ART. V. Bishop Horsley on the Prosodics of the Greek and Latin Languages. [Article concluded from vol. xxv. p. 254-264.] ALTHOUGH we differ much from this Right Reverend author with respect to the antiquity and utility of the Greek accents, we are of opinion that he has in his Appendix fairly and ably refuted the system of Primatt. Mr. Primatt, (says Dr. H.) though he maintains the antiquity of the accents, and defends the accented pronunciation of Greek prose, agrees with the opposers of the Greek accents, that they are not calculated to regulate the recitation of verse; being destructive, as he supposes, of metrical quantity. He is reduced, therefore, to the necessity of supposing, that verse and prose were pronounced, by the antient Greeks, by two different rules: the one, by the rule of the Latin accent; which he, with the generality of those who disuse the Greek accents, considers as an universal rule of quantity, or, metrical recitation; (which we have shewn to be a gross mistake;) the other, by the proper accents of the Greek language. He is educed to the necessity of this improbable conclusion, by falling in with the common prejudice about the acute accent, that it lengthens the time of the syllable on which it falls.' Nothing can be more absurd than to assert that it is the nature of the acute accent to lengthen the syllable on which it falls on the contrary, we are fully persuaded that it was never meant to fall on a long syllable at all,-but either on the shortest of all syllables, or on a syllable less long than the syllable next to it for nothing is more clear than what Dionysius asserts, that there are short and shorter syllables, as well as long and longer syllables; and we much question whether any two syllables, long or short, can be pronounced with exactly the same length or brevity, in any word of more than two syllables. Having taken notice of Mr. Primatt's inconsistency in maintaining that there is a power inherent in the acute tone to lengthen the quantity of the syllable on which it falls; and yet admitting that, in music, length of sound and acuteness of tone are not always united; the Bishop very justly observes that It might be a sufficient confutation of these notions of this learned writer, about the effect of accent, to observe, that the account, which he here gives, of the difference between singing and speaking, with which his whole theory of accents must stand or fall, is neither more nor less, than the unanimous doctrine of the antient writers upon harmony reversed. Ask Aristoxenus, ask Euclid, ask Aristides, ask Nicomachus, ask Gaudentius, in what the difference consists between speaking and singing; they tell you, with one consent, that there are two species of local motion belonging to the voice." (By the local motion of the voice, or sound, they mean the transi tion from high to low, or the contrary.) "That the one is a continuous motion; the other diastematic. That the continuous is the motion of the voice in discourse; the diastematic, in singing." And so far Mr. Primatt's doctrine is correct. But ask these writers again, what is continuous motion, and what is diastematic; you will find, that, with one consent, they describe the continuous motion by those properties, which Mr. Primatt ascribes to the diastematic; and the diastematic they describe, by those properties, which he ascribes to the continuous. "According to the continuous motion," saith Aristoxenus, "the voice seems to sense to pass through a certain place, in such manner, as to stop no where, not even at the extremities, as far as the sense can perceive; but it seems to go on, without any interruption of its motion, till it comes to absolute silence. But, according to the other species of motion, to which we give the name of diastematic, it seems to be moved in a contrary manner. For, stepping over [a certain space], it stops itself, first upon one note, then upon another. And when it thus stops upon the exact notes, and sounds them precisely, and each distinctly by itself, it is said to sing, and to be moved, according to the diastematic motion.-Now, we say, that the continuous motion is the motion of common speech. For whenever we talk, the voice is so moved from place to place, as nowhere to seem to stand. But in the other species of motion, which we caft the diastematic, the voice appears to be kept at a stand; and all agree, that a person who appears to do this, no longer speaks, but sings. For, in speaking, we avoid any stopping of the motion of the voice upon any particular tone; unless we are obliged to take up this species of motion, in order to express some particular passion. In singing we do the contrary; for we avoid continuity of motion, and make it a point, as much as possible, to arrest the voice; for the more we make each sound one, steady, and invariable, the more accurate our execution will seem to the ear By the stopping of the voice, it is evident, Aristoxenus means its dwelling upon the sound of each note distinctly. Euclid, Nicomachus, and Gaudentius, deliver the same doctrine, in very similar expressions. According to these writers, the very essence and form of singing consists in a certain commorance of the voice upon each distinct note and the essence and form of common speech consists in the negation of that commorance. But according to Mr. Primatt, this commorance of the voice, upon the acute accent, is necessary in common speech, and is not at all necessary in singing. Deny this, which we are authorised by the antients to deny, and his whole theory of the effect of accent upon quantity falls to the ground.' As Mr. Primatt had bolstered up his assertion by the authority of a Greek scholiast on Hephaestion, Bp. H. takes some pains to shew that the authority of that scholiast is of little or no weight; and we are inclined to think that the R. R. critic is in the right. He has also well answered Mr. P.'s * Aristoxenus apud Musicos Veteres Meibomii, p. 8-9.' arguments arguments drawn from Quintilian, Porphyry, Moscopulus of Byzantium, Dionysius of Thrace, and Herodian the grammarian.