« FöregåendeFortsätt »
trix,” for 135. read 11. 135. At'« Mys Europæus," &c. there should be a reference to the note to viii. 133.
“The fourth vol. contains, besides the notes, the 16&us 'Hpodóτου, and an Index Vocum et Dictionum Græcarum, de quibus in adnotationibus Wesselingii et Valckenærii tractatur; also an Index Latinus in Notas; and lastly, an Index Veterum Scriptorum, qui in notis corriguntur et illustrantur.”
To the above notice of Mr. GAISPORD's edition of Herodotus, which is translated from the Sena Literary Gazette' for October 1828, No. 186, we will only add a few remarks on some points which appear to us worthy of observation.
Mr. G. has very properly begun to wage war with the lonicisnis of the grammarians, of which the text of Herodotus contains so ample and curious a collection. In many places be bas restored μία, τούτοισι, αυτοίσι, &c. for μίη, αυτεοίσι, τουτέοισι, &c. : forms which we are convinced never existed in
any real spoken dialect of Greece. The grammarians observed that Herodotuş said ’Anyéw, ToléeIV, apñrua, &c. for the common ’Anvūv, Foliv, ngãyud, &c. On this induction they rashly generalized; and with a total contempt of all analogy, thought that it was Ionic to say μίη, τουτέοισι, άρδέεσκε (ΙΙ. 13.) ουδαμέας (1ν. 114.) χιλιαδέων (v1. 28.), with other similar barbarisms; which have about the same resemblance to Greek as Fourmont's Hebrew variations, 'Αρισετανδερ, Σεκολας, for 'Αρίστανδρος, Σκύλλας, &c. In like manner they found that the early writers said Ιπποκράτεα, Κλεισθένεα, for 'Inpoxgátny, Kleno dévny. Such a discovery, however, was not to be passed over without turning it to some account; and therefore they argued, as Κλεισθένεα is to Κλεισθένην, 80 18 Ξέρξεα to Bápěny. Accordingly we find, in direct contradiction to the evident analogy and invariable rules of the Greek language, 'Apáged, Ξέρξεα, Ευρυβιάδεα, Λεοτυχίδεα, and such like accusatives ;" for
An instance of a contrary change occurs in the third book, where the transcribers have in some places reduced a noun of the third to the second declension. The nominative Ipněcorns is found in 111. 63. 66. 75. The accusative lipnědonea, ib. 30. 34, 35-twice, 62. 74. 76 twice. The vocative Ilpútones, ib. 35. 62, 63. In the genitive, however, the following varieties appear: Įpněcoreos, ib. 62, 63. Ilpngdonew, ib. 74.
which, as we are convinced, we are indebted solely to the transcribers and grammarians. There are very few places in which some, generally the best Mss., do not afford the common termination. We will give another example of this insertion of letters contrary to analogy. It is, we believe, generally agreed, that the name of the Spartav bond-slaves EINE is an ancient participial form derived from EAN or EIAN, making the penult of the oblique cases long; as in éxyeyWTOs, MEMÓWTOS, &c. in Homer. See Müller's Dorier, vol. II. p. 33. Prolegomena zur Mythologie, p. 428. At any rate, even if it is contended that the word is an šovixòy from "Enos, it will bardly be denied that the nominative is είλως, and not ειλώτης. We will now give the varieties of this word as it occurs in Herodotus. vi. 58. 75. 80. ix. 28. ciawtów. But in vs. 81. IX. 80. i. Awtas. VII. 229. tÒN elawtA. IX. 10. eiactwv (omitted in some Mss.). In none of these places is there any various reading. We sbould, without the least hesitation, in the four passages first cited, read eiactwv; believing that ciawtów is not better Greek than τετταρέων οι πατερέων. We confess too, si nostri res fuerit arbitrii, that we should be inclined to restore the final v, and the s of oŰtws &c., before vowels; to write opos, "Olujetos, Eupan κόσιος &c., not ουρος, Ούλυμπος, Συρηκούσιος ;' and we have great doubts as to the use of the lene consonants before an aspirated vowel, such as oỦx ÚTÓ, &c. We know from the Heraclean tables that the Greeks did not, as in our printed books, repeat the aspirate; i. e. they wrote not orx Hrno, but Orx rio. Now it is pretty certain that Herodotus would not have used the H in writing; and hence we infer that the aspirates were inserted by grammarians who knew the pronunciation in the common Attic dialect, but did not alter any letter. If the
where four Mss. give Ilpněcones. Ilpnědonew, ib. 75. without variety. Ipnědonew, ib. 78. where two Mss. have Ipnědoneos. In the single instance wbere no variety occurs, we should without hesitation read Πρηξάσπεος.
