aa

us

aa inl tine mnbeniptar tts me ethane

ee Katee

mean alte

ma

at

. ; Phrynichys, oS Sithyme,

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS

BEING A REVISED TEXT OF

THE ECLOGA

OF THE

GRAMMARIAN PHRYNICHUS

WITH INTRODUCTIONS AND COMMENTARY

BY

W. GUNION RUTHERFORD, M.A.

OF BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD

ASSISTANT CLASSICAL MASTER AT SAINT PAUL’S

hueis ob mpds Ta Sinuaptnuéva dpopGpev GAG mpds Ta BoKimdrara Tav dpxalwy.

¥ ondon MACMILLAN AND CO,

1881

| Ad rights reserved |

The 2 Tam ma

7-|

. BENS AMIN sowsrn, —

E MASTER oF BALLIOL couse, ~ ore t~!/ “a ae " REGIUS PROFESSOR OF cash IN THE UNIVERSITY ep kins

“) | Becon motor OF Sees : Ne ey way

sae in > DHS BOOK Is DEDICATED ©

: - aay)

ww? A FORMER PUPIL. ; NM

DATE.

> A 2

“Hknacev 6 dvrip év Toic ypovoic MdpKou Bastkéwe “Pwpaiwyv kal tod maddc attod Koypddgou,

Puotius, Brbliotheca.

WORKS,

Ppiviyoc, Biouvdc cogisthc Erpayev ’AttiktotHv, mepi "Attikdv ’Ovoudtwy BiBAia B, TWEMéEv@v ouVvarertiv, Zo@t-

oTiKAc TMapaoKkeufc BipAia py’, ot dé 08. ye Svipas.

Z :

{ eO Am

PRE PACE.

IN the progress of a long and exacting study of the Attic verb it was-my fortune to discover that before the inquiry could be placed upon a scientific basis it would be necessary to reconsider some of the received opinions re- garding the language of the Athenian people, and to sub- ject to unflinching criticism the recognised claims of certain writers to a place in Attic literature. For a time my at- tention was withdrawn from the more special aspect of the question to which it had for several years been devoted, and directed to the prosecution of the wider inquiry, which was to provide a starting point scientifically important, and suggest a more comprehensive and intelligent method. The results obtained were in my judgment of such value that it seemed desirable to find a means of making them public, which would at the same time assist my cherished * ulterior project of an authoritative work on the Attic verb. ‘i

Augustus Lobeck’s edition of the Ecloga of Phrynichus had long been familiar to me, and the suggestion of the High Master of Saint Paul’s School that a new edition of the second century Atticist would be of service in calling attention to the peculiar characteristics of Attic Greek received the consideration which his judgment commands.

There is no Grammarian to whose work so high a value

viii PREFACE.

attaches as to that of Phrynichus, the Bithynian, and a perusal of the articles in the Ecloga, crude, fragmentary, and corrupt as they are, will yet prove that the writer regarded Attic Greek from a truer standpoint than more recent Grammarians, and one which students of Greek, subjected since Hermann’s time to the thraldom of minute psychological annotation, have often strangely ignored.

It is not my purpose to reprehend the careful and pains- taking study of Greek texts. Accuracy, rigid and uncom- promising, is demanded of every student of Greek, but it must be combined with an appreciation of the relative value of facts. The precision of a scholar is one thing, and that of a scholiast another. Details are only valuable as a basis for generalisation, and the study of isolated phenomena without any reference to general principles is as puerile and futile in the student of language as in the questioner of Nature. Grammatical inquiry, however, has one difficulty to encounter which is unknown in the labora- tory of the Chemist or the Physicist. To a law of Nature there is in the last resort no exception, but a grammatical rule cannot fail to be sometimes contravened, as long as the human mind is subject to mistake.

There are errors in grammar in all writers, but little is gained by trying to discover the state of mind which produced them. Certainly, in a language so signally ac- curate and ‘regular as Attic Greek such errors may be remarked upon when encountered, but otherwise left to shift for themselves. Eliminate the innumerable and gross corruptions. which transmission by the hand of copyists through a score of centuries necessarily entails, and the

- texts of Attic writers would present as few errors in syntax

and in the forms of words as the best French classics.

PREFACE. ix

As to Syntax, Professor Goodwin’s judgment will be considered final by most scholars. In the preface to his well-known work on the Greek Moods and Tenses he states the case against Hermann with the vigorous common sense which marks his scholarship. ‘One great cause of the obscurity which has prevailed on this subject is the ten- dency of so many scholars to treat Greek syntax meta- physically rather than by the light of common sense. Since Hermann’s application of Kant’s Categories of Mo- dality to the Greek Moods, this metaphysical tendency has been conspicuous in German grammatical treatises, and has affected many of the grammars used in England and America more than is generally supposed. The re- sult of this is seen not merely in the discovery of hidden meanings which no Greek writer ever dreamed of, but more especially in the invention of nice distinctions between similar or even precisely equivalent expressions. A new era was introduced by Madvig, who has earned the lasting gratitude of scholars by his efforts to restore Greek syntax to the dominion of common sense.’ .

It is this same common sense which gives the work of Phrynichus its importance, and although the plan of the Ecloga is unsatisfactory in the extreme, and proves that its author had not attained to the highest view of the scholar’s functions, yet its general tone testifies to scholarly instincts. The dedication to Cornelianus contains the creed of a genuine scholar. “Hye?s od mpos rd dunuaprnuéva dopGpev, GAA Tpds Ta SoKiuaTata Tdv dpxalwv, and similar

“maxims occur repeatedly in the work itself. With Phry-

nichus it was not a mere theory but a practical rule, and no better illustration could be given of scholarly nerve and wholesome masculine common sense than the article in

x PREFACE.

which he contemptuously disregards the few unimportant exceptions to the general rule that wéAAcv in the sense of ‘intend’ or ‘be about’ is followed only by the future or present infinitive. To his mind the aorist infinitive after péAAew was simply a mistake, and to pay any attention to the examples of it in Attic writers would have appeared as serious an error of judgment as to attempt to distinguish between péAAw Trovely and pédAdAw Troinoe.

Questions of Syntax, however, are, rarely discussed by Phrynichus, his attention being occupied for the most part with the use of words and their genuine forms. As to these points his testimony is peculiarly valuable, since on the one hand. he had access to a very large number of works which have been subsequently lost, and on the other he lived at an age when if due care was used it was still possible even from the manuscripts to discover the inflexions employed by the original writer. The evi- dence supplied by his dicta I have used to the best of my ability, adding to it all that could be derived from other sources, and endeavouring by its help to make some impression upon the enormous mass of corrupt forms which disfigure all the texts of Attic writers.

Much, indeed, has already been done in this way, and there are unmistakeable indications of a growing tendency to return to the old traditions of scholarship as represented in the work of Bentley, Porson, Elmsley, and Dawes, by adding to the all-important study of syntax a scientific study of words and the orthography of words. In his preface to ‘Greek Verbs Irregular and Defective’ Dr.

1 A striking instance of the development of this tendency is the remarkable _ article by Mr. A. W. Verrall which appeared in No. XVII of the Journal of ’ Philology, entitled ‘On a Chorus of the Choephorae, with Remarks upon the verb rora{w and its cognates.’ ;

"PREFACE,

William Veitch long ago suggested the track which such an inquiry should take, and in the book itself supplied a storehouse of materials without which the inquiry itself would be impracticable.

To another scholar, however; my chief acknowledgment is due. Everyone who has taken an interest in the recent history of Greek criticism is familiar with the ‘ Variae Lectiones, ‘Novae Lectiones,’ and the other articles of C. G. Cobet in the Mnemosyne Journal. There are few pages of the present work in which his influence may not be traced, and even in those cases in which my’ con- clusions differ most widely from those of the veteran critic the line of reasoning which produced the divergence was not seldom suggested by writings of his own. A familiar apophthegm of Menander furnishes Greek criticism with an apt watchword, and from Cobet’s lips I for one have learned the import of these words—

Zrevdépws dSovdrEvE, S0dA0S odK Eoret.

W. G. R.

1 KING’s BENCH WALK, TEMPLE, May, 1881.

CORRIGENDA.

Page 25, note 1, read mpoaidévra, ow 40,635 Ty readiart, 38. x 47, line 20, read art. 73. yy 129, 5, 2, read eirots, » 186, ,, 28, read droxplvera. » 194, » 14, read dxparhs. » 204, ,, 16, read texts of Herodotus. »» 21I, 4, 22, read txOves, Pe ty ‘e 18, read bdapes. » 225, ,, 22, read treTov, » 234, note, read xelpevov. »» 250, line 13, read manuscript, » 272, extr., read’Arrinds. 3:0 T00 0 b”lwy, Aayés. »» 276, line 14, read dp’ Hv. 3» 287, » 10, read dmopotmdns, » 288, ,, 21, read éxrpwoacay, » 313, 5, 9, read immorality but. »» 324, 5, 14, read érapictepos. » 325, lines 8,9, read orutméivoy, orummyvor, » 325, line 11, read orémmvos or orbmvos.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

THE GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT.

THE interest of the Aa:raAjjs—the first play of Aristo- phanes—lies in the disappointment felt by an Athenian of a rural deme in the education which his son has received in the city. He asks him to dig, and the boy shows him hands accustomed to no rougher labour than fingering the flute and the lyre. The farmer prays for a sturdy drinking song by Alcaeus or Anacreon, but his cultured son,—

Actos domep €yxedvs, xpuoods exwv kixlvvovs,— knows none but modern airs. When the old man would test his knowledge of Homer—and Homer was to the Greek much that the Bible in a higher sense was to the Jew—his questions as to the meaning of Homeric phrases are answered by counter-questions on the sense which certain words bear in Attic law.

This play was written just in the middle of the great literary period of Athens. About one hundred years earlier Tragedy earned a place in literary history, and before the close of the next century Athens had left her genius on the field of Chaeronea. Aeschylus was born a few years after the rude stage of Thespis first courted the Dionysiac crowd, and Demosthenes survived the national independence by only fifteen years. Yet, in this short space, the Athenian tongue was able to mould the

j B

2 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS.

Greek language into the most perfect vehicle of thought known to literature.

The fragment of the haraves already referred to de- monstrates the fact that much of Homer was as unintelli- gible to an Athenian of the best days, as Chaucer is to an ordinary Englishman of the present century. In fact the Attic even of the Mapa$wvoudxat was as far removed from the Greek of Homer as the English of Milton from that of Chaucer!, and if the lapse of time is alone considered it must have been more so. But if Homer was often hard for them to understand, the debased forms and mixed vocabulary of the common dialect would have struck the contemporaries of Aristophanes and Plato as little better than the jargon of the Scythian policemen who kept order in the market-place.

In the Aaradjs the master of Attic Comedy brought the old and the new in Athens face to face. The boy’s grandfather might well have heard Thespis in his first rude attempts at tragedy, and his grandson have been forced to doubt whether it was life that imitated Menander, or Menander who imitated life. Now the forces which in this Comedy Aristophanes represents as acting upon the young men of his day had been at work for years, not only in modifying the national character, but also in moulding the speech of the Athenians. There is little in

“the Attic of Aristophanes or the Orators which would indicate that it is only a development of Ionic, and a genuine descendant of the Greek which Homer wrote. So great has been the influence of the democratic institutions

1 The lines in question are preserved in a fragmentary state ed the Physician Galen in his Lexicon to Hippocrates :—

Father. Qlpds raira ob A€fov ‘Opjpov épol yAwrras, "rl Kadovor xépupBa; Father, ti kadoia’ dpévnva képnva; Son, 6 piv oby ads, épds 8 otros ddedpds ppacdra, ti Kadodow ldvious ; Son. Ti Kadotow dmuiew (dnoway Mke. conj.) ;

i

GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. 3

and free city life—the dixacrjpia and dyopd—on the one hand, the arrogance of empire and foreign commerce—the jyepovia and Tepaets—on the other. But that this was certainly the case is proved not only by many phenomena of form and expression, but also by a literary fact which - has never received the serious attention which it merits.

It is strange that Tragedy which, rightly considered, sheds more light than aught else on the history of the Attic dialect, should have been the occasion of concealing

‘its purity. Among other causes which have prevented Attic from being thoroughly understood, none can equal the mistake of regarding the Tragic diction as only an elevated modification of ordinary Attic. This conviction is of the same kind as that arising from the concomitant study of several Hellenic dialects, namely, that Greek as a whole is markedly irregular. As a matter of fact nothing is further from the truth.

It is a well-known characteristic of Greek literature that different kinds of composition had a tendency to adhere generally to the dialect in which they started. Epic verse did not deviate from that use of words which Homer had discovered to be most suitable to the genius of hexameter metre. Even in Comedy, when there was occasion to use hexameters, old words and forms, unused in the Attic of the day, were liberally introduced. Choric poetry had its rise among the Dorians, and Doric was the vehicle of ex- pression used in all choric verse ever afterwards, and in Comedy no less than in Tragedy the choral odes were

-couched in Doric.

By considering Tragedy with reference to this fact it is possible at once to account for the striking discrepancy which exists, both in vocabulary and accidence, between tragedies and comedies of precisely the same date. Zhe basis of the language of Tragedy is the Attic of the time when Tragedy sprang into life.

B 2

4 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Accordingly, in the Tragic Dialect is discovered what might otherwise have been lost, the missing link between Ionic proper and that modification of it which is called Attic. It must however be remembered, at the same time, that the Tragic poetry of Athens, like that of all other nations, contained words, expressions, and metaphors which it would be ridiculous to employ in other species of com- position or in the course of ordinary conversation. In Greek, indeed, this was especially the case. Tragedy was intimately associated with religion, and had in fact developed itself from a rude religious ceremonial. Moreover, the characters were gods and demigods, and the poet took as much care to elevate his diction above that of common life as the actor to increase the proportions of his figure and the sonorousness of his voice.

A careful comparison of the diction of Herodotus and the Attic tragedians confirms in a marvellous degree this theory as to the peculiar characteristics of the latter.

Even if the choric odes and other lyrical passages are left unregarded—and throughout this inquiry they have been altogether set aside—there remains in the senarii alone a very large number of words which are found else- where only in Ionic.

In the first place, a writer of Tragedy used at pleasure many forms of words unknown in Comedy or Prose but normal in Ionic. Thus, while in Attic éxetvos was the only form known, the tragedians, like Herodotus, use xetvos or éxei- vos indifferently. The shorter form never occurs in Comedy except’ in Arist. Pax 46, as an intended Ionicism—

, , , ,

Iwvixos tis dno. mapaxabnpevos,

dokéw pev, és KAéwva tad? aiviooerat Os Keivos dvatdéws Thy onarlAnv écbiet.

* In Vesp. 751, it occurs in a chorus, and it is cited from the comic poet -Phrynichus. But the line, if not hopelessly corrupt, is meant for Ionic.— kein pepvnodw pe EvdAov bmroretayés.

GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT, 5

The Ionic évvds (=xowds), Hdt. 4.12; 7. 53, ete, is found in Aesch, Sept. 76, Supp. 367.

delim (=ddw), Hdt. 1. 24; 2. 60, ete., occurs in tacts Agam. 16. Similarly dod7 (=¢d7) in Hdt. 2.79, and Soph. Ant. 883. doidds (=¢8ds) in Hdt. 1.24; Soph. O. R. 36; Eur. Heracl.403, et al.

deipw =alpw, Hdt. 2.1253 4.150; Soph. Ant. 418.

dicow=doow, Hdt. 4. 134; 9. 62; Aesch. Pers. 470; Eur. Hec. 31.

yobvaros, yotvara, etc.,=ydvaros, ydvara, Hdt. 2. 80; 4. 1523 9. 76, etc.; Soph. O. C. 1607; Eur. Hec. 752, et

G@n=o7, Hdt. 1. 32, 85, 157, etc.; Soph. Fr. 509.

Ga- for dia- in compounds, as (dmAovros, Hdt. 1. 32; Eur. Andr. 1283. Cp. (axpeios, Aesch. Supp. 1943; (amdnOrjs,

_ Pers. 316; (d@eos, Eur. freq.; (dxpucos, Eur.

These instances are but typical of a large class which even a careless student of Tragedy will be able to extend at pleasure. It is sufficient here to’ indicate the relation which such variations from ordinary usage bear to the question under discussion. Another important class con- sists of words used in Tragedy and Ionic in the simple form, but which in Attic are invariably compounded.

In Attic there ‘is not a single instance of the simple verb dyriotpuat, ‘I oppose. The compound évarriodyar has taken its place. But to the numerous instances afforded by Ionic, Hdt. 1. 76, 207; 4. 1, 3, 126; 7. 9, 139, 168; 8. 100; 9. 26; Aeschylus, in Supp. 389, presents a parallel,—

. tls dy roicd dvtiwOjvar Oédo ;

For the Ionic 6x6 (Hdt. 5. 41) Attic writers used the compound évoxAé, but the simple verb is found both in Aeschylus and Sophocles (P. V. 1001 ; O. R. 446).

Still more marked is the case of .aivé, which in Hdt. 3. 76; 5.1133; Soph. Aj. 526, Phil. 451, 889, and in Euri- pides and Aeschylus repeatedly, is used for the Attic

era.

6 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Other instances are d&yvups for xardyvupe), avd for azavrd*, &Couar for xabéCopar®, ixvodwar for ddixvoduar*, and the list might easily be increased. Some care, however, must be taken to select only well-marked instances for purposes of speculation. Thus the simple form of dpdoo0w, which is common enough in Tragedy®, is found in Prose only in Hadt. 6. 44, but the line of Aristophanes (Eccl. 977),—

A. kal thv Ovpav y jparres. B. doOdvow’ dpa,

puts it beyond a doubt that the word might, on occasion, have been used in prose, as it was certainly employed in every-day life.

On the other hand, Ionic writers at Tragedians fre- quently use a compound word in cases in which an Attic prose author would prefer the simple form. Before a language is matured, and that feeling of language de- veloped, which sees in a common word the most suitable expression for a common action or fact, there is a tend- ency to make work-a-day words more expressive by com- pounding with a preposition. This stage of language still existed in Attica towards the close of the sixth century, and became one of the mannerisms of Tragic composition, being in this way carried on in literature to a time when such a tendency had disappeared from Attic employed under ordi- nary conditions. Ionic never got beyond this stage.

1 Hat. 1. 185; Eur. Hel, 410,

2 Hdt. 1.114; 2.119; Aesch. Supp. 323; opts. Aj. 533, Trach. 902; Eur. Ton 802.

* Hdt. 4. 85; 8. 22; Aesch. Eum. 3; Soph. O. R. 32, O. C. 100; Eur, Heracl. 344, Ion 1202, El. 109, 1259, etc.

* Hdt. 1, 216; very frequent in all three Tragedians, In Thuc. 1. 99, the simple is used in the peculiar sense of be suitable, which is also found in Hat. 2, 36; 6. 57, 84.

5 Aesch, P, V. 58, Pers. 460; Soph. O, R. 1276, Ant. 52, Aj. 725, Phil. 374;

- Eur. Hec, 1044, I. T. 327. The compounds are comparatively common in Prose and Comedy, the following passages being cited by Veitch:—éfapdge, Ar, Thesm. 704; éghpaga, Eq. 641 ; “arhpage, Dem. 675. 19; émnpage, Plato, Prot. 314 D; dmapdgnre, Thuc, 7. 63; xarnpdxOn, Thue. 7. 6,

GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. q

The preposition éx, é€ is of all the most frequently em- ployed in thus extending verbs. In Sophocles especially it would almost seem as if any verb might be compounded with it. He is the only Greek writer who uses éx0cdc0a, exdijyeiv, éxnpotiav, éxonualvew, exotédrcoOat (of dress), éx- xpi (of the responses of Apollo), égavdyeoOa, eEarpdcew, eLeplerda (=npoordrrew),-none of which differ at all from the simple verbs, except in being in a slight degree more picturesque. Similarly there is as little difference between €xOvew, exrayxdvew, expavOdvew, exrelOew, exrvvOdverda, exod ev, exripay, expoBeicbar, eEaireiv, eEaxoveww, e€avayxd ce, eLavéxerOar, eLamadrdAdocerOa, eEatopbelpew, e&eevOepocro- peiv, eLenioracdar, éixerevew, and the forms not compounded with this preposition. The verbs éfamoAdvvar, é&eurodar, and éfnpepoty for dmoddtva, eumodav, and fpepodv, are a few out of many instances common to the Tragedians with Herodotus'. Of compounds with other prepositions, dva- kalew? and dvaxdalew* for xkdew and xddew might be men- tioned if the case of dwoAayxdvew for the simple Aayydvew did not present itself as a deterrent. The compound occurs repeatedly in Herodotus, and once in Euripides*, but in Attic Prose only in Lys. 101. 3, and not in Comedy at all. But that it was really not uncommon in both these kinds of composition is attested by Harpocration in his Lexicon to the Ten Orators—Amohayeiv: dvr? dmdod rod Aayeiv ’ Avti- Gv év 76 xara Pirivov, Avolas xara Mocvediamov, Apioropdvys Taynvicrais. In fact this feeling towards picturesque com- pounds is one which, though especially characteristic of the immaturity of a language, can never be said to have

1 etandddvju, Hat. 1. 92, 2.171; Aesch. Agam. 528; Soph. El. 588; Eur.

- Tro, 1215, Heracl. 950. éfeu70A@, Hdt. 1.1; Soph. Ant. 1036, Phil. 303. ténuep®, Hdt, r. 126; Eur. H. F. 20, 852.

2 dvaxaiw, Hdt. 4.145; 5.19; 8.19; Eur. Cycl. 383; Xenophon has it, Anab, 3. I. 3, dvéxavoay 76 rip.

3 dvaxAaiw, Hat. 3. 14, 66; Soph. Phil. 939; Antiphon uses it, 119. 23, Tas

napovcas aruxias dvaxdatcac0a mpds bpas. 4 Ht. 4. 114, 115, 145; 5.573 7. 23; Eur. H. F. 331.

7 Be i ae rin

8 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

wholly disappeared from it. All that it is necessary to demonstrate in the present case is that it had become exceedingly rare in Attic at a time when it was still in full force in Tragedy and the Ionic dialect.

But to pass to another feature which these present in common. Words rare in prose occur with frequency both in Herodotus and the Tragic poets, which is equivalent to saying that words in common use in the Attic of the time when Tragedy became a distinct style retained a literary status as long as the Tragic drama continued, although, for all other purposes, they were practically obsolete in Attic speech and writing. Such a word is the adverb kdpta. It occurs with extraordinary frequency’ in Ionic and in Tragedy, but hardly at all in Attic Comedy or Prose. In Plat. Tim. p. 25 D, znAod kdpra Bpaxéos, it has been perhaps rightly restored from the Parisian manuscript for the vulgate xaraBpaxéos, but it would be difficult to discover another Prose instance. Of the two times which it occurs in Aristophanes, one at least proves its un-Attic character. In Ach. 544—

kabijo® av ev ddpyo.cw; % ToAAOD ye Bet: kal xdpta pévtdv edOéws Kxabelh\Kere—

the preceding words 7 woAAod ye def* certainly come from the Telephus of Euripides, as do several more clauses and lines immediately before and after, and if kal xdpra pévray is not directly from the same source, the word xdpra is beyond question intended to harmonize with the parody. For the other instance— Tatra pev Anpets exov - kdpta* 7s Kavos yap hy dmak ye TOPOaAL *kkoTHs ;— : Av: 342. there must be some similar reason, as in the only other 1 Hat, 1. 71, 88; 3. 80, 104; 7.16, etc.; Hippocrates, p. 393- 51, 394-

53, etc. In Aeschylus over thirty times, in Sophocles about twenty times, and in Euripides fourteen or fifteen times.

GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. 9

passage of Comedy in which the word occurs —Ameipsias in Athen. 11. 783 E.— A, avAe. pou méAos, ov & dbe mpds* tHvd? exmiouar 3’ eye réws. B. aide ot, kal od riv dyvotw AdpBave, “od xpy TOAN exew Ovnrov avOpwTov GAN epay cal xarecOlew* ob 5& Kdpta pede.” — it forms part of a drinking song, like Iago’s, ‘ Then take thine av/d cloak about thee.’

Another word almost equally significant is ppv. In Herodotus it is found in 3. 134; 7.13; 9.101; and in Tragedy repeatedly—about two hundred times in all. Of the numerous Aristophanic instances all occur either in the lyrical passages, in parody, or in paratragedy, except Nub. 153—

® Zed Baowred, rijs AemTdérnTos TGv ppevGv—

and Thesm. 291, Ran. 534, Lys. 432; where it forms part of the phrase vois cal ppéves, which is a survival of the old Ionic Attic, and common even in Prose, as in Dem. de Cor. 332. 20, wddAtora pev kaltovrois BeAtlo Twa vodv Kal ppévas évOeire, Ib. 780. 11, vod cal ppevdv dyabGv Kai zpovolas mohAjjs. A similar survival is its use with words like ovp- dopa to denote aberration of intellect, as in Andoc. 20. 29. It is found twice in Plato, but in a connection which strengthens this account of the history of the word. In both cases, Theaet. 154 D, Conviv. 199 A¥%, it refers to the famous line in the Hippolytus of Euripides—

Hh yAdoo dpdpoy’, 7 8¢ ppv avdpotos— so often parodied by Aristophanes.

The survival of ¢pyv in the phrase vods kad dpéves has

* Cp. ppevhpns, Hat. 3. 25, 30; 5. 423 9. 55; Eur. Heracl. 150, El. 1053.

2 The passages are, Theaet. drdp, ds éoixev, édv dnoxpivy bre éorwv, Eipinl- beady Ts avpBhcera’ 4 pev yap yAOrra dvédeyeros hyiv ~ora, Se ppv obi

dvedéyxtos ... et pev Bevol kal copol eyw Te Kal od yer, mavTa Ta TaV hpevav etnrdndres : Conviv. 4 yA@rra oby irécxero, 7 5e ppry ov.

Gere

10 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

many parallels, and Comedy is often very useful in pre- serving these remnants of every-day language in cases in which there was naturally little occasion for their appear- ance in Prose. Thus the old word oévos survives in Prose! only in the phase zavtl o0éver, but Comedy has preserved a similar use of the verb c0éva— ov yap mpoojKer THY eyavTod jor TéAW evepyeteiv, @ Kéme cad’ dcov dy cbevw; Ar, Plut. g12. The same is true of Oeivw, which, like the simple dpacow already mentioned (p. 6), occurs out of Tragedy only in Comic verse— otros ov mot Geis; od pevets; as el Oeveis tov dydpa Todrov, adros dpOnce Taxa. Arist. Ach. 564. GAN oto b Spdoov; TO oKeet Ove THY TETpay. Av. 54. But of all these survivals perhaps the most interesting is that of the aorist éudoriga. Every one will remember its use in Homer—

pdori€ev 8 eAdav* Kavaxn 8 iv tpsdvoriv’ but it will surprise many to hear that it had become a

term of the kitchen. Athenaeus (7. 322 d,) quotes from the Leuce of Alexis the lines—

A, énloracat tov cadpov as bet oKevdoat;

B. ddX ay diddoxns. A. ebedov 7a Bpayxla, mAtvas, Tepikd as Tas akdvOas Tas KUKro, mapdoxicov xpnotas, duanrvEas 0 Sdov TO ciAdlo uaotieov &d Teg Kal Kahds tup@ te caov adol 7 70°? dprydve—

1 Dem. 30. 12; Thuc, 5. 23; Plat. Legg. 646 A, 854 B; Xen. Cyrop. 6, 1. 42; 8.5. 25, Hell, 6. 5. 2, Rep. Lac. 4.5. In Plato, Phaedr, 267 C, 7d rod Xadcndoviov oGévos in humorous passage =6 Xadxnddnos.

2 45€ is certainly corrupt here. We must read ddaly etr’ dprydvy, or some such word, :

GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. Il

in which a master is giving directions to his new cook how he likes a fish of a certain kind dressed. After being boned it is to be well whipped or dusted with silphium and stuffed with cheese, salt, and marjoram.

Another passage indicates that it was probably the word used by boys when spinning tops. In the Baptae of Eupolis! occur the words—

® ptuBowr paorigas eye but the context is required to make them quite clear.

