § 372, he may perhaps 
 doubt the wisdom of declai'ing {Ciit. Exam. p. 108), 'in this 
 aiTangement of tenses I can see neither true theory nor prac- 
 tical value.^ If, as I believe, there are only two classes of tenses, 
 and thi'ee tenses in each class, there is no room for a futurum 
 exactum in the indicative mood, for the Greek paulo post futurum 
 is a pecuhar and occasional addition to the passive voice. {Gr. Gr. 
 435.) That the Latin tense system is imperfect, and must be 
 explained by the Greek verb, will be recognised by aU men who 
 have any philology in then* composition. For example, the 
 Romans, at a veiy eai'ly period, ceased to distinguish between 
 the aorist in -s, and the true perfect. In the same way, they 
 early lost their proper futm-e in -so or -sim (as faxo or faxim), and 
 either substituted a compound in -bo, or transferred to the indi- 
 cative a modification of the present subjunctive, which, in spite 
 of Dr. Kennedy's dictum, was always a kind of future. In 
 Homeric Greek, the present conjunctive plays the part of the 
 futm-e. (Hom. //. i. 26.2.) In Latin the corresponding tense 
 serves both offices, and without any inconsistency, for the original 
 meaning is unafiected by the use. I do not forget, as Dr. 
 Kennedy is so obhging as to inform me that I do {Crit. Exam. 
 p. 51), that 'the powers of the Latin subjunctive include not only 
 those of the Greek conjunctive, but also those of the optative, 
 with several uses of the indicative.' As I have in every case 
 stated the corresponding use of the Greek moods, I can only 
 regard Dr. Kennedy's imputation of forgetfulness as an instance of 
 the ' liasty confidence,' with which he charges to me in tlie pre- 
 ceding page. But I will tell him, wliat I really believe he docs 
 not know, wherein the possibility of such an interchange con- 
 sists. As far as the protasis or conditional sentence is con- 
 cerned, the Latin language, as compared with the Greek, is in- 
 deed inconsistent, but it causes no difiiculty. Wlien, however, 
 we pass to the apodosis, and have to use the Latin subjunctive
 
 12 
 
 as a potential without av, especially when the protasis is not 
 expressed, then we find that scholars, like Dr. Kennedy, whose 
 philological education has been neglected, are liable to confuse 
 between a subjunctive and an indicative usage, between a conse- 
 quential and a categorical assertion. The Latin tense system can- 
 not be understood without reference to the Greek ; and this is 
 one reason among many why boys should begin both languages 
 together. If we take the Greek as our criterion, we shall see 
 that in the protasis, lav Xaf^ftaui^g may be rendered either by si 
 accipias or si accipies, with a future in the apodosis; that 
 €1 XanfiavoiQ must be rendered by the present subjunctive, with 
 a similar form in the apodosis ; that si acceperis will render 
 il Xa(3oiQ or eav Xaft^g, according as the apodosis is the present or 
 perfect subjunctive in the one case, or the futiu-e indicative in 
 the other ; and that the Greek imperfect and aorist indicative 
 in the protasis, with the same tenses and aj^ in the apodosis, 
 must be rendered by the imperfect and pluperfect of the Latin 
 subjunctive. When, therefore, Dr. Kennedy ' marvels (p. 58) 
 by what process of reasoning' I ^ make the mood subjunctive in 
 the following' — si plane occidimus, ego omnibus meis exitio fuero; 
 — si pergis, abiero — tu invita mulieres, ego accivero pueros ; — he 
 must also marvel why the Greeks put the optative with av, in 
 the apodosis, to an indicative in \he protasis, as; eI fiev ovv raKlffriv 
 iv OeoTq <pfKa, TradovrcQ hv ^vyyvo'ijjiev rjjxapTJjKUTEg — for he will not 
 deny that the Latin perfect subjunctive in the apodosis is equi- 
 valent to the Greek optative aorist with av. But he has found 
 a decisive proof that there is an indicative futurum exactum, in 
 the following hues of Horace, Carm. iv. 10 : — 
 
 Insperata tuse cum veniet pluma superbise, 
 Et, qujE nunc humeris involitant deciderint comae, • 
 Nunc et qui color est punicese flore prior rosfe 
 Mutatus Ligurinum in faciem verterit hispidam. 
 Dices heu quoties te in speculo videris alterum, &c. 
 
