網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

it is used principally by the epic poets, by the dramatic writers, or by the Attic prose authors.

5th. Those primitive forms of verbs, for which we have no positive authority in the remaining works of the elder Greek authors, but which are found perhaps in the lexicons of the grammarians, or of which there remain only some tenses now generally ranked as irregular under a later form, should be mentioned as such in their proper alphabetical places; and the tenses formed from them, though placed under the form in general use, might be always referred back to their original thema.

We are aware that, to form a lexicon on these rules, would be a work of time and labour, requiring most extensive and accurate learning, sound judgment, and unwearied perseverance; but at the same time we are quite convinced that these rules are not more than sufficient—that, with the numerous helps which a scholar has in the present day, they are not of greater difficulty than he may be fairly required to encounter-and that a lexicon, not founded on these or similar rules, must be in some point or other radically defective. We will give an instance or two of each of these rules, partly to exemplify our meaning, but still more to show how necessary they are, and how useful they may be made.

As an instance of the effect of the first of these rules we might point to άγαλμα, the Homeric sense of which is παν εφ' ώ τις årdnastai, any object of exultation, pride, or delight; its postHomeric and general Attic sense, the statue of any god or deified hero: nor was it ever applied to statues of men, until, by the flattery of the later Greeks, under the Byzantine emperors. In the same way we cannot obtain a clear knowledge of the different meanings of αγαπάω, and its more poetical forum αγαπάζω, but by tracing it from the Homeric sense, to show a person any act of favour, affection, or kindness,' down to its common Attic meaning, 'to be fond of inanimate things,'as thoūTOV, Xpruata, &c., and thence again to Lucian's frequent use of it for sexual love, špćw-in which sense it is not found except in writers of a very late era. Now, in putting this rule into practice, we shall observe that there are three great epochs in the language, through all or some of which the different meanings of a word can be frequently traced with more or less distinctness ; viz. its infancy, its prime, and its decline :-its infancy in the heroic age of Homer, with whom we may join Hesiod—its prinie, in the pure and classical times of Thucydides, Xenophon, and the great dramatists-and its decline, after the Macedonian conquest, and still later under the rising star of Roman greatness, when such writers as Polybius, Plutarch, and Lucian disfigured the elegant language of Plato and Sophocles by spurious expressions, foreign idioms, and new

fangled

fangled meanings. The greater number of instances, however, will give only two epochs—as in xóovos, of which the Homeric meanings are, order or regularity,' and 'any ornamental part of dress ;' but its other, and secondary meaning, the regular system of the universe, the world, did not exist until some centuries after, when Pythagoras first introduced it as a philosophical expression(vid. Bentley's Opusc. Philolog. p. 347, 445.)—from whom it was adopted by Parmenides, Empedocles, and others, and so passed into common usage. Of course one very essential part of this rule is, that in every instance, whether there be a chronological variety of meaning or not, the earliest author in which a word or meaning occurs should be always noticed-as, for instance, under ayxupa, it must be mentioned that the earliest occurrence of the word is in Pindar, while Homer always uses cúvai. We might enumerate a vast number of other words which can never be clearly understood but by taking such a chronological view of their meanings; but what we have given will be amply sufficient, and not perhaps too much, to illustrate every part of this most important rule—by a strict observance of which, wherever practicable, we shall in time possess a complete and philosophical knowledge of the different stages of the language, and shall be enabled to ascertain with much more ease and certainty than by any other means, what families of words and meanings are genuine Hellenic, what have crept into the language in the Macedonian and Alexandrian eras, and what were introduced by the Romans, Byzantines, and others, until the final corruption of the language. We have said the more on the various branches of this rule, because we believe it to be quite new to most of our classical readers, as we know of no instance of its having been brought into practice until in Passow's lexicon, of which it forms the most striking and most valuable feature. On the other rules we shall have to say comparatively little.

Of the second rule, it may be hardly necessary to give an example; it will not, however, detain us long, and we will venture on one in

'Arootpoon, ý, (åmootpéow) the turning anything from or awayas the averting of an evil, of an accusation, of a crime, &c., Eurip. Hippol. 1036. The turning of a horse short aside, Xen. de Equ. 9, 6. Vide. 'A7Otporn.

