Le. What then can be more foolish than to desire to turn that which cannot possibly be turn'd. For although the Greek Word [Greek: manthanein], signifies as much as [Greek: mathein] and [Greek: mathêteuein], so among the Latins, discere, to learn, signifies as much as doctrinam accipere, or doctrinam tradere. But whether this be true or no I can't tell. I rather think [Greek: manthanein], is of doubtful Signification with the Greeks, as cognoscere is among the Latins. For he that informs, and the Judge that learns, both of them know the Cause. And so I think among the Greeks the Master is said [Greek: manthanein] whilst he hears his Scholars, as also the Scholars who learn of him. But how gracefully hath he turn'd that [Greek: ta gar apostomatizomena manthanousin oi grammatikoi], nam secundum os grammatici discunt: For the Grammarians are tongue-learn'd; since it ought to be translated, Nam grammatici, quæ dictitant, docent: Grammarians teach what they dictate. Here the Interpreters ought to have given another Expression, which might not express the same Words, but the same Kind of Thing. Tho' I am apt to suspect here is some Error in the Greek Copy, and that it ought to be written [Greek: homônumon tô te xunienai kai tô lambanein]. And a little after he subjoins another Example of Ambiguity, which arises not from the Diversity of the Signification of the same Word, but from a different Connection, [Greek: to boulesthai labein me tous polemious], velleme accipere pugnantes. To be willing that I should receive the fighting Men: For so he translates it, instead of velle me capere hostes, to be willing that I take the Enemies; and if one should read [Greek: boulesthe], it is more perspicuous. Vultis ut ego capiam hostes? Will ye that I take the Enemies? For the Pronoun may both go before and follow the Verb capere. If it go before it, the Sense will be this, Will ye that I take the Enemies? If it follows, then this will be the Sense, Are ye willing that the Enemies should take me? He adds also another Example of the same Kind, [Greek: ara ho tis ginôskei, touto ginôskei]. i.e. An quod quis novit hoc novit. The Ambiguity lies in [Greek: touto]. If it should be taken in the accusative Case, the Sense will be this; Whatsoever it is that any Body knows, that Thing he knows to be. But if in the nominative Case, the Sense will be this, That Thing which any Body knows, it knows; as though that could not be known that knows not again by Course. Again he adds another Example. [Greek: apa ho tis hora, touto hora; hora de ton kiona hôste hora ho kiôn]. That which any one sees, does that Thing see; but he sees a Post, does the Post therefore see? The Ambiguity lies again in [Greek: touto], as we shew'd before. But these Sentences may be render'd into Latin well enough; but that which follows cannot possibly by any Means be render'd, [Greek: Ara ho sy phês einai, touto sy phês einai; phês de lithon einai sy ara phês lithos einai]. Which they thus render, putas quod tu dicis esse, hoc tu dicis esse: dicis autem lapidem esse, tu ergo lapis dicis esse. Pray tell me what Sense can be made of these Words? For the Ambiguity lies partly in the Idiom of the Greek Phrase, which is in the major and minor. Although in the major there is another Ambiguity in the two Words [Greek: o] and [Greek: touto], which if they be taken in the nominative Case, the Sense will be, That which thou sayest thou art, that thou art. But if in the accusative Case the Sense will be, Whatsoever thou sayst is, that thou sayst is; and to this Sense he subjoins [Greek: lithon phês einai], but to the former Sense he subjoins [Greek: sy ara phês lithos einai]. Catullus once attempted to imitate the Propriety of the Greek Tongue:
_Phaselus iste, quem videtis, hospites,
Ait fuisse navium celerrimus.
My Guests, that Gally which you see
The most swift of the Navy is, says he._
For so was this Verse in the old Edition. Those who write Commentaries on these Places being ignorant of this, must of Necessity err many Ways. Neither indeed can that which immediately follows be perspicuous in the Latin. [Greek: Kai ara eoti sigônta legein; ditton gar esti to sigonta legein, to te ton legonta sigan, kai to ta legomena.] That they have render'd thus; Et putas, est tacentem dicere? Duplex enim est, tacentem dicere; et hunc dicere tacentem, et quæ dicuntur. Are not these Words more obscure than the Books of the Sibyls?
Hi. I am not satisfy'd with the Greek.
Le. I'll interpret it as well as I can. Is it possible for a Man to speak while he is silent? This Interrogation has a two-Fold Sense, the one of which is false and absurd, and the other may be true; for it cannot possibly be that he who speaks, should not speak what he does speak; that is that he should be silent while he is speaking; but it is possible, that he who speaks may be silent of him who speaks. Although this Example falls into another Form that he adds a little after. And again, I admire, that a little after, in that kind of Ambiguity that arises from more Words conjoin'd, the Greeks have chang'd the Word Seculum into the Letters, [Greek: epistasthai ta grammata], seeing that the Latin Copies have it, scire seculum. For here arises a double Sense, either that the Age itself might know something, or that somebody might know the Age. But this is an easier Translation of it into [Greek: aiôna] or [Greek: kosmon], than into [Greek: grammata]. For it is absurd to say that Letters know any Thing; but it is no absurdity to say, something is known to our Age, or that any one knows his Age. And a little after, where he propounds an Ambiguity in the Accent, the Translator does not stick to put Virgil's Words instead of Homer's, when there was the same Necessity in that Example, quicquid dicis esse, hoc est, What thou sayst is, it is. Aristotle out of Homer says, [Greek: ou kataputhetai ombrô], if [Greek: ou] should be aspirated and circumflected, it sounds in Latin thus; Cujus computrescit pluviâ; by whose Rain it putrifies; but if [Greek: ou] be acuted and exile, it sounds, Non computrescit pluviâ; it does not putrify with Rain; and this indeed is taken out of the Iliad [Greek: ps]. Another is, [Greek: didomen de oi euchos aresthai]: the Accent being placed upon the last Syllable but one, signifies, grant to him; but plac'd upon the first Syllable [Greek: didomen], signifies, we grant. But the Poet did not think Jupiter said, we grant to him; but commands the Dream itself to grant him, to whom it is sent to obtain his Desire. For [Greek: didomen], is used for [Greek: didonai]. For these two of Homer, these two are added out of our Poets; as that out of the Odes of Horace.
Me tuo longas pereunte noctes,
Lydia, dormis.
For if the Accent be on me being short, and tu be pronounc'd short,
it is one Word metuo; that is, timeo, I am afraid: Although this
Ambiguity lies not in the Accent only, but also arises from the
Composition.
They have brought another Example out of Virgil:
Heu quia nam tanti cinxerunt aethera nymbi!