103

OBSERVATIONS

On Professor Hermann's Review of the New Edition of

Stephens' Greek Thesaurus.

No. 11. [Continued from No. XXXVI p. 390.]
THE Editors will now proceed to examine some of the critical、

remarks, contained in this valuable Review.

1. Aßpòs, åßpòs, äßga, äßga.

"In v. ¿ßgòs, de qua copiosissime est et doctissime explicatum, non vidimus citata, quæ Valck. scripsit ad Callim. Fragmm. 233. Cæterum insigni diligentia efficere studuerunt Editores doctissimi in adnotatione tertia p. 43. äßga, non äßga esse scribendum, siquidem librariis in huiusmodi re fides est, qui sæpe in spiritibus ponendis negligentissimi sunt. Accedit, quod recentior pronunciatio, quæ etiamnum in usu est Græcis, non solet exprimere spiri tum asperum."

From these words the reader might imagine that the Editors rested their orthography of the word äßpa, Ancilla, solely on the authority of Librarians, who are admitted to be most careless in giving accents and breathings, and who no doubt frequently followed the practice of their own age, which might be the reverse of the rule adopted by those ancient writers, whose works they were employed to transcribe. In point of fact, however, the Editors have adopted the rejected orthography äßpa for äßga, induced not merely by the readings of Mss., but by the authority of Eustath. and H. Steph., who consider this word as derived from a foreign root, totally distinct from the Greek word äßpós. The words of the Editors are:

"At aßga, Ancilla, formatum esse ex aßpòs, Mollis, ut censent doctissimi illi viri, Dorv. Albert. Locella, Sturz. et Schneider., non est res satis certa. Imo vero etiam Eustath. pro voce peregrina accepisse, ut vidit noster Stephanus, qui illa de causa Thesauri Indici inter cetera yλwoonμarind vocabula hoc inserendum esse putavit, certissimum est. Cur igitur äßea in äßpa mutari debeat? άβρα præsertim cum leni spiritu extet in duobus Hesych. locis, in Phavorino, in duobus Grammatici S. Germ. locis, in Etym., in Lex. H. Stephani veteri, in Lex. Ms. Bibl. Coisl. 602., ter in

P

Eustathii loco, item in tribus Luciani locis laudatis, cum porro bis sic scriptum in suo Pollucis Codice, nempe ad 4, 151. et 154. invenerit Jungerm,, cum eadem scriptura reperiatur in Charitone 1, 4. cum denique Schweigh. ad Athen. 349. e. tenuerit in Machonis versu scripturam aßpas, leni spiritu, ut erat in Ed. Bas. et Cas. 1. nec aliud quid e Ms. A. annotatum.'

With respect to the derivation of aßpòs from ßw, the Editors are agreed with the learned Professor.

2. Αγαν, ἡ ἄγαν δουλεία.

"Similia quædam notari posse videmus in v. ayav. Cuius quum duas signiff. posuisset Steph., Nimis et Valde, et utramque invenire sibi visus esset in illo versu Alphei, Τὸ μηδὲν γὰρ ἄγαν, ἄγαν με Tégre, hæc adiecerunt Editores:- At contra Aristoteles Rhet. 2, 21. Οὐκ ἀρέσκει δέ μοι τὸ λεγόμενον, Μηδὲν ἄγαν· δεῖ γὰρ τούς γε xaxous ayar μiosiv. Eurip. Hippol. 263. Οὕτω τὸ λίαν ἧσσον ἐπαινῶ Τοῦ μηδὲν ἄγαν, Καὶ ξυμφήσουσι σοφοί μοι. Pindar. ap. Plut. 2, 116. et Hephaest. de Metr. 91. Σοφοὶ δὲ καὶ τὸ μηδὲν ἄγαν ἔπος αἴνησαν περισσώς. Palladas 62. Μηδὲν ἄγαν τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφῶν ὁ σοφώτατος EITEV. Fatemur, quem ad finem hæc dicta sint, nos non satis assequi. Nam videntur quidem hoc velle, non magis in Alphei versu utramque inveniri huius adverbii significationem, quam in his, quos afferunt, aliorum scriptorum locis. Quod etsi recte eos contendere putamus, tamen, si ayav Nimis significat, undèv ayav autem Latine est Ne quid nimis, quid aliud responsurum censebimus Stephanum, quam hoc, in illis quoque exemplis undèv ayav Ne quid nimis significare, et ap. Aristot. quidem, eodem modo ut ap. Alpheum, utraque significatione positum esse ayav? Ex quo apparet, alio modo refutandum fuisse Stephanum ; et id ipsum facere debebant Editores. Nam falsum est," etc. etc.

