I μένῳ, sed pro έγγραμμένῳ, i. e. ἐγγεγραμμένῳ. Qui scripserunt supra καδαλεμένοι, pro καταδεδαλημένοι, γράφεα pro ἐγράφη, augmento et duplicatione caruisse videntur. In ἐγραμένῳ igitur e non est augmentum, sed signum præpositionis ἐν. Simplex est y, quod duplex esse debuit, ut μ in eadem voce, ut a supra in ἀλάλοις. Non scribebant elementa quæ non pronuntiabant. Jam ἐφίαρον ἐνταῦθα ἐγγεγραμμένον intelligo de hoc ipso talento supra dicto, adeo ut qui verba foederis læserit, multa illa sacra et religiosa, α ex illa spiritus rudis figura E superimposita, quamque pro r haberi vult. Alibi infelicius p. 149. scribit σὺν ἐμῶν, cum meis. Legendum est omnino, e nota vocalium et αι permutatione, συναίμων. Quod sequitur ΓΕΝΕΤΗ ver tit mater, vel a nativitate : male, omnino, et contra linguæ proprietatem. Puto esse pro γενετῇ : τρεῖς δωδεκετεῖς πιστοὺς γενετῇ προέπεμψα, illos duodennes tres tresque fideles PATRI ego misi CHRISTUS." In monimentis Christianis ixùs symbolum est J. CHRISTI, ut multi declaraverunt: Lupus ibid. p. 82.; Passerius Diss. de Sancto Throno p. 225.; Fabrettus Inscr. Dom. p. 569.; Menagius Anti-Baill. § 48.; Althanus Diss. de Baptism. Hierogl. t. 6. p. 199. in Symb. Florent. Gorii; alii. Præterea videtur auctor voluisse hexametros scribere, et meminisse Homerici *Αϊδι προΐαψε. Nondum recedam ab inscriptionibus in quibus qui scribit prima persona utitur, notaboque vitium descriptoris in epitaphio alio apud Walpolium ibid. p. 463. ubi ΚΑΤΕΣΚΕΥΑΣΑ pro ΚΑΤΕΣΚΕΥΑΣΕ reponendum est. Judicet ipse lector per se, inspecto apographo : ΑΥΡΗΛΙΑ ΒΛΟΥΚΙΑ ΖΩΣΑ ΚΑΙ ΦΡΟΝΟΥΣΑ ΚΑΤΕΣΚΕΥΑΣΕ ΤΟ ΛΑΤΟΜΙΟΝ ΣΥΝ ΤΗΙ ΣΤΗΛΗΙ ΕΜΑΥΤΗΙ ΚΑΙ ΤΩΙ ΓΛΥΚΥΤΑ ΤΩΙ ΜΟΥ ΑΝΔΡΙ ΣΑΤΥΡΩΝΙΔΩΙ ΥΠΟΜΝΕΙΑΣ ΧΑΡΙΝ ΖΗΣ ΑΝΤΙ ΕΤΗ ΤΡΙΑΚΟΝΤΑ ΑΜΕΜΠΤΩΣ ΜΗΔΕΝ ΔΕΤΕΡ ΟΝ ΕΞΕΣΤΑΙ ΒΛΗΘΗΝΑΙ ΕΣ ΑΥΤΟ ΕΙ ΜΗ ΤΑ ΤΕΚΝΑ ΜΟΥ ΕΙ ΔΕ ΤΙΣ ΚΑΤΑΘΗΤΑΙ ΕΤΕΡΟ ΠΤΩΜΑ ΔΩΣΕΙ ΤΗ ΠΟΛΕΙ ΧΑΦ. ΧΑΙΡΕ ΠΑΡΘΕΝΑ. Nomen Σατυρωνίδῳ suspectum est. In lapide forsan fuit ΣΑΤΟΡΝΙΝΩΙ, vel ΣΑΤΥΡΩΝΙΔΗΙ. Pro ETEPO fuit aut debuit esse ETEPON. Non vulgare ΥΠΟΜΝΕΙΑΣ positum esse videtur pro ΥΠΟΜΝΗΜΑΤΟΣ. Lapis Gruteri p. 1025, 4. ΚΛ. ΑΙΜΙΛΙΟΝ ΦΙΛΩΝΙΔΗΝ ΤΟΥ. ΓΑΛΑΤΑΡ ΠΑΣΗΣ. ΤΗΣ ON. A . . . . ΤΗΣ Scrib. vs. 8. ΥΠΟΜΝΗΜΑ, et ultimo ΑΡΕΤΗΣ. In his formulis ἀρετῆς est ubivis épség, multandus fuerit.! Proposita est eadem pœna illis qui foederis clausulas despexerint et illis qui monimentum ipsum violaverint. Pariter fere in pacto Priansienses inter et Hierapytnios (Marm. Oxon. p. 64. vs. 80.) statuitur illos qui foedus infregerint, illosque qui columnam publicam, fœderis sanciti monimentum, erigere neglexerint, eamdem multam, quinquaginta nempe stateras, esse soluturos. 2 Explicatis verbis singulis et formulis, adponam versionem totius inscriptionis : "Foedus Eleos inter et Evacos. Societas esto ad centum annos; Archontes autem erunt decem. Quod si quid opus fuerit dictu factuve, conveniunto, et de rebus aliis et de bellicis. Si non convenerint, talentum argenti solvunto Jovi Olympio sacrum pacti ruptores. Si autem quis illa quæ hic scripta sunt deleverit, sive civis, sive magistratus, sive gens, mulcta sacra mulctator hic edicta.' in agro Trojano; sed non necesse est Metrodorum inde fuisse oriundum, et potuit Amphipolita Metrodorus in Asia habitare. Præterea notandum verba Inscriptionis Aurelia Blucia (BAOTKIA valde suspectum est: forte Η ΛΟΥΚΙΑ); verba, inquam, ζῶσα καὶ φρονοῦσα remedium præbere aptissime adhibendum inscriptioni in Museo Cantabrigiensi t. i. p. 554. I ΑΣΚΛΗΠΙΑΔΗΣ ΓΑΥΡΟ ΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΦΡΟΝΩΝ ΕΘΕ-κτλ. Scribe ΖΩΝ ΚΑΙ Φ Nuper vir doct. scripsit ad Knightii mentem, γραμένοι esse pro γεγραμμένων, sed re, puto, parum attente perspecta, quippe quam obiter tantum ac velut in transcursu tangebat; cf. Epist. Rochett. ad Aberd. p. 52, 2 Et hanc sententiam Lennepio probavi. 308 ON THE POLITE LITERATURE OR BELLES LETTRES OF HOLLAND. AN account of the Polite Literature, or, as it is technically called, the Belles Lettres, of the Dutch, may perhaps be in the same degree interesting to the English reader, in which it is probably new to him. Very few Englishmen, it may be presumed, have given the Dutch credit for distinguishing themselves as much as other nations of Europe, by the productions of genius and taste which come under that denomination. They have not been in the habit of associating with the character of a Dutchman the ideas of wit, imagination, and sensibility. These qualities, it has generally been thought, are not to be met with in Holland. It will, however, appear from the statement which is to follow, that such a prejudice is unfounded. As to the intellectual capacity of the people of Holland, no doubt can be entertained. There is, perhaps, no country, in proportion to its population and extent of territory, which has produced more eminent men in science and learning. Let us but recollect the names of Grotius, Noodt, Voet, Bynhershoek, in the department of the