Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	add_v	part_n	word_n	2,755	5	4.4590	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61872	Clamor, rixa, joci, mendacia, furta, cachini, or A severe enquiry into the late oneirocritica published by John Wallis, grammar-reader in Oxon	Stubbe, Henry, 1632-1676.; Wallis, John, 1616-1703, attributed name.	1657 (1657)	Wing S6034A; ESTC R219360	99,932	80

Eustathius of his reading of whom I a little a doubt for that hand which blamed me for misciting Columella which was but a slip of the transcriber at London for I had compared the place could not have pardoned the misallegation of the verse in Dio●ysius But I had furnished the Doctor cut of Stephen with a different reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which though it be but a conjectural reading of Stephens and not the text nor received into the text of Eustathius whose minde is controverted yet I shall give him leave to help himself therewith if he can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to t●ead firm and sure with one foot which she must do with her asse's foot that other of brass being no more capable of sure footing then a treen or wooden leg is and any body will grant me that it is easier to throw such cripples down then those that have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I cannot raise up Stephen to ask his meaning but the whole text suits excellently well with what I have said Empusa did seem to tread firmly upon the one leg but limped or halied downright on the other whence she had the name of Empusa as if we should say ●ne-leg that is having the one leg of an animal the other being of brass nempe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus the Doctors words and mine do not differ but our meanings vary when they come to be explained in English I do not think that Eustathius intended to say Empusa id est one-leg was so called because she had two I do not think that she laid her brass-leg over the left shoulder when she walked I do take that to be the reason why she did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because she was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if the Geometry professour will not grant me this I believe the natural philosopher will The next place is that of the Scholiast of Aristophanes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I would the Doctor had Englished this passage I profess I do not finde the Doctors assertion couched in these words It had been but fairly done if after my excepting against this Scholiastical inference in the letter he had informed me in his rejoynder of somewhat more then I had expressed therein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is the English of that Some say but what is that to the Scholiast of Aristophanes Doth he say it Doth he allow of it He neither approvers nor disallows but relates it If then his allegation amount to any proofe of what the Doctor sayes he must lay down this maxime whatsoever any man reports as from another man without the least interposition of his own judgement that he allows of and asserts But so doth this Scholiast in the derivation of Empusa Ergo. Doctor Wallis was scribe to the Assembly But further I am of the minde that the Sholiast doth disallow it for he doth not say that it is so but that some say so which is tantamount to a disallowa●ce thereof at least to a doubting of the veritableness thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and derive it quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one leg because it did once whilome so appear as to have the one leg of an asle and the other of brass which is to have the use of one leg as he whose nerve is cut may have lost the use of an arm yet not so totally as not to be able to lean on it or upon some occasions to benefit himself thereby Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not infer the total disuse of any servant and H●ratius is said to have been troubled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was but a debility in them yet such as rendred him unserviceable in war or active employments in peace I could almost divine that he the Scholiast seems to expose the Etymologists for their whimsies in derivations that should offer to deduce Empusa from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because she went once upon one leg 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas there are as many inducements for my Etymology as there are shapes she appeared in which is fair odds against the Doctor and one more which is the analogy with the antient statues of the Gods and the solving of the Authors sense which cannot be justified if the Doctors minde hold for to what use should that other leg seem It is further dubitable whether that same brasen leg were continuous with the body of Empusa or no If not then she had but one leg and so was when in that shape 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet went upon two viz. the additional one of brass also Now that it was or could be continuous is a question to be disputed in another place there being natural philosophers that assert that when a bough withers upon the tree it ceaseth to be a part and to be continuous therewith But take it either way it is but aequivocè membrum and thefore t●ough I should grant that she were called Empusa from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet it would not follow that she went upon one only or hopped As for his additional of what he could have cited I shall tell him of better that is of Favorinus who transcribed the Scholiast and Hesychius besides Suides and Etymologus whom I advised him of in the letter Hesychius sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which makes as much for him as doth the Scholiast of Aristophanes who bringing neither reason to confirm the others saying nor avouching it himself ought not to be any way entitled to the owning of it Then follows a digression about Riders dictionary it was a matter of no great moment at first but now I shall consider what our Divine sayes about it I might have added another book which I do not know how to call should I call it Rider's dictionary you would tell me Holyoke made part of it should I call it Holyoke's others would say Doctor Gray if I mistake not and some others with him have added almost as much to Holyoke as he had done to Rider and digested the whole anew and the book so digested is that I mean whether what I cited out of it were in Holyoke's edition or not I do not know otherwise then that I am now told it is in an appendix of obsolete words the book that I intended to cite hath it in the body of the dictionarium Etymologicum yet I was loath to call it Dr. Grays dictionary for fear it should not be understood what book I meant I cited it then by the name of Rider because the first title-page intitles the book to him and the rest as an appendix He knows not how to call it Why does not he Is not the name prefixed HOLYOKES dictionary Will he not allow it the benefit that other books have to be called by the names they bear Did any at least did ever the vogue of the people ascribe that piece to Dr. Gray Was it