It is in this way that the use of fteoOa in Thucydides ought probably to be explained. The word is otherwise unknown in Attic, and when Thucydides represents Agis (5- 63) as promising épy@ dya9G ptoerOar tds aitlas otpa- revoduevos, he is probably only giving a metaphorical turn to a word in common use among the tradesmen in the agora to denote their goods bringing down the weights on the opposite scale of the balance’.

*Axry is another word which almost by itself might de- monstrate the truth of the theory at present under dis- cussion. Though found repeatedly in Homer® in the sense of ‘rocky foreland,’ and in Herodotus* with the meaning ‘littoral tract,’ it is in Attic confined to Tragedy®, except in one case, namely, when it refers to the coast- district of Attica. Harpocration tells us that Hyperides so used it : "Ax, émOadarrldids tis woipa rijs’Arruxns’ “Yrepeldns év T@ Tepl Tod raplyovs, and in Dinarchus, 110. 2, it is found

* Quoted Fr. Com. 2. 452. The fbpBos was in this ‘a metal top,’ used in celebrating the orgies of Kotytto by her ‘licentiates’ the Baptae.

2 pioua, Hdt. 3. 119, 132; 4. 164, 187, etc.; Aesch. Eum., 232, 300, Supp. 509 et al.; Soph. O. C. 285, Aj. 1276, O. R. 72, 312, 313; Eur. Ale. 11, et freq. :

3 Il. 2, 395; 20. 50; Od. 5. 405; 10. 89, etc.

* Hdt. 4. 38; 7.183. Xenophon, un-Attic as usual, employs it in An, 6, 2.

2a dp Thy "T, lay derhy.

Aesch. Pers. 303, 421, 449, Eum. 10, Ag. 493, and freq. in ch.; Soph. Phil. 1, 272, 1017; Aeg. fr. 19.3; Captiv. fr. 42, and in chor.; Eurip, Hec. 778, Hipp. 1199, and very frequently.

12 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

in a suggestive series: év ofs (sc. roils xpyyact) Kal % axrh kal of Aupéves eloY cal ra vedpra & of mpdyovor tyiv KaracKevd- cavTes KaréAvrov},

No evidence could be more distinct. It was: plainly a word in daily use in Attica before the Ionic then spoken had gone far in the peculiar path which was to end in the Attic dialect, and its application to the coast-district began at that time. In the sixth century it was dropping out of use, but received a new lease of life from becoming part of the literary dialect of Tragedy.

Exactly the same history belongs to another old Attic word. Its attachment to a natural feature of the country preserved it un-modified, just as the peculiar Greek ten- dency of literary styles to become permanent brought it down in Tragedy to a period when it had disappeared in all other literature but the Ionic. The name Gorip, the Ionic and old Attic equivalent of (évn, had at an early date been bestowed upon a tongue of land between the Piraeus and Sunium’, which resembled the (worjp in shape, and is mentioned under that name both by Herodotus and Xeno- phon*. Thus even the stones cry out against regarding the peculiarly Tragic forms of words as due to no more than a craving for elevation of style.

Of a piece with the use of compound verbs for simple, already discussed, is the preference for picturesque words with a dash of metaphor in them over their more tame

1 Strabo, 9. 391 b, thus describes the district, der) 3 éorly dugibddaTTos, orev) Td Tparov, er’ els Tiv pecoyalay mAarivera, pnvoedh 8 oddty Hrrov ém- orpopiy AapBaver mpods ‘Apwmdy 7s Bowrias, 70 Kuprov éxovoa mpods baddrry.

? Strabo, 398. M

8 Hdt, 8, 107, éwet 52 dyxod Foav Zworipos mAedévres of BapBapo xre.; Xen. Hell. 5. 1. 9, éwet 52 Foay af (vijes) rod Eivdpou mpds tH yh wept Zworhpa THs

*Arrixs ere, A surname of Apollo, viz, Zworhpios, was probably derived from -

a temple on this spot. Cp. Mop@yés, a town in Euboea, mentioned by Dem.

"+ 248.153 119. 215 125. 26; 133. 21: mopOpds is old Attic for mbpos. “Apecos

mayos : méyos for hill is never once found in Attic prose or comedy, but occurs in Aesch, P, V. 20, 270, Supp, 189, etc.; Soph, O, C. 1601; Ant, 411, ete. ; Eur. El, 1271, etc,

GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT, 13

equivalents. Take, for instance, aixuy. Even in its ordi- nary sense! the word was probably un-Attic, having been replaced by ddpv, but in the signification of war it had certainly disappeared altogether. Yet that with that mean- ing it had once been in common use is proved by the com- pound aiyuddwros, which must have had an emphatically metaphorical origin. From the development of Attic such a metaphorical use had become impossible in that dialect ; but it had been, as it were, crystallised in Tragedy, and remained in use in Ionic. Thus Herodotus could say not only (5- 94), Siyevov efde Tetolorparos aixyn, but even (7. 152), émevdy ot mpds ros Aaxedaiovtovs KaxGs 7) alypn éori- kee, and in Tragedy occur the expressions alypiv «is pilav kadéoraroy for els povoyaxfay (Eur. Phoen. 1273); xaxol évtes pos alxujv (Soph. Phil. 1306); and alyuy Onpdv (Eur. H, F. 158), a ‘battle with wild beasts.’

Ei¢pévyn is another of these words. No Attic writer would have used it for w&; but not only does it occur in Herodotus more frequently than the soberer term, but even a scientific writer like Hippocrates employs it”.

Again, if we compare the usage of mdAos* and kAjjpos, it will be seen that the more picturesque of the two words has in all Attic, but that of Tragedy, been ousted by the colourless term, though in Ionic prose the former remained the commoner. And that wddos really retained much of its primitive colour is proved by the line of Euripides

1 Hdt. 1. 8, 39, 52; 3. 78.128; 5. 49; 7. 61, 64, 69, 77, etc. and in the Tragedians very frequently. Xenophon has it, Cyr. 4. 6.4; 8.1.8, meraixpioy did not survive in Attic, but occurs, Hdt. 6. 77, 112, cp. 8. 140; Aesch. Sept, 197; Eur. Phoen. 1240, 1279, 1361, Heracl. 803.

2 Hdt. 7. 56, :€Bn 52 6 orpards abrod év énra jyéppor nal ev Enra edppdygat : 9. 37, Tpitn edppdvy, so 7. 12, 188; 8. 12, 14; 9.393; Hippocrates, 588. 42, dvo Hpepas Kal dbo ebppdvas: id. 1275. 32, Huépyy wat ebppdvnv: Aesch. P. V. 655,

7Pets. 180, 221, Agam. 265, 279, 337, 522; Soph. El. 19, 259, Fr. 521, 11; Eur. Hec. 828, I. A. 109, 1571, Kh. 92, 518, 617, Tro. 660, etc.

3 Hdt. 3. 80; 4. 94, 153; Aesch. Sept. 55, 376, Agam. 333, Pers. 779, Eum. 32, 742, 753; Soph. Ant. 275; Eur,-I. A, 1151, Tro. 263, Ion 416, Heracl. 546.

14 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

(Iph. Aul. 1151), where Clytemnestra addresses Agamem- non in the words—

2 > Lad Bpépos te Todipdv oG Tpocovpicas T4A@ paoréy Bialws tov eudv aroondeoas.

But it would be tedious to discuss each separate instance of this one characteristic of immaturity in language. There are still too many points to consider which throw light on the way in which the old Ionic of Attica developed into a language of such marvellous precision and strength as the Attic dialect certainly is. But it is hard to refrain from enumerating, however cursorily, a few more old Ioni- cisms like etppdvn and aixyy. Such are dyopacOac1 in the sense of A¢yew or elzeiv, dpakevuévos in the sense of ‘ pro- vided with carriage roads?) dyqidéios, ambiguous*®, dnér- pos? for dros, apO.os® for piros, dppdecdar® for yapety, épovpa™ for yi, arpuros® for ioxupdés or péyas, eyxplunreww * for épdnrecOai, exmayrcicOar™ for Oavpacew, @dactp6™ for

1 Hdt. 6.11; Soph. Tr. 601, €ws od rais Ewber tyyoph févais.

2 Hdt. 2. 108, Atyunrov imndoipoy nal duatevpérvny, followed by Alyurros godoa medids maca dvimmos Kal dvapdgevros yéyove: Soph. Ant. 251, drupAds BE yi Kal xépoos appwé ob8 exnuafevpévyn Tpoxotow, where observe the Ionicism for épnpagevpern.

® duqudétvos, lit. of a man who can use his left hand as dexterously as his right; opp. du@apiorepos. Hat. §. 92, xpnorhpiov dppidégvov, an ambiguous response: Aesch. Frag. 259, dudidetios exer, it is indifferent. In Eur. Hipp. 780=dponkhs, dupidéetiov aidnpov: Soph. O. C. 1112 uses the sing. in the signification both. :

4 Hat. 2. 167; Soph. O. R. 215.

5 Hadt. 6. 83, 7. 101, 9. 9, 37. So dp0uds=quAia in Aesch. P. V. 191.

®° Hdt. 3 1373 5. 32, 473 6. 65; Soph. Ant. 570; cp. dpyd{w=‘ give in marriage,’ Hdt. 9. 108 ; Eur Phoen. 411,

7 Hat. 2, 14; Aesch. Pers. 595; Soph, Tr. 32, Aj. 1286; Eur. Or. 553, H. F. 369.

8 Hdt. 9. 52, drp. mévos: Aesch. Eum. 403, drp. dda: Soph, Aj. 788, drp. kaxdv.

® Hat. 2. 60, 93; 3. 85; 4.1133 9. 98; Hippocr. de Artie: p- 800, B, de Oss, nat. 280. 12, de Morb. mul. 2. p. 654, 23; Soph. El. 898. The simple xpliumro, xpiumropat, occurs Aesch. Eum. 185, P, V. 713; Soph. El. 721.

© Hat. 7. 181; 8.92; 9. 48; Aesch. Cho. 217; Eur, Or. 890, Tro. 929, Hec. 1157. Confined to the participle.

1 Wdt. 2.158; 7. 24; Eur. I. T. 934. 971. Cp. Bworpéw for Bod.

GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. 15

1

édatve, eumpémev' for gavepds eivar, hovedw*, or kara-

dovetw*, for dmoxreivw, epelmia* for Aehpava, epeortios ® for ixérns, OejAatos®, sent from heaven=Oeios, otparn- Aaté" for orparevouar, Oeonpdros® for Oéwpos, OwxG® for Kd0hpa, Wayerfis™ for adrdyOav, Kxaclyvntos™ for dded- ods, xéprouos ® for tBpiotixds, KApddév™® for gijyn, pdpos 4 for @dvaros, pvoapds™ for puapds, Spaos!® for cvyyerys,

1 Hadt. 7. 67, 83; Aesch. Ag. 6, 1428; Soph. El. 1187; Eur, Heracl. 407.

2? Hdt. 1. 211; 8.53 Soph. O. R. 716, 1411, Ant. 1174, El. 34; Eur. Andr. 412, Or. 1193, etc. In Plat. Legg. 871 D, 873 E, in legal language.

3 Hadt. 1. 106, 165; 2. 45; 3.157; Eur. Or. 536, 625.

* Hadt. 2.154; 4.124; Aesch. Agam. 650, Pers. 425; Soph. Aj. 308; Eur. Bac. 7, etc. épeimw, throw down, is found in Hdt. 1. 164; 9. 70; Hippocrates, Epid. 6. 1174 G; Soph. Aj. 309, O. C. 1373; Xen. Cyr. 7. 4. 1.

5 Hat. 1. 35; Aesch. Supp. 365, 503, Eum. 577, 669; Soph. Trach. 262.

® Hdt. 7.18; Aesch. Agam. 1297; Soph. O. R. 255, Ant. 278; Eur. Or. 2, Andr. 851, Ion 1306, 1392.

7 Hadt. 1. 124, 154; 4.1183 5.313 7. 5,10; Aesch. Pers. 717, Eum. 690; Eur. Or. 717, Supp. 234, I. A. 1195, Heracl. 465, et al.

® Hadt. 1. 48, 67, 78, and frequently; Aesch. P. V. 659.

® Hdt. 2.173. Tragic @ax®, Aesch. P. V. 313, 389; Soph. O. R. 20, O. C. 340, Aj. 325, 1173, Tr. 23; Eur. Heracl. 239.

1” Hdt. 2.17; 6.53; Hippocrates, de Morb. mul. 1. 70, de Infaec. 16; Aesch. Pers. 306.

" Hat. 1.171; Aesch. P. V. 347, Sept. 632, Agam. 327; Soph. and Eurip. very frequently. It occurs in Comic senarii in Arist. Thesm. goo, but in mapa- tpayybdia with mors to keep it in countenance.

#2 Hdt. 5.83; Eur. Alc. 1125, Fr. 495. The tragedians also use xepropo, Aesch. P. V. 986; Soph. Phil. 1235; Eur. Bac. 1294, Hel. 619; and xepré- pots is found in Soph. Phil. 1236.

18 Hdt. 5. 72; 9. gt, 101; Aesch. Agam. 863, 874, Cho, 853, etc.; Soph. O. C. 258, Phil. 255; Eur. Alc. 315, etc. The only instance in Attic is An- docides, 17. 9, eAgSav & dxdon TH mide Katécxey... . mds obv H hpy } TéT€ ofca Kre.; which probably indicates that the word was still in use among the people.

“ Hdt. 1.117; 3.65, etc., and very frequently in all three tragedians, Similarly pépowos occurs, Hdt. 3.154; Aesch. P. V. 933, Sept. 263, 281, etc.; Soph. Ant. 236; Eur Rh. 636, Al.'939, etc.

45 Hdt. 2. 37; Eur. Or. 1624, et al. It occurs in Ar. Lys. 340, but in

_a chorus,

16 Hdt, 1. 151; 8.144; and very freq. in all three tragedians. Onthe authority of an anonymous Grammarian, Cramer, Anced. 3. 195, the lines— obdbeis Spatpou cvprabécrepos piros, kay 7 Tod -yévous paxpay, are assigned to the comic poet Plato; but on his own confession the Grammarian preserved neither Aégis nor pérpor, only tov vody Tod BiBAtov dmorerapievice.

16 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

opnrré! for HAKidTns, otpardpxns® for orparnyds, parltw* for Aéyo. The significance of xepdvaé and its derivations is too great to allow of no more than a Nota bene. No words could be more picturesque, yet they are used in sober, every-day language in Ionic. Herod. 2. 167, rovs de dmaddAaypévovs TGv xetpwvakiéwr, yevvalovs vowtCovras €tvat, and Hippocrates, 384. 46, 391. 45. In Attic xewpwvagia is simply réyvn and yeipdva€, xeiporéxvns, but in Tragedy the old highly-coloured expressions have been preserved with- out modification *. There can be no explanation of facts so anomalous, but the one which can not be reiterated too often, namely, that, if allowance is made for the peculiarities of metrical composition, Tragedy can supply the student of Attic with many of the most essential characteristics of that dialect during the sixth century °.

Picturesqueness of metaphor is another quality which is not so much inherent in Attic Tragedy as Tragedy, but derived from the tendency of language at the time when the Tragic diction was formed. It is difficult to reach certainty in a speculation of this sort if only the more general aspects of the question are considered; accordingly,

Moreover cupnabéorepos is probably a late word. Similarly épaiuov, Hdt 5. 49; Trag. frequently.

1 Hdt. 1.99; Eur. Hipp. 1098, Alc. 953, Tro. 1183, Bac. 201.

2 Hadt. 3. 157; 8. 45; Aesch. Fr. 176.

8 Hdt. 5. 58; Eur. L A. 135, 936.

* xe:povatia, Hdt. 2. 167; Aesch. P. V. 45, Cho. 761. xepmvag, Hat. 1. 93; 2. 141; Eur. Fr. 793.

5 Additional instances of these highly-coloured words are these :—&AA68po00s, Hat. 1. 78; 3. 11; Aesch. Ag. 1200; Soph. Phil. 540. Svomeréws =x ademas, Hat. 3.107; Hippocr. 456.22; Aesch. P. V. 732; adj.Soph Aj. 1046. 6860= put on the right road, Hat. 4. 139 ; Aesch. P. V. 498, 813. o€Aas bright light, Fidt. 3. 28; Tragedy very freq. It occurs in Plato, Crat. 409 B, but simply in the linguistic statement cédas xal gas tairév. Dwepréddo, rise above=Att. étéxw, Hdt 3. 104; Eur. Or. 6, Hec. toro, Phoen. 1007. Words which are Attic in other significations have a specially picturesque meaning in Ionic and

_ Tragedy. As xkapyw=xadrends pépw, Hat, 1. 118 ; Eur. H. F. 293, Med. 1138. xatepyaCopat =droxreivw, Hdt. 1. 24; Soph. Trach. 1094; Eur. Hipp. 888, I. T. 1173 (Xen. Cyr. 4. 6.4). eepydfopar=id., Hdt. 3. 525 4. 1343 5. 193 Eur. Hel. 1098. vouds =dwelling place, Hat. 5. 92 et al.; Eur. Rhes, 477.

GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT, 17

the following instances have been selected to show that in the metaphorical use of particular words Ionic and the Tragic dialect stand by themselves. Take the two com- pounds of (é, boil, éx¢éw, boil over, and émuéw, boil up, seethe. In 4. 205, Herodotus employs the horribly suggestive sen- tence, od pev ovde 7 Deperivn €d tiv Conv KkarémArcke. ws yap 8) tdxiora ex tis AvBdns ticapévn Tots Bapxalovs dnevdotynce és Ti Alyumrov, ameOave Kaxds’ (Goa yap ebdAéwy e&€Cee, ws Gpa avOpdmoicr ai Alnv iocxvpal tiuwpiar mpds Oedv emipOovor ylvovra. The whole is oriental enough to come from the Old Testament, and in this question of metaphorical usage geographical considerations are not to be wholly dis- regarded. In Aesch. Sept. 709 the word is not too strong— efeCecev yap Oldimov xarevypara.

Again in Herod. 7. 13, dxovoavri po. tis ’"AptaBdvov yvapuns mapautixa pev 7 vedrns éméCece, the metaphor may be paral- leled from Euripides—

dewov te mhya Tpiapldas eméecer. Hee. 583. dew Tis dpyn Saydvwv eréCece}. I, T. 987.

Another excellent instance is afforded by the use of the verb éxrp{8w, which occurs repeatedly in Herodotus and the Tragedians, but in a metaphorical sense is. never used elsewhere. In Herodotus, 6. 37, Croesus threatens the people of Lampsacus in words that hardly required the brutal jest on [lirvotcca, the ancient name of their city, to make them effective: ef 8 yy, opéas mirvos tpémov drelrce extphpew. mravapévwv 5& tov Aaypaxnvdv év roior Adyouot To Oédeu TO exos elvat Té ou drelAnoe 6 Kpoioos airvos rpdrov exrplperv, udyts Kore paday Tav Tis TperButépwy elite 7d Cody, Sr. mlrvs podvn mdévtwv devdpéwy exxoteioa BAactov ovdéva

1 Arist. Thesm. 468 is paratragedic, while Ach. 321, dupdAowp énéCecer, is evidently a burlesque on some Tragedian’s Ovpds éné(ecev, and proves that the metaphor in Herodotus was felt to be too strong for common use,

Cc

18 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

perlet, GAAA TravddcOpos! e£amdddvrar. And in a later chapter (86) of the same book, is narrated the fulfilment of a doom prophesied by the Pythia, TAavkov viv ore tt drédyovdy eat. ovd€v, ob? torin ovdeula vourCouevn eivar TAavKov, exrérpuntal te mpdppios ex Sadprns 2. Now the Tragedians are the only Attic writers in whom a similar usage is discovered— Zebs o° 6 yevyntwp euods mpdoppicov exrplevev odrdcas trupt. Eur. Hipp. 683. kaTevxowat d& Tov dedpaxd7’, etre Tis els Sv AeAnOev cite TrELdvYOV péTa,

Kakov Kak@s viv Gpopov extpiyar Blov. Soph. O. R. 246.

Further on (O. R. 428) Teiresias ends his outburst of indignation at the charges of Oedipus in words that were too surely fulfilled—

mpos tadra kat Kpéovra kat todpov ordpua TpommArdkile. ood yap ovK éotiv BpoTay Kdkiov dotis extpiBnoeral more.

An aspect of the inquiry which has occasionally presented itself in considering other points, itself merits some atten- tion. Words which, on the testimony of Tragedy, must have been used in old Attic, and which were never super- — seded in Ionic proper, were in the matured dialect of Attica replaced by other terms. These new words were either from the same root as the primitive ones, or of an origin altogether distinct. Of substantives of the former class mdtpa is a marked example. Herodotus never uses zarpls, but adrpyn occurs in 6. 126, évOadra “EAAjvwv doo oplot Te avroic. joav Kal matpy eboyxwpévor, epotreov prnotipes, of the suitors for the hand of Agahiste, which Hippoclides

1 Cp. Soph. El. 1009, tavwA€Opous . ts huas 7 dd€écOar, 2 Cp. 4. 120, Thy olny éx Tis yas terpiBev.

GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. 19

was to win.and humorously lose. In Tragedy it is found repeatedly, but in Attic prose not once, and the instances in Comedy are conclusive evidence that the word was considered merely a literary survival on the one hand, or an Ionicism on the other. Thus, Ar. Thesm. 136, Ran. 1163, and 1427, are all parodies of Tragedy, while in Ach. 147 there is a ludicrous point in the boy who has just been initiated at the great Ionic! festival of the

_’Anarovpia, and gorged with the sausages that symbolised

Athenian citizenship, addressing his father in Ionic heroics, and calling upon him Bon@eiv ri rdrpa .

Other instances are alyumids® for yi, yroua* for yrdpicpa, ydvos ® for your}, dpdunua® for dpduos, elua™ for €rOns, Cebydn ° for Gyov, (wornp® for Cévn, imndrns for tameds, cd ™ for

* Elo? 52 mdvres “Ives, dco: dm’ AOnvéwy yeysvact kal’ Anarotpia dyovct Sprhy. ayovor Be ndvres wry "Epectwv nat Kodopaviav’ obo: yap podvor "Idvew obk @youcr Anarotpia «re., Hdt. 1. 147.

* The old term also supplied the poets of later comedy with material for a wretched pun, as Alexis quoted by Athenaeus, 3. 100, c.—

brip matpas piv was dwobvhoKew bédct,

brép 5€ phtpas KadAiuédwy 6 KapaBos

€p67js tows mpocetr’ dy GdAdws dmobaveiv. There is a similar pun on the words pyrpérods, marpérods, uhyrpa, Mnrpas, and uunrpos, in a fragment of Antiphanes, also preserved by Athenaeus in the same passage, I0o. d.

* Hat. 3. 76; Aesch. Ag. 49; Soph. Aj. 169. It is probably this fact that is referred to in Suidas, atyumév' obrws of madatol, GAN’ od yma, and Bekk. An. 354. 28, for Arist. Av. 1181 is conclusive proof that yy-was the Attic term.

* Hat. 7. 52, ray éxopev waa péywrov, and Soph. Trach. 593; 008° éxors dy ype ph wepwpévn.

5 In the sense of proles, suboles, Hadt. 1. 108, 109; 3. 66; 5.92, etc.; Trag. frequently.

® Hat. 8.98; Aesch. Pers. 247; Eur. Tro. 688, et al.

” Hdt.1. 10; 2. 155, et freq.; Hippocrates, de Morb. mul. 2. 640, 16; Aesch. Agam., 1383, Cho. 81 ; Soph. Aj. 1145, O. R. 1268, Fr. 451 ; Eur. Hec, 342,1.A, 73, Hel. 1574.

® Hadt. 1. 31; Aesch. P. V. 463; Eur. Med. 479, Hel. 1536.

® Hdt. 1. 215; 4. 9,10; 9.-74; Soph. Aj. 1030; Eur, Heracl. 217 (see supra p. 12.)

Substantive, Hdt. 9. 49, 69; Soph. O. C. 59; (Xen. Cyr. 1. 4. 18; 8. 8. 20.)

™ Hdt. 1. 41; 2.150; 6. 16; Eur. Alc. 766, Cycl. 223, Hel. 553, Rhes. 709; (Xen Cyr. 2. 4. 23; An. 4.6.17).

C2

20 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS.

KA€nrys, vavtidos} for vadrys, Spitpa? for pos, Sprov, dppb * for dppvs, dxos* for dynua, mapyts® for maperd, wopOuds ® for mopos, petOpov" for pedpa, pdris® for pijun, poval® for pdvos, pédpros * for popriov, ydros ™ for xody.

The instances of adjectives of an older formation which have given place to those of a newer from the same stem are not so numerous, but there are still some marked examples, such as dypos” for dpeurros, Budoimos ™ for Biw- és, and conversely edfjuBAnros for edovpBoros, veoypds ® for véos, wérpwos™ for merpédns, and xépcos for énpds. A

1 Hat. 2, 43; Aesch, P. V. 468, Agam. 899, 1234, Cho. 202 ; Soph. Aj. 1146, Trach, 537; Eur. Hec. 1273, etal. In Arist. Ran. 1207, it is from Euripides, vavriAAopwat, which occurs in Hdt. 1. 163; 2. 5,178; 3.6; and in Soph. Ant. 717; Eur. fr. 791, is only found once in Attic Prose, Plat. Rep. 551 C.

? Hdt. 2.17; 4. 45; Eur. Hec, 16, Hipp. 1459, Andr. 969, I. A. 952, Rhes. 437.

® Hat. 4. 181, 182, 185 ; Eur. Heracl. 394.

* Hat. 8.124; Aesch. P. V. 710, Agam. 1070, Eum. 405; Soph. O. R. 808, El 708, 727; Eur. frequently,

5 Hdt. 2. 121; Aesch. Sept. 534; Eur. Hec. 274, et al.

® Hdt. 8. 76; Aesch. Pers. 722, 799, Agam. 307; Eur. Hel. 127, 532, Cycl. 108 (see p. 12, note 3).

7 Hdt. 1. 75, 186, 191, and freq. ; Aesch. P. V. 790, Pers. 497; Soph. Ant. 712; Eur. El. 794. In Aesch. Pers. 497 even the uncontracted Ionic form féeOpoy is retained, Antiphanes (quoted by Athenaeus 1. 22, f.) uses fetOpor, but in a parody of Soph. Ant. quoted.

8 Hat. 1. 60, 122; 7. 189 y; 8. 94; 9. 84. Very frequently in all three tragedians.

® Hat. 9. 76; Soph. Ant. 696, 1003, 1314; Eur. Hel. 154.

40 Hdt. 1.1; Soph. Tr. 537. In Eur. I.T. 1306, Supp. 20=‘ burden.’ In the sense of wretched stuff, chaff, the word is good “bet, Ar. Pax 748, Plut. 796. Cp. poprixds.

‘1 Hat. 1. 118; 6. 119; 8.27; Aesch. P. V. 29, 199, 370, 376; Soph. Aj. 41, 744, Trach, 269, Phil; 328.

12 Hat, 2.177; Aesch. Pers..135.

13 Hdt. 1. 45; 3. 109; Soph. Ant. 566 ; Eur. Heracl. 606.

4 Hat. 7. 57, evgdp. répas, easy to divine; Aesch. P.V.775, 48° obnér’ edfdp- BAnros } xpnopeoia.

18 Hadt. 9. 99, 104; Hippocr. 651, 36 ; 598,12 ; Aesch. Pers. 693; Soph. Phil. 751; Eur. I. T. 1162, et al. Like many others of this class of words, it occurs in the Chorus in Aristophanes and other Comic writers, as Thesm. 701, Ran, 1372; Cratinus Fr. Com. 2. 101.

16 Hdt. 2.8; Eur. I. T. 290, et al.

. - 1 Hat. 2.99; 4.123; Aesch. Agam, 558, Eum. 240, Supp. 178; Soph. Ant.

251, O. R. 1502; Eur. El, 325, etc.