2d, in a passive or middle sense, the turning oneself from one thing or place to another, as through fear, whence, a place of refuge or safety, like katapuyri, Herodot. 8, 109; Xen. Anab. 2, 4, 11: Eurip. Med. 603. 'AT. owTnpias, Thucyd. 8, 75; or through want, as a resource, ödatos, Herodot. 2, 13; or, through dislike, whence aversion, defection, or revolt, Plut. Alcib. 14; or, simply, the being turned in a different direction, as the bend or turn of a road or river, ron

ρεύματος,

peupatos, Plut. Lucull. 27; or, that which turns from one thing to another, a diversion, Plut. vol. vi. 504 ; Reiske. In Rhet. the figure Apostrophe.*

On the third rule we need say but little, as it is obvious that, whether a word vary in meaning or remain the same, in different periods or different authors, yet in its syntax it may undergo great changes. For instance, xoigavéw has always the same meaning, yet its construction varies greatly. Homer never joins it immediately with a case, but uses it either absolutely, as at Il. B, 207, or more frequently with κατά and the accusative, as πόλεμον κάτα, Auxiny náta, &c., the preposition being always after the substantive. On the contrary, Hesiod, in his Theog, 331, joins it with the genitive—Pindar Olymp. 14, 12. with the accusative—Apollon. Rhod, with the dative.

The fourth rule is one so plain and well-known, that it might seem superfluous to make any remark on it. And yet it must be observed, that to make it really efficient, it must be acted on regularly and systematically. We shall then reap from it advantages, of which, from its meagre use and rare occurrence in our present lexicons, we can now have no conception. Thus, of yios and kyvos, it may be said that árylos is a much later word, and of a narrower meaning than åryvos; seldom found in the Attic prose writers--never in the tragedians; while ayvos is the Homeric form, and used by the Attic poets and orators. Again, of dechos and debacios—the former is the Homeric form, and used also in Attic prose; the latter is never found in the epic poets, but constantly used by the tragedians. Again, of dévoqov, that its first appearance in this form is in Pindar— Homer always using dévðgeov ; that the Ionians, whom the Attic poets sometimes follow, used δένδρος, τo, whence we find in Attic prose the dative plural δένδρεσι, as well as dévacous: Thucyd. 2, 75. Xen. Econ. 4, 14. Schaef. Greg. p. 61, 62. 265.–Again, of the present eius, to go, it may be remarked, that in Homer it frequently occurs as a real present, though he does use it also as a future; but that in Ionic prose, and in the Attic writers, it is, with very few exceptions, a real future; and that it does not revert back to the regular sense of a present until in such later authors as Pausanias and Plutarch ;--which, however, holds good, strictly speaking, only of the indicative, nest of the infinitive and participle : the Attics use it more frequently than kneucopar and opeusouar, Valcken. Hippol. 1065. Some isolated instances of slui, with the sense of a present, in the best Attic writers, may be found in Herm. de Æsch. Danaid. p. 8,

* Observe, in exemplification of our caution as to the application of our first rule in a preceding note, that the first usage of this word is here taken from Euripides; the second from a much earlier writer-Herodotus.

Such

Such observations as these will show how extensively useful this rule may be made.

The fifth rule may require a little illustration to make our meaning clearly understood. Let us take for that purpose ανδάνω. . We know that this has been the form in regular use from Homer's time, but we find it joined with a fui. ad now, an aor. 2. ädov, ádeīv, and a perf. qdx, which cannot be formed from årdcévw, but must be traced back to another form ádów, -as to which, though we have no positive authority for it, we may yet fairly conclude either that it was in actual use at the time these tenses were first formed, or that those who formed them had good reasons for supposing its previous existence. Our rule, therefore, directs that cdéw should be admitted into the lexicon, and placed in its proper alphabetical situation, and that whether any authority for it be found among the grammarians or not, as thus,

’Adéw, to please: not used in pres. but supplies &ydávw with fut. ad now; aor. 2. adox [o], ádzīv; perf. Šāda, Dor..tada []

Again, ávdívw would run thus :

'Ayddiw, (ñow, douai) imperf. mud avov, and invoavoy, Hom. Att. sometimes ovdavov. From the obsolete form edéw come a fut. adrow, Herodot, and Att. aor. Éždov; besides which Homer has the aor. eðždov, which like a don [*] is only poet.--Perf. fad, Dor. řada. To please, &c.

