Croker, "seems to have been no contemptible Latinist.Is not Philarchus a very happy term to express the paternal and kindly authority of the head of a clan?" [ii.458.] The composition of this eminent Latinist, short as it is, contains several words that are just as much Coptic as Latin, to say nothing of the incorrect structure of the sentence.The word Philarchus, even if it were a happy term expressing a paternal and kindly authority, would prove nothing for the minister's Latin, whatever it might prove for his Greek.But it is clear that the word Philarchus means, not a man who rules by love, but a man who loves rule.The Attic writers of the best age used the word philarchos in the sense which we assign to it.Would Mr.Croker translate philosophos, a man who acquires wisdom by means of love, or philokerdes, a man who makes money by means of love? In fact, it requires no Bentley or Casaubon to perceive that Philarchus is merely a false spelling for Phylarchus, the chief of a tribe.
Mr.Croker has favoured us with some Greek of his own."At the altar," says Dr.Johnson, "I recommended my th ph." "These letters," says the editor, "(which Dr.Strahan seems not to have understood) probably mean phnetoi philoi, departed friends."[Vol.iv.251.An attempt was made to vindicate this blunder by quoting a grossly corrupt passage from the Iketides of Euripidesbathi kai antiason gonaton, epi kheira balousa, teknon te thnaton komisai demas.
The true reading, as every scholar knows, is teknon, tethneoton komisai demas.Indeed without this emendation it would not be easy to construe the words, even if thnaton could bear the meaning which Mr.Croker assigns to it.] Johnson was not a first-rate Greek scholar; but he knew more Greek than most boys when they leave school; and no schoolboy could venture to use the word thnetoi in the sense which Mr.Croker ascribes to it without imminent danger of a flogging.
Mr.Croker has also given us a specimen of his skill in translating Latin.Johnson wrote a note in which he consulted his friend, Dr.Lawrence, on the propriety of losing some blood.The note contains these words:--"Si per te licet, imperatur nuncio Holderum ad me deducere." Johnson should rather have written "imperatum est." But the meaning of the words is perfectly clear.
"If you say yes, the messenger has orders to bring Holder to me."Mr.Croker translates the words as follows: "If you consent, pray tell the messenger to bring Holder to me." [v.17.] If Mr.Croker is resolved to write on points of classical learning, we would advise him to begin by giving an hour every morning to our old friend Corderius.
Indeed we cannot open any volume of this work in any place, and turn it over for two minutes in any direction, without lighting on a blunder.Johnson, in his Life of Tickell, stated that a poem entitled "The Royal Progress," which appears in the last volume of the Spectator, was written on the accession of George I.The word "arrival" was afterwards substituted for accession." "The reader will observe," says Mr.Croker, that the Whig term accession, which might imply legality, was altered into a statement of the ****** fact of King George's arrival." [iv.
425.] Now Johnson, though a bigoted Tory, was not quite such a fool as Mr.Croker here represents him to be.In the Life of Granville, Lord Lansdowne, which stands a very few pages from the Life of Tickell, mention is made of the accession of Anne, and of the accession of George I.The word arrival was used in the Life of Tickell for the ******st of all reasons.It was used because the subject of the poem called "The Royal Progress" was the arrival of the king, and not his accession, which took place near two months before his arrival.
The editor's want of perspicacity is indeed very amusing.He is perpetually telling us that he cannot understand something in the text which is as plain as language can make it."Mattaire," said Dr.Johnson, "wrote Latin verses from time to time, and published a set in his old age, which he called Senilia, in which he shows so little learning or taste in writing, as to make Carteret a dactyl." [iv.335.] Hereupon we have this note: "The editor does not understand this objection, nor the following observation."The following observation, which Mr.Croker cannot understand, is simply this: "In matters of genealogy," says Johnson, "it is necessary to give the bare names as they are.But in poetry and in prose of any elegance in the writing, they require to have inflection given to them." If Mr.Croker had told Johnson that this was unintelligible, the doctor would probably have replied, as he replied on another occasion, "I have found you a reason, sir; I am not bound to find you an understanding." Everybody who knows anything of Latinity knows that, in genealogical tables, Joannes Baro de Carteret, or Vice-comes de Carteret, may be tolerated, but that in compositions which pretend to elegance, Carteretus, or some other form which admits of inflection, ought to be used.
All our readers have doubtless seen the two distichs of Sir William Jones, respecting the division of the time of a lawyer.
One of the distichs is translated from some old Latin lines; the other is original.The former runs thus:
"Six hours to sleep, to law's grave study six, Four spend in prayer, the rest on nature fix."Rather," says Sir William Jones,"Six hours to law, to soothing slumbers seven, Ten to the world allot, and all to heaven."The second couplet puzzles Mr.Croker strangely."Sir William,"says he, "has shortened his day to twenty-three hours, and the general advice of "all to heaven," destroys the peculiar appropriation of a certain period to religious exercises." [v.