“F)

GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. 21

class by itself consists of forms used adjectively, which in Attic were only substantival, as ‘EAAds? for ‘EAAnviKn, *Tards? for "IAtaky, iaadtys* for immds, and Iepois* for Tlepoixy. In the case of mfovvos® an adjective is used where an Attic writer would prefer a participle, moredov. Of verbs which became modified in Attic.some have been already considered, but to these may be added dyridw ° to dnavtG, mAdQopar™ to mAavGpat, and mrdédccw® to mrjcow. Adverbs are more numerous, such as dyxod°, dyxiora 1, dvéxabev™, dpyjdev , peradOis 8, mdyxv 4, wép %, canvas’. Why these words and others like them were modified as the Attic dialect developed its more distinctive features it would be useless to discuss. The fact of their modifi- ‘cation exists, and may be theorised upon by those who have the mind. But the field is a dangerous one to tread, and justifies the caution of the old proverb, i716 wavrt Ald cxoptiov puddoceo. But if it is difficult to give a reason for mere alterations in the forms of words, in what way are

1 Hat. 4. 78; 6. 98; Aesch. Supp. 243, Pers. 186, 809 ; Soph. Phil. 223 ; Eur. I. T. 17, et al. §

? Hat. 7. 43; Eur. repeatedly.

* Hadt. 4. 136; Soph. O. C. 899; Eur. Supp. 660.

* Hdt. 6. 29; Aesch. Pers. repeatedly.

5 Hadt. 1. 66, 73,92; 2.141; 7. 10,85; 9. 143; Eur. Or. 905, Supp. 121. It is found, however, once in Attic prose, Thuc. 5, 14, Tois &w miovvo,

® Hdt. 1. 166; 4.8; 9.6; Aesch., Soph., Eur.

7 Hat. 2.116; Eur, Or. 56, Rhes. 283, H.F. 1188.

® Hdt. 9. 48; Eur. Bacch. 223.

* In Att. éyyts, Hdt. 1.190; 3. 78, 85, 111; 6. 77; Soph. Frag. 69 (D).

0 Hadt. 1.134; 4.81; 5.79; Aesch. Supp. 1036. In Hat. 2. 143, it is used of time, 6 dyxt0Ta dmo8aywy, a sense which is also found in Antiphon, 115. 25, a signification also attaching to the Attic éyydrara. For Antiphon see p. 30, and note 2.

™ Attic dvwbev: Hdt. 4. 57; Aesch. Cho. 427, Eum. 369.

% Attic & dpxfjs. See infra, Phrynich. Art. 73.

® Attic ads: Hdt. 1.62; Aesch. Eum. 478.

™ Attic mavv: Hdt. 4. 135, etc.;. Aesch. Theb. 641. It is found in Ar. Ran. 1531, but in hexameters.

% Attic xainmep: Hat. 3. 131; Aesch. Agam. 1084, 1203, Sept. 1038, Cho. 570; Soph. Phil. 1068; Eur. Alc, 2.

6 Attic cap@s: Hdt. 1.140; 3.122; 6.82. Herodotus has not the adj. capnyys, but it is found in Aesch, Pers. 634 (chor.), and Soph. Trach. 892 (chor.).

22 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

we to explain the replacement of one term by another etymologically far removed from it? Yet such substitution can be demonstrated beyond debate, and with a precision which in such subjects is rarely attainable. Take for ex- ample the compound dydimodos, which is found constantly in Homer in the sense of handmaiden. There is no trace of it in Attic prose or Comedy, though it survived in Ionic, and is again and again encountered in Tragedy’; Oepdxawwa had driven it from the field. Now Oepdrawa was quite a recent formation from the old masculine word Oepdrov, which, though met with as early as dylrodos, had never- theless not only managed to keep its ground, but driven out a fellow of its own, namely, éxdwv”. Like dylrodos, however, éxdwv enjoyed all its old vitality in Ionic, and its ostracism from Attic was aris case ine by the dignified retirement of Tragedy.

The large mantle which for centuries formed the outer covering of Greeks, and admitted of so many gracefnl adjustments, was in the Homeric age designated as dapos, but in Attic invariably ipdriov. Herodotus and the Trage- dians, however, employ Papos*, and ignore ipdriy* alto- gether. True, papos is read in a passage of the Comic poet Philetaerus quoted by Athenaeus (1. 21, c.), appl otépvois Papos ob Kabjoes, tddrav, pnd dypolkws 4vw ydvaros éppeEe, but Cobet is right in regarding the initial words as mutilated and corrupt, though perhaps Naber's conjecture

4 Ht. 2. 1335. 5. 925 9 76; Eur. Supp. 1115, I. T. 1114, Alc. 59, Or.

1417. It occurs twice in Aristophanes, Ran, 1337 (chorus), and in a fragment (Fr. Com. 2. 947) in a pseudo-oracle.

2 Hat. 5.111; 9.50; Aesch. Supp. 492, 954, Cho. 769; Soph. O, C. 1103, Ant, 1108 ; Eur. Tro, 880, El. 1135.

3 Hdt. 2,122; 9. 109; Aesch. Cho. 11, 1011; Soph. Trach. 916, Fr. 332, 242, 343; Eur. Supp. 286.

4 ipdrvv occurs in Herodotus thrice, 1.9; 2. 47; and 4. 23, but in the two first cases in the plural as equivalent to clothes (Att. éo67s), and in the last in the singular for rag or cloth. Nauck justly rejects the only case of the word’s

"+ occurrence in Tragedy, viz, ina so-called fragment of the Colchides of Sophocles,

Fr. Trag. Soph. 317.

i

GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT, 23

of spvpois does not offer the best means of emending the passage |.

To take another instance, dyyos, a vessel, was in Ionic a word of very general import, and almost as familiar to the surgery as to the pantry”. Now in all senses but the medical ® its place was in Attic usurped by ddpla, although éyyos temained in Tragedy*. In Aristophanes sdpla has not only its original sense of waterpot or pitcher (Eccl. 678, 738, Vesp. 926), but also those of a winepot (Fr. 183), pot of money (Av. 602), and cinerary urn (Av.601). Menander and Antiphanes each wrote a play called ‘Ydpla, probably in the sense of Money-bags, and the term was the recognised designation of the balloting urn® in the Law Courts. Of these meanings, of the very word itself there is not a trace in any dialect but Attic. It is a growth peculiarly Attic, and dating from a time posterior to that in which the Tragic dialect became fixed. There could not be a more striking instance of the vigour, thoroughness, and rapidity, with which the people of Attica recast their old language, and replaced worn and stiff terms by crisp and flexible

innovations.

1 Cobet arranges the words as cretics— ob Kabhoas, raday, pnd drypotkws dvw rod yovaros dyduel. Naber, with doubts about the metre, accepts Cobet’s second line, and thus supplements the first— dypl rept rots opupois ob Kabhoes, radar.

? In Od, 16. 13, for wine; Od. 2, 289, for general goods ; Od. 9. 222, of house- hold vessels; Il. 16. 643, for milk; Hdt. 1. 113=a cinerary urn; 5, 12, a water jar ; in Hippocrates freq. of the vessels of the body, -

5 dyyos itself does not happen to occur with this signification in Attic prose or comedy, but that it was so used may be inferred from xevaryyla, fast, being employed by the comic poet Plato. For most purposes pdéy would be preferred.

* El. 1118, 1205, acinerary urn; Eur. I. T. 953, a wine flagon; lon 32,1337, 1398, 1412, a cradle (dyrimng); El. 55, a water jar.

® Isocr. Trapez. 365 C: ris ob« oldev ipay népvow dvoitavra rds bbpias wal rovs Kpirds teddvra rovs ind ris Bovags elaBAndévras 5 .... awe travot-yev trédpnoe al ceanpacpéva pev joav imd rév mpvrdveon, narerppayopiva 8 ind trav xopyyav, epuddrrovro 3’ tnd Trav rayav ere. Cp. Xen, Hell. 1, 7, 6,

24 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

A word even more instructive is épyva. That it was once in use in Attica is proved beyond question by its deriva- tives épyedév and épyidgm. The latter term is good classical Attic occurring repeatedly in Plato’, and the former form, becoming attached to an official? position, was retained in that connection till long after it was superseded for ordi- nary purposes by fepeds. According to Suidas, dpyedves were. those of cvdAAdyous exovres mepl twas ipwas 7) Oeods ®, and in that sense occurs four times in the speech of Isaeus concerning the inheritance of Menekles (2. 14, 16, 17, 45). Another of his speeches was addressed mpds ’OpyeGvas, and Harpocration quotes the word from Lysias. It is another instance of crystallisation not dissimilar to dxrj and (worip, and, like both these terms, survived in its original sense in the literary trustee of the Attic of the sixth and preceding century—the Tragic dialect. In a fragment of the Mysi# of Aeschylus it is used as iepeds—

motayod Katxov xaipe mpOros dpyesy, - edxais 5€ od (os deomdTas TaLwvlais.

But épyia itself was uncompromisingly disfranchised, and but for Ionic’, Tragedy, and the Chorus of Comedy would have disappeared altogether; so assiduously do Attic writers substitute pvorjpia or teAerai for the older word.

? Plat. Legg. 10. 910, Tov lepd dpy:dfovra: Id. Phaedr. 250 C, rederiy dp- yd{ouev ; cp, 252 D, Legg. 4. 717 B twice; Isocr. Anop. 145 C, wat mpdérov * pev ra rept rods Oeods ob« dvwpddrws ov5' araxtws or’ Cepamevor ob’ dpyiatov.

? Another survival from a similar cause is the spelling fuuBdAAeo@ae for oupBdadrrdr€o0u, in the phrase yvupny fupBadrdrcoOa Tis BovA‘js eis rv Sipov, of communicating a probouleuma of the Senate to the Ecclesia. Up to about 416 z.c, {Uv is invariably used in Inscriptions, but within ten years from that date its place is usurped, inall cases except the phrase in question, which occurs very frequently, but hardly ever with o.

* So Pollux, 8. 107, dpyedves’ of Kata Syuous ev raxrais huepas Ovovres Ovolas twas,

_ * Phot. Lexic. p. 344, 19; Suidas, s. v. épye@ves; Harpocr. s. v. épyedvas (p. 344. 7) is wrong in considering this use an instance of poetical substitution of the particular for the general.

5 Hdt. 2. 51; 5.61; Soph. Trach. 765 ; Eur. Baé. freq., H, F. 613.

GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. 25

The only instance of épya in the senarii of Comedy is curiously significant. The lines! are either paratragedic, or quoted directly from Tragedy, as the lengthening of the v in Kézpov and the occurrence of pedéouca distinctly prove.

Other substantives similarly eclipsed in Attic are very numerous, such as dAkj? by Bondeva, dpdis® by ais, deupy or depn* by tpdxndos, d6ua> by ofxos or olkla, xordnrns ® by xardoxomos, xddos™ by ddfa.or eddogia, Aital® by evxal, bABos® by eddamovta, dydos! by the neuter of dxpos or tyndds, trouwn™ by dikn, orodds® by xévis,

1 Ar, Lys. 831—

“Avip’ dvdp’ dpa mpoat&yra mapatetAnypLevov, Tois THs “Adpodirns dpytos elAnupévor.

& wotvia Kimpou nal KvOjpwv wat Mdpov pedéova’. 10° dpOiy fivrep epxe tiv dddv.

* Hdt. 3. 110; 4.125; Aesch. Sept. 76, et freq.; Soph. O. C. 459, 1524; Eur, freq. It occurs occasionally also in the early prose of Thucydides, as 2. 34. Its other signification of strength had disappeared still sooner, being re- placed by Adpn, but in the derivatives dAipos and dvadms lingered on. For Gdxipos see p. 50. dvadus is equally un-Attic: Hdt. 2. 103; Aesch. Agam. 1224, P. V. 870; Soph. El. 301; (Xen. Cyr. 7. 5. 62; 8. 1 45.) The dis- cussion of Xenophon’s style is reserved.

* Hadt. 4. 81; Aesch. P. V. 880,

* Hat. 1. 51; Aesch. Agam. 329, 875, Eum. 592; Eur. Hec. 154; (Xen. Cyr. 1. 3. 25 5-1. 7.)

® Hdt. 2. 62, In Tragedy with extraordinary frequency. The many passages in which it is found in Comedy are all burlesques of the tragic dialect, as Ach.

ss | g 479, 1072, Thesm. 871,

® Hat. 3. 17, 21; Aesch, Sept. 41, 369; Eur. Rhes. 632.

™ Hdt. 7.8; Aesch. Pers, 455.

® Hdt. 1. 105, 116; 6. 69; in all three tragedians repeatedly. Atocoua occurs in Hdt. 1, 24, and frequently in Tragedy. It is also found in Plato, Rep, 366 A, in a poetical passage, and in Arist. Pax 382 for comic effect.

® Hat. 1. 86, and frequently in Tragedy. Cp. dvéABvos, Hdt. 1. 32, thrice;

_Enur, Antig. Fr. 175; and dvoABos is very common in Tragedy. (Xen. Cyr. 1. 5. 95 4. 2. 44.)

© Hat. 4. 203; 8. 525 9. 25, 56, 59 ; Aesch. Pers, 467, Cho. 4; Eur. Supp. 655; (Xen. Hipparch, 6. 5; 8.3; Re. Eq. 3.7.) In Aristophanes it is met with in Thesm. 1105, and Ran. 1172, but the latter is from Aesch. Cho. 4, as the former is from Euripides.

" Hat, 2. 134; 7.134; Aesch. P. V. 112, 223, 620, et al.; Soph. El. 564; Eur. Tro. 360, et al.; (Xen. Cyr. 6. 1. 11; Antiphon, 120, 25, see p. 30.) Compare dmowa, compensation for injury done, Hat. g. 120; Aesch. Pers. 808, Agam. 1420; Eur. Alc. 7, Bacch. 516. Z

Hat. 2. 100, 140; 4. 35, 172; Aesch. Agam. 820, Cho, 687; Soph. O, R, 21, Ant. 1007, El, 758, 1122, 1198.

26 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

réppat by redevrn, and gopBy? by rpody or otros. With reference to mown and its fellow dmowa, it is worthy of remark that their survival as legal technical terms supplies another argument as to the constitution of old Attic of a similar kind to those suggested by dxryj and dpyedv. Its legal status made dzowva as durable as if it had been rooted to the soil like dr, or like Cworjp founded on a rock. In explaining a law of Solon*, Demosthenes (630. 28) has the words 10 6€, pnd drowday, pH xpqwata mpdrrecOau' Ta yap dmowa xphyara evépacov of madaoi, and dzowa is with this legal sense used in two passages of Plato *.

Of superseded adjectives, alvés*, AGBpds °, Sxépoxos?, arpéxns®, mpdvovs®, and dednros 9, will serve as specimens. Their Attic equivalents were dewds, opodpds, taxvs, axpiBys, mponnOns, and dmpocddéknros. The negatives, advimmos™ and a&pOoyyos *, were used in Ionic and Tragedy in the sense of we(és and ovyév respectively.

Of adverbs which were rejected in mature Attic none

1 Hadt. 2.8; 4.52; 3-97; and frequently in all three tragedians ; (Xen. Cyr. 8. 3. 25; Rep. Lac. ro. 1.)

? Hdt. 1. 202, 211; 4. 122; 7. §0, 107, 119; Soph. Ant. 775, Aj. 1065, Phil. 43.

3 The law he quotes in 629. 22, rods 8 dvdpopdvous efeivar droxreivew ev Ti hpedarg Kal dndyev" AvpaiveOa 5t un, pnd dwoway. Cp. Suid, s. Gramm. Bekk. p. 428, 9, “Amowa, Avrpa & didwoi tis bmép Pdvov 7} cwparos’ OtTw Sddrwy ev vopots, ;

* Legg. 9. 862 C, 7d daolvos éfiAacbév: Rep. 3. 393 E, defapévous drowa,

5 Hadt. 4. 31, 61. 76; Soph. Aj. 706; Aesch. Pers. 930.

© Hdt. 4. 50; 8.12; Soph. Aj. 1147; Eur. I. T. 1393, Cycl. 403, H. F. 253, Or. 697.

7 Hat. 5. 92; Soph. Trach. 1096.

5 Hat. 3. 98, etc.; Eur. Hipp. 261, 1115.

® Hat. 3. 36; Soph. Aj. 119.

10 Hat. 1. 111: Aesch. Supp. 342, and freq.; Soph. O. C. 1126, Trach. 203; Eur. freq. :

1 Hat. 1. 215, fmmérar elot nat dvimmo: Soph. O. C. 899, A€dy dvimmov innd- tv te. Cp. Hat. 2. 108, Atyunros todoa medids maca duimmos wal dvapdagevros yeyove.

@ Hadt.1.116; Aesch. Pers. 206; Soph. Aj. 314; Eur. Or. 956, Tro. 690, etc. It occurs in Plato, but only in the technical sense of consonant as opposed to vowel.

tt =e or

eg

GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. 27

were subjected to so great a reverse of fortune as kdpra, the history of which has already occupied our attention. It was not, however, an isolated case. “EvepOe is one member of a family of words never once met with either in Attic Prose or Comedy, their place having been taken by others. As an adverb évepée gave place to xdrw, and as a preposition to iad, while of evepo. and of évéprepor or véptepo. were replaced by of xdrw or of vexpol. In Hero- dotus évepe governs the genitive in the sense of xdrw in phrases like wav rd évep0e rdv d¢péwv'!, and in Sophocles it is actually transferred to moral subjection when Philoctetes addresses Neoptolemus in the words— ds TOV euav exOpav pw evepber dvr’ dvéotncas Tmépa,

But in true Attic there is not a trace of évepde, vépOe, évép- Tepos, véptepos, or évepor. Accordingly, when Naber would alter vewrépwv to éveprépwy in the lines of Aristophon—

écOtovor be Adxava te kal mlvovow ent rovros Ddwp' POcipas be Kal rpiBwva tiv 7 ddovolav ovdels dv tropelvere TOY vewrepwv—

his ingenuity may be admired, but it has introduced into Comic Verse a word utterly uncongenial to its style. The lines are preserved by Diogenes Laertius (8. 38), and, from a longer fragment which precedes, it is clear that they form part of an account of the world below given by one who was fortunate enough to be only a sojourner there. He describes the squalor of the Pythagorean shades as pecu- liarly grateful to Pluto, and speaks of them and their fellows as of xdrw or of vexpoi—both genuine Attic ex- pressions. But to take évéprepo. from its fit home in

1 Hdt. 4. 65; 2.13 bis. So Aesch. P. V. 500, Pers. 228, Cho. 125, Eum. 1023; Soph. Phil. 666; Eur. Phoen. 505, Tro. 459, H. F. 263. It is also very frequent in all three tragedians = of nat.

28 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Tragedy and from associates like BéAos in the Aeschylean trimeter (Cho, 286)—

TO yap oKorewwov TOV eveptépwv BéAos— and place it among the moderns in Comedy is one of those errors almost inseparable from critical inquiry, but which the present work is to some extent intended to minimise.

Of Attic writers Thucydides alone uses ékas, and that only coupled with the negative, as ovy éxas, in two passages. The word occurs in Ionic and Tragedy as the equivalent of the Attic aéppw*. This is one out of several examples which tend to prove that Attic prose as written by Thucy- dides was not yet matured. ,

It was from a different cause that Xenophon’s use of words uncongenial to Attic arose, and in the adverbial use of the neuter adjective péya*® he supplies another instance of the injury which his sojourn abroad did to the purity.of his style.

The use of jos * for Hvixa, and of éore® for dotep, dre, os, merits a passing notice, as does also the employment of médas ° with a genitive in the sense of the Attic éyy’s. The word is common enough in Prose and Comedy in the mean- ing of wAjoiov, but on no occasion does it govern the geni- tive case or stand alone without the definite article to give it an adjectival force.

But as wédas had in the development of Attic been to a great extent superseded by mjoion, so its congener

? Thue. 1. 69, 80, * &eas: Hdt. 8. 144, ody éxas xpévou mapeora: Aesch. Agam. 292, 1650;

Soph. Phil. 41, O. C. 1668; Eur. Heracl. 673, H. F. 198, El. 246; éxaorépw, Hat. 2. 169; 3. 89, etc.; Eur. H. F. 1047.

% Xen. Cyr. 3. 2. 4, wéya otppaxov: 5.1. 28, wey’ eddaipovas: Hat. 1. 32, péya tdovotos: Aesch. P. V. 647, wéy’ cddaivev: Eur. Hec. 493, Or. 1338. The case is different with verbs, as péya pépet, which is good Attic, Plat. Rep. 449 D.

* Hdt. 4. 28; Hippocr. 85 E, 599. 40; Soph, Trach. 155, 531, O. R. 1134.

5 Hadt. 5. 19, 83; 1. 8, 6, 94, ete.; Aesch. P. V. 452, Sept. 62, etc.; Soph. Ant. 1033, etc.; Eur. freq.

® Hat. 8. 39,138; Aesch, Pers. 684, and very frequent in all three tragedians.

iP ahi Aad Sl

aay eS eae ee

_

oy

a os

=a.” ~

GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT, 29

mehaGw' had altogether given way to mAnoid¢w. For, though quoted from Plato, Symp. 413 B, it there occurs in a pro- verb again referred to in Rep. 371, 6 yap mwadatds Adyos & éxet, Os Suorov dpolm del weAACEL.

The two verbs pynviw? and yxododya® sank their differ-

-ences in the Attic @vpodpar—as dalvyyi* and dowd * were

combined in éo716. The same law of parsimony is ob- served persistently at work in rejecting useless synonyms throughout the whole period during which the Athenians were new-modelling their language. The verb oelw drove out d0v6° and wdddw’, while of the pairs Opdcxw® and mdG, Taréopar® and yevouat, Oay8G' and davydw, dvddve 1 and dpéoxw, avd6 ” and A€ya, orefxw and epxopuat, dvwyal* and kededw, épdw™ and roi6, OeomiGm ® and pavrevoua, the

* Hadt. 2. 19; 4.181; 9.74; Aesch. P. V. 712, 807, Supp. 300; Soph. O.C. 1107; Eur Hec. 1289, Phoen. 279, Med. 91, etc.; (Xenophon, Cyr. 1. 4. 7, 20, etc.).

? Hat. 5. 84; 7. 229; 9.7; Aesch. Eum. 101; Soph. O. C. 965, 1274, Ant. 1177, Trach. 274, El. 570. Cp. duqmros, Hdt. 9. 94; Aesch. Agam. 64: ; Supp. 975.

_ * Hdt. 7. 31; Soph. Ant. 1235, Phil. 374; Eur. Alc. 5, Tro. 730.

* Hdt. 1. 162; Aesch. Eum. 305; Eur. Or. 15; cp. I. A. 707. Mid. Hdt. 1. 211; 2. 100; 3. 18; Soph. Trach. 771, 1088, etc.; Eur. Tro. 770, Cycl. 326.

* Hat. 1. 129; Eur. Ion 982, Alc. 549, Cycl. 248, 373, 550, El. 836.

® Hdt.4 2; 7.1; Aesch Fr., dovoidca nal tpémovea Tipp’ dvw Kato.

7 Hat. 1. 141; 3. 128; 7. 140; 8.120; Aesch. Cho. 524; Soph. El. 710, Ant. 396; Eur. freq.

® imepOpwonw, Hat. 2. 66; 3.134; Aesch. Ag. 297, 827; Eur. Hec. 823.

® Hat. 1. 73; 2. 37, 47, 66, 187; Aesch. Agam. 1408; Soph, Ant, 203. In Arist, Pax 1092, it occurs in a comic adaptation from Homer. ‘

10 Hdt. 1. 113 y; Soph. Ant. 1246; Eur. I. A. 1561.

u Hadt. 1. 151; 2.25; 8. 29, etc.; Soph. Ant. 89, 504; Eur. freq.

2 Hadt. 2. 57, etc.; Aesch., Soph., Eur.

13 Hdt. 1. 9; 3. 76; 9. 11. Very frequent in all three tragedians. So drocreixw = anépxopat, in Hdt, 9. 56; Aesch. Supp. 769; Soph. El. 799, Trach, 693.

™ Hat. 3. 81; 7. 104, etc.; Aesch. P. V. 947; Soph. Trach. 1247; Eur. Or. T19, et al.

1s Hdt. 1. 119, 131, 137; 2. 121; 7. 83, etc.; Aesch. Agam. 933, 1649, and freq.; Soph. Trach. 935, and freq.

16 Hdt. 1. 47, 48; 4.61, 67, 155; 8.135; Aesch. Agam. 1210, 1213; Soph. O. C. 388, 1428, 1516, Ant. 1054, 1091, Phil. 610, El. 1425; Eur. Andr, 1161,

30 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

latter alone survived in each. The same law is exemplified in the disappearance from Attic of the weak aorist of Balyw. That tense, with its causal signification, is familiar to every student of Ionic! and the Tragic poets, but it is not encountered in any Attic writer of higher authority than Xenophon. A synonym to fi8d@m was regarded as unnecessary. But marked as this law of parsimony is in Attic, it is occasionally violated, sometimes accidentally, sometimes from malice prepense, by acknowledged masters of Attic diction. Antiphon’s style is not so far removed from suspicion that do7alpw* can be regarded as a case in point. Like Thucydides, he wrote at a period when Attic had not reached its full strength, and now and again lapsed into old faults; but in the vigorous rhetoric of his junior, Andocides, it is strange to meet with a term like éravpécOat *. Yet the word occurs in the beginning of his speech on his Recall (20. 2), cal por péyrorov Oadyua mapéoryke rh more ovToL of dvdpes SewGs obrw TepiKdovTar et TL buds xpi) aya- Ody eu0d emavpécOar, and ought to be carefully marked. It is a distinct instance of an old word quite uncalled for, and stands on a very different footing from the Ionic and old-Attic dpicrevs *, which is appropriately used in speaking of the siege of Troy in a funeral oration ascribed, though perhaps erroneously, to Demosthenes (1392. 4), rocodr yap dpelvovs trav ent Tpolay otparevoapévev voulCowr av cixdtws, boov of pev e€ amdons ‘EAddos dvres apioreis déK ern Tijs ’Aolas éy xwplov modtopkodvres pddts efAov kre. In ordinary Phoen, 1598, etc. 0éomopa, for the Attic pavretoy, is found Hat. 1. 29; Aesch, Frag. 81; Soph. O. R. 971; Eur. freq.

1 In a causal sense are used éuPfoa in Hat. t. 46; Eur. Cycl. 467, Heracl. 845: dvaBjoa, in Hdt, 1. 80: dmoBijoa, in 5. 63, etc.: éxBjom, in Eur, Hel. 161 : eloBhoa, Alc. 1055, Bacch 466. é

2 Antipho, 119, 39, dwpl rijs vuerds vexpois domalpovor cuvrvxdv; Hat. 1, 111; g. 120; Aesch. Pers. 976; Eur. I. A. 1157, El. 843.

8 Hdt. 7.180; Hippocr. de Morb. 4. 498, 29, 32; 502-53 503. 25; 504. 22, 25, 47; Aesch. P, V. 28; Eur. I. T. 529, Hel. 469.

* Hdt. 6.81; Aesch. Pers. 306; Soph. Aj. 1304; Eur, I. A, 28, Phoen, 1226, 1245, Rhes. 479, Ion 416.

a

5

=

ee ©

ila ah ae I

i aaa

GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. gt

circumstances the use of such a word would form a strong argument against the genuineness of the work, but as it is, dpioreds is here natural and effective.

It has been a difficult task to conduct this inquiry with the sobriety which such questions demand. There is no limit to the extraordinary results which might have been obtained by allowing the imagination to run riot over the whole field of Greek life in the period under consideration. But the results would, for all practical purposes, have been valueless, The habit of generalising without a basis of facts, and of theorising on vague impressions, affords agree- able occupation to one who has acquired it, but brings little instruction to others. The study of Greek has suffered severely from a want of that definiteness which was at one time the peculiar honour of English scholarship, and it is the aim of this work to help, in its modest way, towards a rigidly scientific study of the phenomena of the Greek language.

THE LESSONS OF COMEDY.

