Statius only too precise in his few select forms of structure for the Sapphic and the Alcaic stanza, would hardly seek or admit any freedom of variety unknown to his master. The fact is accordingly.

Turn now to the Musa Cantabrigienses; and even a rapid glance will discover a good score of these blemishes, for which no justification whatever can be drawn from the very peculiar context of Horace quoted above.

Of Erinna and of Suppho it is needless to speak again. And the practical inference from the whole cannot surely be avoided any longer. Judicent eruditi.

ii. Of the Preterperfect middle so called, nothing can exceed the absurdity in name or the mysteriousness in definition. But whatever be its origin, the most common occasions of its use are perspicuous enough; and that use is to signify ... the present state, material, animal, intellectual, or moral, of what is called the subject of the verb.

Iliad. B. 135. Καὶ δὴ δοῦρα σέσηπε νέων, καὶ σπάρτα λέλυνται. 0. 111. Υἱὸς γάρ οἱ ὄλωλε μάχῃ ἔνι, κ.τ.λ.

Ε. 482. ̓Αλλὰ καὶ ὣς Λυκίους ὀτρύνω, καὶ μέμον αὐτὸς

̓Ανδρὶ μαχέσσασθαι.

Θ. 555. Πάντα δέ τ ̓ εἴδεται ἄστρα, γέγηθε δέ τε φρένα

ποιμήν.

Similar verbs, correctly employed, occur very often in the Musa Cantabrigienses. But instances of the tense misapplied are wanted: the two following may serve.

p. 126...

Αἰολίων ἀπ ̓ ἄντρων

δεινὸν ἔῤῥηξ', εὐφορίας τε καρπὸν

παντελῶς πέρσασα μέμηνε λάβρων
δῆρις ἀελλῶν.

μέμηνε pro ἐμήνατο, raged.

p. 127. ἀλλὰ φῶς χρύσειον ἔλαμψεν ̓Αοῦς

· · γεωργὸς δ'

εἰσορῶν θάλλοντα γέγηθε κάρπον

γέγηθε pro ἐχάρη, rejoiced.

From the Greek ode of the present year two passages may

be quoted exhibiting a similar misapplication.

γγ. 2...5. εἴ ποκ' ἐῤῥώγασιν ἀκήρατοί τιν

That is,

ἐῤῥώγασιν pro ἐῤῥάγη, gushed.

νν. 41....50. μνάστις ὧν τις νῦν ὑποδῦσ ̓ ἔχει τυ

That is, πέφηνε pro ἐφάνη, appeared, dawned.

Other usages of this form of the verb are not unknown, though much less common.

Iliad. Χ. 118. ὅσσα πτόλις ἥδε κέκευθε, hath in store.

A far more extraordinary case remains behind, in the verb ὄπωπα, which answers to the English, I have seen, that is, heretofore; where nothing of the act itself is present, except in the report of memory.

Iliad. Ω. 392. Τὸν μὲν ἐγὼ μάλα πολλὰ μάχῃ ἐνὶ κυδιανείρῃ

Οφθαλμοῖσιν ὄπωπα, καὶ εὖτ ̓ ἐπὶ νηυσὶν ἐλάσσας
̓Αργείους κτείνεσκε, κ. τ. λ.

Vid. et B. 799. et z. 124. οὔπω . . . et οὔποτε . ὄπωπα.

...

Το Τo pursue the very different verb δέδορκα through its peculiar usages, in Homer, Pindar, and Eschylus, might be an entertaining, but not at present a very necessary, task. Whoever looks closely into the matter, will find the curious notion of the ancients involved in it, that the eye was not merely the seat, but the source also, of vision and light.

381

OBSERVATIONS

On Professor Hermann's Review of the New Edition of Stephens' Greek Thesaurus.

"QUE magno cum favore doctorum hominum in lucem emitti cœpta est Editio Thesauri Gr. Linguæ ab H. Stephano conditi, eius nuper is ad nos perlatus est fasciculus, qui numero tertius, re primus, et tantum non ipsum præstantissimi operis initium est."

The learned Professor is not quite correct in saying “ Fasciculus, qui numero tertius, re primus," as if the Lexicon vocum peregrinarum in the first and the second Numbers were totally unconnected with the Thesaurus of H. Stephens, when in point of fact it contains 204 articles, incorporated from his Index; and several of them are of considerable length.

"Et textum quidem non sumus ita morosi, ut totidem ubique litteris, quot a Stephano, exhibendum fuisse censeamus; sed non intelligimus tamen, cur quantumvis levibus in rebus recedendum a prima editione fuerit. Contulimus eo fine diligenter primas tantum quattuor paginas; in quibus septies signa parentheseos omissa, jocum, jocatur, pro iocum, iocatur, (quæ Latina est scriptura, cujus neglectio interdum errores gignit, ut quod p. 271. a. scriptum est, a Jamblicho, quod Latine dici debebat ab lamblicho,) Juvenalis xiv. pro Iuvenal. Sat. 14. Stephanum Byz. pro Stephanum, et alia huiusmodi animadvertimus: quæ etsi levia sunt, et neminem morantur, tamen, quum caussa mutandi nulla esset, non fuisse mutanda existimamus."

