as

Upon sub, when standing alone, I speak doubtfully. There is a passage in Livy, where subire may have the sense of " "cending" but I am not positive, and shall offer a different explanation. "Equites diu ignari pugnæ et victoriæ suorum steterunt, deinde ipsi, quantum equis subire poterant, sparsos "fuga Gallos circa radices montis consectati cecidere aut cepere," would rather explain subire, to enter," and account for it thus. When we go into the open air, the sky is above us; when we go into the house, part of the house is above us; when we go into a forest, the trees are above us; hence," to go un"der," first joined with the notion of "going into," was afterwards separated from it, and signified perhaps mere entrance." There is a curious passage in Manilius, where sub first means "to come up, or advance," and afterwards has a signification not very dissimilar. Speaking of the star Andromeda, he says,

"Illa subit contra, versamque a gurgite frontem
"Erigit, et tortis innitens orbibus alte

Emicat, ac toto sublimis corpore fertur.

"Sed quantum illa subit, seque ejaculata profundo est,
"Is tantum revolat, laxumque per æthera ludit."

Lib. v. 595.

'Here subire means "to come towards or advance," and just stops short of "entrance or arrival."

Upon the whole, I am persuaded that sub, standing alone, never has the sense of "up." But in composition it frequently has that sense; and finding upon my former paper two or three additional examples, I will subjoin them.

"Et nox alta polos bigis subcecta tenebat."

"Subvehitur magna matrum regina caterva.”

"Tum sublevat ipsum."

VIRG. Aen. v.

Aen. xi.

Aen. X.

Mr Stewart will permit me to observe, that, in one modern language, the Spanish, there is a striking coincidence with the Latin upon the power of sub to express " elevation" in compounded words.

Subida," an ascent, or going up."

Subidéro," a high place.'

Subidéto, "that is ascended," " that one must ascend."

Subido, lofty, high, proud, haughty."

Subidór, one that rises up, or goes up."

Subir, "to go up, to rise."

Sublevación," rising up," "a sedition."

Sublevar, "to move a sedition or insurrection.”

Sublemacion," sublimation," "lifting up," "extolling."

Now the old grammarians saw and had noticed this power of sub, but were unable to explain it. Sub præpositio signi ficat modo supra, ut

Diomed. 1. i. p. 407. ed. Putsch. Nonius Marcellus shall follow. "Subjicere est subtus jacere, supponere," and of this the more general signification he gives three instances, but adds, 66 susum jacere, excrescere," and gives three examples, all of which I have already produced. Mr Stewart will be pleased to notice the old word susum.

"Sublimare, extollere. Ennius Medea:

"Subrigere significat susum erigere, quo verbo rustici utuntur, quum tritæ fruges ad ventilandum in areis eriguntur. VIRGIL, Aen ·

Lib. iv.

"Tot linguæ, totidem ora sonant, tot surrigit auris."

So far Nonius Marcellus. Of surrigere I have given examples. In the famous work De Causis Lingua Latina, Joseph Scaliger in chapter 155th treats of " præpositionum efficiens et "materia." "In (genuit) intra; ex, extra; cis, citra ; in, infra; sup, supra; fuit enim sic prius: postea sub, ab iïò, ut ab, ab ἀπὸ Sed antea orta sunt, inter, infer, super, exter, deinde, intera, infera, supera, extera, quemadmodum ex Phænomenis Ciceronis observari potuit,

“Torvus Draco serpit, subter, superaque retorquens."