THE position taken up in the preceding pages regarding the diction of Tragedy receives singularly striking con- firmation from an enlightened study of the eleven complete plays of Aristophanes and the Fragments of that master and the other writers of Comedy who preceded or followed him. The language of Comedy is the language of every- day life, but in the case of the Attic stage this fact has a significance of its own. No citizen of Athens is ever represented as abusing his mother tongue in the way that Dogberry or Dame Quickly abuses the King’s English. Even the slaves of Athenian households have excellent Attic put into their mouths. But a stranger, if introduced on the stage, is always represented as talking the language or dialect of the people to which he belongs, or, like Parson Evans, as modifying Attic by retaining the vocal pecu- liarities of his countrymen. Such treatment always adds colour to the Comedian’s work, and beyond question Aris- tophanes would not have spared his contemporaries if, as usually spoken, their language had contained vulgarisms either in vocabulary or pronunciation. The same concen- tration which brought about so extraordinarily rapid a development of the Attic dialect, as has been already in- dicated, was also the occasion of its being used with pro- priety. It was not the speech of a numerous, widely- extended, variously educated people with a vast variety of opposing interests, but it was one out of many dialects of

THE LESSONS OF COMEDY. 33

a common language, and was confined toa race of one origin located in an area so limited that every one of its inhabit- ants was constantly coming into more or less immediate contact with every other. It was, moreover, the language at once of a democracy and an imperial people placed in that position which, in peoples no less than in individuals, developes signally dignified and commanding qualities, The lesson of enterprise once taught, as to the Athenians it was taught by Marathon, the resolve to venture all— dor 7 yeyovévat apmpos 7) TeOvnxévar—

becomes paramount and brings out the grander, if not the higher, side of human nature. The Athenian government was a democracy, but it was not one in the ordinary sense of the term. There was not a member of it but would have rejected, as an insult to his understanding, any pro- posal to give slaves or aliens a voice’in the state, or to place him as an Athenian on the same level as an Islander, a Boeotian, or an Oriental. The state was to him more of a reality than it has ever been to any citizen since. The collective will of his fellows supplied in the Athenian, as in every other Greek of that age, the directing and restrain- ing power which the individual conscience supplies in us, To a Greek the State was Conscience; and Socrates did not alter this fact, although the higher rule of personal responsibility made part of his teaching.

These facts explain the phenomenon that an Athenian comic poet had no occasion to deviate from literary Attic in giving a faithful representation of his countrymen; and accordingly the testimony of a writer like Aristophanes, with regard to the dialect of Attica at his own time, is much more straightforward than in other circumstances would have been possible. In-fact without Comedy it would be impracticable to decide with accuracy many questions af- fecting the purity of Attic. Prose was corrupted and interpolated with impunity by consecutive generations of

D

34 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS.

‘ignorant critics and negligent copyists, but by the rules of verse the scholar is enabled, in most cases, at once to detect late alterations, and the information acquired by a study of verse-corruptions is invaluable in tracking the corruptions which disfigure the text of prose writers.

A different position in regard to Attic-Comedy has been taken up by some scholars, but by none whose judgment is worthy of attention. Here, as in other cases which will come under our notice, Veitch? has been misled by attend- ing to the letter divorced from the spirit. No one will insist that every word, expression, or construction which occurs in the pages of Comedy necessarily belongs to Attic Greek, but it will be easy to demonstrate that there © is no variation from Attic usage which, if rightly con- sidered, has not some lesson to teach us with reference to the development and completed facts of the Athenian language.

Thus one set of facts securely establishes the literary phenomenon so well known as affecting Greek as a whole, and on which the theory of Tragic diction propounded in the last chapter is based. The chorus is couched in that literary modification of Doric in which all choric poetry was always written. Hexameter verse was, from its tra- ditions and necessities, similarly, though not equally, pri- vileged, and, though not composed in Epic, yet admitted of words and forms of words unknown in genuine Attic. Even in Anapaestic verse a few Epic irregularties were allowed. No evidence could be more conclusive that the existence, side by side even in the same play, of three or four distinct literary dialects was to an Athenian perfectly natural, and that the change from one set of grammatical forms to another was for him as easy to make as the change from one metrical system to another. Certainly it must have appeared to an Athenian no more extra-

1 Greek Verbs, Irregular and Defective, 3rd ed., p. 536.

THE LESSONS OF COMEDY, 35

ordinary to hear a chorus in Doric than to have a Dorian introduced as talking his mother tongue, to listen to a Tragic poet or a character from Tragedy conversing on the comic stage in phraseology otherwise obsolete in Attica, than to understand the Ionicisms of the Islanders who did business with him in the Piraeus. The ability to keep all these styles distinct indicates a sense of language highly developed, and is a fact that ought never to be lost sight of in the critical study of Greek literature. It makes the isolated appearance of an un-Attic form or expression, in a writer otherwise careful, a very suspicious circumstance, and raises the study of Attic almost to the dignity of an exact science.

The consideration of un-Attic words and phrases in Aristophanes will be serviceable in two ways. It will bring into bold relief the fact, which cannot too often be affirmed, that the diction of Tragedy was essentially a survival, and not merely a highly poetical mode of ex- pression ; and, on the other hand, it will explain to some extent the rapidity with which a diction formulated in one century was left behind by the living speech in another.

Aristophanes seldom let slip an opportunity of ridiculing Euripides, and Cratinus invented the verb Eipimdapicroda- vi¢ew to express uncompromising lampoon. The method employed was parody; and either in parody or caricature the Tragic dialect is repeatedly presented to the student of Comedy side by side with the ordinary Attic mode of expression. True, Euripides introduced many modern- isms into his verse, such as the more frequent use of Botropa for 20é\w and de? for xpy: but, at the same time, he tried to disguise these innovations by antique manner- isms like the employment of oé@ev and éuéOev for the possessive pronouns, and mori for mpds. This fact should be kept in mind in reading the pages that follow; but it does not to any great degree affect the point under

D2

36 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

discussion—the contrast between the Attic and Tragic dialects as illustrated by parody.

It will be convenient to treat the question of parody in Attic Comedy as a whole, and to consider, not only those passages in which Tragedy is caricatured, but also the few others in which the Epic and Lyric styles are introduced into the regular metres for purposes of comic effect. Parody, as found in the chorus, does not much concern us, and may be dismissed with a short notice.

Parody in the Choric passages occurs occasionally in Aristophanes and other Comic poets. In Ran. 1309 ff. Aeschylus strings together many lines from the choric songs of different plays of Euripides —kepxldos dodod pedéras coming from the Meleager, the three following lines from the Electra, and olvdvOas ydvos duméAov and wepiBadd’, ® Téxvov, @dévas from the Hypsipyle, while line 1339—

GAAG pot, Guimodo, AVxvov tpare, is derived from the Temenidae of the same Tragic poet. A fragment of another lost play of Euripides is inserted bodily in Acharnians 659-662. The passage as preserved by Clement of Alexandria ’—

mpos Tad’ 8, Te xp Kal Tmadaydode,

kal may én euol rexrawecbw"

TO yap «0 per euod

kal 7d Slkavoy EVppayov éorat,

Kod pymo? GAG Kaka tpdoowr, was by Aristophanes only slightly altered to suit his purpose. Similarly, the first few lines of the strophe in Pax 775, and the antistrophe in 796, are from the Oresteia of Stesichorus, as two lines of the Knights (1263-1265) are parodied from Pindar. Beginning with the exact words of Stesichorus and Pindar, Aristophanes in each case ends with a fréer parody. The lines of Pindar—

1 Cicero quotes ll. 1-3 in Ep. ad Att. 8, 8. 2, and 1. 3 in ib, 6.1. 8.

THE LESSONS OF COMEDY. 37

Ti KddAvoy Gpxouevourw 7) KaTaTavopévoow 7 BaddGwvdy te Aare xa Ooay trav €Adreipay deioa;

are quoted direct to xaramavoyévoicw, but the rest are only represented by 7 Oodv tnmwv édarfpas deldew, and the passage from the Oresteia is similarly modified, as is seen from comparing the parody with the original words as given by the Scholiast—

todd xpi) Xapitwv daydpara KadAukopov tuvely Pptyiov pedros eLevpdvta aBpas pos émepxop.evov.

Examples of less distinct parody, when little more was intended than to suggest a well-known passage of Tragedy, are found in Eq. 973—

Hoicroy pdos jy<pas, and in Av. 1470— TohAG 67) Kal Kawa Kal Oav- paor eénentoperda, Kat dewa mpdypar cldouev" éatt yap dévdpov Teduxds kre.

In the former Aristophanes had in mind the beginning of the first chorus of the Antigone of Sophocles, and in the latter the begianing of the second, while in its fourth line he went on to suggest the famous chorus in the Oedipus Coloneus.

But, as the discussion of parody in the chorus: does not materially affect the present inquiry, it is necessary to refrain from further details, and to devote the space so saved to the more important question of the kinds of parody encountered in the regular metrical systems. of Comedy. ;

With those parodies in which the sentiment merely and not the words is parodied, we have nothing to do. Strattis, in a passage preserved by Pollux (9. 124)—

38 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

el? Avos pev melOerar Tots rardfors

bray éywow, “"E€ex’, & pir’ irre? — ridiculed the lines of the Phoenissae, in which Euripides introduced Jocasta as expostulating with Eteocles (1. 546)—

0 FAtos pev vd te dovrever Bporois,

ov & otk dvéber dwpdrwv ew ioor; but he did not retain their Tragic colour, as would have been the case if wef@era: had not been substituted for dovdeve. To bring the children’s catch’, corresponding to that of the English nursery rhyme—

'* Rain, rain, go away, Come again another day,’ into association with what were probably two well-known lines of Euripides, was sufficient for his purpose. The diction of Tragedy, however, is parodied in two ways. Either lines are quoted without alteration from’ the Tragic poets, in humorous contrast with the circum- stances with which they are associated, or the dialect of Tragedy is put into the mouth of a writer of Tragedy, or a god, or hero. Occasionally also expressions are used for no other reason but to caricature the grandiose style of the older rival of Comedy on the Attic stage. Consequently, the most practicable plan of approaching the fact of distinctions of dialect presented by parody in _Comic dialogue, is to trace the use of questionable words, forms, or expressions; and in all cases it will be seen that modes of expression inadmissible in Prose were equally inadmissible in Comedy, except when they were employed from malice prepense and to give colour to the work. Attic writers used dré0avov, dro0dvw, amoOdvoyn, dao-

1 The catch occurs again in the Njou of Aristophanes— A€fers dpa ; Gonep ra madi’, *"Efex’, @ pid’ Fre,” The passage is quoted by Suidas, who adds, kwAdpidy 7: mapoyuddes ind Tov mraidiov Aeyépevov Stay emweph Wuxous SvTos.

THE LESSONS OF COMEDY. 39

Oaveiv, dmoPavaer, never €Oavor, Odve, etc., karéOavor, karOavdy, etc. Yet in Aristophanes xardaveiy occurs in Ran. 1477, édavov in Thesm. 865, davdy in Ach. 893. But if in these three passages it is proved that the Comic poet was parody- ing Euripides, not only are the rules of Attic vindicated, but some light is thrown upon the history of the Attic dialect.

The senarii in Ran. 1477— tis oldey et TO Civ pev éore kardaveiv, TO mveiv d& demvety, TO bE Kabeddew Kgdiov ; had their prototype in the Polyidus of Euripides—

tis oldev ef TO Civ pév ott xarOaveiv,

TO karOaveiy 5 Chv Kdtw voplCerar; lines which are quoted by Plato in the Gorgias (492, E), and from Ran. 1082, are proved to have been spoken by a woman. They were probably the words of Pasiphaé discussing the fate of Glaucus, her son by Minos, who, unknown to his parents, had been drowned in a vessel of honey, but was restored to life by Bis As to Thesm. 865—

wWoxal 5 modAral bv Su el Txapyavdptas

poaiow éavov— the words are those of Helen in the play of Euripides named after her (Il. 52, 53), and repeated, with the ne- cessary alterations, by the messenger who reports (Il. 609, 610) to Menelaus her miraculous disappearance—

tocdvoe NEEac’, @ Taratmwpo. Ppdyes,

tddavés 7 ’Ayaol, 60 éw emt Sxapavdptois

axraiow “Hpas pnxavats eOvyckere.

The third passage forms the last words of the enthusiastic

1 Cp. Eur, Fr. 830 (Phrixus)— tis 8 oldey ei Gv rode b KéxAnra Oaveiv, 7d Civ 6 OvqoKew eori; TARY dpas Bporav vosovaw of BAémoyres, of 5 dAwAdTES ovdey vooovow ovdt KeKTnvTa KaKd,

40. THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

address of Dicaeopolis in the Acharnians to an eel from

lake Copais— pnde yap Oaveév Tore

god xwpls elnv evrerevtALmpévns 1,

and is a brutal parody on the words of Admetus in the Alcestis (1. 367)— pynde yap Oavev Tore cod xwpls elnv, Tis mdvns muoTHs Emol. This adaptation of Aristophanes was in turn referred to by Philetaerus in a couple of lines quoted by Athenaeus (7. 280 D) from his Comedy Oivoriudy— ov yap Oavav byTovl dv eyxervv payors’, ovd’ év vexpotou mérreTar yapjAtos. Similar results are obtained by a consideration of the Tonic * and Tragic verb orvy6. The word is quite unknown to Attic prose, but nevertheless occurs three times in Aristophanes,—Ach. 33, Ib. 472, and Thesm. 1144. The last quotation is from the chorus, and may be disregarded, but the other two lines are iambic trimeters. The latter— kal ydp ely’ dyav dxAnpos, ob boKGy pe KOLpdvous oTvyety, is from the Oeneus of Euripides; and besides orvyciy contains the Tragic word xolpavos. Of the former line— oTvyay pev dotv, Tov 8 eydov dhyov Tod», the Scholiast remarks, 6 orixos ék tpaywdias, and he is . undoubtedly right. The thoroughly un-Attic word ddvw* is found in the senarii in Vesp. 112—

1 The true reading, see Phryn, Art. 30. fin.

2 There is no necessity to read, with Naber, ov« daro8avdy yap dv mor’ éyxeAuy payors, as his chief objection, namely the occurrence of @aydy, is made invalid by the circumstances stated above. The MSS, have od yap davdy ye Shroud’ &y- XeAvy payors, which Porson emended. The simple é@avoy, etc. became common enough in post-Macedonian Comedy, but not before.

3 orvy®, Hat. 7. 236; Aesch. P. V. 37, 46, Sept. 410, 1046, etc. ; Soph. Phil.

87, etc.; Eur. freq. dmoorvy®, Hat. 2. 47 ; 6. 129; Eur. Ion 488 (chor.), * The word is also Ionic. Hippocr. Mept MapGev, p. 563, bwd 58 ris Kaxins

qv

—— 2 ¥

THE LESSONS OF COMEDY. 41 Toiatr’ ahve, vovOerovpevos 8 det padrdov bixd¢er.

It comes from the Sthenoboea of Euripides, quoted by the Scholiast and by Plutarch—

To.adr adver’ vovderovpevos 8 "Epws paGAAov méCer!. In trochaic tetrameters, in Ach. 690, Meineke reads— elr GAveu kal daxpter Kab A€yer mpos Tovs PlAous.

but the mere word of the Scholiast ? must not be allowed to outweigh both manuscript authority and the distinct

‘testimony of all other Attic literature against the verb

add. Aristophanes, beyond question, wrote what the manu- scripts give, «ira Ave.

Another signally instructive word is the aorist @uodov. No Attic prose writer of authority* uses it; and yet it occurs in Aristophanes nine times, and in other Comic poets twice. Of the Aristophanic instances three are met with in lyrical passages (Av. 404, Thesm. 1146, 1155) and

' require no discussion. Its use in Lys. 743—

® norv’ EidelOvr’, enloyes tod réxov, éws dy eis Govov pdrw ’yo xoplov,

_ is to be explained in the same way as épylots, wedéovoa, and

Kizpou in 832-34 of the same play (see p. 25). It is a burlesque imitation of Tragic diction.

The play upon words would be sufficient. reason for its repeated appearance in Eq. 15-26, even if the whole pas- sage was not a comic extension of the lines in the Hip- polytus (345-351) in which Phaedra discusses with the Nurse her unnatural passion.

Tod aiparos dAvwy Kal ddnyovéww 6 Ovpds Kady epédnerar: Aesch. Sept. 391 ; Eur. Cycl. 434, Or. 277, Hipp. 1182. 1 Cp. Aesch. Sept. 391— Tovatr’ GAvwv Tais imepxomas cayais. 2 "Edy bid rod ¢, ddodv Ce, Edy 5 xwpis Tod ¢, Gaver. 3 Xen, An. 7. 1. 32. ‘

42 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Plutarch, in Mor. p. 220 E, 225 E, puts the word into the mouth of Lacedaemonians; and that he did so justly is proved by Ar. Lys. 984, where the Lacedaemonian herald is represented as saying—

Kapv€ éydv, ® Kupodvie, vat To od

euohov and Sardpras meph ray dvaddayav' and by Ib. 1263 and 1297 in a choric song recited by Lacedaemonians. The remaining passages—a fragment of Cratinus, one of Strattis, and another of Aristophanes (Fr. Com. 2. 85, 778, 1201),—would certainly be explicable in a similar way if their context was known. The exist- ence of the compounds airdéuodos and adrowodd, and the frequency with which the simple word is met with in Tragedy, makes it evident that the word was in common use in Attica at a period not very far removed from the date of the great Attic writers in Prose and Comedy.

The word dAytve is a stranger to Attic prose}, but it is nevertheless encountered in the couplet of Eupolis—

od ydp, wa Thy Mapadér tiv eudy paxny, xXalpwv tis ad’rGv roipov Gdryvvel Kéap®, which Longinus, in his work De Sublimitate (16. 3), records as the origin of the famous adjuration of Demosthenes, pa tovs Mapabdr zpoxwbvvetvcavras *, Be this as it may, the verses are a parody on the lines of the Medea (394-397) in _ which she invokes Hecate— ob ydp, pa THY d€oToWar iv éyo céBw Madtota mdvtwv Kal ~vvepydv eidopny, ‘Exarnv, prxois valoveay éotias éuijs, xalpwv tis aitav tobpdy adyuvet Kéap. * Xenophon (Apol. 8) not only employs this word, but actually of physical

pain, vdcots dAyuvdpevos, a sense otherwise unknown. * From the Ajyo:, and probably the words of Miltiades— ‘Nae per Marathone quod commisi proelium Gaudebit nemo cor meum qui afflixerit.’’ Grotius. 8 De Corona, 297. 11,

ey,

Ee ee ee ee a a a ee ee ee BB : v 4 r “ ess ‘ :

THE LESSONS OF COMEDY. 43

But of all un-Attic words Adoxw deserves most notice. Here, if anywhere, is a well-marked instance of Evpiméa- piotopavicpes. Of Comic poets Aristophanes, as far as we know, alone used the verb, and it is quite alien to Attic prose; but that the term was a favourite with Euripides was reason sufficient why it should not be rare in Aristo- phanes. In Ach. 410 the question, ri A€Aaxas ; is appro- priately put into the mouth of Euripides, who, throughout the scene with Dicaeopolis, consistently talks in the Tragic dialect, as ra ota rpvyn; 418; Aaxidas métrAwV, 423; Ta dvotwh TeTAGuaTa, 426; Tndrépov paxdpata, 432; ® Zed dudaTa Kat Kardénta TavTaxn, 4353 TvKvA yap AETTA pnXava ppevt, 445; amedOe Aalvwv ocrabudv, 449; Tl 8, & Tddas, ce Todd exer TA€Kovs xpéos ; 454, etc.

As belonging to the language of deities and heroes it falls with propriety from the lips of Dionysus in Ran. o/—

yovysov b& Troutiy dv ody etpors Err Gyrav dv, dotis pijpa yevvatov AdKor,

and of Hermes in Pax 381—

GN’, & péX, bd Tod Ards dpadsvvOjoopa, el pi) TeTOpHow Tadta Kai AaKkyoopa..

The mortal Trygaeus shrinks from hearing the God ele- vating his voice and deprecating him in the words, yj voy Aakhons, Alooopual o°, Gpytdvov, turns to the Chorus, demand- ing that they also. should také measures to prevent so tragic a catastrophe—

elmé pow, TL mdoxer, Gvopes; Eotar’ exmemAnypEvoL. @ movnpot, pi owwmar’ ef b€ pH AaKyoerat,

Like dyaddvvOjooua and the ridiculous reropijcw, the aorist €\axov and the future Aaxjoowa belong to the language of Olympus, and accordingly the Scholiast’s remark on Plut. 39—

44 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

tl bqra DoiBos édakev ex Tov oTeppdtov! ;

is almost unnecessary — rpayixérepov amepyvaro Tpocdiactpwr, &s pacw, Eipimidny. In Ach. 1046, Adoxwy is uttered by the Chorus, and in Eq. 1018 is part of a pseudo-oracle, couched in hexameter verse, and containing words and forms like fpd¢ev, taxev, ddvro.o, o€Oev, just as in another such oracle a few lines on (1036-1040) réer is found where re€erat would be required in Attic. The same peculiarities of diction, arising from the same cause, are encountered in a passage ascribed by Athenaeus (6, 241 C) to Cratinus the younger— Képvdov tov xadxorimov reptdagor -

ov pi) col vopueis adrov pndev Karadelerw,

pnd diov Kow7 peta totrov mémoTe dalton,

Tod Koptdov' mpokéyw cou exer yap xeipa Kparady

XaAkhv, axduatov, ToAY KpeitTw TOD Tupds adTod.

Other examples of the Olympian and Tragic speech,

almost as striking as Adoxe, will be readily noted in reading Aristophanes, as, for instance, in the dialogue between Iris and Pisthetaerus in Av. 1200 ff. Pisthetaerus’ talks excellent Attic, but Iris Olympic—

pnroopayeivy te Bovddros ew eoxdpats

lal et Kviay 7 ayuids. 1232.

deloac’ Srws py cov yévos TavedeOpov

Awds paxhAn wav dvacrpéwer dfn,

Avyvis 8 cdma Kal dduov TepimTvxas

Karav0addoet cov Aikupvlais Bodais.

e 1239.

Similarly the women in the Thesmophoriazusae talk Attic, but Mnesilochus and Euripides employ the 7yragic dialect, as in 871—

1 Cp. Eur. I. T. 976— évredbev avdiv tpimodos éx xpuvcod AaKkwv SoiBds pw? émepipe Sedpo kre.

THE LESSONS OF COMEDY, 45

Eip. Tis rv’? epguprOv dwudrov exer xpdros, boris E€vovs d€£arto tovtiy oddw

kdpvovras éy xey@re Kal vavaylats ;

Mono. pares rad’ éori pédabpa, xre.,

and this is sustained throughout the whole passage.

In his Xefpwr Pherecrates (as quoted by Plutarch, de Mus. p. 1146) introduces Mousike as complaining to Dikaiosune of her fallen estate. Her first words are a burlesque of Tragic diction—

AéEw pev odk akovea, col te yup Kvew

euol re A€Lar Ovuds Hdoviy exer

_ Occasionally some exceptionally forced metaphor of Tragedy, or some other mode of expression unusually grandiloquent, is singled out by the poet for ridicule. There is no special propriety in the Sycophant of the Plutus (1. 854 ff) departing from ordinary language, but Aristophanes seized the opportunity of casting merited ridicule on such expressions as deAala ovykéxpayar dda in _ the Antigone (1. 1311), and Téxpnooay olktp rode cvyKexpa- pévny in the Ajax (I. 895) of Sophocles—

olor Kaxodaluwy, os anddAwda SbeldaLos,

kal tpls Kaxodalywv Kal rerpdkis kal mevrdeis kal dwdexdxis kal pupidkis’ lod, iod,

otrw Todvpédpo ovykéxpapar datpovi.

Reasons equally just and good might be given for every Tragic form or expression occurring in Comedy, but it would be tedious and useless to enumerate all. Again and again the question recurs in the critical study of Attic Greek, and it is no rare experience to find the most dis- tinguished critics advocating an alteration of all the manu- scripts, simply because they have never tried to estimate, as is done in this inquiry, the extraordinary ease with

which an Athenian of the best age moved among the - various co-existent literary dialects of his time.

46 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

There is a curious example of the way in which mere caricature affects the language of Comedy in the case of the aged ‘amante’ in the Plutus. In order to delineate her affectation and intenseness, Aristophanes puts excep- tional words into her mouth. The adjective éxvduios in Classical Greek is found only in one passage, namely, Pindar—

gota d& OdpBer dvopdpo TépTv@ Te pixels elde yap exvdusov Afpa te Kal dtvay viod" Nem. 1. 56. and the adverb occurs nowhere but in two lines of this play.: In 1. 981 the lady complains—

kal yap éxvopulws wo joxdvero, and Chremylus repeats the word in ‘chaff in 1. 992, and in a form even more intense—

Aéyets CpGvr GvOpwrov éxvoyidrara, yews ep p

It is of a piece with her love for diminutives', and very telling.

The parodies in hexameter verse are of little importance compared with those which the senarii afford. They are numerous enough, and not uninteresting, but a careful study of them would be of no value in the present inquiry as to the facts which affect the purity of the Attic dialect ‘in Comedy. The presence of a word in Comic hexameter verse can never enfranchise it as Attic, and consequently little can be gained by pointing out those passages in which the eccentricities of the hexameter metre are ex- aggerated.

The case of pseudo-oracles has already been discussed,

1 The marked caricature in which the old woman is depicted forms an ex- cellent argument for avoiding a solecism by reading in 1020 mov for pov. oCew Te Ths xpbas Epackev HSU ov, sweetly, really, Mand II are frequently confounded in MSS., as in Eur. 1. A. 761, mayrécvvor in several MSS. for payréovvor,

Le

THE LESSONS OF COMEDY. 47 and with these may go the utterance of the seer Hierocles in Pax 1075—

ov ydp Tm Tobr earl plrov paxdpecot Oeoiow, gvddridos Ajfa mply Kev AdKos Oty tpyevarot”

regarding which Trugaeus inquires— kal mGs, ® xardpate, AvKos wor dv otv dpevarot ;

but the rest of the scene, from I. 1064 to 1115, is pure Epic parody.

From the ®oppyodépa of Hermippus, Athenaeus (1. p. 27, d) quotes over twenty lines of Epic verse beginning—

éomete viv pot, Modoat "Oddumia dépuar éxovca,

_—— - )_— =

and containing many expressions taken direct from Homer. s As might be expected, the Xe/pwyv of Pherecrates supplies several specimens of Epic parody, as the lines—

pnde ot y dvdpa pidrov kadéoas emt daira Odderav GxOov dpdv rapéovras Kaxds yap avijp rdbe pécet, GAXA aN evKndos Tépmov ppéva tépme T exeivov

which, according to Athenaeus (8. 364 B), had their

: prototype in the Eoeae of Hesiod, and, if we trust Phryni- chus (see art. 73), Aristophanes used the words kal xéoxwvov z qmjoavda in his Aaradjs, in a parody on that didactic _ - poet.

‘ It is rare that parodies of Homer or Hesiod occur in the senarii of Comedy, but there is no doubt that the line—

déce. b€ cou yuvaixas extra AcoBisdas, :

quoted by the Scholiast on Arist. Ran. 1343 as from the Xeipwy of Pherecrates, was intended to suggest the offer of Agamemnon in the [IpeaPeta mpos ’AxiAAEa— ddce. 8 Entra yvvaixas dytpova epy eldvias AeoBidas, Il. 9. 270.

In such cases an Epic word might readily be used, as in

a es a lt a ; : ’ 4

48. THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

the Clouds (I. 30) Aristophanes boldly inserted a choric fragment of Euripides in the line—

Grip th xpéos €Ba pe pera Tov Ilactay, and in Ach. 883 made a Boeotian burlesque Aeschylus in his own patois. In the “Ozdwv xplois Thetis was ad- dressed as—

déomowa mevTyiKovra Nypijiwv Kxopdr, which, in the mouth of a country poulterer, as he draws a splendid eel from his basket, becomes—

mpéoBepa TevtTnxovta Kwmddwy Kopar,

éxBadt rede Kymixdpitrar TO E€vo.

The form zpiaco, which occurs a few lines before, must not -

be regarded, as Veitch insists, as good Attic, simply be- cause it is found in the senarii of Comedy. Whether it was or was not recognized will be discussed at another time; but as for Veitch, he might, with equal justice, claim as Attic every word used by the Scythian policeman in the Thesmophoriazusae, and with better right enfranchise both oikém and mwdAjow for olké and dmodécoua, because Cratinus puts the one word into Solon’s! mouth, and Aristophanes the other into an Ionian’s *.

The verb xixAjjoxm was probably once used in Attica, because it is found in Tragedy and in other Greek dialects, but it had disappeared from the mature language. Strattis, however, used it in senarii in his Maxeddves } Tlavoavlas, but the lines themselves show that it is a Macedonian who employs the term—

1 The lines are quoted from the Xefpaves by Diogen. Laert.1.62—

olxéw 5& vijgov, ws piv avOpamwv Adyos, 2 J. a “~ my é, éomappévos kata macav Aiavros 7éAw.