 ' Will you,' he asks, ' venture to assert that deciderint and 
 verterit, coupled as they are to veniet, and dependent on the 
 same cum, are nevertheless in the subjunctive mood?' Most 
 certainly I will venture to do so, and I shall not tliink my attempt 
 either audacious or difficult. The construction here is equivalent 
 to that of vrav with the subjunctive in the protasis, followed by 
 the future indicative in the apodosis. If tliis protasis in Greek 
 demands a change of tense, this is effected by using the present 
 subjunctive for a mere future, hke veniet, and the aorist subjunc-
 
 13 
 
 tive for an antecedent condition, like that implied in deciderint. 
 No^y the Romans have no macliinery for the pm-pose except that 
 which is exhibited in the Unas of Horace ; and as cum veniet, 
 dices, or cum decidennt et verterit, dices, are equally allowable 
 forms of the conditional proposition, I find no difficulty in their 
 combination with one and the same apodosis. But I certainly 
 do ' marvel' that Dr. Kennedy should insist upon the fact that 
 veniet and deciderint ai-e jointly ' dependent on the same cum,' 
 as a proof that the verbs are in the same mood. If tliis were 
 vahd reasoning, it would prove the identity of the indicative 
 and optative in such a passage as Plato, Res^j. vi. p. 493 c : 
 
 £t TIC KaTEfxavdave, Karai^iadwy Se . . . KoXicreie kui TpiiroLTO k. t. \. 
 
 where several optatives are dependent on the same £» as the indi- 
 cative ; and it would also prove the identity of the future and 
 subjunctive in the following passage of Thucydides, where they 
 are dependent on the same ^// (ii. 72) : h^Uycu Se . . . fir) . . . ovk 
 iTn-pETTwinv i) . . . Tieipaaovcn KaroXu/jtlv. These Greek examples 
 are sufficient for the argument ; but what will Dr. Kennedy say 
 to the following passage from Cicero? {de Fin. ii. 19, § Gl) — 
 ' Num P. Decius, q7Mtm se devoveret et equo admisso in mediam 
 aciem Latinorum irruebat, ahquid de voluptatibus suis cogitabat?' 
 Will he venture to assert that devoveret is indicative because it 
 is ' coupled to irruebat and dependent on the same quum'? The 
 argument from the deponent and passive verbs proves nothing. 
 For when the passive participle is predicated du-ectly, the onh- verb 
 which \ve have to deal ^^ ith is the copula. I have never denied that 
 ero was indicative; but I have on one occasion shown that a 
 periphrase may be equivalent to a tense of the subjunctive 
 mood : thus dicam and dicere instituo are used in the same con- 
 struction (Cicero, Phil. i. 1 ; Muren. 1) ; and the indicative 
 stands in the apodosis to the subjunctive, Avhen the future in rus 
 is used. (Cf. Liv. xxxviii. 47, with Cic. Verr. iii. 52). And even 
 in obliqud interrogatione wc have facturusfuerat with a subjunc- 
 tive. (Liv. xli. 24.) And this brings me to Dr. Kennedy's 
 etymology of/wero, which appears to me eraincntlypuerile. He tells 
 us that fuero must be mdicative, and different from fuerim, which is 
 subjunctive, because the former involves ero, and the latter includes 
 si7n. But he always writes fuerint = fuesint in his futururn 
 exactum, as well as in his perfect suljjuncti\'e. Therefore, by his 
 own shoAnng, there is an insupcrabk; ol)jcction to our considering 
 the tense in which fucriat occurs as l)(!k)iigiiig at all to the 
 indicative mood. As far as the etymology is concerned, I enter-
 
 14 
 
 tain no doubt that every one whose mind has been turned to 
 scientific philological reasoning will agree with me in the conclu- 
 sion that ero itself is only another form of sini, and that ero was 
 originally esiem {New Cratylus, § 398.) The oscillation in the 
 quantity oifuenmus, &cc., explains the difference between erimus, 
 which is shortened in its penultima, and slmus, which has lost 
 its initial syllable. It is a mere assumption of Dr. Kennedy's 
 that there is any difference of usage between the forms in -ro and 
 -rim. The choice of one form or the other is a mere matter of 
 euphony. And if si quis bona carmina condiderit tu missus 
 abibis must be admitted to exhibit a subjunctive in the protasis, 
 what will be said of the similar construction in the well-known 
 lines of Ennius ? — 
 
 O Tite, si quid ego adjuero curamve levasso, 
 Ecquid erit pretii ? 
 
