صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

Ursi.”—I ought to have inserted. But I think not tursi. “Verbs defective in compounds,”—p. 115.-True, but this is perhaps in a great measure balanced by the more than usual attention paid to the sense of prepositions in composition with verbs in the Syntax. See 22 1306, especially e ; 1332, 1347, 1367, 1376, &c. “Sections in gender defective.”—It is quite true that the first part of the grammar was written on a different scale from the latter parts, but at the same time I hold, that our grammars are wrong in troubling themselves with minute exceptions, especially in the case of words of rare occurrence, and unimportant from their very meaning. They seem to me to belong rather to the dictionary. The grammar should deal only with classes and analogies. “Static verbs.”—The use of their tenses differ so widely in all languages from those of active verbs, (i.e. verbs of action,) that I thought it useful to mark the difference by a different name. For example, I believe that no static verb has a perfect or aorist tense; and for the very reason, that the static verb is already a perfect in the so-called present. All the verbs of feeling I include under this head, and I hold, that in the early language, they were none of them followed by an accusative of the thing, but took the construction of the so-called impersonals, like our own methinks, and the German, es hungert mich, es freuet mich. It was necessary to my explanation of the nom. and acc. case with a verb, to make the distinction between active and static verbs well marked. “An assertion is limited and explained by qui and the subj.” pp. 118, 119. I used the word limitation, because I thought the added clause really limited the verb peccare. “I erred in that I did so and so, not that I was altogether wrong.” Take, for example, Me caecum qui haec ante non viderim, not blind in all things, but blind in not seeing this. I added the word explanation in the very sense in which G. F. uses the words “statement of a reason.” ABL. of quality, versus GENITIVE of quality, pp. 117, 118. —I think it must be admitted, that the abl. of quality is almost without exception used of permanent qualities. I therefore thought myself compelled to put this fact forward prominently. At the same time, I was very glad to find the example of a temporary use in the passage quoted from Cicero, because I believed, that in the early state of things, the distinction between the use of the ablative and of the genitive in the sense of quality, turned upon this very point. The ablative is well adapted to denote an accidental and temporary state of things, depending upon the place in which one is, and the circumstances of the moment; while the genitive denoting the origin, is well fitted to signify that which is permanent, that which is inherited from the beginning. Unfortunately, the distinctions which belong to the first formation of language often disappear with time. I was therefore afraid to put forward in the grammar that of which there was left so slight a trace in the language, that I did not feel I could with safety rely upon it even for my own views, much less for others. Again, I feel convinced that nearly all adjectives have grown out of the use of the genitive of substantives. This also was a part of higher grammar, which I thought it prudent not to put forward even in a note. Still, I do not agree with G. F., that a writer of grammar has only to deal with the existing language. An investigation into the older state of things is often essential to the understanding of what is more recent. Again, I wished to put some things into the grammar beyond what a pupil's immediate wants required, to stimulate him to subsequent investigations when his mind became more developed. I may add, that for the same reason I was more profuse in such matters in the latter parts of the grammar than in the first pages. It was for this I omitted at the beginning the explanation of many little matters of novelty in the grammar, for instance, the order I have given to the vowels and liquids, for which of course I had my reasons. But enough. “Negare,” etymology of—I ought to have added, that I fully admit the connection between aio and yes, or rather yea. Indeed, I have noticed in the metres of Plautus and Terence, that this word aio seems to have been pronounced with some initial consonant. For example, quid ais seems to occupy the place of an accentual trochee, so that the quid should be long by position, and I am in fact in the habit of reading the phrase (to myself) as quid-yais. We too have our words where a y is pronounced, but not written, as union, &c. I also believe that negare is formed from the negative nec or may, but I doubt the point of its being a compound of aio. If it is, it must be on the principle I have alluded to in 3 1404. Lastly, I may add, that I purpose to abridge from the fuller grammar so much as is necessary for beginners; but I shall adhere to the same principles, for the reasons mentioned in the preface of the Grammar. I find beginners have no difficulty whatever in understanding crude forms.tions of the construction of the dative in Thucydides is somewhat peculiar. He seems to think that the dative in such a sentence as the above, is not equivalent to the genitive. But the fact is, that Thucydides often adopted the old forms of construction to be met with in Homer and some of the more ancient writers, and not unfrequently the dative for the genitive, to avoid the repetition of so many similar endings, and to vary the construction. Thus, in VII. 4, we find, (ov 74p to toss "A0m watows too telyovs dateves ') toss "A0m watows is here equivalent to róv'A0m waiww.—7pirov qāp uépos Tsov in réwy Tots >vpa