Plutarch, Sol. 14, makes Solon use doxéw, and in id. 32 narrates the fact referred ;

to in the words of Cratinus, 4 58 5% S:aomopd xaraxavdévros airod Ths Téppas mept Thy Zadrapwiwy visor, érre pev bid tiv aromiay anidavos ravtdmact Kat pvddiys, dvayéypanrar 8 ind dddav dvbpdv dgorddyav kat ’Apiororédous Tod drdroodpov,

2 ap. Athen, 12, 525 A. In Ay. 1039 mwAfjowy is employed for antithetic effect.

THE LESSONS OF COMEDY, 49

A. 4) odtpawa 8 éori ris;

B. xéorpay pev dupes, @rrixol, KixAdjoxere',

The Doric otddpeos, for cidnpods, is always retained in speaking of the iron coinage of the Dorian colony, Byzan- tium. In Arist. Nub. 249, to the quandary of Socrates— molovs Oeodvs duel a3; mpSrov yap Deol

; hyiy vowtop odK éoTi—

Strepsiades replies—

; TS yap Ouver’; 7)

adapéoow donep ev Bulartly ;

and the Scholiast on that passage quotes from the Comic writer, Plato—

xXarenGs dv oixjoamev ev Bulayriors,

Srov odapéors voulCovow *.

It was shown how the immature speech of Attica had been crystallised in names of places, in religious formulae, and in official names, no less than in the diction of Tragedy. But no method of crystallisation could be _more effective than a proverbial saying, and accordingly most of the proverbs which occur in Aristophanes con- tain words which had dropped out of use in the developed dialect of Attica.

"Epdw is of frequent occurrence in Ionic and Tragedy °, but there is no trace of it in Attic except in a proverb found in Ar. Vesp. 1431—

épdou tis Hv exactos av eldeln Téxvnv,

1 Quoted by Athenaeus (7. 323, b). In Ar. Nub. 565 it occurs in a chorus, and in a line of Cratinus quoted by Hesychius under «UBndis—

XaAKiba KikAhoKovor Geol, dvSpes 5& KUBnuv-

which is a parody of Homer Il. 14. 291—

xaAKiba KikdHoKovor Geol, dvopes Be ndpuvdy,

_ # Pollux (9. 78) describes the o:ddpeos as vépuopa 7 Aenrdv, and quotes an obscure and corrupt couplet from the Myrmidons of Strattis—

év rots Badavetois mpoxédcvOo0s Hpyépa

dmatdnaca yh otparial odapéwv.

® Hdt. 1. 119, 131, 137; 2.121; 7. 33, etc.; Aesch. Agam. 933, 1649, and freq.; Soph. Trach. 935, and freq.

E

50 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

and somewhat resembling another— tl dfra xéipes ovk dy epyacaiaro ; which Aristophanes adapted in Av. 1147— tl dita mwddes dv odk dv épyacataro ; and Lys. 42— tt & dv yuvaixes ppdvipov épyacalaro ; The old Attic ddximos survived in the proverb— mda mor joay GAKkysor MidAnjoro,

which occurs twice in the Plutus (Il. 1003, 1075), and is referred to in Vesp. 1033.

The aged lover in the Plutus (1036) swears that her ~ misplaced affection is killing her, and describes her ema- ciation in the line—

dia SaxrvAtov pev ody euey dv Sredxdoats*

but the words 61a daxrvAlov dy breAxdoars were beyond question proverbial, which accounts for the monosyllabic ending of duveAxktoas. As from a proverb, too, the form éwyyjocaro for émpiaro ought not to condemn Athenaeus of inaccuracy when he quotes (6. 266 F), Xios deondrny évyicato, as a proverbial expression used by Eupolis in his play of ‘the Friends.’ Eupolis may well have written ovjqcaro.

The Ionic and old Attic! word ép7w is four times en- countered in Aristophanes, but in three out of the four in the one phrase 6 méAeuos Eptérao—

ov deducOa orovddv' 6 méAEMos EpTéTH. Eq. 673. A. ov« dv roujoay’, GAN 6 médrAEuos EpTréTo. B. pa A’, od8 eyd y adv, GAN 6 wérEpos EpTréro. Lys. 129, 130. From the first passage it is reasonable to infer that the

1 Hippocr. 6. 480, 490; Aesch, Eum. 39, etc. ; Soph. O. C. 1551, and very freq.; Eur. freq.

—) .

THE LESSONS OF COMEDY. 51

phrase was a common cry in Athens during the Pelopon- nesian war, and the lines from the Lysistrata confirm this view. The fourth instance occurs in an isolated trimeter of the AaraAjjs quoted by Harpocration!— 6 8 jAtacris elpwe mpds thy Kryxdrlda,

and without context affords no clue. But the word was, like dpdrrw, paorifw, and others already discussed, most probably a colloquial survival of the older language.

The occurrence of a word, or form of a word, in the anapaestic verse of Comedy is no proof of its Attic character. If there are fewer Epic irregularities in the anapaests than in the hexameters, yet, in a question of this kind, one distinct anomaly is sufficient to destroy their authority. As a matter of fact the irregularities are very marked, Thus, in Vesp. 662 in anapaestic tetrameters catalectic, the third person plural of the Aorist Passive Indicative ends in -ev instead of -ncav?—

e& xiAudow, Koimw tAclovs ev TH xepa Karévacber.

The Dative singular of proper names in -xAjjs (from -KAéys) invariably undergoes in Attic a double contraction, but in Av. 567, ‘HpaxAée: occurs in place of ‘HpaxAei—

jw 8 “Hpaxdéer Otnor Adpw vacrods Ovew pedtrodvras,

and the same line supplies the. Epic Ono. for 0vn. More instances may be gleaned by the most cursory reader.

The purpose of this inquiry has been fulfilled if it has been made clear that Comedy must not be regarded as invariably presenting only Attic forms, Attic words, and

1 Kiyedls. al rev Sieagrnpiov Odpa nvyedlbes Exadodvro. ’Aporopdyns Aara- Acdow: “O & xe. 2 The form is found in Tragedy. Eur. Hipp. 1247— immo: 8° Expupbev wal 7d Svarnvov Tépas : Phoen, 1246— c Zorav Bt Aapmpd xpOpd 7’ od HAdaLaTHY, both of which Nauck wrongly tries to alter,—a striking inconsistency when he replaces tAnpotow in Hec, 574 by a late absurdity like éxAjpovsay. In choric passages are found, ¢8ay, Aesch. Pers. 18; Eur, Andr, 287, etc.; saréBav, Soph. Trach. 504; dmé5pav, Aj. 167. E2

52 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Attic constructions, The choric passages on the one hand, and the hexameter and anapaestic metres on the other, had each literary sympathies uncongenial to Attic, while even in the Iambic and Trochaic parts, un-Attic phrases, words, and forms, were, under certain conditions, necessarily employed. But these conditions are capable of being accurately classified ; and such classification not only pre- vents the student of Attic from misconception, but actually introduces him to many new aspects of the language, giving him glimpses into its history and nature, and pro- viding him with rules by which he may bring to nothing- ness many of the most unquestioned emendations of great critical scholars.

le

oe

r

i

2

Sl oe

5: oF

--« @PYNIXOY

ny

a - EKAOTH a, 2 . ae

AG

f, 2S, a =n

Pag)

PHMATQN KAI ONOMATON

v re

ATTIKON,

2

ae

Fa 2 . : - © ‘ _ 2 : - 4 he! a 2 yar * it eS * ot eee

@PYNIXOZ KOPNHAIANQI EY TIPATTEIN.

THyv Te GAAHV cou Tratdelav BaUpdew, HV dLapEpovTa@c bmép Gmavtac dooic éfa €vetvyov temaidevoat, Kai dH Kai todtTo @auudoac éyw, TO Tepi THY T@v KaA@V Kai doKiuwy dvoudtwv Kpiow. Tait dpa Kedrevcavtoc cob Tac Gdokivouc TOV Pwvav dOpotcOfivat, Mdcac pev ovy oidc te érevéuHv taviv meptAaBeiv, rac S€ émtmoAazovcac, udAioTa Kai THY dpyaiav bidAeEw tapattovcac Kal TOAAHV aicyuvHy éEuBaddovcac. Ob Aavedver S€ Ee, Gomep ovd GAAO TL TOY KATA TraLdElav, Hc Tivec GroTTEMTMKOTEC THc Gpyaiac pwvac, kai émi tv Guaelav KaTapetrovtec Topi- goust paptupde tivac Tod mpoeiphcbat bnd Tov dpyaiov tdode Tac pwvdc: fyetc dS€ ob Mpdc Ta dtHLApTHUEva a~o- papev, GAAG Mpdc Ta doKiu@Tata Tv dpyaiwv. Kai rap abtoic et Tic aipeotv mpodein, ToTépwc dv éOéAotev dicaAe- recbat dpyaiwc Kai dKpiBc H veoyudc Kal duedadc, d€Eawr dv dyti mavtoc Apiv ciuyH@ot revduevot tric deivovoc revécdat poipac’ ot rdp tic obtac GeAtoc, wc TO aloypdy

Tod KaAOD MpoTieévat. “Eppwoo.

, toe: , f a et a ory “ipene fa ‘a SMe GT \ ry) oer ly Cao a . 2 * - *

PO Pr aa eS eA et a) naa

é . ee es bo a is e+e - i a : ‘ - co etre eee . : fai yt Hoy ic + ac7¥e i: oy at ue - ‘ - wee wee . Alb H ‘ ot 2 $ ‘ seh tot 1 : : the

cash) Pe He

es

*, ‘ gat OPE aly ae 1 a r Pe tea. 3 Ute 4 é = 4 Protas; 4 * vw 2'n ~ i eC AM ex

yo. the Fa ee Ke

2 okt ‘a

@®PYNIXOYT EKAOTH.

Turina mpdrtov.

“Ootic dpyaiwe Kai doKipac ebéder diadérecbar TAS

a. abt pudaktea!.

I.

“Exovttv ot ypH Aéretv, GAN @@eAovTHv.

This rule is absolute, not only for Attic, but also for _~ Classical Greek as a whole. ékxovrijs is not met with till after Christ, but @eAovris is used by Thucydides, 1. 60; 2. 96; 3. 20; Lysias, 181, 36; 182. 9; Isocrates, 221; Demosthenes, 247. 24, and by Xenophon and Herodotus. It means one who volunteers for a military enterprise or perilous civil duty. The form éedovrip occurs in the Odyssey, 2. 291— éyo 8 dva dijpov éralpous aly @ehovrijpas ovdd€£opan"

and was beyond question that employed in early Attic. At all events the termination -rnp confronts the student of

* For the bearing of these words on the Ecloga as a whole, see Appendix A,

58 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.,

Attic in such words as would naturally retain their primi- tive shape, namely, those used in the common business and amusements of life, such as xparnp, a wine-bowl, modavintip, a foot-bath, puthp, a strap, tpintip, a pestle, tpomwtip, an oar-thong, aotpapiotnp, a surveyor's level or sight, pv«rip, nose, nosel, and others. The same story is told by words like Bacaviorypiov, dikacrhpiov, Bacaviorpia, vadrpia, by the side of Bacavioris, dixacrns, vadrns, etc. Certain officers at Athens retained the name of dppoorijpes till the end of the fifth century B.C. or later, as they are mentioned by Plato, the Comic poet, in his play of the ‘Ambassadors!’ In the same way kAntijp survived as a law term, and never passed into KAnris 2.

Tragedy—that storehouse of early Attic—has preserved very many of the old forms in -rnp, such as olxnrijp, olxuorip, pnvurnp: mpaxtyptos in Aeschylus carties us back to mpaxrip, just as gvAaxripioy implies pvdaxryp. Both apaxrijp and gvAaxthp occur in the Homeric poems. But side by side with the forms in -ryp, Tragedy supplies a large number in -rwp, Gppdotwp, axéotap, KpdvtTwp, onudvTwp, TpaxTwp, and others. That this was no so-called poetical licence is clearly established. Certain revenue officers at Athens were called apdxropes (Antiphon, 147. 14); ’Axéotwp was not only a surname of Apollo, but was a well-known proper name both in Athens and in cities of other Greek * peoples (Diod. Sic. 11. 51; 19. 5). Homer used fyrip, but frjrwp took its place in Attic. In fact euphony, or

-1 See Meineke, Frag, Com. 2. 658, d0ev nal dppoorijpas madw éxddovy — ’AOnvaio Tovs eis 70 ed Chy Siatrarrovras ws capas TAdrwv 6 Kapukds Spdol ev TipéoBeot 7 Spdpart, madAw should there be replaced by méAa. As instructors _ of manners they were probably the same as the soopnrai.or cwppomoral. Meineke errs in suggesting Aaxedaryédvioe for ’A@nvato, The corresponding magistrates at Sparta had a different name, viz. ‘Appdovvor, Hesych. s. voc.

2 Schol, Ar. Vesp. 189, Anrijpes of kadodyres és 7d Sieaorhpiovy mavTas’ onpatver 5% 4 Aéeis wal rdv pdprupa, In the latter sense *AHTwp is found occasionally in Demosthenes in the oblique cases, but never without the variant xAnthp, which must be read,

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 59

mere accident, seems, in many cases, to have determined the form ultimately assumed. If fyrjp passed into frjrwp, how is it that throughout Greek literature cwrjp remained without a rival? There is no question that -rys is later than -ryp, but the existence of -tor as a common Latin termination, dator, stator, amator, venator, etc., seems to prove the existence of -rwp in Greek of a very early date. The Attic pijrwp, however, by the side of the Homeric pntip, does not stand alone. In the Odyssey she drawer of a bow is purnp Biot, in Aristophanes pirwp réfov. In the Odyssey a defender is purnp, in Aeschylus pérwp.

The old termination survived in other dialects even in words which in Attic had lost it irreclaimably. Hippocrates speaks of the wisdom-teeth as cwdpovioripes, and they were also called xpavrfjpes and ¢gpacrijpes. Passing from the dialects, these forms appeared in the Common dialect, and Plutarch employs cwpomorjp in the sense of the Attic cwppovorjs (Cato Maj. 27). Xenophon, whose style was distinctly an anticipation of the Common dialect, was significantly fond of the forms in -ryp, e.g. Oeparevrijp for Oepamevryjs, in Cyr. 7. 5. 65; Avpartip for Avpayrhs in Hiero 3. 3; and dpyoornp for dpyoorjs in Hell. 4. 8. 39. Although épyooripes was certainly the Lacedaemonian name for the officers there referred to, correct Attic writers in- variably spoke of them as dpyoorat.

Thomas Magister (p. 285) repeats the rule of Phrynichus, pa elans Exovtys, GAN eOedovTis, as mdvres of SoKysdraror, but adds the erroneous statement, él) 52 rod émippiyaros Gpporepa Aéye Kal eOeovTi Kal Exovrt. There was no such adverb as éxovri in Classical Greek, and even in Arist. Rhet. 3. 15; (1416. 16,) ob ydp éxdvtu elvar atro dydohxovra érm, the word is the dative of the adjective, Thucy- dides, however, uses @0cAovrf in 8. 2, @Oedovt iréov én) rods "AOnvatovs, and eeAovrnddv in a later chapter (9) of the same book.

60 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

The form éedovrmv in Xenophon (Mem. 2. 1, 3) is simply one of the Ionicisms so frequent in his style (Hdt. 1. 5; 6. 25).

On the other hand, éxovovos and dxovovos, with their adverbs, were recognized Attic words, while é@eAovovos and 20eAovelws have no better authority than that of Xenophon.

Il.

“Omev dvev tod o pHdéroTe eiTHC, OmLGbEV dé,

In such a question manuscript authority is valueless, _ Thus the un-Attic do6ev often replaces the genuine dmwéev in the manuscripts of Attic books, as in most at Thucy- dides, 2. 81, and in some at 3. 111; 4.67, 92, 115, 120, 125, 126; 6. 58, 77; 8.69. The testimony of verse makes the long penult absolutely secure—

dh > > x if f) r arr? > 50d

dAlyov Graber Tijs Kepadfs Tod ypgdlov. Plut. 674.

Similarly dzwcOev is placed beyond question by lines like—

A. mod 70d ’orw; B. eEdmicOev. A. ebdmicd’ 161. Ar, Ran, 286. In a choric passage of Aeschylus émiOev is encountered, but there is no other instance even in Tragedy—

TpoxnAdrowrw ombev Exduevor. Pers. 1002.

The metre demands émev, and yet the manuscripts ex- hibit émio@ev without a variant. That in Attic texts émodev. remains uncorrupted is due to the fact that; even in the Common dialect, it vigorously held its own against the forms with the short penult. The affinity of theta for sigma—always present in Greek from the earliest period—

She

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS, 61

rather increased than lessened as the language aged, and is a fact which must be carefully observed by the student of Greek forms.

Ill.

‘Ikecta’ Kal todto dddkmov, iketeia dé.

The former word is the older, being found in Tragedy and in a religious formula in Aeschines (70. 33). In the ‘Ap- paratus Sophistae’ Phrynichus supplements this statement (44. 5): tkerela’ 81a Tod 7, od B14 Tod o Ixeolouvs pévTor hirds kal Adyous ikeotovs, and unintentionally sets the in- quirer on the right road. To the grammarian ixeofa was a late form; and he did not accept the lesson which the adjective ixéouos might have taught him, namely, that, like many other w#-Attic words employed in the Common dialect, it was in existence, not only in other dialects, but had also a place in undeveloped Attic itself. As a matter of fact ixeofa and ixéovos bear the same relation to txérns, ixeredm as dnpudo.os to Synpdrns, dnuoredw, and zpoordcros to mpoordtns, mpoorarevm. Accordingly, there might have been a Onuorety and a ixereiy by the side of dnuorevew and ike- tevew as well as a mpootareiv by the side of mtpoorarevev. ixerjp is not found even in Homer, although Hesychius has preserved a form ikeropedo from ixérwp. Moreover, ixetjotos by the side of ixerjpios seems to indicate that the change from ixeryp to ixérns took place early.

Most verbs in -edm are of a comparatively late origin. The ending is simply that of the naturally-formed dArevo, Baciebw, immedw, and the like, applied to other stems. The verbs ciw, dedw, vedo, keAevw, Ocparedw stand on a dif- ferent footing and must be eliminated from the inquiry. Apart from them there are over two hundred verbs in -evw, and of these little more than twenty belong to the group

62 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

regularly formed from substantives in -eds. These, how- ever, are mostly old words found a Homeric poems, while a very large proportion of the others is not found till long after that date. Most are from substantives in -os, -ov, like deopedto, dovrebo, kwdvvedo, petarcdw from deopds, doBA0s, xivdvvos, and péraddov, a few from adjectives in -os, like wepicoedm from sepicods, and amrwxevo from mrwxds, while the other two declensions are fairly represented.

The group which contains ixeredw is not large—ddnreda, yontet, Snworevoua, dvvacredw, euBaretdw, énonreda, idiwredw, Anoretw, pactedo, prnotedw, STriTebw, ToALTEd@, TpocTaTEdw,

TpopyTeto, TuKTew, copioTevw, TpaTe(irevw, tronmTevw. The

verb ferirevouat, serve as a mercenary, is a remarkable in-

stance of formation by false analogy. Forms like fevirns

from gévos are quite unknown to Greek, and the verb could

never have been used except dmAuredw and tpame(iredw had prepared the way for it.

IV.

~

“Yrodeirua’ otde TobTO dpedc AéreTat’ Mapddeirua Aé€re,

Xenophon (Eq. 2. 2) anticipates the Common dialect in using trdderypa for mapdderypa. In Attic imodelxyyps was never used except in its natural sense of show by impli- cation; but in Herodotus and Xenophon it signifies Zo mark out, set a pattern. Herod. 1. 89, xarérewe oxXowo- revéas brode€as Sispvxas: Xen. Mem, 4. 3. 13, adrot of Peot otras broderkvbovaw. Wale

This comparison of the half-hearted indédecya, with the masculine and straightforward wapddevypa, well brings out the distinction between the Attic dialect on the one hand, and the Ionic and the Common dialect on the other. There is more tone about imdéderypa, but mapdderypa has common sense to recommend it.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS, 63

>

. a

? + » ” U > ‘ oa ‘ nm Qvapunv, dvaco, dvatro mavra Gddkiua Stav did Tod a. ’ )

Ta rap dpyata did rod H, dviiuHy, dvHGo, avo.

the genuine évatuny and dvac0a, and were sometimes im- ported into Attic texts, as in Eur. H. F. 1368—

; The Indicative forms in alpha came at a late date from

a arddeo’, of8 Synobe tv éuGv Kaddv* where the manuscripts exhibit évace. The true form was preserved by the metre in Ale. 335—

Bevis yevérOar* cod yap odk ovijpeda.

Veitch has treated the verb with his usual care. It is observable that Xenophon has in one passage coined aviOnv, although a@vjynv was ready to his hand.

The aorist dvijpyny, from évivnu, may be instructively com- pared with émAjpny, from riprdnw, which, compounded with év, was in common use at Athens—

anobpas yap és tiv ywviay, rupdv moddy kareoukéAie xavérAnr év TO oxdro. Ar. Vesp. gto. eiObs yap as évémAnto ToAAGY Kayabdr. Id. 1304.

In its imperative, €uxAnoo (Vesp. 603), and its participle, eumdipevos (Vesp. 424, 984, Eccl. 51, Eq. 935), it corre- sponded with dvivnu.; but its infinitive was undoubtedly eumAjo0a, and its optative, éumArjunv (Ach. 236), followed < the analogy of the perfect optatives BeSArjunv and pe-

‘ poyuny.

Cobet is unquestionably right in restoring évémAnvro for i, éverémAnvro in Lysias, 180. 5 (28.6), ofrws, & dvdpes ’AOn- a vato., éreidn tdxiora évémAnvto Kal Tov tperepwv anéhavoav

KTE.

64 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS.

Vi.

Meyptc kai dypic obv TH 6, GddKiuar expt b€ Kai

aypt A€re.

The question has been settled by Wecklein in Curae Epigraphicae, p. 51, where he quotes from Attic inscrip- tions, wéxpi é€axoolwy (bis), wéxpe avdpGv, wéxpt rod Tera- ypévov, and dxpi ris ovvaywyhs. Stone records exhibit no instances of the forms with sigma even before a vowel, and the same lesson is taught by metre. The words are unknown to Tragedy, except that péxpis occurs in a des- perately corrupt line of Sophocles—

Tov maida tovde mpds Sduovs euods aywv

Teraporr defer pntpl 7, “EpiBota A€ye,

&s opw yérnrat ynpoBookds eloact

péxpis 08 pvxovs Klywor Tod Kdtw Oeod.

Ajax 571.

Most manuscripts have péxpis of, the Cod. Ven. péxpi, others péxpis dv, which has the questionable support of Suidas, sub vocibus ynpoBooxé and puxds. Though the broken anapaest péxpis of may pass as an extension of the licence allowed even in Tragedy to prepositions followed immediately by their case, yet the variety of readings justify gor’ dy pvxots, the conjecture of Hermann, péxpis ob, péxpis, wéxpe having crept into the text from the margin. In Aesch. P. V. 376, wéxpis is a manuscript gloss on the primitive gor’ dv, but has not replaced the latter in the text.

In Comedy there is not one instance of dxpis or péxpis demanded by the metre, but even if lines like Eq. 964—

‘oddv yevérOar det oe péxpt Tod puppivov, are not regarded as absolutely conclusive, there is still a line of Antiphanes (Ath. 10. 441) in which péxpis could certainly not stand—

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 65

méxpt yap tpidv deiv acl rysGv rods Oeovs.

In the New Comedy, by which time péxpe &v with the mood of a verb was not only a tolerated but a recognised construction, the hiatus is in manuscripts sometimes avoided by reading péxpis, but that form was certainly never used even by the latest writers of Comic verse—

kal rodro mwAciv péxpe dv domep ev epdve els Aourds 7 Kdmndos HdiKnuévos

im olvoméAov. Diphilus (Athen. rr. 499 D.).

_ The grammarians are singularly at one on this point. Moeris, p. 34, dxpi, dvev Tod o Artixds, dypis “EAAnuiKds : Herodian, Philet. 451, dxpu cat péxpe dvev rod o* 7d 8% ov 7@ o Iwyixéy: Thomas Mag. 135, dxpe cal péxps Qovxvdlins det A€yer, ob pdvov erayouévov cvupdvov, GAA Kal povieros, and although he adds, of 8 dAdo, émayouévou pdvov pwvi)- evTos, Kal peta Tod o Kal xwpls Tod o ypdpovow oloy dyxpis od xal dxpe ob, there is no doubt that to all Attic texts the shorter forms should be restored, without any regard to manuscripts, as even in Thucydides the copyists fol- lowed no rule, but wrote either indifferently.

VII.

*Ativat, mposivat, é€ivat, Kativar, mévtTa dddoKua dvev

Tod € Aeroueva, yp rdp obv TH € dmévar, EEtévar A€rety.

Vill.

Eiotérw" Kai mepi todtou obtac ésye. Aoddtavoc akov- g ‘ ‘ a ak rt ?. © Dy ‘ ‘ GOC OTL XYPH GUV Tw € eEloleval AEfetv ElTa UTTEAGBE KA TO

eicitw eictéTw deiv Aérecbat.

That Lollianus was himself a Greek and taught at F

66 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Athens shortly before Phrynichus wrote, vividly illustrates the condition into which the Attic dialect had fallen in the first half of the second century A.D. Those who desire more information about Lollianus may consult Philostratus, de Vitis Sophistarum, 1. 23. 526, but he gets more than his due in Suidas: AoddAtavds. "Edéowos, coduoris, wabntns "Icalov tod "Acouplov yeyovas emt "Adptavod rod Kaloapos* éypayve TroAAd.

IX.

*Eurrtuer piovu pHdanac Aéfé, GAAG KaTanTvEL MOV, Kal

KATETTUGA AUTOD,

Scaliger proposed to substitute yo. for pov after éunrve, in spite of the fact that éumrve: wou seems quite possible in late Greek.

In the Septuagint and the New Testament, éumrée is frequently encountered in the sense of the Attic caramrio. Mk. 10. 34, cal €umatfovow air@ xal pacriydcovew abrov Kat éunticovew aitg, cal dmoxrevotow airév: id. 14. 65, Kai jpkavtd ties eumtvew adr@: id. 15. 19, kal événrvoy aire. Lobeck quotes from Galen, 13. 940 D, éuarver rots cdyact tov lov.

In Attic éumtdm could only be used of spitting i a@ vessel, etc., liké évovpd, whereas xatarriw, xatayeXd, Kabv- Bpl(w, corresponded to xarovpé.

It is the same difference which confronts us in éyxéw and kataxéw. éyxeiv is legitimately used with the dative in the meaning pour in—

péOv 8 &x Kpythpos addtacwr olvoxdos popénot cal éyxeln derdecoww" Od. 9. ro. hépe thy olynpvow ty’ otvoy éyxéw AaBov és Tos xdas* Ar. Ach. 1067,

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 67

and xaraxéw with the genitive in the sense of pour over, — opwiy pdda ToddAdKis typov édaLoy

xardwy Karéxeve. Il. 23. 282.