First, the Editors would remark that the parenthetical signs () employed by H. Stephens, are uniformly omitted by them, except in some cases, which very rarely occur, where their presence is deemed necessary for the sake of perspicuity; nor indeed do they think that the learned Professor would have objected to this uniform omission of these signs, if he had perceived that the real motive of the Editors for omitting them was a desire to prevent that confusion between the signs of H. Stephens and their own, which must, had they acted otherwise, have frequently embarrassed the reader, and precluded the possibility of distinguishing the new from the old matter,

In the instance given by the Professor, the reader, who is aware of the fact that all the parenthetical signs in the new work include the new matter, can have no difficulty whatever in ascertaining what part of the article on aßaxioxos belongs to Steph., and what part belongs to the Editors. The signs () are generally used by the Editors in the verifications of Steph.'s references, as in the instance under the word &ßaxloxos, Moschio ap. Athen. 5. (p. 207. c.) They were adopted for this purpose in preference to the [ ], because the latter were supposed to be more offensive to the eye, and would, had they occurred so frequently in the course of the page, as they must have done, if H. Steph. had been left in the possession of his ( ), have disfigured the book; Moschio ap. Athen. 5. [p. 207. c.]

The learned Professor sees no reason for changing Stephanum into Stephanum Byz. Unless the Editors had a good reason for making the change, there was a good reason why they should abstain from it, because it would fill up more room. The fact is that the Editors made this alteration to prevent the possibility of the Geographer being mistaken for the Lexicographer. For the Editors have observed many places in the Thesaurus of H. Stephens, where the name Stephanus, if left in the new edition without any adjunct Byz. Ethnicographus, etc., would have led the more unlearned part of their readers to attribute to H. Stephens, whose name is so frequently introduced as a critic and an editor of classical works, that matter, which he had taken from his namesake of Byzantium.

The Reviewer himself admits that these alterations of the original work are of a trivial nature; and the public may rest assured that no alteration whatever of any importance has been made by the Editors, and that even in trifling matters no alteration has been made from their caprice, without a due consideration of the advantages resulting from it. When the Editors professed their intention to re-publish the original work of H. Stephens without alteration, they of course meant that no alteration of any consequence would be introduced by them without giving notice to the reader, but that in minor points, such as the orthography of words, they reserved to

themselves a licence, which, on a strict scrutiny, they will not be found to have abused. For the sake of uniformity it was deemed right either to alter Stephens' orthography to their model, or else to adapt their's to his. They adopted the former alternative; and the question now is, admitting that they erred in thus altering Stephens' orthography, whether the Reviewer himself, retaining it, would not, on the same principle of uniformity, have shaped his own to the standard of H. Stephens?

The Editors acknowledge their error, obligingly pointed out by the learned Professor, in writing a Jamblicho for ab Iamblicho. But they must at the same time be allowed to observe that this mistake is not peculiar to themselves. See Schleusner's Lex. in N. T. vv. 'Exelaywyn et Ilgoáyw. The title of a valuable work by Jo. T. Krebs is "Decreta Romanorum pro Iudæis facta e Iosepho collecta." Even Stephens himself has fallen into the same error: see the word Συνακτής, where Stephens says, "Peculiariter sic vocatur Subligaculi s. Femoralium quoddam genus, quod ita describitur a Iosepho." The Reviewer will in all probability not condemn the Editors for not having retained this mistake, though the correction of it is certainly a deviation from that original, which they professed to follow implicitly.

With respect to their substitution of Julian for Iulian, Jamblichus for Iamblichus, Josephus for Iosephus etc., the Editors may be wrong in their orthography; but they have the sanction of names, which the Reviewer is accustomed to respect. See Ruhnken in Timæi Lex. 6-7. et alibi, et T. Hemsterh. in J. Poll. passim, et ad Lucian. 223., besides the universal practice in this country.

"Nisi quis novum plane Lexicon condere vellet, servandum erat illud, quod Stephanus exstruxit, ædificium, sed mutatis iis, quæ ad usum incommoda sunt. Nam quum præcipua virtus sit Lexicorum, ut quam facillime quidque inveniri possit, ei rei non ubique ab H. Steph. satisfactum videmus. Quod si huic commoditati prospectum ab Editoribus esset, et gratiam iniissent magnam ab omnibus, qui usuri sunt hoc libro, et fecissent, ut opinamur, quod ipse facturus fuisset Steph., si iterum edidisset illum Thesaurum."

The Editors quite agree with the learned Professor in