Scaliger is right enough in his ab, from drò. But, when he says, sup, fuit enim sic prius, postea sub, ab vπò," he confounds words of different origin, as we shall presently see. Chapter the 33d turns upon the "consonantum mutatio in com"positione."" B mutatur in C, F, G, L, M, P, R. Succurro, suffero, suggero, sullevo, summitto, suppeto, surripio. Id Acolen

cerc.

sium morc, qui xáπeow, xállαλ, dicebant præcedentem sequentis vi pronunciantes. Neque tamen in omnibus bis literis semper eadem connexio est. Malim enim SUSLIMEM, quam SULLIMEM di* B non mutatur ante T, in S, ut dixere in sustollo, namque fuit vetus vox, sus, quæ motum cœlum versus sig. nificaret, ode; fortasse autem fuerat, subs, sicut abs, quanquam hoc videtur fuisse a, et a sus fuit susum fecit autem ex se strstuli, non enim a suffero, venit. Eadem est ante C. Suscipio, quod veteres succipio, ut diximus, Acolensium more, quemadmodum-supra declaratum est, quos prisci etiam in aliis observarunt; ut est apud Plautum in Asinaria.

"Suppendas potius me, quam tacita hæc auferas."

Quod nos suspendas. Pari exemplo, suscipio, sustineo, sust cito, susum cito." What Scaliger says upon the Aeolic doub ling of letters in compound words is true. But I must beg leave to observe, that in words uncompounded, the old Romans pronounced, but never wrote a double letter till the time of Ennius, and for this assertion I must bring my proof.

21. Ubi Macelum invenimus scriptum, pro Macellam, Clascis pro classes, sumas pro summas, olorom pro illorum, númei pro nummi, observari meretur, antiquissimos, qui Latina lingua scrip, sore, ad usque tempora Ennii poetæ, literas consonantes in cadem voce duplicatas, et immediate alteram alteri annexam, ut nunc quidem fieri perpetuo videmus, minime gentium voluisse. Et hoc ipse Festus (in v. Solitaurilia. Idem in v. Ab oloes et Aulas. Cum istud veteres pro ab illis, et hoc pro ollas dixerint: vid. etiam Morhof. De Ling. Teuton. Pt. I. c. 3. p. 50), erudi tissimus scriptor et præclarus antiquitatis indagator, si modo integer ad nos pervenisse potuisset, clarissime testatur: nomen,' inquiens, Solitaurilia antiqua consuetudine per unum L enun. ciari, non est mirum, quia nulla tunc geminabatur litera inscri bendo: quam consuetudinem Ennius mutavisse fertur.' Idem rursus alibi (in v. Torum, cf. idem in v. porigam et folium): Torum ut significet torridum, aridum, per unum quidem R antiqua consuetudine scribitur. Sed quasi per duo RR scribatur, pronunciari oportet: Nam antiqui nec mutas, nec semivocales litteras geminabant. Quod proin etiam Isidorus (Orig. L. I. c. 26. in fine) coufirmavit, ubi veteres,' inquit, non duplicabant literas, sed supra sicilicos apponebant, qua nota admonebatur lector, geminandam esse literam, et sicilicus vocatur, quia in Sicilia inventus est primo. Uude forsan usu venit, ut in recen tioribus monumentis etiam scriptitaverint Romani, Juentus pro juventus, Fluium pro fluvium, Dumvir pro duumvir, Flaus pro flavus (vid. Aldus Manutius in Orthographia, p. 451. Cf. Jo. Schulzi Florum Sparsio ad Loca quædam in Re literaria controversa, p. 224)-J. N. Funccii De Origine et Pueritia Lat. Lingua, p. 319, 20.

We shall hereafter turn a part of this, long quotation to some account. I am chiefly concerned in opposing Scaliger, when he says that *motion towards the sky," comes from sus, signifying Today, that it formerly was subs like abs,-that abs came from a-that susum is from sus,and that suscipio was

teres succipio."

apud ve

Long was I puzzled with the contrary powers of sub in compounded words. I knew that in Latin the sibilant letter is often substituted for the aspirate-for as gives sex and grw, serpo, so To would become sub. Reflecting upon the subject, I perceived that sub, when it signifies" elevation," came from sg, and that meg, like imo, lost the closing letters, and that p was changed into b. I never saw this stated in any book, directly or indirectly. But no conjecture was ever more clear, or more satisfactory to my mind; and it solves all difficulties. The letters, and the sound of sub, are the same when their signification is different, because they flow from different Greek words. I think that Mr Stewart will be convinced in one moment.