GAN Urmepdy pov xaréxeev TOv xpnydtwr. Ar. Nub. 74. GAN’ eéy® eldov dvap, kal povddxer Oeds adrh Tod dypyou Kataxely dpvralvy tAovOvyleav. Eq. 10go. Plato, Legg. 800 D, éviore mécav Braodnulay tov tepdv xataxéovot. In Rep. 398 A, the preposition is expressed, Tov pupov Kata Tis Kepadys Kxaraxéavtes. In late Greek, however, éyxéw was used for xarayéw, just as éuaréw for xatantéw. Synes. Ep. 140, p. 276 C, rl ody morva, Kab rats émioroais Tey daxptwy éyxeis ; in such words év has never the force of ox, az, over, in Attic Greek, but, when it does not mean 7, is simply intensive. Thus évopé is justly used in Ar. Ach. 1129— év T@ XaAdklo

évop@ yépovta deirlas pevéovpevor, and in Plato, Gorg. 447 B, éy xpnudrwy xatackevy Kaxlav GdAnv tia evopas 7} mevlay; Dem. 401. 17, jpero rlva év aire pixporxlav évewpaxos ef. But no genuine Attic writer could have used it as Xenophon does in Cyr. 1. 4. 27, évedpas pot, ‘you looked a¢ me,’ though such a use would have been tolerated in Ionic and late Greek. On the other hand, é» intensive was frequently added to the simple verb by the best Attic writers, as évjAAero in Ar. Vesp. 1305—

Sonep Kaxptwv dvidiov ebwxnpévov

évpdder’, éoxlpra, ’mendpder, kareyéAa. évrpaye in Eq. 5t1—

evOod, podnoor, evtpay’, éxe Tpi@Bodor, and in some words the simple form had completely dis-

F 2

68 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS.

appeared before the compound, as in éumlapnui, évoxdAa, évayriodwat, etc. In some cases the analogy of the Latin in is so likely to suggest itself, that it is not surprising to find éyyeAG generally regarded as the equivalent of irrideo,and éunat(m of dludo, etc. As a matter of fact, it will be difficult to discover a single instance, in Attic Prose or Comedy, of éuzaigm in the sense of mpooral(m or catamal(w, of éyyeAG in that of mpooyeAG or karayeAG, and of éumvéw in that of xaranvéw.

In Aristophanes the év in évvBpl(w, Thesm. 719, is simply intensive— _

GAN od pa To Oe Tay’ od xalpwr tows évuBpiet Adyous Ades 7 dvootovs:

and évvBpitm might be followed by xard to convey the meaning of xaOvBplCoua, just as-xard is used after éyyeAG by Sophocles—

6 8 év ddpuors TUpavvos, @ Tddas eyo, kown Kal’ jay éyyeAGv GBptverar. : O. C. 1339.

In Tragedy as in Ionic there is no question that év in compounds had occasionally a force similar to that of kara or pds, but such a use must be distinctly denied in genuine Attic writers. Accordingly, if Porson’s conjecture of éyyeAGou for dyyeAodo. be admitted in the lines of Eu- bulus, quoted by the Scholiast on Eurip. Med. 476, the word is intended as a hit at Tragic diction—

Eipitidov 8 Ecwcas as ioaci oor

Kal Tots euotow éyyeAGou Tijpacw TO otyya ovddd~avtes ws adrol odor. .

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 69

X.

Evxoiter’ Kai tobro dmotpérou,

This is the only place in which the word evdkoireiv is found, although povoxo:rodpyev occurs in Aristophanes (Lys. 592), cxAnpoxoirety in Hippocrates (338. 23), oriBadoxoureiv in Polybius (2.17. 10), and Strabo (3. 155), alOptoxoureiv in Theocritus (8. 78). Phrynichus himself has preserved oppoxourety (App. Soph. 70. 5): Poppoxoireiy® 7rd ex) poppod Kabevdew. PDopyods b€ éor mA€ypa Te ex prA€w. Tdrrerar ént AuTpGs Kal KakGs Koiwmpévov, ov8 exdvrwv kvddaddov. Here some particular usage of edxoirely is doubtless reprehended. Lobeck supposes that Phrynichus is deprecating the use of its imperative in the sense of good night. Had such a usage been classical, it would certainly have been referred to by Lucian in his discussion of the different forms of address (‘Yrtp rod év ti mpocayopetoe. mraloparos), along with xaipe, tylawe, eppwoo.

XI.

Evyapicteiv oddelc tv dokijwav eimev, GAAG yapwv

eloevat,

The word etydpioros is of some interest. In pure Attic writers it occurs neither in the sense of gracious nor grateful, but Xenophon employs it in both these mean- ings, Cyr. 2. 2. 1, del pev ody eweyédero 6 Kipos Srws edxa- piordrarol te aya Adyou euBAnOjoovra: Cyr. 8. 3. 49, Kat yap B&Aritov mdvtwv tov (dw tyetro avOpwrov elvar Kai ebxapioréraroy. Even eixapioteiv, to be grateful, ebxapiorla, gratitude, would not have been out of place in his style. The meaning gratias agere is first attached to the verb in Polybius, eg. 16. 25. 1, 6 roy "AOnvatwy dijpos ekémepme

70 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

mpecBevtas mpos "Arradov tov Baciéa Tots dua pev edyapi- oTynoovras emt trois yeydvoot kre. and became frequent after his time.

XII.

“Aptt HEw uHdérote eittc émi Tod wéAAovTOC GAN eri Tod

EVEGTHKOTOC Kai TOO TAPMYHMEVOU, GpTt HK, GPTL AMLKOMHY,

Two instances of dpr. with the future used to be quoted from Attic writers, one from Plato, Charm. 172 D, cxewd-

peOa el dpre cat huas dvioe, the other from Antiphanes _ (Athen. 8. 338 E)—

® Zed, tis more, ® KadAmédwv, o& xaréder’ dpti trav plrwyr ; but dpa 7 has been restored to Plato with manuscript authority, and Meineke is unquestionably right in reading xaréderapa tév pldwy in the Comic poet. The word does not occur in Homer, and appears first in literature in ~ Theognis 997— Hos & néAvos wey ev aldept pavvxas immovs apt. mapayyéAAo1, mécoaroy juap exwv. Attic writers frequently add viv or vuvi, as Ar. Lys. 1008, apt. veri pavOdyw. apt. corresponds exactly to the English adverb just, and, like it, may be used both of past and present time. ‘vayxos, on the other hand, is always at-

tached to past tenses— évayxos ydp Tore

tm ddAdiraporBod mapexdrnv dixowlky. Ar, Nub. 639. It never occurs in Tragedy, vewort being used instead. The latter word is, however, itself an excellent prose form. The synonym zpoodpdrws, so frequent in the Common dia- lect, is unknown to Attic, although it doubtless existed in other dialects in pre-Macedonian times. Pindar, Pyth. 4.

vy a (a tr

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 71

extr. has the neuter of the adjective in an adverbial sense, mporparov Ona Eevwbels.

Sophocles is the first author in whose writings Lorin’ is encountered as an equivalent of dt. In writers posterior to him both forms are found. The circumstance that in Sophocles dpriws occurs thirty-three times, dpm. only thir- teen times, while in Euripides apr: is met with as often as Gptlws, and in other writers more often, adds some colour to the opinion that dpriws was first coined by Sophocles. Cer- tainly Aeschylus never employs the term, and that Xeno- phon eschews it goes to prove that it was a peculiarly Attic formation. In another passage (App. Soph. 11. 19) Phry- nichus tells us that the Atticists distinguished between dpru and dpriws, but no distinction is traceable in Attic writers.

The word dpri is never equivalent to viv in Classical Greek. Accordingly, the Anti-atticist in Bekk. An. 79 must be in error: ’Amdpru dvri rod pre dad viv. TlAdrov Logicrais. The meaning of dzapri is in Attic very dif- ferent. The preposition has the same strengthening force that is seen in dmepyd(ecOa, dnavdpodv. The primitive meaning exactly, is not found in Attic, but occurs in Ionic. Its Attic signification, just the reverse, quite the contrary,

is of course due to irony, and dzaprif belongs to that con- siderable class of expressions by which Athenian vivacity

lent colour to dialogue and repartee. For example, when the Nurse in the Medea would call the Paedagogus a fool for estimating their mistress’ passion too lightly, she uses a phrase which was probably familiar even to vulgar ears, and from attrition had lost the rod vod which originally belonged to it—

(AG o* ep “exi Tha Kovdérm pecot. Eur. Med..60.

So firmly attached had its secondary meaning become to anaprt, that it retained it even in the middle of a sentence, and to qualify a verb—

72 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

ovk, ® Kaxddaipov, GAAa Tovs xpyoTovs pdvovs éywye, kal tots de€iovs Kal oddpovas

anaptl mrovrijca Toujoo. Ar, Plut, 388.

There is a lucid note on this word in Bekk. An. 1. 418, which bears the marks of being by an early and able hand: *Anaprt: map’ “Hpodére onpatver rd danpticpévws Kal axpiBas.

1

&md tobrou eiot ordSior xidvor dmrapti eis Tov “ApaBikdy kédmov!, mapa

de Tots Kaprxots, rd éx Tod évavtiov. Pepexpdrns Kparamd\\ois— A. ri bal; ri cavrdy amorivew Tod ais? ; ppdcor pol. B. dmaptl 8) mov mpocdaBeiv mapa rods €ywye paddov. Kopiavvoi— dmaptt pev ody euol pev eixds ear épar, col & ote’ dpa. TAdrav KrAcopovti— GAN adros dmapri TaAAdrpv olynoe: Pepwr. taxa 8& 6 Tyrexdreldns suolws r@ ‘Hpoddr xéxpyrat’ od d& ppdvipos adrds dv dmaptl ravrns ths Téxvns, patoT oby TO pev TARpes Kal amypriopévoy Stray onwalyn d€vro- veirat, TO 8 evaytloy Baptverat. It is quite possible that Teleclides, an early comic poet, used the word in its primitive sense ; but in the passage quoted by the Gram- marian the context is required to prove that it does not bear its ordinary Attic signification.

XIII.

Téuayoc Kpéwc A mAakodvtoc A Gprov odK dpodc Epel Tic, GAAG TOMOc Kpéwc H TrAaKkobvToc’ TO de TEMayoc MOVOV —

> 3 , emt ly@voc,

This usage, inculcated again by Phrynichus in App.

1 Hdt. 2. 158; cp. id. 5. 53, dvaopodyra juépa dmapri évevqnovra: - ~ Hippocr. 390. 46, ds émt 7d movAd dmaptt ev rotor Kaipoiot peraBdddovar és TA popnpara é« rijs evearyyelns.

2 MSS. ris abroy daoxreive: 7d 5 dgiots; emendavit Lobeck.

THE NEW PHRYNICAHUS. 73

Soph. 65, and -by Thomas and Suidas, is never departed from till post-Attic times— Gprov kal Kpeas kal réuaxos.

Ar. Eq. 283. dprovs, Teuaxn, wacas. ; Eccl. 606. TOAY xphya Tewaxav kal KpeGv omTHpEvov.

Plut. 894. KeoTpay Teudaxn pweyahay dyabay kpéa 7 dpvideva Kixndav. Nub. 339-

How large a place fish occupied in the dietary of the Athenians may be indirectly illustrated by the well-known saying of Aeschylus given by Athenaeus (8. 347 E), ras avrod tpaywdlas reudxn eivar edeye TGv “Opunpov peydrwov deimvev.

In Attic writers réwos occurs with the following geni- tives: GAAGvtos, sausage, Pherecrates, Eubulus, Aristo- phanes, Mnesimachus ; ¢voxys, large sausage, Pherecrates, Mnesimachus ; xopdijs, small sausage, Cratinus, Axionicus, Mnesimachus; xopdaplov, id, Alexis; rvpod, cheese, Eu-

‘bulus, Ephippus ; pajrpas, szwine’s paunch, Teleclides ; jwi-

otpov, tripe, Mnesimachus ; mAakodvtos, cake, Ar. Eq. 1190. The distinction between the words is brought into relief

in Ar. Eq. 1177 ff.— IladpAayov. TouTl Téyaxds covdmKer 7 PoBeoiorpdrn. >AdXavToTaAnNs.

8 "OBpiondrpa y EpOdv ex Copod xpéas,

kal xdduxos, yvtoTpov Te, Kal yaoTpos Tdyov. Probably Attic stood alone in thus differentiating these two kindred words. At all events, in the Common dialect the distinction was not observed. The value of a language as a vehicle of expression is enhanced by adroit mani- pulation of superfluous forms. English has been greatly enriched in this way, as is indicated by the presence in literary English, in distinct senses, of elder, older, eldest,

74 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

oldest, later, latter, last, latest, brothers, brethren, and many other words originally identical in signification. In fact, there are few better tests of a language than the way in which it utilises its waste.

XIV.

*Auuvav pH elttHc, GAN eic pAiua meTapdAAwy, cudvacdat TdvTa rap Ta Tod PHatoc edddKmma, Guvvodual, Gudvacddt,

FiuuvauHy, &uuvodpev.

Like mAévw, and a few other verbs in -dvw, dytve has no noun from which it may be considered to be derived. Verbs in -dvw are few in number, and nine tenths of them are, like Badive from Babds, xaxtve from xaxés, aloxdve from aloxos, formed from an existing noun by the help of the suffix -dve. Thea in dudvw is beyond question euphonic, as is seen from the Homeric pivy (Od. 21. 111), in the sense of a putting off, AAN aye, pa pbyvnor mapédkere KTe., and the verb piévoua, employed by Alcaeus in a similar sense, ovdé 7. pruvdyevos dAdo vdénua. The root is of ex- traordinary fertility in Latin, moenia, munio, immunis, etc.

There are two ways of accounting for the substantive adpuva, which, according to Lobeck, is first found in writers of the first century A. D., such as Philo and Plutarch. Either it entered the Common dialect from the dialects—a sup- position which is supported by the existence of pévq—or it was formed at a late date on the analogy of «vévva. Of the forty or so verbs in -dvw which are found in Attic, ev0tvw is differentiated from the others by having an ad- jective ev@vvos allied to it, and in this respect another verb, namely, aicxdvw, meets it half way by having a substantive aicytvn among its kin. As has been shown, dytve stands on a different footing from either of these words; but yet it is quite possible that duvva was due to a false derivation.

a

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS, 75 ev0dva evOuvos evdvva ebOuvTnp aloxtvw aloxdvn aloxvvrnp Gpive dpouva GuvvTnp.

The former explanation is, however, the more probable, and receives valuable support from the form yewpduvva, Pollux 7. 61, rd Xewepwwdv tudriov xeluactpov dy A€yous, Kab xAaivay 8€ raxeiav iy xepdpuvay pev Aloxvdos, “Ounpos be GdeEdvepov KéxAnkev.

XV.

*Arrordscouai cor éxpudov mdvu, yp Aérew domdgouai ce, obTH rap Kai ol dpyaiot ebpickovtat Aérovtec érrerdav AMOAAGTTOVTA! GAAHA@V,

The sense of drordooew in pre-Alexandrine Greek is to assign. Plato, Theaet. 153 E, pndé tw’ aire xGpov azo- rdgys: Dem. 238. 8, év rots ppovplois amoreraypévor, having

| posts assigned them, stationed. The use of the preposition

is identical with that in droBdérw, and dopa, anordocew meaning, fo post in one place, disregarding all others, as droBrérew and apopav mean, to look in one direction, dis- regarding all others.

The usage referred to by Phrynichus is very frequent in late writers, as Nov. Test. Luc. 9. 61, zpGrov 8 énlrpe- Wov por amordgacba trois els tov olkdy pov: Acts 18. 18, 6 8& IladAdos rots ddéApois dmoragdpevos eéémrea els rhv Zvolay.

Still more strangely, ovvrdocouar seems to have been employed in a similar signification, Pallad. Anth, Pal. 9. 171, Adyou, cvvrdccopa tpiv. In the Pseudosophist, Lucian tells us how his friend Socrates took off a stranger who used the word in this absurd sense (566), A¢yovros 8€ ruwvos, Luverdgard pou kal Adxov d€, &pn, Zevopar etre ovverdéaro.

76 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

XVI.

ZHudvat, Ectiavay, kai Gepudvat, EGEpuavav, Kai KAbGpat, - exddapav’ Kai radra apd THv dpyaiav ypfow bid Tod a,

A€rovev dé did TOO H, GHuFival, Gepurivat, KabHpaL.

XVII.

"EgaAérnave, pAerndvat’ Kat tadra ota rod H,

_ These remarks of Phrynichus start a question of some importance and of great difficulty. As regards verbs in -alipw there can be no doubt about the Attic rule; the aorist is invariably formed in eta, as alpw, jjpa, éxOatpa, ~ 7;xOnpa, Kxabalpw, eéxdOnpa, calpw, €onpa, Texpalpoua, érex- pnpdpnv. But with verbs in -alyw the case is different. As far as the statement of Phrynichus goes it is absolute, for verbs in which the -afvw is preceded by mu take eta without exception in the aorist tense—

expalyo e&éunva myatya emnpnva Oeppatyw €0€punva Tomatya enolunva Kupatya exvpnva onpalve eonpnva Avpatvouar eAvpunvaynv preypalym ed€ypnva.

With those verbs in -aivw which his note does not em- brace there is more difficulty. Two classes, however, are uniform, namely, verbs in -pafyw and verbs in -1atvw. In the aorist of verbs in -palyw the alpha of the present is ’ invariably retained—

dvoxepatvw edvox€pava Enpalvw eEnpava Epv0patve npvOpava mepalva erépava evppaive nippava mKpalva éntkpava exOpaive 7x Opava patve eppava Knpatve exyjpava typatyw bypava papalve eudpava ddpatvw Bdpava popalyo €udpava xpatyw éxpava.

When Veitch, sub papaivw, says, ‘In the aorist of this

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 97

verb even the Attics retain a,’ he adds one more to the long list of erroneous remarks which disfigure a work of incalculable utility and enormous labour. It is true that duererpyvaro occurs in Aristophanes, but it is there employed to produce a burlesque effect— axon 8 xodynv! Gra dueretpivaro. Thesm. 18.

It is only one instance out of many in which Edpimsdapicro- gavicndés has misled grammarians who regard rather the letter than the spirit of Attic law. ‘In the beginning,’ Euripides is represented as saying, ‘Ether drilled ears, a channel for hearing,’ and he aptly uses the Homeric érerpivaro, going even in language as near the beginning ashecan. The Attic form was érpyoa, érpnodpnv.

The verb rpvpepatvoua is a passive deponent, and dadpal- vowat has for aorist aoppdpnr.

The rule as to verbs in -.aivw is equally stringent—

dypiatye jyplava puatva éulava malva énlava tytatva byiava xXAvalvw éxAlava.

Homer uses éd/nva, as he uses eylyva, vdpnva, etc:, but if an Attic writer, even a Tragic poet, had had occasion to use the aorist of d:atvw, he would have replaced édinva by edfava, just as Euripides replaced éeuinva by éulava, and Bdpnvdynv by sdpavdynv.

Of the five verbs in -Aafvyw one only is found in the aorist, namely, xoAatyw, and that has indisputably éxofAava. Ac- cordingly, the aorists of the others may be safely formed on

its analogy— dvekoralva - édvoKdAava xoratva éxddava pedalyw éueAava.

* The accepted emendation of Dobree for the MSS. dxojy 52 xodvys.

48 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

The fifth verb, dAaivw, goes no further than the present. stem.

The same method will, on the analogy of kareyAvxdvaro* and Spyava, supply an aorist éXedxava to Aevkalvw, éxddyava to xadxaive, noéAyava to dcedyalyw, and éBdoxava to Backalyo.

The few that remain admit of no classification. Aeschy- lus has éravnvapévas (Eum, 972), Euripides dvjvaca (Med. 237), but trxvava occurs in the same play of Aeschylus (267), and in Aristophanes (Ran. 941). Isocrates employs xadremjvavres (62. a.), but Aristophanes terava: (Vesp. 646), and Axionicus Aurdvas (Athen. 8. 342 B).

Ought zazrjvas in Sophocles (Ant. 1231), and érexr7- vavto in Euripides (I. T. 951), to set the law to Aurafvo, - axoAaoralve, and dyalatve, or should the last be seriated with éxépdava,a common form in Attic? Were the aorists of kpadalyw and xAbalvoua, expddnva, éxdvdnvdynyv or éxpd- dava, éxAvdavduny, and did Acafyw and dvopeveatyw form their aorist with alpha or eta? These questions will always remain unanswerable. This, however, is certain, that in Attic Greek the four verbs calve, fave, ipalva, patvw, pre- ferred eta—

fatvo éfnva tpatvw tpnva, calyw éonva dalyw epnva

and in the same series the Euripidean word mupcalvw may be placed, whereas zuppalvw, if used in Attic, certainly formed an aorist. éwdppava.

XVIII.

Atwpia esydtwc dddkimov. dv7 abrod dé mpodecuiay Epeic.

The éoxdrws is certainly not out of place. It is difficult

1 In the Irwxot of Chionides, quoted by Athen. 14. 638 D— tatr ov pd Ata Tvhourmos, obdé KAcopuévns, év évvé dy xopdais nareyAvedvaro.

xareyAukhvaro is merely a conjecture of Porson’s,

oad aint =o

‘THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. "9

to discover how d.wpfa came to take the place of mpodecpia, and to discuss the question would demand an acquaintance with the slums of language which few would care to possess. 3

XIX.

"Aveivat édaiw A d&er A GAA Twi A€rousty ot iarpoi,

Tdvu Guaede> dei rap dteivat Aéretv.

From the literal signification of et run through, diiévan readily came to mean steep, saturate—

érewr &pda év Th Ovia cupmapapryybwr dadv kat oxivov" ctr d€e. bi€yevos Vpyrrlo,

katémAacey avrod Ta Bdépapa «kre.

Ar. Plut. 720. Alexis, [ovnpd (Ath. 4. 170 C)—

TO Tplupw emimodAjs evpvOyws dreynévov 6€e1, cipaly xpwpartoas kre. Sotades, ’Eyxerduevar (Ath. 7. 293 D)— Opiovrr ravrnv (dulav) ddus edad duels. The word is frequently so used by Hippocrates, but later scientific writers, like Galen, employ dyiévai, which,

if ever equivalent to dviévar, must have developed such a meaning from that of dissolve, break up.

XX,

Tleptésceucev GAAoKdTwc: éxpriv rap érepicceuce Aéretv.

The word zepiccetdw is one of the few verbs which are not included in the Attic rule, that, whether a verb is com- pounded with a preposition, or only appears to be so

80. THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

compounded, it takes the augment after the prepositional or pseudo-prepositional syllable or syllables. So accus- tomed had the ear become to encounter the augment after the prepositions that it was still placed after mpd, éx, dmép, mepl, ext, etc., in verbs directly formed from substantives and adjectives compounded with them, and even in verbs beginning with syllables identical in sound with preposi- tions, but really in no way related to them. Thus, there is no yredo, oratG, crovdd, paxd, ord, paci€oua, but nevertheless the genius of the Greek language demanded mpoepyrevoa Or mpovpirevoa, emeoTdrovy, TapecTdrnca, Tpov- oTdTovy, Taper movonka, dTEpEedxovv, cvvectrovy, mporpaciCounv, although the verbs came from zpodijrns, émordrns, mapa- * otdtns, mapdorovdos, treppdxos, otooiros, and mpdpacrs. There is no émddw, but the verb formed from imdémov, a black eye, nevertheless retains its first syllable short in the tenses which require the augment— Kal Tabdra damovlws trwmacpéevar.

Ar. Pax 541. émdopmigowar is formed from émddpmiov, dessert, but its aorist is émedopmicdyny, not Amdopmicdunv. It is not sur- prising therefore that verbs like éraxpi(w, érapdorepica, which come directly from the phrases éw dxpoyv and én dydrepa, should form aorists émjxpica and érnudorépica.

The word éaurndedw is an excellent instance of a verb which augments as if it were a compound with a prepo- " sition, and yet it is formed from the mysterious émurydés, which may or may not be connected with the preposition éxt. It is, however, consistent, and puts to shame several verbs in which the prepositional origin of their first syl-— lables is beyond dispute.

There are many facts which indicate that, notwith- standing the above rule, the place of the augment was” in some verbs determined by the vividness with which the meaning of the prepositional element was recognized.

,

7 =.

SS ese

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 81

The history of the augmentation of évavriodua puts this fact in a very striking light. In a line of Aristophanes— GAG pjv otf GrdrO col TH Tpayp evynvTidpeda, Ay. 385. all the manuscripts read jvavriépye0a in unabashed disregard for the rules of metre. Bentley restored the true reading, and Porson went with him, But in Attic texts there is no other instance of this method of augmenting évavriotcdar. Hesychius, however, proves that évyvTiéyeOat should be restored to Thucydides, as it has been restored to Aris- tophanes: Thuc. 2. 40, cal ra és dperhy jvavtidpcba Tots moAAois. It is very probable that in many more passages forms of évayriodua: with post-prepositional augment were originally read, but it is now quite impossible to detect the blunder. The comparison of these two passages with others from Demosthenes and the Orators, in which the verb cer- tainly augments on the first syllable, clearly proves that the two elements of évayriodua, still separable in the time of Thucydides and Aristophanes, ultimately coalesced to form a thoroughly agglutinative word. There is a similar period of uncertainty in many English compound words. At one time written with a hyphen, and pronounced with the emphasis equally distributed over each element, they ultimately become agglutinative compounds and receive the accent as far back as possible. It is in this way that KaOnunv and éxabjpnv, xpiv and expiiv, adler and ile, xad- igov and éxd@i(ov are to be explained. Aeschylus seems even to have used 7devpévos as the perfect participle of apeba— Aevkds, tl & ody; Kal KadGs Apevpévos 6 xotpos* &pou, pnde AvTNOAs Tupi. , Athen. 9. 375 E.

In fact, just as évdvtios came to be regarded not as a com-

* The gloss in Hesychius has got mixed with another, 4vtlacev, drhvtycev.

ixtrevoe. Qovevdlins 5 7d ivridipeOa ent rH evayTidpeda, but it is plain that évnvtimpeba should be restored for iv Timpeda,

G

82 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

pound of éy with dvruos, but as itself a simple word, so Kd0n- pat, Kabiew, etc., ended in being considered not compounds of simple verbs with prepositions, but as themselves simple words. This at once explains the consistency with which éumod@ and éyyvG take the temporal rather than the syl- Jabic augment. It is true that manuscripts often exhibit forms like éveyta, éveyinoa, but only in the simple verb, and they are easily explained by other corruptions, such as éyylwy and éyyénoa. The temporal augment was in copying carelessly dropped, and in later transcripts was ignorantly replaced as a syllabic one.

In such questions manuscript authority merits little con- sideration. Thus, inscriptions prove that dvadloxw did, like émirndedw, augment after the first syllable, not on it; and yet, even in the same author, the same manuscript will sometimes exhibit the genuine -dvijAwca, dvijAwxa, dvnddOny by the side of the corrupt dvdAwoa, dvddwxa, dvaddOnv.

*Eu7oA, formed from éuzod7, as éyyvd from éyyén, ought, like éyyv6é, always to receive the temporal augment. In éyxwpid¢@, on the other hand, the syllabic augment is uni- formly employed, évexwulagov, évexapiaca, but never jyxw- plagov, jyx@placa, although the verb is not a compound of kwpid¢w, but derived from éyxduiov. In regard to ék- kAnowd¢w, manuscripts offer such conflicting evidence that it is impossible to decide finally upon the true method of augmenting the verb. To my own mind forms like éfexAy- olaca, éfexdynolafov, recommend themselves, but perhaps — €xkAnoido, like évayriodpas, augmented in different ways at different periods. This only-is certain, that in a lan- guage so precise as Attic the same writer did not, as manuscripts would indicate, use two kinds of augment in the same work and the same page of that work.

These two opposing tendencies—the feeling that the augment should follow syllables like év, apd, tmép, etc., and the desire to treat verbs like xd@nuar, not as com-

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS, 83

pounds, but as simples—naturally led to many irregu- larities, the most marked of which was that of double augmentation. Forms like dvewydpnv and dum dunv came to be regarded as simple words; and the natural result was the addition of the temporal augment to the initial syllable, dverxdunv and dvecxdyunv becoming jverxdunv and jveoxdunv, durerxsunv and dyreoxdunv ending in jymerxsunv and jjurecxdunv. These verbs in their turn led to the same treatment of others, as in Attic Greek analogy played a singularly important part.

The verbs in which Attic writers employed a double augment are eleven in number—

~ dvtiBodeiv, entreat, qvTEBodovr. avrioiKeiv, dispute, qvTEdlkouv. appr Byreiv, dissent, Hepes Biyrovv. appyvoeiv, doubt, nepeyvdovr. biarray, arbitrate, edujrwr. dvaxoveip, serve, edinkdvour. évoxAciv, trouble, nvdxAovv. Tapoweir, act as if drunk, éap@vovur. dvotyvovat, open, avéwyov. dvéxecOat endure, HvErx Opn. dytréxerOan, have on, Hpmerx ounv.