The learned Reviewer has altogether misunderstood the meaning of the Editors. In using the words, At contra Aristot. Rhet. 2, 21. Οὐκ ἀρέσκει δέ μοι τὸ λεγόμενον, Μηδὲν ἄγαν· δεῖ γὰρ τούς γε κακοὺς ayav pov, the Editors had no intention of opposing the remark of H. Stephens, but simply meant to oppose Aristotle's disapprobation of the proverb to Alpheus's commendation of it. Nor have the Editors connected the words of Aristotle disapproving of it, with the words of Eurip. Pindar and Palladas approving of it. It is true that they immediately follow the passage from Aristotle, but there is no conjunction, which connects them with it.

"De eodem illo ayav quæ contra Spohn. dicta sunt p. 70., et quæ ibidem de consociatione eius cum superlativis, non ad v.

1

*Trepayavаxτã, ubi nemo illa exspectaret, sed ad ipsum adv. "Ayav afferenda erant."

The Editors admit that this matter ought to have been placed under "Ayav, but the question is, whether, not having been inserted in its proper place, it was altogether to be omitted? The Editors thought not, though the Reviewer may think differently. Those students, who may in future times wish to examine the opinion of Spohn, and to see examples, in which ayav is used with a superlative, will not be disposed to quarrel with the Editors for putting the observations in a wrong place, but rather to thank them for not having totally omitted the discussion of points, about which they were interested. Referred to p. 70., as they will be in the General Index, for the uses of ayav with the article and with the superlative, they will find no inconvenience whatever resulting from this accidental distribution of the matter under Υπεραγανακτῶ.

"Locum Platonis Polit. 564. ita scriptum dederunt, H yag ayav ἐλευθερία ἔοικεν οὐκ ἐς ἄλλο τι ἢ εἰς [τὴν] ἄγαν δουλείαν μεταβάλλειν καὶ idiwry nai móds. Articulum, quem uncis incluserunt, nec libri habent, quod sciamus, nec Stephanus posuit, ut eum Editores propterea, quia necessarium putabant, adiecisse videantur.

addendus est articulus, ubi finitum est nomen, ita omittendus est, ubi est infinitum. Sic recte dicas, autη éσtiv ayav douλela, Hæc est gravis servitus: quod ubi dixeris, αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἄγαν δουλεία, hoc significaveris, Hac est illa gravis servitus.”

The learned Professor seems to the Editors to have committed four mistakes in this paragraph; but they are ready to examine carefully whatever may be said by him in vindication of himself.

1. The Editors maintain the necessity of adding Thy before ayav δουλείαν, because ἄγαν δουλείαν without τὴν is not Greek. *Αγαν without the article cannot, consistently with the genius of the Greek language, be used for an adjective, and the Editors request from the Reviewer instances, where it has the sense of the adjective without the article? Pseudo-Longin, 42. "Orav sis λíav ovrántar Bpaxú. According to the opinion of Professor Hermann, this passage is correct as it stands, but the Editors have no doubt, (see Nov. Thes. Gr. L. 999. d.) that the Author wrote eis Tò NavBgaxú. Dr. Butler, Mr. Elmsley, and Mr. Blomfield, would interpret Eschyl. Pron. 973. Σέβου, προσεύχου, θῶστε τὸν κρατοῦντ ̓ ἀεὶ, Whoever happens to be in power. But 1. the sense does not require

this interpretation; 2. the genius of the Greek language rejects it, because del never has, and never can have, this meaning, as Mr. Barker has shewn in his Classical Recreations and in the Class. Journ., except when it is placed, as in the instances cited by Mr. Blomfield, between the article and the participle: Tòv åsì xpatоõvтa.

2. Αὕτη ἐστὶν ἄγαν δουλεία cannot, as the Reviewer contends, be translated, Hæc est gravis servitus, because aryav without the article prefixed is an adverb, not an adjective.

· 3. Αὕτη ἐστὶν ἄγαν δουλεία the Editors maintain not to be even Greek, but they will yield on this point, if the Professor can produce any instances of a similar phrase from any Attic writer.

4. If the phrase, Auтη iσTìv hayav douksia, necessarily signifies, as the Reviewer thinks, Hæc est illa gravis servitus, the phrase ayav Souλeía must necessarily imply Illa gravis servitus, whereas in truth it signifies merely gravis servitus.