 An examination of verbs hke memini, novi, odi, which are 
 used as present-perfects, ^vill show that their corresponding per- 
 fect subjunctives cannot be indicative futm-es also. If authority 
 will add anything, Priscian expressly says (Lib. viii, c. 8, p. 388, 
 Krehl) : " quamvis Grseci futurum quoque diviserunt in quibus- 
 dam verbis in futurum itifinitum, ut rv\Pofxai, et paulo post futu- 
 rum, quod et Atticum dicunt, TeTv\poiiai, Mehus tamen Romani 
 considerata fiituri ratione, quse omnino incerta est, simphci in eo 
 voce utuntur, nee finiunt spatium futuri.' And on the whole I 
 throw back to Dr. Kennedy the charge of 'hasty confidence,' 
 and ' one-sided reasoning,' (p. 50,) and denounce his futurum 
 exactum as a grave error of principle, which, pervading as it does 
 his whole Grammar, would alone prevent me from recommending 
 the book to any one who "wishes to learn Latin. 
 
 Of eiTors of detail Dr. Kennedy furnishes us with an 
 abundant harvest. But I must content myself with selecting a 
 few examples of his misinformtion or inaccuracy. In the sixth 
 edition of his Grammar he continues to exhibit the plural of 
 Deus, as if Dei and Deis were the most usual forms of the nomi- 
 native and dative and ablative. He teUs me in his pamphlet, 
 p. 32, that he hopes to improve this. I hope he wiU, if he ever 
 comes to a seventh edition;* but for a scholar, who has tmder- 
 
 * That Dr. Kennedy's final improvement may be complete, I will tell 
 him why I omit the forms dii, dm. There is equal MS. authority for di, 
 dii, dis, diis -. see Drakenborch ou Liv. v. 14, § 4 ; Cort. on Sallust, Cat. 1, 2. 
 But when ii is pronounced as one syllable, it is expressed by i only, as appeai-s
 
 15 
 
 taken to lecture me on tlie 'very minute care and pains* de- 
 manded by the compilation of a good School Grammar (p. 127), 
 it is not very creditable to have re\'ised six editions of such a 
 work without discovering tlie true declension of Deus! Dr. 
 Kennedy's pupils liave been taught by six repubhcations of the 
 error that quisquam is regularly declmed through its genders and 
 nimibers (p. 22). I have thought it necessary to tell my readers 
 that quisquam has neither feminine nor plural. The mascuhne 
 is sometimes used with feminine noims; but, excepting one 
 doubtful passage in Plcmtus, I have never heard that any femi- 
 nine form has been discovered. And yet this careful and im- 
 maculate grammarian writes quisquam, queequam, quidquam, 
 without saying a word about quicquam, which is much more 
 common. He has also told his boys through six editions that 
 antes means 'the outer pillars' (p. 146), making a confusion of 
 tliis word with antce, and quite preventing his pupils from un- 
 derstauding what is meant by a temple in antis. Besides, even 
 ant(B does not mean ' outer pillars,' but the ends of the side 
 walls projecting so as to form a porch. The statement (p. 108) 
 that med, tud, &c., in the construction with refert and interest, 
 are ablatives, is ' a time-honoured inaccuracy,' of which I claim 
 the correction {N. Crat. § 240, and elsewhere); to say that they 
 agree with re understood is a mere mistake, as the noun is ex- 
 pressed in refert=reifert. 
 
 "With regard to Dr. Kennedy's errors of excess and defect, it 
 will be sufficient to mention that while he amasses examples 
 without end, of constructions which might be ranged imder one 
 head, and introduces a great deal of matter which belongs to the 
 dictionary or the commentary rather than to the grammar, 
 which shoidd teach principles rather than collect details, he 
 gives his readers no information on those points on which they 
 most want it — the proper distinctions of the indefinite pronouns, 
 and the varjdng usage of those adverbs and conjunctions, which 
 they must find in the first pages of their Latin reading, and must 
 use in the earhest of their Latin compositions. 
 
 by the proper form of the genitives of nouns in ius, according to the well- 
 known canon of Bcntley (see also Lachmann on Lucret. v. 100()) ; and as 
 the double / iu this case is merely a fiiiu-y of the {^raimiiariaiis for the pur- 
 pose of representing the long syllables (U, ills, eoiiliacti'il IVoin (/ri, (Zeis 
 (Piiscian, vii. 4, § 15, p. 300, Krehl), it should be extruded from critical 
 editions of the classical authors.
 