Pierson on Moeris (p. 17, cp. p. xv) long ago observed that in Photius and Suidas there was a distinct class of glosses— ‘per totum opus veluti totidem gemmulae dispersae’—easily distinguishable. from the rest, not only by their inherent excellence, but also by outward marks, such as the precise and scholarly way in which confirmatory quotations are made. Cobet has demonstrated what Pierson suggested, namely, that these are both in Photius and Suidas (and sometimes in other lexica) derived from the ’Arrixa ’Ovdyara of Aelius Dionysius, a rhetorician who flourished in the early part of the second century A.D. G2

84 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

In the present question his glosses are of incalculable value as the verbs do not happen to occur in stone monu- ments, and metre, for various reasons, is of little service, while the remarks of other grammarians are as foolish and unintelligible as the manuscripts of Attic texts are con- tradictory and corrupt. ‘

In Photius, sub jvelxero, is a gloss evidently from the pen of Dionysius: "Hveixero kal jvdxdAer Kal jxnKder Kal qvTeBode Kowdv Tv Artikdy ldloua. Even here the copy- ists exhibit jv7.BéAe, as they do in Aristophanes, Eq. 667—

6 8 mnvreBdre y adrods dAtyov peivat xpdvor, and in a fragment of the same writer preserved in Ath. 12, p. 525 A—

émnkodovdovy KivTeBdoAovy TpocKEipevor.

The Etymologicum Magnum, however, p. 112. 52, puts it beyond question that Aristophanes used the forms with two augments. After quoting dvreBddnoev from Pindar (Olym. 13. 43), and from Homer (Il. 16. 847)—

towodro. & ef mép pou éelxoow dvteBddrnoar,

it adds the words, rd 8& map’ "Apiorodpdver év Audiapdw bid TOO €, nvTEBOANGE, S00 KAicets bréaTN.

The evidence of a scholar like Dionysius, who wrote at a time far anterior to all our manuscripts, is quite con- vincing, especially as there is the confirmatory evidence _ of the Etymologicum Magnum (11th century A. D.), also older than most of our texts, and the authority, such as it is, of the best manuscripts, for the double augment of the verbs dvtidic6 and dydicByrG in Demosthenes, and aupryvod in Platol.

1 qwredixe, best MS., S in Dem, 1006. 2; 1013. 23. jue. S alone or with others in Dem. 818. 9 ; 820. 26; 899.11; 1000. 3, etc. Observe the place of the second augment, jyd-e-s-Bnre. dupeoByre, in Inscript. from Priene, of date between Ol. 133 and Ol. 160, confutes any who may choose to deny such

. a position for an augment. jppéyvoe in best MSS. of Plato, Soph. 236, and hepeyvcnoe in id. 228, Polit. 291; the others, duge-, dugn-, Hupn-.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 85

Another of the glosses of Dionysius, in Suidas under *Avedyeioay, and in Bekker’s Anecdota, p. 399. 24, estab- lishes the Attic usage as regards dvolyvums: ’Avéwyer, ody) jwotye, kat dvegyero, kat Opacvdéovre y t) 5—

9 8 dvéwye tiv Ovpav Oerrahji— kal Td Kepdusov

dvéwxas* d€ets, tepdovd’, olvov odd Etrodts TdéAeow—

dv odk dvéwga mémor avOpdmous eyd* Pepexpdrns Kpanardd\dors—

ovdels yap d€xer’, odd dvéwyé or Ovpar.

There is no difficulty about mapowd 1, évoydAG, and dunéyo- pat*. Double augmentation is in their case allowed by all; but some Grammarians throw doubts upon it in the remaining verbs, d:a:76, dvaxovd, and dvéxouar. There are numerous instances of the imperfect and aorist of dvéyoua, in both Tragic and Comic verse, but they are found under circumstances which give little or no indication of Attic usage. Thus either single or double augmentation is possible in the lines Arist. Nub. 1363, 1373, Thesm. 593, Eq. 412, Ach. 709; Aesch. Cho. 747, Agam. 905, 1274; Soph. Trach. 276, Phil. 411, etc.; while Arist. Lys. 507; Soph. Ant. 467, are too corrupt to be used on either side. It is true that dverydéunv must be read in Arist. Pax 347—

TOAAG yap avecxdopnv Tmpdypata KTe. but its position in a paeonic hexameter at once takes it out of the inquiry. ' The question is, however, set at rest by Euripides. He + Moeris, p. 332, wemapgvnkev ’Arrixol, mapotvixey (sic) “EAAnves.

? Gramm. Coislin. Bekk. Anecd. 3. 1285, duméxopar, Humexdpnv, nat jyre- oxéopny.

86 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

uses, it is true, the old form dveoydunv when his verse demands it— od & otk dvécxov' Tovyap obkér edxAecis, Hipp. 687. just as he uses, like other Tragic poets, old words like ép- Xopat, épxou, epxerOai, Tébw, otelyw, etc., by the side of tw, 101, tévar, réopar, ~pxoua, but the occurrence in his verse of the unquestionably new formation jveocydunv proves that the manuscripts are right in generally exhibiting jveixdpunv and jveoxdunuv— "Ohvprov jvérxovto & jpapryxdres. H. F. 1319. The case for d:airé depends upon a fragment of the *Hyperbolus’ of the Comic poet Plato, preserved in He- rodian (Ilept A€ews pornpovs, p. 20. 1)—

6 8 od yap Arrixicev, & Motpar pirat, GN’ éadre yey xpetn “dunrdunv ré€yew, épacke bn Tw unr, Smore 3 elneiv déov brlyov, 6 Au ov ereyer,

The point lies in the attempt to reproduce the deliberate and cautious pronunciation of one unfamiliar with the dialect, who, nevertheless, misses those refined sounds which his ear is not yet sufficiently trained to catch—the y between two vowels in dAfyos, and the light vowels be- . fore and after the 6 in éd:yréunv. To the prominent sounds he gives more than their due emphasis.

The Attic forms of the augmented tenses of d:axové are dependent merely upon the argument from seriation, which in Attic Greek is of no small authority. In Eur, Cycl. 406, for kal dinxdvour, xddinxdvovv should be reaad—

expysmropnv KixAwne xadinkdvovr.

With these eleven verbs the compound of 6966 with ézt and dyad may best be classed. That éanvdpbovr, éxnvdpbaxa,

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 87

ernvaplodvunv, emnvaplacdynv, emnvoepbwpat, and émnvwpOdbnv were the only forms known to Attic, is never called in question. It is, however, the only compound of 6906 which has this peculiarity.

XXI.

Zmidoc: Kat tobto puddttov, Aére dé KHAtC,

The forbidden word should probably be written o7ztdos, as in its compound demos the iota is short.

In the sense of xfdAvs the word is unquestionably late ; but Hesychius quotes it in the sense of rock, from the Omphale of the Tragic poet Ion—ozidoy Tapvacctav—a usage also found in Aristotle, de Mund. 3. 392. °30, and Arrian(?), Peripl. Maris Rubri. p. 12, while om:Addns in Poly- bius shows that o7midos was to him also equivalent to omAds. The words of Hesychius, s. v., are, omidos* KhAts, porros iwartov, métpa Twpédns, yh Kepaysxy, and they suggest one plausible origin for the late meaning xjdts, Originally meaning rock, it came to signify successively porous rock, rotten- stone, clay, and clay-stain, till Paul could employ it meta- phorically, as in Ephes. 5. 27, riv éxxdnolay ph exovoar ontdov 7 putida, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus apply it to men with the meaning dregs of humanity, Ant. 4. 24. 698, eis rovrovs evrot Tovs dvoekkabdprovs onmtdovs ex Tijs TOAEwS amoBAérovres ot ToAXO? bvoxepalvover Kal mpoBEBAnvrat Td eos.

Without doubt there is an enormous gulf between these meanings and that of the Homeric omAds, as seen in Od. 3. 298— ;

ai pev ap &v0 HArOov, orovd7 & ijAvéav 6deOpov avdpes, arap vnds ye moTl omAdbdecow eagav kUpar*

but even omiAds is used by Theophrastus, C. P. 2. 4. 4,

88 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

in the sense of clay, and the Latin pumex passed through

some of the same stages of meaning. J. H. Heinrich

Schmidt, in his Synonymik der Greich. Sprache 51, though

evidently considering the two meanings, ‘stone’ and ‘ stain,’

as belonging to two distinct words, yet bridges the gulf

between them by quoting the following passages :—

Strabo, 16. 4. 18, dpos yap maparetver tpaxd Kai tynddv' «0 imdperat omiAad@ders exp THS Oaddrryns: Polyb. 10, fo. 7, ra

be AowTa Tepiexerar Adpois Svol pev dpewois Kal tpaxéow,

ddXots 8& tpiol TorAd pev xOapadrwrépois, omAddeor Se Kal

dveBdros: Arist. H. An. 5. 15 fin., pverar pev ody ra dorpia

kadarep eipnrat, pverar 8 abrdy Ta pev ev revdyeor, TA 8 ev

Tots alyiadois, Ta 8 ev Tots omAGdeor TéroLs, évia 8 ev Tots ° okAnpots kal tpaxéot. The variants for omAddeou. in the

last passage, viz. mnAddeo. and mueAddeot, are evidently

glosses, but correct glosses, that have crept into the text.

Against this view, that ozfdos and o7miAds, originally meaning hard stone, degenerated in meaning as the language aged, may be set another, namely, that omiAos= kfAts came into the Common dialect from some unregarded corner of Greece, in which it survived as another form of mlvos. Curtius supports the latter view by the Bohemian word ‘spina,’ which forms a connecting link between zivos and o7idos.

The former view is unquestionably the true one. There is no trace of oriAos=—ivos, kris till a late period; we can ' track omidos, vock, through an easy gradation of meanings historically consecutive, from the beginning to the close of Greek literature, and surely the degradation of dpri, amo- tdoooual, and éurréw, to limit ourselves to words already discussed, is sufficiently marked to make that of omidos . neither surprising nor impossible.

:

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 89

XXII.

*Aveireiv BiBAiov did TOG Etépou A, KakiGTOV’ GAAG dia

Tav do, dvelAdety.

It is possible that in this passage Phrynichus wrote dvi\Xew, as in the next remark but one dA/Autrat should replace dAjAemraz. In the App. Soph. 20. 1, the true form of the latter word has been preserved, and in 19. 14, dvitdew is read: ’AvidAew BiBdrlov" of pev Gd TEepiomdor THY AEE, Kal 87 évds A ypdovoww" ofrw wal rd eéidAdew. It is no rare error for copyists to go further still, and to substitute for the true word the very form against which a grammarian is warning his readers. Cobet, Var. Lect. 361, is very confident: “EtAA«w et <taa et composita saepe apud Hesychium leguntur, cui redde cicid\ew* ciodyery, elcedadve pro elondeciv, et éfiddew* exBadreiv pro efetreiv, et karikhkew pro xaretdciv, et ounddépevar ocvotpepdueva pro

_ ovveiddueva, et cuvidas* cvverjoas pro ovvetdas. Vera forma

conspicitur nunc in pulchro Euripidis senario de Sphinge, ovpay tntrdac’ bd Aceovtdmovy Badow,

ubi in libris est tajAAaca et imjrac’. Verum vidit Valck- enarius in Diatr. p. 193. Aristophani in Ranis vs. 1066, pro faxlows meprerAdduevos redde eptitduevos ex Photii annotatione: sepretAduevos* mepretAnoduevos, quod ex illo loco sumptum est, ut centena ex Aristophane vocabula in Photii Lexico sine Poetae nomine explicantur ex antiquis Scholiis, quae nescio unde Photius nactus est multo meliora nostris. In Euripidis Helena, vs. 452,

& pi mpocetrher xeipa pnd S0e Bla, legendum arbitror pi) mpdowAde xeFpa.’

The forms in -é are of course past praying for, and must be banished without recall, not only from Attic writers,

go THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

but also from the texts of Homer and Herodotus. They are as desperately late as dAjOew for ddciv, kadivdd or Kadri for xadivde, vipG for vido, viPew for vijv, Aovoua for Aodpat, xévvuu. for xd, and many others which now disfigure the pages of Classical writers. The evidence for the spelling et\\w -is, however, much greater than that for iAAw. It is true that in Ar. Nub. 762 the Ravenna has 7AAe, not cfAAe, which the other manuscripts exhibit; but in Plato, Tim. 40 B, they are by no means the best codices which present iArouevyv. The utter futility of regarding manuscript authority in a question of this kind will be acknowledged by any oné who studies the variants in this passage of Plato, or in Tim. 76 B, 86 E. The readings in 40 B are’ these, eiAAopuevny, ciAAowevynv, LAAomEevyv, tAAouEevnV, eiAopevny, eiAovpevny, etdovpevny.

The word does not seem to occur in Attic Inscriptions, but the authentic history of the aorist of rivw is strongly in favour of the diphthongal spelling. The aorist of rivo, anorivw, etc., is in stone records always represented with a diphthong, retoat, droreica:, éxreioat, etc., down to the second century B.C., at which date forms like dmoricacOa begin to appear. Admirable confirmatory evidence is afforded by the proper names Tewodwevos, Teloavdpos, Tevotas, Tewoiwaxos, Teofdaos, which in stone records appear consistently with the diphthong, whereas codices prefer the simple vowel. The same is true of Tel@pas and TewOpdovos [see Herwerden, Test. Lapid. pp. 36, 66]. As to the spiritus asper, the compounds triAdw and karihAw are hardly necessary to prove its. non-existence. It was a pastime of inferior Grammarians like George Choeroboscus —the érypor of his name is worthy of remark—to exercise their ignorant ingenuity in making two words out of one, and differentiating its meaning by the breathing. Inscrip- tions demonstrate that the Athenians often blundered in their h’s, but they did not make the error scientific.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. gt

XXIII.

ThoGuar obv TH v Aérwv, OvK SpOdc Epeite’ Mowat rap éort TO Gpyaiov, Kai mdpevoc dvev tod v. Aiwv S€ 6 ptAd- GOPOC adv TH v Aépwv GuapTavet,

The same statement is made by other Grammarians, and Athenaeus (10, 446 E) adds instances from the Poets: TIfopar 5& dvev rod v Aexréov, éxretvovtas 6€ Td 1. OttTw yap éxeu Kal 7d ‘Ounpixdyv—

miduev’ x Bordvys* kal ’Aptotoparys ‘Inmedo1.— kovmoT ék TavTod ped judy mlerar tornpiov' kal éy dAAows—

mukpdérarov olvoy THy<epov mlet taxa) éviore 8& Kal ovoTédAovor Td t, Os TlAdrov év Tats ad’ tepov— ov8 Sotis adris éExmleras Ta Xpypara*

kal év Stppaxi— kal mlec® tdwp Todd.

Probably miodua: should be removed even from Xeno- phon (Symp. 4. 7), but in writers like Aristotle it should doubtless be retained. In another place of the Symposium the future waifodya. occurs (9. 2), but in the mouth of a Syracusan. The Attic form was doubtless zalcowa:, as all forms with & like maigas and mémaryya, were un- questionably un-Attic, and should be removed, with manu- script authority, from such passages as Plato, Euthyd. 278 C. In genuine Doric writers the case is different, as in Theocr, 14. 22, “AvKov eldes;” erar€é tis.

In Ar. Pax 1081, kAavoodpeOa occurs in hexameters,

1 Even into the text of Athenaeus copyists have imported the late mei, adding the gloss ds dad rod modpa before éviore, This is a signal instance of the. transcribers’ habit, already mentioned, of altering the text of Grammarians so as to present the very forms on which an interdict is being put.

92 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

and alongside of forms like paxdpecou, xev, duevacol (opt.), gvddmodos, and others. It was, of course, as unknown to Attic as muodya. The future of the unsavory xé(m must be left unsettled. There is no line of verse in which xéoouat may not be read as easily as xeoodyar (Ar. Pax 1235, Vesp. 941, Lys. 440, 441, Fr. 207), but the latter has the manuscript influence on its side. That, however, is absolutely valueless in such questions. In Alexis (Ath. 12, 516 D)—

éav tapa0d oor, mpookaréder Tovs daxTvAovs,

almost all the codices read apockaredei, although no fact is better established than that edoue1, not édoduar, was the Attic future of écim. Moreover, the only exceptions to one of the most comprehensive facts of the Attic dialect— the fact that all verbs denoting bodily or functional activity are either deponents throughout or deponents in the future tense—are due to the copyists importing the late Active forms into our texts by adding a sigma to the second person singular. What dependence can be put on leaders like these? The Attic future of véw, szvim, was “unquestionably vedoopuat, but in Xen. An. 4. 3. 12, éxdvvres ds vevodpevot, the original veveduevo. supported by Hesychius— vevodpeba, vifoneba, appears in the manuscripts as vevootpevor, Tevrdpuevol, oTEv- odpevot. From the last two words the true form may be elicited. As long as the metre protects mvedcopat it is safe—

eunvedooua THO elaé, Thu dikn xXépas. : Eur. Andr. 555.

‘ 4 4 2 = d taxd b& mpds matpds réxv’ exmvetoerat. H. F. 886.

When that support fails, tvevcoduar at once appears—

TO AnktO.ov yap Todro mvevoeTar Todd, Ar. Ran, 1221.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 93

where all the manuscripts have mvevecirai. In Theocritus, as a Doric writer, tAevoodua: is in place, 14. 55— a as .S , »” TAevootpat Knyov diaTévtios, ote KdKLOTOS"

but it must be carefully corrected in the texts of Attic writers. It is absurd to read tAeoouar and mAevoodyar in different passages of Thucydides, and of Demosthenes, and other Orators. It is but another instance of the ignorant uncertainty of transcribers which was above (p. 60) so clearly demonstrated in the case of dmw0ev. No editor would now vary with the manuscripts in reading dzoev or &twOev indifferently, and why should a verb receive different treatment from an adverb? The Attic future of mAdw was 7Acioop.a, as the Attic form of the adverb was dzwdep, “Arodev and mAcvoodpa are equally late. In Theocr. 3. 5o— j

bs Tooohv extpyoer, bo’ od mevoeicbe BEBadou, the Doric future wevoodua: is as much in place as the Doric present reOoua in 13. 36 (12. 37)—

xpuody droty

mevOovtat, pi paddos erjrvpor, apyvpayorBol: but in an Attic writer mevoodua: is intolerable. Accordingly, it must be removed from the only passage of Attic in which it occurs. All manuscripts of Aeschylus exhibit the genuine form veto in P. V. 963, Ag. 266, Eum. 415, 419, 4543 mevoonat in Ag. 599; medoerar in Eum. 503; and medoecbe in P. V. 642: but, by some unaccountable fatality, mevoeioOat has manuscript authority in P. V. 988—

el mpocdoxas euod te mevoecOar mdpa,

although, fortunately for the text of those nerveless editors who justly trust the pen of a nodding transcriber in pre- ference to their own reason, some codices have retained neboerOat.

The future of ¢etyw has escaped corruption almost by a miracle. In Thucydides and Xenophon ¢evfouai is

94 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

always read ; in Demosthenes, who uses it with frequency, the manuscripts consistently exhibit the genuine form, ex- cept in one passage (990. 4), in which gevécioOa appears by the side of pevfer0a. In Plato the corrupt devfoipar seldom presents itself, perhaps only in three places, Legg. 635 C, pev€eira: id. 762 B, dnopev§eicba: Rep. 432 D, expevéeiobar: and these must be at once corrected to har- monize with gevgoua, Apol. 29 B; pedvfea, Crit. 53 C5 pevéera, Rep. 592A; hevédueda, Theaet. 181 A; dedvfovra, id. 168 A; dropedtfera, Apol. 39 A; éxpedfera, Soph. 235 B; éxpedéecOar, Symp. 189 B, etc. As to the Poets, Aeschylus and Sophocles are free from corruption, but the texts of both Euripides and Aristophanes have been tam- pered with. These writers certainly employ the Doric future of this verb when the verse demands it—

évop& yépovta deirlas gevgovpevov. . Ar. Ach, 1129,

épnuov amorimovre ror pevéovpeba. Plut. 447.

ei pn th Y abrd ddvres aropevfodvucba. Ay, 932.

kat Evumepavar ppovtl® 7 pevEodvycba. Eur. Med. 241.

Totmod yap ov por dpovris, ei evEovpeba. Id. 346.

jets b€ cor pevobuer, ov Hevéovucda. Bac. 659.

ovd at TO dewdy mpoorddrov hev€otpeda. Hel. 500.

meloays av adda tiva puyhy pev€ovpeba ; Id. 1041. This licence may be regarded as the converse of that which even Comic poets did not scruple to use in the case of datives plural in -a:ox(v), -ovor(v), third persons plural op- tative middle in -ofaro, and the insertion of o before -0a

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 95

of the first person plural middle and passive. The latter was a licence derived from an old stage of the language, the former, which embraces futures like gevfoia1, was an anticipation of later usage. But just as -aior(v), -ovor(v), -olaro, -yer0a never appear except when the metre abso- ILtely demands them, so evéodua: was undoubtedly never employed citra necessitatem. And in Ar. Ach. 203— ey® b& hevfoual ye robs ’Axapvéas,

as in Eur. Bacch. 798, Med. 604, and Hipp. 1093, no attention should be paid to the codices.

This is not the only instance in which a general rule can be elicited from a particular statement of Phrynichus. Just as in Arts. 16, 17 above his particular rule was shown to be general, namely, Verbs in -patvo and -ulpw Sorm their aorists with eta, not alpha, so here his dictum as to the future

of iva has been proved to be generally true. The Doric future in -odua: was practically unused by Attic writers.

XXIV.

*HaAeiniTat, KaT@puKTat ov ypri, GAAG diTTrAGGiage THY Poovey

Gonep ot A@Hyaiot, GAHAeITTaL, KaTOpapuKTat.,

XXV.

*Quoke TeAEwWC aHeec XpH rap OudpoKe Aéyetv.

These two paragraphs put in a very clear light the character of the work of Phrynichus. As just stated, it is fragmentary to a degree,.and his rules are rarely general. To learn facts in this way is not only difficult but puerile, and the aim of this book will have been attained if it demonstrates that there are certain general facts relating

96 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

to the Attic dialect which explain many phenomena in its literature, and introduce law and symmetry into the language itself.

The perfects with the so-called Attic reduplication are these—

axovw axyKoa drclpw aAnAipa GANA pat ar6 GAnAEwaL apd dpjpopar eyelpw eyityeppat fo - ed7d0Ka edjdeopar eAatvw éAjAaka éAjAapat eAEyxw eAnjAeypat Epxopat ednavba od\AVpL bA@GdEKa 6\wAa Ouvupe bu.OmoKa Gpomopat éptorw épepvxa épdpvypar [pépa | évijvoxa eviveypat.

The peculiarity of the reduplication consists in the fact that, after augmenting in the ordinary way, they place their initial vowel with the following consonant before the augment. Thus, Spvxa, Spvyyat, would be the re- gular perfects of dptcow, but in Attic the syllable ép- was thrown before each, In the perfect passive of dxodw this was not done, but the simple augment sufficed, 7Jxovopar, There can be no question that dA7Aexa and dpnpoxa, though not found in our texts, were yet in ordinary use ; but it is not so certain what was the active perfect of édéyx. It is well known that jveyxas and jvéycare were common Attic forms, but the fact that in the two large classes of verbs—those in -Jyw and -alyw—together numbering over one hundred verbs, only one perfect active regularly formed occurs, brings into suspicion all perfect active forms not found in Classical texts in which the combination -yxa is found.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 97

Moreover, the one exception referred to, namely, do- népayka, occurs only in one writer, Dinarchus, who wrote towards the close of the Attic period, after which perfects of the objectionable kind like ijoxvyxa, xexépdayxa became common enough. For this reason a just suspicion must rest upon éAjAeyxa.

A similar difficulty confronts us in éyelpw. There may have been an éyyyepxa in use, as even the passive perfect has been preserved only in one passage (Thuc. 7. 51), but it is always difficult to reconstruct a verb not perfectly regular. Of all regular vowel verbs, and of verbs in -(¢w and -d¢w, the perfect may be confidently used, whether or not it happens to occur in Classical Greek. However ses- quipedalian, such forms were never eschewed, yeyupraoidp- xnka, kexaddrépnxa, and similar words being employed as often as their need was felt. By the sober use of the theory of probabilities the existence of many forms not found in our texts will ultimately be established ; but this is not the place to start so tedious and intricate an in-

" quiry.

The question of the insertion of sigma before the ter- minations of the perfect indicative passive is one of great difficulty; occasionally verse establishes the true form, as in the case of duvvpi—

Toutl TO mpaypa tmavtaxdbey Evvopdporat. Ar. Lys. 1007.

dpdporar yap 8pxos éx Ody péyas. Aesch. Ag. 1284. But the untrustworthiness of manuscripts is demonstrated by the circumstance that, as soon as the support of metre is withdrawn, the sigma appears— eb vey 760° tore, Zeds dudpoora marip. Eur. Rhes. 816. In Dem. 505. 29 it is only the best manuscript (Paris S.) which has retained the primitive hand éy # yéypamra xat H

98 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

éydpora. The true form of the perfect passive of d\é has barely escaped corruption in a passage of the T'vvatxopavia of Amphis, quoted by Athenaeus, 14. 642 A—

A. 78n mor’ jKovcas Blov dAneuevov; B. vat. A. robr éxeiv’ Eotw capds antes, olvos nots, gd, onoapai, pdbpov, otépavos, aidntpls. B. & Atocképa, évopata TGv dddeKa OeGy diedAHAvOas.

The passage itself well explains the meaning of Bios dAndeuévos, and the explanation of Suidas is hardly re- quired, dAnAeopévos Blos emt trav év adpbovia rv émirndelov dvrwv. Schweighaeuser and Dindorf edit—

dn mor iyKoveas Blov ddAndeopévor a> 2 “> ty ....at Toor éxeiy eoTw capds

but the manuscripts, for a marvel, do not offer the late dAnAeopévov, and the former arrangement unquestionably restores the hand of the Comic poet. In Thuc. 4. 26, elodyew cirov dAndeuévor, the corrupt dAndeopévoy appears in some manuscripts. In most cases, however, verse helps the inquirer but little, as the penultimate is often long even without the sigma, and if not, the word occurs in a part of the line in which either form may stand.

Sometimes a corruption has preserved the original read- ing, as in a fragment of Aristophanes found in Stob. Flor. 121, 18—

ovd dv mod obtrws eorehavwpévor vexpol > , 359 / 4 mpovkeiue® o¥8 Gy Kataxexpiysévor pdpors,

where the codices exhibit xaraxexpysévor. To all Attic writers the perfect without sigma should be restored to xplo, as to Kovlw, pyvio, etc.—Kéxpial, KeKOvipal, MEUNvIaL, as xpiva, phviysa, etc., not xpiopa, pyvicpa.

On the other hand, éypic@nv, not éxpiOnv, was the ancient form of the aorist. It seems as if this sigma would tax

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 99

the most powerful of human memories; one rule, however, of great usefulness can be formulated. Jf the aorist passive has not the sigma, the perfect also 7s without it. Thus the absence of the sigma in xKexéAovwat may be proved by Thuc. 7. 66, where the genuine xoAov#dor. is preserved, not only by the better manuscripts, but also by the cor- ruption dxovA6@. So the unquestioned éodéénp establishes’ the perfect o¢owpa:.—a form which is confirmed by Photius, S. V. c€owtar: Séowrar cal ceowpévos of madaol dvev Tod o, kal dreCmpéevor not Oovkvdldns, of 5€ vedrepor c€owopar. Now in Thuc. 1. 6, the passage referred to, all manuscripts ex- hibit the late dveCwopevor, as Tepre(wopevar in Ar. Av. 1148, although stone records support the statement of Photius, dreCwpévar, diéCwrar, and tméCorar being quoted from in- scriptions of the best Attic times, whereas no form with o is ever found. Accordingly, with manuscript authority, céowra has to be restored to Eur. I. T. 607, and to Plato, Crit. 109 D; 110 A. In fact, céowora: is as late as dpud- poorat and dAnAeopévov.