T. HEWITT KEY. April 1. 1847.

VI.
MISCELLANIES.

1. REMARKs on THUCYDIDEs, III. 10; III. 31; v. 8.
III. 10.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The following sentence in the 3d book, chap. 12, Arnold and Bloomfield say is similar to the above. 6 Te toss d\\ots usixtata eovota trioTuv Bepatos, jusy Tooro 3 pdflos éxupov trapesze. There is this difference, however, between the two, that Tooro in the latter clause must have for its antecedent 3 in the former. “Grammar,” says Arnold, “there is none in the sentence;" and Bloomfield echoes the same opinion. As the sentence stands, it has the appearance of being ungrammatical; and yet, I think, something more may be made of it than has been done by the above editors and others. It is well known to every one who has carefully studied the language of Thucydides, that he makes frequent use, both of the prepositive and postpositive article in a somewhat indefinite manner, occasionally including under them circumstances, matters, and sentiments, previously made, or to be. made. I conceive that the relative 6 in the above sentence is used to denote what circumstance or matter, and Tooto that circumstance. If such be the case, ó must be the subject of the verb BeBatos, and not eovola. But I consider evoua as exegetic of 3, a practice very frequent in Thucydides and other Attic writers; and then it will be antithetic to ØdBos. Thus Plato, Phaed. § 84, oùrw Yūp abro (1), YovXīv) ioxvpov elva. This construction is only adopted with abstract nouns. I would, therefore, propose to read and translate—3 te toss dAMots uáAtara, eúvota, triotiv Begatos, juiv tooto 6 pdflos éxvpov trapetze,_what (namely, good will,) chiefly confirms confidence in others, that fear renders secure to us. If Thucydides had intended to make etivota the subject to Bepatos, he would have used the article ; eWvota, just as we have 6 pdflos in the latter clause. But evoua, taken as explanatory of 6, could not, according to established rules, and the practice of the Attic writers, have the article.

III. 31.

The following passage in the 3d book and 31st chap. of the same historian has been given up as almost desperate by most of his editors and commentators. Different readings have been suggested, and different interpretations given, not one of which appears to me to be correct. —For an account of the different readings I refer to Arnold's second edition, and to Poppo's Annotations. Bekker's reading involves the fewest difficulties, and seems to be the genuine one. Near the commencement of the chapter we have, dAAoi & Twes túv àr''[wvias Øvráčwu, kai oi Aérgio Evutxàovres rapivovy (AAxëav) k. T. A. and then the passage which occasions the principal difficulty, kai to v Tpdgoëov tattnu wentatnvočaav'A6m vaiwu ju dopéAwal, kal dua ñv éq}opu00aw attoos aq}lat 8am-dvn yountai, Tetoeuv te oteobal kai TItaaoovyy trate ovuzroMeues v. Both Arnold and Bloomfield read opéAwau, which conveys an idea very different from what may be supposed to have been suggested by the exiled Ionians and Lesbians. boatpéte signifies, to take away by stealth, or under concealment. But it is evident from the narrative of the historian, that they advised Alcidas openly to seize upon one of the Ionian cities, or Cume, as their head-quarters, whence they would have it in their power to cause the Ionians to revolt from Athens. Their object then was, to deprive the Athenians of the very great revenue they drew from these cities. There could be no concealment in such an attempt. If they succeeded in obtaining a station in one of the Ionian cities, or at Cume, and if they deprived the Athenians of the great revenue accruing to them from these cities, they would be in a position to threaten the Athenian dependencies in that quarter. It does not appear to be material whether we read eq}opuðatv or épopuoso ov: either of them must agree with apia attois, the former signifying making an attack upon, and the other, stationed against. I would prefer the latter, as more in accordance with the proposal to seize a place with the view of making an attack. The chief difficulty, and what has given occasion to so many comments, lies in the clause, Kai äua ñv éqopuočaw opio, attois £arávn Yosvital. Most of the commentators and editors imagine that airo's refers to the Athenians, and are disposed to omit opia, altogether; but the best MSS. join them together. Now, when opio, is used, both in a direct and indirect speech, it always refers to the speakers, or the persons who made the remarks, not to a third party. The editors of Thucydides have constantly misunderstood this construction; and, of consequence, have fallen into several errors. They have, in this place also, mistaken the meaning of 8amiivn. Most of them suppose that it here signifies, the expense incurred by the Athenians, or, in the words of Bloomfield, the occasioning of expense ; which would equally tend to impoverish and ruin the Athenians. That cannot be its meaning. In this place it signifies, the means of expenditure, as in Herodot. 1.41, barávnv trapéxew, to furnish money for spending. That this is the true meaning of the word is, I think, evident from

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
« السابقةمتابعة »