ever printed under his or any other name Because I censured you for calling it by a wrong name should I therefore have quarrelled with you if you had named it aright I did not charge you for citing Scapule where the work was Stephens I did not I let Calepine pass though his be all stollen and hath received now as great an accessional as ever Holyokes did Doletus ex Marii Nizolii Bartholomei Riccii Roberti Stephani lucubrationibus tam pulchros Latinae linguae commentarios panè Ambrosio Calepino par insulsissimè compilavit Yet if he had cited the one as he did the other I should not have found fault with him And so in the citing of any book I allow it what title the frontispice gives it for then I know and so may others know where to look and not blunder as I did betwixt Rider and Holyoke and at last I met with a different edition from what the Doctor used Mine had the obsolete words by themselves his had received them all into the body of the book but with an Asterisme or obeliske thus ● Empusa Ludus Iun. vide Ascoliasmus and there it is Ascoliasmus Iun. Grec Empusae ludus fox to thy hole What the meaning of that obeliske is I desire to shew out of Holyokes advice to the reader Cuncta vocabula quo in probatis authoribus neutiquam sunt reperta et à flexione Latinâ aliena obelo in fronte notavi Itidemque ea barbara quibus ob purorum defectum necessitate coacti utimur eâdem noâ insignivi You see what the Doctor hath gotten by pleading variety of editions as also how I let Thomas and Holyoke though it to be confessed that where they both agree the latter did but transcribe the former pass for two without a censure so that the Doctor needed not have been so fearful but that he was sensible of his being out yet would seem to say something In the last edition Rider is but an appendix to Holyoks so saith the title page of A. Greeks edition but the binders do often transpose the books which gave occasion and opportunity to the Doctor to say the greater was added to the lesser and that Holyoke should perfect Rider and so make his own work an accessional only whereas he assumed the other meerly to compleat his own Of his many Authorities he instances in on more though he might have transcribed them out of my letter only talks idlely But all these Authorities are nothing worth with this epistoler Calepine is but modern and therefore he sees not why Calepines authority should outweigh his own I am very sorry to hear the Doctor relinquish reason for bare Authority I confess I do not know the validity of man above man further then he must derive from his reason doth the Doctor think there is Magick in names so as the most letters or syllables should prevail against the fewer Or doth he ballance men in the scales and so take them not for intrinsique value but weight If so I believe he that shall weigh Dr. Wallis by the stone will not give him that respect which his own opinitivity will assume I know not why Authority should sway more in Philology then Divinity I cannot believe the whole Assembly of Divines nay all the Divines in Europe can outsway by their authority my single exposition of Ephes. 4. 10. c. or Mat. 28. 19. c. I said only this of Galepine that I did not set why his Authority should out weigh mine if his Authors reasons did not The Doctor had something of the Devil in him when he quoted my text by halfes and then takes occasion to charge me with self-conceit●dness whereas I say no more of my self then I would of Doctor Wallis or the meerest idiot in the world viz. that I know no differerence betwixt the fool and the wise but only reason Yet that I may acquit my self of Calepine I shall adde to what I already have brought against Galepine in the case of Doletus a further testimony of Franciscus Floridus concerning him Videmus post Nicolaum Perottum omnium interpretum munus subire voluisse Ambrosium Calepinum illius laborum ac vigiliarum furem manifestissim●● in omnibus tamen maxime absurdum cum insulso suo dictionario in quo ne gry quidem ● se protulit nist siquos ab infirmis Scriptoribus sordes collegit qui non minus fidei Apuleio aut Martiano Capellae in verborum proprietate quàm M. Ciceroni aut Cas●ri tribuit c. Itaque Perotti nomen auxit 〈◊〉 mediocriter euimulta ab eruditis in reddendà verborum ratione deforuntur 〈◊〉 Calepino vix credant quod veterum testimoniis confirmet et hunc LUDIBRII illum honoris caus● nominare solent And thus I free my self from Calepine who is a School book and indeed of no authority further then those precincts extend but I forgive the Doctor for using him here whose education had not permitted him the tryal or begot in him judgement to discover his imperfections As for Erasmus Stephanus Rhodiginus I did not any way lessen their esteem because they did truly alledge their authors and so shifted off the quarrel from themselves as you may see at large in the letter they did not at all clash with me as the reader may see unless whatever any man reports as from another he may justly be impleaded as the author thereof But that the Doctor may see what weight Antiquity hath with me had all his Authors without any reason or ground more then that of Aristophanes asserted what he would have them I should have preferred my conjectural something as it is now stated before their positive nothing my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one being an impertinent compound the other a jumble A jumble Doth the Doctor take this for an exception What is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Auchialus in Martial Are not there a thousand words jumbled together in as ill a manner as Empusa from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is observed by Mr. Selden de diis Syri●prol c. 2. that the names of Gods in their Etymologies are not subjected to Grammar rules Caterum tempestivè meminerts Deorum nominum deductiones ubique Grammaticis analogiae apicibus omnino olim solutas esse Which is evident not only from what the Pedees of Orbilius have taught us but also from what Plato in his Cratylus hath recorded it hath been thus in all nations if we may believe those who have conversed in languages and questionless the strangeness and uncouthness of the word or name was thought to contribute much to the procuring a reverence and upholding the majesty of the deity I do but therefore applaud my own sentiments when I commend that observation of that eminent Antiquary Fato comparatum est ut a Grammaticorum imperio dii sint