 16 
 
 I may now, I think, maintain that I have vindicated, so far 
 as Dr. Kennedy is concerned, every sentence in my preface which 
 seemed necessary as an explanation of my reasons for under- 
 taking a new Latin Grammar. It would have been easy to 
 multiply examples of his defects, but I do not wish to dwell 
 longer than is necessary on this disagreeable duty. 
 
 With regard to the defence of my own Grammar from the 
 charges brought against it, I have already said that it rests 
 with me to treat this part of the subject as briefly as I please. 
 Had Dr. Kennedy's strictures appeared anonymously in any 
 journal, however respectable, I should not have thought it 
 necessary to notice his criticisms. I have been an author long 
 enough to appreciate the truth of Bentley^s axiom, that ' no man 
 was ever written out of reputation, but by himself,' As, how- 
 ever, the Critical Examination appears in the form of a letter to 
 me, I am bound in com-tesy to state to the learned writer why I 
 decline to reply in eoctenso to his elaborate diatribe. 
 
 (1,) The value of Dr, Kennedy's opinions is neutrahzed by 
 the candid avowal that his criticism is provoked by my virtual 
 censure of his work. He has been induced to write by a wish 
 to show that my ' harsh judgment is not merited, or if 
 merited, that the writer of the Complete Latin Orammar is not 
 entitled to pronounce it,' (p. 126.) Self-defence, therefore, 
 conducted by means of recrimination, or the intentional and 
 eager disparagement of his censor, is the moving cause of the 
 Critical Examhtation to which I have been svibjected. Criticism 
 of this nature defeats its object, and needs no reply. 
 
 (2.) The main feature of Dr, Kennedy's Critical Examination 
 may be described as a constant opposition of his opinion to mine 
 on questions of philology. In any case, it would seem to be 
 superfluous to meet this by a reiteration of my own sentiments. 
 
 * Who shall decide, when Doctors disagree V 
 
 But, unfortunately, I cannot recognize my critic as a Doctor in 
 Philology. I am perfectly aware that he is a very eminent 
 Greek scholar. Perhaps he is unequalled in his intimate ac- 
 quaintance with the phraseology of the di-amatists. But classical 
 philology in the 19th century demands something more than 
 unrivalled skill in teaching the composition of Greek Iambic 
 Trimeters. It involves a wide and varied range of reading in 
 history, mythology, archseology, and philosophy, which does not 
 exhibit itself in the published writings of Dr. Kennedy. Above
 
 17 
 
 all, I have no reason to believe that he has ever made even a 
 first beginning in those higher philological studies to wliich I have 
 devoted more than twent}^ of the best years of my Hfe. On 
 the contrary. Dr. Kennedy's pubhcatious, from liis Progressive 
 Grammar down to the Critical Examination now before me, 
 evince an ignorance of the fii-st principles of scientific etymology, 
 which ought to be, but is not, very extraordinary. To take an 
 instance or two, what shall we say of the scholar who informs 
 us that ' interest is probably corrupted from in re esf! {Progres- 
 sive Grammar, transl. of Syntax, p. 36.) Is not comparative phi- 
 lology utterly ignored by a grammarian who places Klag by the 
 side of Ajax, in order to prove by a solitary example that sigma 
 may be changed into x? {Progr. Gr., Accidence and Etym. p. 3.) 
 To say nothing of the fact that the crude form of A'laq is Mavr — 
 has Dr. Kennedy to be told that 4/«'^ is the Latin form of Aut/coc, 
 and that the Romans, not being careful as to the alwv klaicicav 
 (Soph. Aj. 615), which they adopted, took the gi'andfather instead 
 of the gi-andson? Then he objects to the obvious and certain 
 derivation of op-timns from ob, because he does not knoAV the 
 original meaning of the preposition, for wliich I may refer him 
 to the Xew Crat., § 1 7.2, where I have proved its identity with 
 i-a-l and ufKpi- He also objects to the absence of a comparative 
 opterior. lie might as well object to the derivation of de-terior 
 from de, because there is no superlative de-timus, but only a 
 secondaiy form, deterrimus, and of an-terior from an-te, because 
 there is no superlative at all. The fact is, that as ob, 'upon' or 
 ' aroimd,' ah'cady expresses relative altitude, it cannot have a 
 comparative, though it may have a superlative. Thus in English 
 we say top-most, but not top-more; up-most or upper-most, not 
 upper-more. ^Yitli these and any number of similar proofs of Dr. 
 Kennedy's neglect of scientific etymology, I can have no hope 
 of a satisfactory discussion with him. And I must content 
 myself with expressing my belief that if Dr. Kennedy had 
 properly studied the subject on which he has undertaken to 
 ■«Tite, he would, with his. undoubted abilities, have produced a 
 book very different from his Latin Grammar, or, at all events, 
 would have appreciated the validity of my combinations, and 
 ■\voidd have abstained from captious and dictatorial remarks, 
 which rather betray a wish to find fault, than a consciousness of 
 superior knowledge. 
 