-Indeed, the principle of Mr. Primatt is a false principle; and the ground which he has taken is untenable. Notwithstanding that we assent to the opinion of the R.R. author in all this argument, still we are not satisfied with his own system. We are convinced that the manner of reading by quantity, which Mecherkus and Vossius introduced, is not only, the best, but the only method of reading Greek that is founded on reason and the nature of things. Dr. H. subjoins, from the Appendix to Wetstein's Dissertation upon the Greek accents, extracts from Dionysius of Thrace; from a MS. in the Medicean library; and the 24th Section of Wetstein's Dissertation, proving that there are old Greek MSS. in uncial or capital letters, which are accented. This is a truth that is not denied: but we apprehend that it has not yet been shewn that those accents were not added by some posterior hand. Yet, were they coëval with the MS., we should not on that account set a much greater value on them: for there are few MSS., we believe, older than the fifth century, and there are many uncial MSS. of a much later date. ART. VI. Mr. Johnston's Translation of Professor Beckmann's WIRE [Article concluded from p. 138.] RE DRAWING. A method of reducing metals into slender filaments was known in very early periods. The sacerdotal dress of Aaron was interwoven with golden threads; and the net, which Vulcan is said to have forged to revenge his connubial wrongs, is supposed to have been formed of filaments almost imperceptible. It is probable, however, that the wire of the antients was not drawn, but cut from thin metallic plates, and afterward rounded. As long as the work was performed by the hammer, the artists at Nuremberg were called wire-smiths, but after the invention of the drawing-iron they were called wire-drawers. Both these appellations occur in the history of Augsburg so early as the year 1351, so that I must class the invention among those of the fourteenth century.' Buck-wheat. In this article, M. Beckmann successfully refutes the opinion of those who consider this plant as the ocimum or erysimum of the antients; and, relying on the authority of several respectable writers who lived in the beginning of the 16th century, he concludes that it was introduced into Europe only a short time before. Rerellius, who wrote in 1536, says, REV. JULY, 1798. "Hane, X Ged..s. "Hanc, quoniam avorum nostrorum atate e Gracia vel Asia venerit, Turcium frumentum nominat." It acquired its name of Buck-wheat from the resemblance of its seeds to the fruit of the beech-tree, called in German buk. Saddles. We are informed by Pliny that the practice of placing coverings on the backs of horses was first invented by Pelethronius. The ephippium was probably nothing but a covering of one or several pieces of cloth, more or less sumptuous. At what period it gave place to the commodious sella cannot be ascertained; though, from a passage in the Theodosian code, our author infers that saddles were used in the time of that emperor. Stirrups. These useful aids to the rider might undoubtedly have been suspended from leathern straps, girt round the body of the horse, before the invention of saddles: but, from the silence of antient writers, and the equestrian figures still preserved, it seems indisputable that these conveniencies were unknown even later than the former. The first certain account of stirrups is in a book commonly ascribed to the em-. peror Mauritius, respecting the art of war; where the author says that a horseman must have at his saddle two iron scala. Horse-shoes. That these preservatives of the hoof were used. by the Romans as early as the days of Catullus, his ludicrous comparison is to us a decisive proof, "Ferream ut soleam tenaci in voragine mula." It must, however, be admitted that the facts collected by Professor B. demonstrate that their use was only occasional, and by no means universal. Floating of Wood. We wonder that it did not occur to the author that it is useless to seck the origin of a practice, the simplicity of which must have occasioned its adoption in the, earliest ages. The contract formed by Hiram, king of Tyre, to supply Solomon with wood, is the first historical proof of the existence of this contrivance;" and we will cut wood out of Lebanon, as much as thou shalt need; and we will bring it to thee. in floats by sea to Joppa; and thou shalt carry it up to Jerusalem." Lace. Of what nature was the celebrated apus Phrygianum is a question which can now be answered only by conjecture. Our author, however, thinks it certain that the Phrygian art was a species of needle-work, and could not therefore be the same with our modern lace, which is knitted. The invention of the latter is attributed to Barbara Utmann of St. Annaberg, in 1561. Ultramarine-Is a very fine blue powder, which neither fades nor becomes tarnished when exposed to the air, or to a moderate heat. It is obtained by separating the blue particles. of the lapis lazuli from the rest, and reducing them to a powder. The The words azurrum ultramarinum occur in the writers who lived in the beginning of the 15th century, together with di rections for preparing it, in which it is clearly distinguished from the azure of copper. This pigment was probably unknown to the antients, though there is reason for believing that the Romans were acquainted with the lapis lazuli, and that this stone was the sapphire. Undoubtedly, the description of the latter by Pliny is as different from the gem known to us by that name, as it is coincident with the properties of the lapis lazuli; a word corrupted from its Persic appellation "lazwurd," whence the word azure is also derived.. Cobalt. Were the Romans acquainted with this semi-metal, and to what period must we assign its discovery? Lehman, Pauw, Ferber, and Delaval, infer from various antiquities, both of painting and enamel, in which a blue appears, that it was produced by smalt; and that cobalt, with the manner of preparing it, was consequently known to them. It seems, however, that the word Cadmia, though sometimes applied to other substances besides calamine, was never used to signify cobalt; and Professor B. is, of opinion that the blue tinge, wherever it is found in remains of antient, art,, was produced either by means of iron, (of which Gmelin has by experiment demonstrated the possibility,) or by the mountain blue impregnated with copper (cyanus). The preparation and use of smalt are assigned by our author to the middle of the 16th century. Turkeys. We think that it was superfluous to add to the decisive evidence already adduced by Buffon, to prove that this fowl is a native of America, and was unknown to the rest of the world, previously to the discovery of that country. As Hindustan has by some been deemed their original nursery, we must remark that they are not found wild in any part of it; that they are reared there with much difficulty; and that the only name by which they are known to the natives is Peru, which sufficiently indicates their supposed origin. Butter. In the Bible, we find early mention made of butter; "and he took butter and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set before them," Genesis, xviii. 8.-but the Professor contends that this is a mistake of the translators, and that the word should have been rendered either by cream, or sour milk. The result of his inquiries on this subject is that ་ it is not a Grecian and much less a Roman invention; but that the Greeks were made acquainted with it by the Scythians, the Thracians, and the Phrygians; and the Romans by the people of Germany.' In the ordinances of Menu, however, written (as the learned translator supposes) about the 12th century before X 2 |