In the same way we should admit I'w as an obs. theme to form the poet. perf. γέγαα for γέγονα, perf. to γίγνομαι.-Δάω, wlience δέδαα-Θάφω, whence τέθηπα, and έτάφον--and many others, the adoption or rejection of which must be left to the judgment of the lexicographer.

We have observed in Passow's lexicon a very simple and judicious way of marking the difference between the tenses formed regularly from the usual form and those formed from some other obsolete one. For instance, Passow would call davoy the imperfect of άνδάνω, but αδήσω the future to άνδάνω; the different particles expressing that the former is formed regularly from it, but that the latter is only joined with it and placed under it for convenience. A plan of the same kind might be introduced into our grammars and lexicons with singular advantage, as it would often impress on the minds of younger students an important distinction, which now too generally escapes observation, or passes off under the indefinite term of an irregularity.

We have been the more minute in illustrating these rules, because we are heartily ashamed of the present state of our lexicons and dictionaries—and, after the maturest consideration, feel convinced that the Greek language can never studied as it deserves to be, nor fully understood, until we possess a lexicon formed

on

on some such plan, and by some such rules, as we have drawn up. We are confident, that no Greek lexicon, unless conducted on such principles, will be of any extensive use to the classical world, or permanently redound to the credit of its author : whereas, if managed in the manner we have described, with suitable care and talent, it would prove an eternal monument of the learning and industry of its compilers, and soon throw into disuse all the editions of Stephanus, or Scapula, or Schneider, which ever have been or ever will be published.*

[ocr errors]

Art. VIII.--). Hernani. Par Victor Hugo. 1831. 2. Marion de Lorme. Par Victor Hugo. 1831. 3. Le Roi s'amuse. Par Victor Hugo. 1832. 4. Lucrèce Borgia. Par Victor Hugo. 1833. . 5. Marie Tudor. Par Victor Hugo. 1833. 6. Henry III. Par Alex. Dumas. 7. Christine. Drama, par Alex. Dumas. 8. Theresa. Par Alex. Dumas. 1832. 9. Angèle.' Par Alex. Dumas. 1834. 10. Richard Darlington. Par Alex. Dumas. 1832. 11. La Tour de Nesle. Par M. Guillardet et * * * * (A.

Dumas). 1832. 12. Hernani, and Catherine of Cleves. Translated from the French by Lord Francis Leveson Gower.. 1832.

is a remarkable circumstance, though it has not been, that

we know of, yet remarked, that though literature had the chief hand in preparing the French Revolution, it had little influence on its progress, and little share in its success. The men of the pen

undermined

IT is

* Since writing the above, we have seen the fourth nurnber of the Paris Thesaurus, which, to our surprise, is not an immediate continuation of the former three numbers, but the commencement of the letter B, and not compiled by the same editors.. M. Hase, indeed, it seems, still superintends the hole; but while his former associates are continuing their labours in A, two new coadjutors, Messrs. Willia:n and Louis Dindorf, have produced the first number of B. We have looked through this number as carefully as the time would permit, and have to congratulate M. Hase on a very considerable improvement. Had the three earlier numbers been managed with equal care and judgment, much of the censure which we have thought it our painful duty to inflict would have been spared. The Messrs. Dindorf have skilfully dovetailed some very excellent emendations and additions into the original matter. A little more concentration and abridgment might have been better ; but the improvement is such that we must be satisfied with the present, and look forward to the future with the hope of its further increase. M. Hase, too, comes but seldom on the stage with his ecclesiastical quotations, and Ast's Plato has entirely disappeared; we hope, is not entirely neglected. We would hope, too, that the Messrs. Dindorf will not overlook Passow's lexicon as their predecessors have done. Etymology they seem to have almost forgotten. The purchasers of the Thesaurus, will, therefore, learn with pleil-, VOL, LI. NO. CI,

N

sure,

« 上一頁繼續 »