the modern Turco-greek sound he will as easily pronounce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Bajazet The like for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Doria the famous Genovtse Be pleased once more to read over the discourse of our Critical Bravo and judge what ground he had to cast that scorn and contempt not upon me only but on the Gentleman thorough whose hands my letter passed to Mr. Hobs. The most charitable opinion I can have of the Doctor and if such charity may extend to a Divine is that he engaged into this rant meerly to save his reputation which being lost as to all persons of learning he determined to sit down with the applause of School-boyes or such as deserve no better esteem But the Doctor upon second thoughts will assist me with arguments against his Etymology I shall consider his reasons and give you an account of them they must sure be good for his charge against mine obliges him to nothing trivial Dr. W. But if he have a minde to dispute against the Etymology I could furnish him with better arguments by much then that of changing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For besides the change of the spirit which I allow to be considerable though he put less weight upon it the termination of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not regularly descend from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all its derivatives retaining either the termination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or so soon as they depart from it assume the form of the oblique cases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And further the first part of the Composition if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could not regularly according to the analogy of other compounds end in a Consonant but in a Vowel not as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And moreover the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not usually begin a Composition at all Nor do I at present remember any one word in the whole Greek tongue where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the first part of the composition but instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unoculus And so it should not have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express that notion but rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same form with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same form with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is Empusa's Epithite And those arguments would prove indeed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no regular grammatical composition nor do any that mention it take it to be so but that it may not pass amongst the catalogue of remotiora composita vel derivata of which we finde in Etymologists a competent number or may not pass for as good a jumble as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I see no reason nor why that of so long standing and allowed by so good Authors should give place to this upstart What value is to be put upon the change of spirit I have already declared as also what stress may be laid upon the variation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this case and though I have invalidated those arguments in a single consideration yet the change of both in the same word seems to me still a little improbable But he tells me further that the termination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not regularly descend from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I would he had determined what he meant by regularly for those rules of Grammar we have I do no not mean Camden's Grammar are of a later date then is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore it cannot be counted irregular ex post facto Nor if all the other compounds or derivatives have a different termination will any wise man thereupon infer that there cannot be a Singularity in this As for that which he further objects if the first part of the composition were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it could not regularly according to the Analogy of other compounds end in a consonant but in a vowel I would he had cleared up his thoughts and told us in what country it was so irregular and what Analogy of compounds he would oppose us with I for my part finde in the Etymologicum magnum that the Atticks in the compounds and descendants from numerals did retain their last letter that is they did assume nothing after it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these men then and they a considerable part of Greece and from whom especially did descend that common dialect of ours would have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The assertion is to be found in the said book in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And for the compounds of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Doctor could not think to over●rule us with their Analogy whereas he knew of none for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no Greek word no more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which he further suggests 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not usually begin a composition at all is very weak arguing and I shall not make use of it until the Doctor legitimate that other argument that because most men ●●unlearned therefore none are learned The compounds of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not usually assume 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may not we therefore say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A very little skill in Greek would have been able to rectifie such an argument as also to inform his memory better then to forget that in the whole Greek tongue and that is a thing of large extent there should not be one word where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the first part of the composition what not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Have you so soon forgot your numbers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 anniculus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 navis uniremis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qua unâ horâ digna sunt besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 univira five univiria which where I have read I do not remember but I think it is in Heraldus upon Arnobius You see Doctor how a mans memory may fail him but you seem to decay in your judgement also when you infer that Because you remember no compound beginning with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore it should not have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