 (3.) If I were ever so anxious on other accounts to follow 
 Dr. Kennedy step by step thrcmgh his prolix criticisms, I shoidd
 
 18 
 
 be deterred by the consideration that I am at tliis moment 
 engaged in the republication of my Varronianus, which will 
 oblige me to enter upon a full examination of all the questions 
 at issue between my reviewer and myself. With my scanty 
 leisure, I find it difficult enough to do my work once ; and with 
 all my respect for Dr. Kennedy, I cannot anticipate the develop- 
 ments, which will appear in their proper place, and for which 
 my Latin Grammar is especially intended as an elementary 
 preparation. There he will find that ' endless philological talk,' 
 of which he writes so contemptuously (pp. 47, 127, &c.), but 
 without which, it seems, he cannot effect any thing in Latin 
 grammar. 
 
 For these reasons, I shall dismiss the critical examination of 
 my own Grammar with a very few observations. 
 
 In the first place, I admit and deplore that there are some 
 heinous eiTors of the press. Although they are not very nume- 
 rous, though they are all so ob\dous that any teacher or even 
 dihgent learner might discover them and correct them with the 
 pen, I have had occasion to complain to the pubHsher of the 
 cai-elessness with which the printers have altered the types after 
 the proofs had finally left my hands. But with regard to these 
 errors of the press, and other oversights not attributable to the 
 printer, I can safely promise that they Avill all be corrected long 
 before my book reaches the ' sixth edition.' 
 
 The title, A Complete Latin Grammar for the Use of Learners, 
 has been made the subject of several observations by my 
 reviewer. The whole title is suggested by that of my Greek 
 Grammar, and the epithet ' complete' must be understood accord- 
 ing to the definition given in the preface to the other elementary 
 work. I there remarked (p. viii.), ' In calhng this a complete 
 Greek Grammar, I need hardly say, that I did not intend to put 
 it forth as containing all that ought to be written about the 
 Greek lang-uage. The fact that it is introductory to a much 
 larger work by the same author, is sufficient to show that it 
 merely professes to include all that ought to be comprised in an 
 elementary work for the use of younger students.' Every one 
 of these remarks is apphcable to the Latin Grammar; and in 
 both cases, I would wish to distinguish between the extent of a 
 work and its completeness. In what I have omitted, and in 
 M'hat I have inserted, I have been guided solely by the results 
 of my practical experience. But in designing my Grammar for 
 learners, I have not prepared it -^dth a -view to those precocious
 
