The Works of Virgil, Translated Into English Verse, by John Dryden ... An Improved Ed., Containing Many New and Important Corrections of the Errors of Former Editions--the Various Readings from Dryden's Revisal and Ammendments--with Occasional Remarks and Conjectural Emendations by John Carey

mous son of Aunus (En. 11, 1034), Clymene, for Clymčnet (Geo. 4, 488), Thermodon, for Thermōdon (Æn. 11, 976)01 On the subject of proper names, let me observe, that, for the accommodation of one class of readers, I have placed an accent over the final E, when sounded as a syllable, as in Beröe, Eriphyle, Cyrene, and in like manner over the final ES, as in Butès, Achatès, Diorès: and, for the sake of uniformity alone, I have added the accent in other cases, where it might well have been omitted, as in Andromache, Ulysses, &c.

In proper names ending in EUS, I have marked a dia d resis over the E in the very few instances where the E-US are separate syllables, as Alpheus, Epëus, Peneus*. Inib every other case, where I have left the E unmarked, the E and U constitute a diphthong, as in Europe, Eucharist, Eulogy; the EUS to be so pronounced as nearly to rhime with the English noun Use, the French verb Eusse, or the Deuce, whether dæmon or card. And such, let me add, isq the true classical pronunciation of the EUS in Orpheus,' > viarono Proteus, Theseus, Peleus, Tydeus, Nereus, Perseus, Brie areus Idomeneus, Salmoneus, Typhoeus, and almost allure Greek names ending in EUS. But, whereas Mr. Walker, in his Key to Classical Pronunciation," &c.+ has asserted that, in such names, the Latin poets "very frequently dis- → solved the diphthong into two syllables;" I do positively and e distinctly assure such of my readers as may need the information, that his assertion is unfounded; and I can give

*Few readers require to be informed that every vowel, thus marked with the diæresis (ä, ë, ï, ö, ü), is intended to be pronounced as a distinct syllable.

† Of Mr. Walker's fallibility, I have, in my "Practical English Prosody and Versification," noticed some curious specimens, from his large Pronouncing Dictionary, as Aloes, Satellites, Puissance, &c. pp. 10, 112, 118, 126, &c.

this assurance without the slightest fear of contradiction from any real scholar acquainted with the rules of Latin, versification*: for, in a diligent examination of all the ancient Latin poets now extant, in search of examples and authorities for my "Latin Prosody," I have not been able to discover three unquestionable and admissible examples of such diæresist; though I grant that there are many cases, in which an unskilful prosodian might fancy a diæresis in lines of which he does not understand the structure, and which he would therefore scan according to his own erroneous conception, at the expense of a violation of the established classical quantity in the syllable preceding the EUS. I have thought proper to be thus explicit, with the view of cautioning the English reader against

If any Latinist can contradict me, with classical authority on his side, I should be extremely glad to see his proofs - better proofs, by the bye, than those two questionable lines from the Culer, quoted by Mr. Walker, the latter of them notoriously spurious, the other, even if genuine, proving little or nothing, since it might allowably be scanned as a spondaic line, with Orpheus a dissyllable.

Peneus, Alpheus, Epëus, above noticed, are not examples of diæresis. They are of different form in the original Greek orthography, and never make the EU a diphthong.

As, for example, in these lines of Ovid:

Utque leves Proteus modo se tenuabit in undas

Theseides Theseusque duas rapuêre sorores

Quâ latam Nereus cœrulus ambit humum

Sic flendus Peleus, si moreretur, erat in which, one of those mistaken prosodians would inconsiderately shorten the first syllable in each of these names, though properly and invariably long; and, thus making a spurious dactyl instead of a spondee, would also produce a spurious and unclassical diæresis of the EU. Of such unlicensed diæresis, I grant, it were easy to produce abundant examples; but I refer the reader to

suffering himself to be led into an error, so evidently condemned by the uniform practice of Milton, Dryden, Pope, and all our best poets, who, with due deference to classical authority, have invariably preserved the original diphthong 7 undivided. It would (no doubt) be very convenient for one class of readers, if the solution of the diphthong were made a general rule, and all syllabic distinction abolished

between

of two syllables,
of three,

Orpheus.... Phineus .... Rhipeus, and Alpheus.... Penëus.... Epëus, and so in every other case. But that undiscriminating

mode of pronunciation will never obtain the sanction of classical scholars, whatever efforts may be made for its establishment, by persons who prefer partial convenience to general propriety.

In the Latin quotations with which Dryden has interspersed his prefaces and notes, I have occasionally been obliged to differ from him, because the text which he used was not every-where so correct as that of the present day; and, besides, quoting sometimes from memory, he gave words that are not to be found in any copies, ancient or modern; a striking instance of which I have noticed in my remarks on the Dedication of the Æneïs, page xxxii.

To conclude notwithstanding my utmost endeavours ⚫ to produce as faithful a copy of Dryden's work, as could be produced at the present day, it still betrays many petty blemishes, which might naturally be deemed (as, no doubt, many of them are) typographic errors, and which it would have been easy for me to correct, if I were at liberty to alter his text: it moreover contains many passages which may seem to require explanation: yet I hope the

my remarks on the subject in my "Latin Prosody made easy," sect. 4 and 48, and my "Practical English Prosody and Versification," p. 112.

reader will not inconsiderately tax me with either 'negligence or want of discernment, in forbearing to make those corrections, which I had no right to make, or omitting to add those explanations, however desirable. I wish it to be remembered, that, in undertaking the province of editor on the present occasion, it was no part of my plan to amend the translation in point either of sense or languageascertain its fidelity to estimate its other merits

-- or

critically to descant on its beauties or its defects. My sole object was to present to the public, as correctly as I could, that alone which Dryden either had actually written, or might reasonably be supposed to have intended to write, though accidentally disguised or obscured, whether by his own inadvertence, the "carelessness" of his amanuensis, or the ignorance and inaccuracy of his printer.

In various instances, nevertheless, I have exceeded my proposed limits, and occasionally given a corrective or explanatory note, particularly in cases where his mistakes might otherwise lead an unwary reader into misconceptions respecting ancient customs or facts*: and hence I trust that the candid reader will be disposed rather to allow me some small share of praise for this work of supererogation, however inconsiderable, than to censure me for not having made a further sacrifice of time and labor, in performing as much as he might have wished.

JOHN CAREY.

* One of those Notes -respecting the pretended predictions of Cicero and Catulus, and the infanticidal vote of the senate, mentioned in vol. 1, page 7 — having accidentally escaped insertion in its proper place, is given in a Postscript to my " Notes and Corrections," together with some remarks on the Birth at ten months, as interpreted by Dryden, in Vol. 2, p. 361.

1. Introduction to English Composition and Elocution, in four

Parts, viz. 1. ÆSOP modernised and moralised, in a Series of in-

structive TALES, calculated, both as Reading-Lessons, and as

Subjects for Narration: 2. SKELETONS of those Tales, with

leading Questions and Hints, to guide and assist the juvenile

Writer in re-composing them: 3. POETIC READING made

easy, by means of METRICAL NOTES to each Line: 4. An

Appendix of select Prose.