5. If Plato in the Grst part of the sentence wrote ἡ ἄγαν ἐλευθερία, he must have written τὴν ἄγαν δουλείαν, because the same principle of the language, which required the insertion of the article, in the one place, would require it in the other: 'H yag ayav, éxeutegia ἔοικεν οὐκ εἰς ἄλλο τι ἢ εἰς [την] ἄγαν δουλείαν μεταβάλλειν καὶ ἰδιώτῃ καὶ πόλει.

Thuc. 7, 3. Επανῆγε τὸ στράτευμα ἐς τὴν εὐρυχωρίαν μᾶλλον. In the Bipont Edition this passage is thus translated: "Copias in locum patentiorem reduxit." " Mãλλov pro μei dicit Portus, quomodo Noster supra." Wass. The word μãλλov may be here translated literally Magis, In locum patentem magis (quam altum,)“ Into a place rather open than high,” i. e. "Into the open plain rather than upon the heights," Non tam, quam. Cf. 7, 81. Oй πрoйxwgei päλλov ἢ ἐς μάχην ξυνετάσσετο. “ Ubi ἡ μᾶλλον εὐρυχωρία, ut μᾶλλον ἐξουσία 7, 12. et ita ἡ ἄγαν ἐξουσία, Plut. Mor. 283. c. ἡ ἐπιθυμία, μισοπονηρία, et ὁ ἄγαν φόβος 452. a. ἡ ἄγαν προμήθεια Chrys. 4. Op. 8. D2. ἡ τέκνοις ἄγαν χρημάτων συναγωγὴ Democr. in Stob. Τit. 10. p. 130. ἡ πολλάκις κρίσις Plut. Μor. 452. α. ἡ πάλιν ἀναχώρησις Thuc. 5, 5. of λíav didáσxaños Chrys. 6. Op. 68. B. et rò päλλov, Nimium, Dio ap. Stob. Tit. 72. p. 442. тò μãλλov xoσμɛïolas peúτὸ μᾶλλον κοσμεῖσθαι φεύEETα, quæque similia notarunt alii." Abresch. Diluc. Thuc. 663. This note reflects but little credit on its writer. 1. The meaning

of the words of Thuc. 7, 3. és try eůpuxwpíav μáλλov, is misunderstood. 2. The phrase, suguxwpía μäλλov, is, contrary to the principles of the Greek language, considered equivalent to the phrase, ἡ μᾶλλον εὐρυχωρία.

3. Λέλογχε in Sapphus versu.

"Atque omnino laudanda quidem magnopere est æquitas illa, quæ in litteris non quis aliquid, sed quid quisque dixerit, spectandum putat: sed ob hanc ipsam tamen caussam vellemus aliquot locis non esse promiscue, quorumcunque hominum verba allata. Sic p. 54. cur ad verba Sapphus,

Ἐγὼ δὲ φίλημ ̓ ἁβροσύναν,

Καί μοι τὸ λαμπρὸν ἔρος
Αελίω καὶ τὸ καλὸν λέλογχε,

(ita enim hi versiculi, si sic scripsit Sappho, disponendi sunt,) verba adscribi opus erat Volgeri, non modo sensum explanantis, qui satis planus factus erat eo, quod integrum Clearchi, qui hæc affert, locum Editores apposuerant, sed falso etiam contendentis, xéλoyxe, (quod bis Aéλoyxe scriptum videmus, ut ap. Blomfield.) active dictum

esse ?"

The learned Reviewer has duly appreciated the candor of the Editors, who have neither sought for opportunities of attacking the writings of those, who might be considered inimical, nor ungenerously suppressed the mention of their names, when their works supplied pertinent matter.

Tros Tyriusve mihi nullo discrimine habetur.

Nor indeed have the Editors scrupled to examine the opinions, and sometimes to point out the mistakes of their personal friends on points of criticism with that strict impartiality, which becomes them as the conductors of a national work, and that perfect freedom, which should reign in the Republic of Letters.

The very reason why the Editors quoted the words of Volger was, because, contrary to the opinion of the Reviewer, he interprets λéλoyxe in an active sense; and the passage of Clearchus was quoted at full length to shew that Volger was justified in giving that interpretation of it. If λéλoyxe was not here to be considered as active, Clearchus would in all probability not have interpreted it by the active verb εἶχεν : Φανερὸν ποιοῦσα πᾶσιν, ὡς ἡ τοῦ ζῆν ἐπιθυμία τὸ λαμπρὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν εἶχεν αὐτῇ. Nor do the Editors see how