 19 
 
 infants, who, like Dr. Kennedy [Crit. Exam. p. 13), begin to 
 learn Latin before they ai'c five years old. In my opinion, boys 
 shoidd not begm to leai-n Latin until they begin to learn Greek; 
 and I think that from the tenth to the twelfth year*, according to 
 the capacity of the boy, should be the period of initiation. In 
 Latin leai-ning, as m other things, we may safely use the caution 
 of Al'cllidamus : (nvtvlovTEQ cr-)(oXaiTepov av navaaiade. And I think 
 that half the time spent in leai-nmg Latin with the aid of 
 Greek will produce more real effect than if we commenced the 
 solitary study of Latin at the early age which Dr. Kennedy 
 reconunends, and cai'ried it on even for ten years. In general, 
 I would increase the proportion of classical and mathematical 
 tra inin g as a boy advances, and would bestow the earher years 
 of his school training on those general subjects wliich in the old 
 days of grammai' schools were never leai'ned at aU. But in any 
 case, I would teach no grammar except accordmg to the somidest 
 rules of scientific philology ; and as the ultimate object of clas- 
 sical training is to give the many a habit of methodically 
 arranging their thoughts, and to make the few who are capable 
 of it, good philologers in the liighest and fullest sense of the 
 term, I can acquiesce in no Grammar, even for beginners, if it 
 does not contain glimpses of the true system of linguistic phi- 
 losophy to which the latter will finally be brouglit, or if it 
 misleads even the humblest student, by teacliing him facts 
 wliich are unsustaincd by evidence, and principles wliich ai'c 
 contrary to the inductions of modern science. 
 
 On the whole, I must declare that Dr. Kennedy^s Critical 
 Examination has not convinced me, and I think it will not 
 comince my readers, either that a new Latin Grammar was not 
 required, or that I have failed to supply the want. And I 
 deliberately repeat the last words of my preface — that whatever 
 may be the faults of my book (and 1 should have discovered its 
 imperfections without the aid of Dr. Kennedy), it presents for 
 the first time a rational arrangement of the facts, and corrects 
 for the first time many time-honomed inaccuracies. It is a 
 matter of opinion how much an elementary Grannnar ought to 
 contain; I have been anxious to reduce mine to the smallest 
 possible compass ; and if I have made any omissions, they are 
 such as the competent teacher can supply orally, or from otlicr 
 sources. But I am certain that the book contains no super- 
 fluities ; and others have recognised my success in calling the 
 learner's attention to a true explanation of the real diiliculties of
 
 20 
 
 the language. Substantives, adjectives, pronouns, and verbs are 
 all discussed in a rational order, and the student is told what he 
 most wants to know about them. The same is the case in the 
 explanations of undechnable words, and in the whole syntax, 
 especially with regard to the gerundia and gerundiva, which, as 
 I believe, were never explained with even approximate accuracy 
 in any former Latin Grammar. Lastly, I am convinced that I 
 have for the first time exhibited the true principles of Latin 
 prosody ; and my Appetidices, with much that is old, contain a 
 great deal of information which will be found in no other book. 
 Four months' use in this school, where the under masters are 
 men of ability and judgment, convinces me that I have at last 
 got a manual by which it is possible to teach Latin ; and I feel 
 confident that those who follow my example will arrive at the 
 same result. 
 
 And here I trust that this discussion will terminate. Dr. 
 Kennedy's friends must feel that he has gained nothing by 
 provoking it. But whatever he or they may think, the learned 
 pubhc will constitute our only tribunal of appeal. And with 
 regard to the public verdict, I cannot resist the impression that 
 he has been ill-advised in inviting this comparison of our Latin 
 Grammars ; for he was already, to a considerable extent, in 
 possession of the field. And if the rival publication which he 
 has so emphatically advertised should ever interfere with the 
 use of his book, it will be found that the course which he has 
 adopted has contributed to shorten the period of probation which 
 every new work must undergo. In the controversy which he 
 has forced upon me, I have been obliged to exhibit some of his 
 errors and deficiencies ; and if this has caused him or liis friends 
 any annoyance or mortification, I am truly sorry for the necessity 
 which he has imposed upon me : for though I am not person- 
 ally acquainted with him, I entertain towards the learned master 
 of Shrewsbury School a feeling of sincere respect and good-will ; 
 and I trust that he will live long enough to forget the incident 
 which has distm^bed his equanimity, even though he should 
 discover in the mean time that his Latin Grammar is conclusively 
 superseded by some work which presents in a simple and syste- . 
 matic form the newest discoveries of linguistic science. 
 
 J. W. D. 
 
 King Edward's School, Bury St. Edmunds, 
 24th May, 1852.
 
 University Of California, Los Angeles 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFC 
 
 Los Angele„ 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 L 007 625 251 9 
 
 Form 
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed.
 
 
 Univers 
 
 Sout 
 
 Lib]