Sub then, signifying elevation," comes not from, but from bag, and sus does not immediately come from sub only, but by another process, as we shall soon see,

"

Scaliger's second position upon subs, like abs, is erroneous; and erroneous, too, is the notion which he took from Festus, that abs came from . There is no vestige whatsoever, that sub existed in the form of sup; and as to abs, it came not from &↓, but from ἀπο. Of abs, Cicero tells us, in Orat. 158. 47. "Una præpositio est abs (so Robert Stephens reads, not ab) eaque nunc tantum in accepti tabulis manet, ne his quidem om nium; in reliquo sermone mutata est. Nam amovit dicimus, et abegit, et abstulit, ut jam nescias abuc verum sit, an abs. Quid si etiam abfugit turpe vitium est, et abjer noluerunt, aufer malues runt? quæ præpositio, præter hæc duo verba, nullo alio in verbo reperitur." Cicero's words must be understood with some limi tation. For we find abs compounded in abstenmus, and abstineo, and when it is uncompounded, we always ought to write abs te.* We find abs se in Cæsar. There is a doubt upon abs Suessa in Livy E. xxxii. 1. But we read ABS quivis homine in the Adelphi of Terence. Gesner gives, from Quinctilian, the reason for which ab sometimes took the old final s, which, even among the old Romans, was not always used. "Quad? quod syllaba nostræ in B literam et D innituntur adeo aspere, ut plerique mollire? tentaverint, in præpositione B hiteræ ob sonum et ipsam S sub. jiciendo," XII. 10. 32.

Against Scaliger's third position, I contend that susum did not come from sus, but versa rice (as we ought to say, instead of rice versa) sus comes from susum. As retrovorsum was contracted in to rursum, so supervorsum was contracted into sursum, and sursum

was softened into susum, and susum, when compounded, shortened into sus.

As to the fourth position, that suscipio was "apud ve teres succipio," Scaliger is mistaken. Suscipio is capio susum, "I take up"-suspendo is susum pendo, " I hang up”—sustineo is susum teneo, "I hold up"-suscito is, by Scaliger's own confession, susum cito, "I stir up"-suspicio is susum specio, “I look up," and, as specio begins with an s, the final letter of sus, contracted from susum, is omitted upon the above mentioned principle of avoiding, as the old Romans avoided, the gemination of the same letter. Well, then, we sometimes have sus, as in sustineo -we sometimes have sub, as in subjicere, and subjectare used by Virgil we sometimes have the final letter changed into the initial letter of the verb, as in summitto. Sometimes in different parts of a word, having the same signification, we have both sus and sub, and this is apparent in sustuli and sublatum. I really give myself a little credit for my solution of difficulties, which must often perplex others, as they long perplexed me.

ARTICLE II. (p. 391.)

The general scope of Dr Parr's manuscript, referred to in pp. 378 and 391, is thus stated by himself in the introductory paragraph.

As it is not my fortune to agree with my friend Mr Stewart upon a controverted passage in the Pseudo-Longinus, I shall, first, consider the general principle how far depth is, or is not used by the Greek and Roman writers for height, and in the course of my investigation, I shall take occasion to write some what copiously upon the Latin prepositions which are employed to express them respectively; secondly, I shall, in a more direct way, state my objections to the reading in Longinas for which Mr Stewart contends; thirdly, I shall endeavour to vindicate that etymological explanation of the word sublimis which Mr Stewart rejects; and, finally, I shall trespass upon his patience, by assigning some of the reasons which lead me to suspect, that the Longinus, usually supposed to be the author of the Book Tags, did not in reality write it."

In the foregoing article, I have selected various passages from that part of Dr Parr's manuscript which relates to the etymology of the word sublimis; and I intended to attempt here a similar abstract of his very learned and profound comments on the disputed sentence in Longinus, which I have quoted in the