11. 56. novutaávntov. Thus Mr. Gaisford from the Aldine edition. TOAVAAdentov F. The only other instance of mour's is ni. 38. (see note) where he bas printed woù for moviù from F.S. This does not seem quite consistent.
Ionians pronounced the aspirate of Onò, it is nearly certain that Herodotus would have written not OTK TNIO, but Orx r110. It would, we grant, produce much perplexity and needless ambiguity to softe: all the aspirated vowels in Herodotus; but the inconsistency of the present mode of writing should at least be stated.
Having said thus much generally, we will only make two or three remarks on single passages, in which Mr. G.'s text seems to us susceptible of improvement.
1. 100. 'ErenbuteTXOv. We believe this to be a solecism. When the augment is added at the end of the verb, it is always, as far as we are aware, omitted in the begioning. The E seems to be owing merely to the love of the grammarians for superfluous letters.
Ι. 120. 9. Εωρώμεν. We would read εορώμεν with F.
11. 16. Eί μή τι γέ εστι της 'Ασίης μήτε της Λιβύης. If this reading is to be preferred to uýte yé érti, we conceive that it entails the necessity of writing μηδε της Λιβύης. .
11. 45. Χωρίς οίων και μόσχων και χηνέων. Χηνέων, says Schweighauser in v., is the genitive plural for xnuov; which form occurs in two Mss., and should in our opinion be restored. There seems to be no more reason why the genitive plural should be χηνέων, than the genitive singular should be χήνεος; a form which would on all hands be admitted to be barbarous. . 37. κρέων βοέων και χηνέων πλήθος. 11. 68. τα μεν γαρ ωα χηνέων ού πολλώ μεζονα τίκτει. Of the former of these two passages Schweighæuser in v. says, “ Xyvéwv poterat quidem ad adjectivum zýveos, (Ion. i. q. xívelos) anserinus, referri; sed ex altero loco (11. 45.) intelligitur esse genit. plural. substantivi xv.”. It seems to us probable that in these two passages xóveos is not the Ionic, but the ancient form of xúveros; that form which, for example, would have been used in writing by an Athenian of the age of Pericles; and that it has never been altered by the copyists into the common mode of spelling. We would, therefore, read xpéwv Boeiwy xui xnuelw in the first, and Xuvelw in the second passage. Breos likewise occurs in 11. 168.
ν. 77. των ίππους, δεκάτην Παλλάδι τάσδ' έθεσαν. ανέθεσαν S. Perhaps ävedey. See Blomfield ad Æsch. Pers. 994.
vi. 137. 4. It seems to us that the reasons mentioned in the note, and the authority of the Sancroft Ms., are sufficient to condemn the words te xaÌ Toùs taidas. Compare also II. Z. 457.
vii. 140. almace némel. Blomfield ad Æsch. Prom. 146. Gloss. proposes arenda.
viii. 26. des. Five Mss. have wne. We conceive that the other word is merely owing to the predilection of the grammarians for redundant syllables. 'OP210 xávw has for its second aorist wprov; but we do not remember ever to have met with such a verb as opaéw or paéw.
G. C. L.
CAMBRIDGE PRIZE POEMS,
A mystic city, goal of high emprise.-CHAPMAN.
the mountain which o'erlooks
Toward their brightness, even as flame draws air;
Cl. JI. NO. LXXIX. G
But had their being in the heart of man
eyes which wear no light but that wherewith Her phantasy informs them.
Where are ye,