law; Boerhave, Gaubius, Albinus, Van Swieten, in medicine and anatomy; Huyghens, Leeuwenhoek, 's Gravesande, Muschenbroek, Ruysch, Swammerdam, in mathematics, physics, and natural history; Erasmus, in divinity, and other branches of knowledge; those masters of classic lore, the Vossii, Burmanni, Gronovii, Grævii, Hemsterhuis, Wesseling, Drakenborch, Valckenaer, Lennep, Schultens, Alberti; to whom may be added Lipsius, Scaliger, D'Orville, Ruhnkenius, and Wyttenbach: for though these five men last named were not natives of Holland, yet they lived there, having adopted it for their country, and there rose to celebrity and fame. This will be a sufficient argument to prove that the country is not unpropitious to the cultivation of the mental faculties; and naturally lead to the inference, that there is no ground for supposing that elegant literature would not succeed, where graver learning and science have so remarkably prospered. Otherwise we must assume the ridiculous position, that the Dutch people are by nature formed in a particular manner, and only endowed with one kind of mental ability, fitting them for serious pursuits, but leaving them destitute where imagination is required to co-operate. If such an assertion be but slightly considered, the futility of it will soon become evident. There might, however, have been circumstances, quite distinct from a similar objection, which had a tendency to impede the progress of that species of literature which forms the subject of the present communication, so as to leave the Dutch, in this particular, behind the other nations of Europe. First, much would depend on the state of cultivation, which their native language had received, and on the time when it began to be employed in the service of literature; for there was a period when the people of Europe made use of the Latin tongue for the purposes of science, to the neglect of their own. To this practice the Dutch perhaps adhered as long as any of their neighbours, and consequently prejudiced the interests of their native idiom. By degrees, however, it experienced that attention, without which it could not thrive, and was brought to a state of improvement, which rendered it fit for the productions of the Muses. What the character of the Dutch language is, may be next enquired, as a preliminary to the present discussion. It is unquestionably a branch of the German tongue, and so nearly resembles that idiom, which is called Low German, that the one appears only a modification of the other. To those, who are acquainted with both, this is an evident truth; though the Dutch themselves would rather claim a greater share of originality for their dialect than that proposition allows. I have heard some literary men in Holland make such a pretension, by asserting, that though the Dutch must be referred to the Germanic tongues, yet it ought to be considered as a distinct branch of them, and, in a certain degree, as an original language. This opinion is more the result of national vanity, than of an impartial view of the subject, and of reasoning founded upon a knowledge of the respective languages. The Dutch language, as it now exists, has been very successfully cultivated. It is copious; and has the peculiar advantage, which distinguishes the German tongue, that it possesses the means of creating, out of its own elements, whatever terms may be required for the expression and representation of ideas. Thus it is exempted from the necessity of borrowing foreign words, which gives it a charaeter of purity that cannot be regarded otherwise than as a very high commendation. In such a capability, the powers and resources of a language consist; and, in proportion as it is invested with that aptness, it is calculated for the operations of literature and science. The Greek language had that qualification; and we know from the works of genius it has produced, how such a prerogative ought to be appreciated. The German language is endowed with it to a remarkable degree; but it is only of late years that the attention of the Germans has been awakened to the importance of this attribute. The Dutch have been before them in developing and applying this principle; and in many instances the Germans have been indebted to them for improvements in phraseology. In its grammatical organization, the Dutch language resembles the German; but it is more simple and easy. To one particular we must advert, the position of words, depending, as it does in German, not on a vague and undefined perception of the ear, as is the case in the Greek, Latin, and other tongues, but on certain laws inherent in the language, which are not to be infringed at the will and option of the writer or speaker. The subject of the collocation of the words in the German language is curious and interesting to the linguist; and I have treated of it fully in my German Grammar, |