This fact, that the sigma, if unknown in the aorist, is not found in the perfect, demonstrates what might otherwise be liable to question, that the sigma in the indicative and participle of the perfect came from the infinitive, where it was always inserted before theta—dpuopocda, edijracOat, aphporOat, kekravoda, KexehevoOat, xexdrovaGat, etc. In fact, AéAvoOa is as unquestioned as A€Avpar, and dudpocbar as éucdpoua, and as neither in duvyye nor Avw had the sigma passed from dpyéporba and A<Avobat to opdOnv and edvOnv, still less had it passed to évépowar and AéAvpat. Take the two verbs yiyvéoxw and titpdcxw. The aorist of yeyvdoxw as certainly had the sigma, éyyécOnv, as that of ritpdoKw "was without it, érpédnv. Accordingly, in its perfect ritpd- axw could not have the sigma, while y:ryyédoxw might either have it or want it. As a matter of fact éyvwopai is as securely established as rérpwpya. This rule extends the

H 2

100 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

utility of verse, as, if verse shows that the aorist of a verb was without sigma, the true form of the perfect follows as a matter of course. Thus éAyjAapar is proved by 7AdOnz, Aesch. Eum. 283—

PolBov Kabappots nAdOn XorpoxTdvors, and dpipopa: by 7pdOnv, Soph. O. R. 1485—

marnp epdvOny evbev adrds jpdbnr, and dajpuyyas by a line of the Anyyrpios 7) Pidréraipos of Alexis (Ath. 2. 36 E)—

TovTav andvtwy, anapvdervta Thy advo.

There is no exception to the law, and the inquirer will ’ readily extend the subjoined list—

éovOnv AéAovpar nvénenv nvenuat aynraOnv avjAw@par érunOnv TéTENpaL explOnv KEKpULaL éxpdOnv kKéKpapae éndOnv TéTOpat eorpadny eoTpwpar €3d0nv dedomar eduryndnv — dedUvnuat érdOnv TéTapar EBovanOnv BeBovAnpar éordOnv ~ eoTapat eBrndnv BeBAnpar eBddnv BéBapa éxavOnv KéKQvpa. jpapryOnv ijpdprnpac

A diligent searcher would perhaps find manuscripts in which each of these perfects and aorists is read with sigma, and bless Hermes for his luck. Such grammarians would have worse fortune if they searched for sparks of reason in themselves. In Dem. 214 29, év rots mapaBeBa- Bévows Spxois, all the manuscripts have tapaBeBacpévais, as all but one had dyuépoora: in 505. 29; but can a reasonable man doubt for a moment that the form with o was im-~ ported into the text at an age when éBde@nv strove for supremacy with éBdvOnv?

To the above class, consisting of verbs which have never sigma in the aorist, and consequently are always without

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 10r

it in the perfect passive, belong all verbs in -edw, except Aedw and xkeAedw, all contracting verbs in -dw, except the only disyllabic one, xéw, all contracting verbs in -éw which have eta in the aorist passive, and all contracting verbs in -do, with alpha long, except xpépar and 86. Wecklein would deprive even keAevw of the sigma (Cur, Epigr. 62), but there is no question that éxeAevoOnv and édevoOnv were

the genuine aorists of Aedw and Kededw. Like yedw, dedu,

eto, and vetw, these verbs stand on a different footing from other verbs in -edw. Photius quotes xarayevodels, Suidas, «dels, and édeOnv is found in Hippocrates and Theophrastus, but there is no instance of the aorist of vevw.

"ExpyoOnv is of course undisputed, but édpdcOnv may well be a corruption for édpd@nv. The tense occurs only in two passages of Thucydides (3. 38; 6. 53); and in a third passage (3. 54) even the unquestioned d¢dpaya: appears in the manuscripts as d¢dpacpai, just as in 3. 61, 7riacpévwn is exhibited for the genuine jjrvayévwry, On the other hand, as dpacréos occurs without variant in Plato, Phil. 20 A, Crit. 108 E, Legg. 626 A, etc.; Soph. O. R. 1443, El. 1019, etc., the aorist with sigma may well be correct.

If the alphain the present is short the sigma invariably appears in the aorist passive—

yero éyeAdoOnv kAG éxAdoOnv ond eonda On XarG exaddoOnv,

as also in the perfect indicative and participle. Of verbs in -€w, aldodwar and dxodua take the sigma in the aorist, but it is never found in 7véOnv, npéOnv, and ed€Onv. In the case of those verbs which have -o@ny in the aorist it is often difficult to establish the true form of the perfect passive. Of some there has never been any doubt. All regular verbs in-d¢w and -/¢m have sigma both in aorist and perfect. Others equally well-established are these—

102 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Kvdlvdw exvaloOnv KekUALopaL Wevdo epedoOnu eevopar oBévvupe eo BéoOnv eo Beopat xpd éxpdaOnv KeXpwopat x da exdoOnv KeX@opat aldodpau ndéecOnv noeopat mplw emploOnv TET PLO [LAL tlyo etic Onv TETLO PAL katecOlw KaredéaOnv KaTededeopar oelw éveloOnu céoevopar Kuo. exvnoOnv KEKVNO MAL.

On the other hand, the sigma, though found in the aorist, is absent from the perfect in the verbs—

XpOpar exp oOnv KeXpnyuat [povvvpe } €ppdaOnv Eppwpae KAj@ exAnodnu KEKAT GL Kpotw expovoOnv KEKPOVJLaL PlpynoKopat euvnodnv pépynpar KeAedw exeAedoOnv kexéAevpal.

Others are disputed. To the passage already quoted on oécwpat Photius adds, ém éviwy amAGs Tapadelrover 76 otypa, KekAelmevov, mempnuevov. Now the aorists were certainly exAjoOny and éxpiodny, and xéxAnwat is doubted by none, yet the Ravenna codex, which alone has preserved kexde- peéva in Ar. Plut. 206, falls as low as the rest in Vesp. 198, and exhibits xékAcopar. In Vesp. 36 it is the only manu- script which presents éumempnuévnvy without the sigma. When the danger of adding the obnoxious letter was so” great, the testimony of the Ravenna, combined with that . of Photius, ought to be regarded as conclusive. Perhaps the aorist of zavw was énav@nv, the perfect was certainly méravpat, and if the sigma-appeared in the aorist of kAda, it was beyond question absent from the perfect.

-—

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 103

XXVI.

AmeAevcouat Mavtatact muAdttou' odte rap of ddKkimor plitopec, odTe H dpyaia Kkau@dia, ote TAdTwv KexpHTat TH Pave dvti d€ abrod TH Grew ypd Kal toic dnoedecw

OsavTwe.

E X XVII.

*"EmeEeAeucoMEevoc GAAOC ovTOC “HpakaAfic. todr z 2 2 , ° ‘ ‘ > ‘ > a” ovv Eoupev Ex rpiddov PaBwpivoc, ypH rap émetidv cireiv’ Kai pap éméeeuut Aéretat, GAN ovK ereEeAcUGopat.

Nothing can better illustrate the precision of Attic Greek than the consideration of the Greek equivalent of the English verb 40 go. Whether simple or compounded with a preposition, «iy had consistently a future signification. Its present indicative was épxouar, but épxoua: did no more than fill the blank left by the preoccupation of efyu. There was no épywpat, épxoiunv, epxov, epxerOat; épydwevos, and no imperfect jpxdunv. ty could well supply those forms without drawing upon another root, and all the moods of the present, except the indicative, were derived from the stem 1, namely, tw, tou, 101, iévar, idv. The imperfect was ja, not jpxdunv. «tut, however, formed no aorist or perfect; and for these tenses recourse was again had to the root ép-, which, modified to éAv-, supplied the aorist and perfect tenses throughout. The following scheme re- presents these facts in one view :—

PRESENT. INDICATIVE. CONJUNCTIVE. S. 1. &pxopat to 2. &pxee ins

3. e&pxerat tn

104 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. INDICATIVE. CONJUNCTIVE. D.2. &pxeodov tnrov 3. e&pxerOor tyrov P.1. épxducda lopev 2. €pxecde inte 3. &pxovrat. taou(v). PAST. S.1. ja Tous or loiny 2. Heda tous 3. neu(v) Tou D.2. #rov tovrov 3. nT lotrny P.1. jjmev to.pev 2. re toure 3. foray tovev. IMPERATIVE, INFINITIVE, So. OL iéva.. 3. trw D,2. troy PARTICIPLE. 3. trav i lodca, idv P.2. Ire idyros, ovens, idvros. 3. idvtwv. FUTURE. INDICATIVE. OPTATIVE. INFINITIVE. PARTICIPLE, S. 1. ele ehevoolunv édedoeoOar. eAevodpevos. 2 éAedooro 3. lov) édedcouro D. 2. troy éAevootcbov 3. trov edevoolcOnv P. 1. twev eevoolueba a: tre Actoorde 3. tacr, eAcvoowrTo.

PP re poe px

Wo Pos Deke ae

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

INDICATIVE: HAPov WAGES HAe(v)

: WAOerov mAGernv HAO opED Adee HAOov.

IMPERATIVE.

ede ehOérw €\Oerov éhOerav &Oere eAOdvTwv.

eAnrvba ednarvdas eAjrvbe(v) €Andvarov eAndvdatov eAnrAvOapev eAnarvoare

eAndvOaci(v).

PLUPERFECT. eiAnrvdn elAnddOns eldndvder(v) eiAndvOerov elAndvbérnv clAnvAvOenev elAndddere

elAnrv0eoav.

AOorIST. CONJUNCTIVE. -

Ow COO €\Ons €Oous EON €AOot €\OnTov €\Oourov €AOnrov €Oolrnv E\wpev Eoiev €\Onre &Ooure wow. &Oouev,

INFINITIVE.

eAOeiv,

PARTICIPLE, €Odv, edAOodca, edAdov

€AOdvros, EAPovons, eAOdvTos,

~ €AnAvddros, etc,

105

PERFECT. eAnrvOw eAnAvdolnv €AnAvOns eAnAvdotns €AnAVOn eAnAvdoin €AnrAvOnrov €AndAvotrov €AnrAVOnrov éAndvbolrnv eAnrAVOwpev EAnAVOonev eAnavOnre eAndvoure €Anrvdwor(r). éAndAvOorev, INFINITIVE. eAnrvdévat, PARTICIPLE. €AndrvOds, eAnAvOvia, EAnAvOds

106 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

If to these are added the synonyms ddikdépny for the aorist, and ddiypa: and fxw for the perfect, adlyynv and jixov for the pluperfect, with #é for future perfect (=édAn- Avoes évouat), the Attic usage with regard to this verb- notion will be thoroughly understood.

It has been said that in Attic €pxoua: appears in no mood but the indicative, and is never used in the imper- fect tense. As a matter of fact, even if Xenophon be excluded as hopelessly un-Attic, there are still five ex- ceptions to this rule, namely, ém7jpxovro and mpoorpxovto in Thucydides, dmepyduevor in Lysias, éwe£epydpevor in An- tiphon, and wepujpxero in Aristophanes. :

Now, even if these instances were genuine beyond question, they might be disregarded, as opposed to the infinite number of passages in which the law is observed ; but all five cases are signally exceptional. Cobet, fol- lowing in the track of Elmsley, considers them due to the notorious habit which copyists had of replacing genuine forms by words better known at the time when the manuscript was made. For example, in a passage of Aristophanes—

Kal mpar épyoopat oe tourl maidd pw ovr eruntes ; Nub. 1409. the two best manuscripts replace érumres by ériémryaas, a form not only unknown to Classical Greek, but quite in- compatible with the metre. In another passage of the same play—

Xrp. dnos 8 exelvw TH Adyw pabjoera, > o 2 > A \ ef tov kpelttov’ édortis éott Kal Tov Arrova, 8 . , A fol f eay b& yy, Tov yody Gdixoy mdon TéxvN. : ee , > > tal tal , ° Zw. avros padnoerar map avroiv toly Adyouw, eyo & arreyu. Srp. TodTo voy péuvno’, STws mpos mavta Ta Sika dvTiA€yew dSvvqcerat, Nub, 883.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 107

the manuscripts read dmécoua and assign éy® 8 dmécopa to Strepsiades. Bentley restored the text by a convincing conjecture, which has long been generally received.

The habit was certainly in existence, but critics ought to be chary of using it to explain aberrations from usage. It will be shown that éAdctoecOa1, which Elmsley regarded as the product of this habit, was really used by Lysias, and not imported into his text by a late hand, and the same is true of some of the exceptions now under discussion. The participle éweéepydwevor is merely one of the many words and forms which demonstrate that at the time at which Antiphon wrote Attic was not yet mature (Ant. 115. 9), qyets & of eme€epxdpevor Tov pdvov ov Tov alrioy apév- Tes Tov dvatrioy dudKkouer: and emypxovro and spoorpxovto might be granted to an Attic writer who used xdpta and éxds. It is true that, in quoting Thuc. 4. 121, ldfq d@ éra- viovy Te Kat Tpoorjpxovto Sotep GOAnTH, Pollux used zpooy- ecav for mpoonpxovro, but he evidently quoted from memory, as he gives the passage as from Xenophon: Pollux, 3. 152, Zevopav yap cipnxev* érawlovy re kal mpoojecay Sorep GOAyTH- If critics will remove zpoonpxovro from Thucydides, they are bound to prove that in his style there is no other trace of early Attic.

*Emnpxovro, however, at the beginning of the preceding chapter of Thucydides, stands, like dmepydyevor in Lysias, on quite a different footing. When a word is not only questionable as regards form, but also unintelligible, there is a strong case against it. The words in Lysias are these (147. 34), moAAol pev yap pixpov diadeydpevor kal kooplos amepxdpevor peyadGv Kkakdv airio. yeydvacw, erepor b& TOV To.ovrwy duehodvTes TOAAG Kadyaba tas elo elpyacpévor. The manuscripts present no variant to dmepydpevor, but no one has been able to extract from the word a meaning in unison with the context. The conjecture dmexdpevor!

1 The change from éxdpevos to épxduevos occurs in some MSS. of Thuc.

108 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

suggested by Dobree, and adopted by Cobet, affords an excellent sense; but for the question at issue it is sufficient to indicate that the passage is corrupt. Now the imperfect éxnpxovro in Thucydides is as unintelligible as the parti- ciple dmepxdéuevor in Lysias: Thuc. 4. 120, rept d& ras juepas ravras als éajpxovto, VKudvyn év TH TladAgjvn weAts aaéotyn aa ’AOnvalwyv xpos Bpaciday. The verb requires both a subject and a prepositional object. Suppose these omissions sup- plied, as they are by the Scholiast, in the words «is GdAjAovs éxdrepor, and a new difficulty presents itself—the meaning of the word. . In late Greek the term might perhaps pass muster in the sense of going backwards and forwards to one another, but no such sense is possible in Attic. As a matter of fact, ais émjpxovro originally formed part of the Scholium on wept 5€ Tas jjépas ravras, and made its way from the margin into the text, the words of Thucydides being these, wepl 5¢ Tas jyepas tadras SKivy Kre.

The reason for zepinpxero in Aristophanes is not far to seek—

6 8 dvyp mepinpxeT, OkvTdKe ovotpevos. Thesm. 504.

It was used by the Comic poet in malice prepense, in a passage containing many other reminders of Tragic diction. It is like viewing a storm in a mill-pond to read the pages . in which critics have proposed and seconded their emenda- tions of this unhappy line. Elmsley suggested zepujppev, Hamaker, zepiérpexe, and Cobet cut the knot by reading mepujew. If there was any necessity to make the change, the reading of the great Dutch scholar might take its place in the line as confidently as dmeuu for dréoouat in the passage cited above from the ‘ Clouds.’

6. 3, Tod éxépevov érovs. In this case there happens to be MSS. authority, but, if this had failed, timid editors would have left the text unemended. There is little doubt that dumexépevor passed to dmepxdpevor through drexdpevor,

a

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS, 109

The usage of Xenophon is as contradictory in this respect as in others. In some passages he follows the rules observed by pure Attic writers, in others he employs forms which they studiously avoided: Anab. 4. 7. 12, mapépxetar mdvras* 6 6 KadAluaxos os édpa adréy wapidvra cre. . Cp. 4. 3. 13; 3. % 35, etc, but An. 2. 4. 25, mapepxopévovs tovs “EAAnvas @Oedper: Cyr. 8. 5. 12, els xéipas épxduevov. Sometimes the manuscripts present two forms, as in Anab. 4. 6. 22, dmjpxovro and @yxorto have both good manuscript authority, and é¢épyerai is a variant to é£épxoiro in Cyr. 4. 1. 1, pelvas 8% 6 Kipos pérpiov xpdvov aitod ody TO oTparedpart, kal dnrAdoas Stu Erowpol elor pdxeoOar el Tis &£€pxouro, ds oddels dvretje, dmjyayev kre. Similarly, in Cyr. 2. 4. 18, toAAGY Bovdropévwr ExecOar, the better manu- scripts read dnépyeoOa. The more Xenophon is studied the more difficult will it appear to find any standpoint for the criticism of his text. His verbosity, and his ex- traordinary disregard of the most familiar rules of Attic writing, make sober criticism almost impossible. Cobet may alter word after word, and cut down sentence after sentence, but the faults of Xenophon’s style are due, not to the glosses of Scholiasts or the blunders of transcribers, but to the want of astringents in his early mental training, and the unsettled and migratory habits which he indulged in his manhood.

The only forms from the stem épy- which are used, in Attic of any purity, are épxowal, épxer, epxerar, épyecOor, epxdpeda, Epxerde, and épxovra, and this is true not only of the simple verb, but also of its compounds. There is, however, one exception, namely, the compound of épyecOat with iaé, which early acquired a secondary meaning never attached to teu, and when used in that special sense was inflected throughout the imperfect and the moods of the present. When tzépyoua signified fo fawn upon, to cringe, all the forms which, in the meaning go wnder, were

110 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

not recognized in Attic, were at once ennobled; and in the metaphorical meaning, t7épywpat, dvepxolunv, brépxov, tmép- xecOar, drepyduevos, tanpxdunv, and trededoopar, replaced the trio, tmlouu, trib, bmevar, tmev, trja, and trey demanded by the simple signification: Plato, Crito 53 E, imepx dpevos 83) Bidcer mavtas dvOpérovs kal dovAedwv: Demosth. 623. 22, ovpBéBnke yap ek rovrov abrois pev avtimadovs elvat Tovrous, tas bt bmépyerOar! Kal Oepawedeww: Andoc. 31. 44 (4. 21), elxdraws dé por doxodow of kplra: drépxerOat’ AAKiBiddqy, épOvres Tavpéay tocatra pev xpyyata avaddcayra mpomnAakt- (pevov, Tov d& ToLadta Tapavopobyra peyioTov buvduevov. The same metaphor is found in Xen. Rep. Ath. 2. 14, d7epyd-_ pevos, and in the present indicative and aorist in Arist. Eq. 269; Dem. 1369. 20; and Xen. Rep. Lac. 8. 2%. It will, moreover, be observed that, even in the simple verb, the paradigm represents éAevoopat as correct Attic in the moods. In the indicative it was rendered unnecessary in Attic by the unconditional surrender of ei to a future sense, but in the two moods—the optative and infinitive— and in the participle, forms from éAedooua: might naturally be used, as tow, iévat, and idvy were always employed ina present signification. The future optative, as is well known, is the rarest of moods, and édAevoolyny certainly does not happen to be found in Attic writers, but Lysias employs the infinitive @AedoecOar, 165. 12 (22. 13), adda yap, © dvdpes bixacral, olowar adrovs ext pev rodrov Tov Adyov ovk édedcerOar. Now, as in this case, if éAevoecOar was questionable Attic, the Orator might easily have said, oloua dv airovs... éddeiv, the passage is a valuable proof that édevoolynr, AdcboeoOai, and éAevoedpevos were good Attic, while the indicative é\edocouat was, by the stringent law of

1 In Thue. 3. 12, tis obv arn 7 pidia eylyvero 7 edevdepla marth ev 7 mapa wopiy &ddpdous imedexdpeba ; Haase has conjectured, with some plausibility, trnpxopeba.

2 Compare Soph. O. R, 386, Phil. 1007; Eur, Andr. 435, I. A. 67.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. I11

parsimony which rules in Attic Greek, studiously ignored. The participle future of Batve is used in certain compounds, as droBnodyeva in Thuc. 8. 75, and its indicative and infinitive are also occasionally encountered in the compound form ; but_neither Bafvw, nor any compound of Bairw, could have supplied the place of @AevoecOa in Lysias. The phrase is émt Adyor iévar, ehOciv, CAedoerOat, EAndrvdévar: and in such a phrase, if the future optative or participle was required, éAcvoolyny or éAevodpevos was certainly employed. Nothing proves the genuineness of the expression in Lysias so well as the conjectures which, from Elmsley’s time, have been hazarded by critics. Rauch reads od xarapedvfer0at, Scheibe, otxér: ¢evéeoOar, and Cobet, od rpéWeoOar, and there may be others equally futile. Elmsley was led to suggest corruption in Lysias by the dictum of Phrynichus, who himself errs in giving a future sense not only to the indicative. but also to the other moods of ci. Professor Goodwin, in a book of rare merit, ‘The Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb,’ has com- _ mitted the same grave error when he says, p. 6: ‘The present ciys, J am going, through all its moods is used like a future.’ And he further errs in the remark that follows: ‘Its compounds are sometimes used in the same sense.’ The future signification of ef is known only in the present, and in Attic Greek the same is always true of all its compounds.

XXVIII.

"AAKaikov Goya St évdc t ob ypri A€retv, GAN ev Toiv bvoiv,

GAKALUKOV, TPOYaLtKOv.

On this question, how far the soft vowel of the diph- thongs ai, ou, «4, was in Attic Greek elided before another vowel, a ponderous literature has accumulated. To any

112 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

one who cares to reflect that it is practically impossible to acquire any certain knowledge of ancient Greek pro- nunciation, and that such knowledge, if acquired, would never commend itself as an important part of pure schol- arship, the discussion of this point would prove of little interest. Moreover, it would be inconsistent with the design of the present work, which aims rather at poirtraying the extraordinary refinement and precision of the Athenian mind, during its brief imperial life, than at discussing the lisp of Alcibiades, or even the pebbles to which Demo- sthenes owed his fluency.

However, as often as there is any trustworthy evidence on points like these, it is worthy of consideration, and many questions of Attic orthography may be settled beyond dispute. Even in this case certainty in regard to some points is attainable, and no one would now venture to dispute that, in the old Attic of Tragedy, forms like xaiw, xdalo, aierds, ale, édala were retained when xdw, kddw, del, édda, had replaced them in ordinary speech. Perhaps of Tragedy also, the dictum of Phrynichus may have held true, but it certainly is not true of Attic generally. The history of the name of their patron goddess demonstrates the inconsistency of the Athenians in such cases. The original *A@nvata is found in many inscriptions anterior to Euclides, afterwards it was reduced to ’A@nvaa, and ultimately to ’Aénva. In Tragedy, however, ’A@nvaia is found only in three lines of Aeschylus (Eum. 288, 299, 614) ; elsewhere he employs, as Sophocles and Euripides always do, the distinct form ’A@dva.

A very careful discussion of the whole question will be found in Konrad Zacher’s monograph, ‘de Nominibus Graecis in -avos, -ata, -avov,’ which forms the third volume of ‘ Disser- tationes Philologicae Halenses.’ The result he arrives at is - this (p. 11), ‘Vides in certis quibusdam vocibus diphthongum quae ante vocalem est a poetis corripi interdum, sed saepe

LHE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 113

etiam servare longam naturam; vides aliorum in hac re alium esse usum, ut Sophocles multo saepius hac cor- reptione utitur, quam Aeschylus vel Euripides; vides in nonnullis horum ipsorum vocabulorum interdum etiam prorsus omitti iota, sed neque in omnibus neque in illis ipsis semper et certis quibusdam legibus; vides denique titulorum scriptores valde titubasse et ante Euclidem iota saepius servasse, quam omisisse. Quid his omnibus efficitur? Nihil aliud quam quod supra jam dixi; illo tempore vocalis iota sonum in diphthongis ante vocalem sequentem admodum attenuatum esse et in multis vocibus tenerae cujusdam consonae nostro j similis naturam indu- isse, ita tamen at in ipso sermone Attico magna esset in- constantia, quum iota modo vocali plenae similius sonaret, modo ad consonae sonum appropinquaret, modo fortius, modo exilius pronuntiaretur.’

XXIX.

Nupov ddwp pHdapdc, GAAG TPdo@artov, Akpaipvec,

Phrynichus is in error. Nypés, as applied to water, was not Attic, but it was as good as mpdéedaros or axpaiprijs, both of which are strongly metaphorical. The Attic phrase was xadapov timp: Plato, Phaedr. 229 B, xa0apa Kai dia- darn ta vddria patverar Kal emurjdeca Kdépars male map’

ata: KadapGv bddrwr Top dpvoalyny. Eur. Hipp. 209.

The word vypds, however, is of extraordinary interest. Phrynichus doubtless considered it the same word as veapés, but there can be no question about its true origin. Its history can be traced for about 3000 years. It is

presupposed by the names Nypeds and Nypyts, and in I

1I4 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS.

modern Greek survives as vepds. The Etymologicum Mag- num, s.v. Napév, quotes from the Troilus of Sophocles—

mpos vapa kal Kpnvata xwpodpev méra, and Photius from Aeschylus— vapas te Alpxns,

and the former writer adds that, even in Hellenistic Greek, the word had become vepds: 7 cuvybeia, Tpéaca TO a els €, A€yet vepdv.

It is one of that class of words which, though often hardly represented in literature, live persistently in the mouth of the people ; and in many a rural deme of Attica the word was undoubtedly used when it was lost to literary Attic, except in the representative of the dialect in its ancient form, the language of Tragedy.

XXX.

Tloi diet; obtw cuvtdocetar did 100 wv Tod HE Get; dia

r .3 Ul > A > - a ' Tod v, GudptHua, et d€ év TH v, Tod dratpiperc;

As frequently happens, a general rule underlies the special instance of the grammarian. In late Greek the ‘ distinction between wo? rod, of ob, Grou Son, exe? and éxeive, practically disappeared, and transcribers brought the care- less and ignorant usage of their own day into the texts of Classical writers. The older and more reliable a manu- script is, the less frequently does the corruption occur in its pages. The fault must in every case be ascribed to the copyists. An Attic writer would as readily have used otxor for olxade, as mod for moi, or exe? for éxeive, and otxade for otko. would have seemed little less absurd than zo? for mod, or éxetre for éxel.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS, 115

Ordinary intelligence must, however, be exercised in applying this rule, as many verbs of rest may, without violence, receive a modified signification of motion. Thus in Eur. H. F. 74—

® pirep, add4, mot marip dmeote yas ;

the use of vo? is natural and correct, but in Arist. Av. 9, Dawes was certainly right in altering otd% mH, or odd moi, to ot8 drov—

GAN otf dmov yhs eopev off eywy Err. In Plutus 1055— A. Botrer bid xpdvov mpds eue matoar ; B. wot rdAav ;

A. abrod, AaBotca kdpva*

where Meineke edits mod, the Scholiast has a plausible reason for moi: Td mot oxwatixdy' dndot yap dxodaclas ténov (nrodcav. Sophocles wrote in O. C. 335—

A. of & atOdpaimor mot veavtar roveiy; B. elo’ otmép ciov Sewd 8 ey Kelvous ra viv"

and Euripides in Or. 1474— mod dr dytvew of xara oréyas Pptyes ;

There is no question that the Greek of both passages is excellent.

As usual, Xenophon must be regarded as outside the, . limits of Attic law. There is practically no standard of criticism possible for him, and it is quite possible that the manuscripts do not misrepresent him when they ex- hibit zo with a verb of motion and zo? with a verb of rest. He even employs otkade in what is nearly the sense of oixot: Cyr. 1. 3, 4, dermvdv 8& 6 ’Aotudyns ov TO Kipp Bovddpevos tov Taida os Hdiora Sevmveiv, va Hrrov Ta oiKdde noboln, mpoonyayey air@ cal mapoyldas. When critics erase

12

116 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

the rd before ofkate they show their ignorance of the character of Xenophon’s style, and forget that the oc- currence of expressions like ofkade éxew, in the Common dialect, is a strong argument for a similar usage in a writer who, from the circumstances of his life, was placed in a literary position resembling in many points that of men who wrote after the fall of Attic independence.

The case of éxei@ev with the article is very different. When Euripides (I. T. 1410) says—

Kay pev evOds mpds oe dedp’ areotdAnv col Tas éxeiOev onwavar, dvag, Tyas the propriety of éxei#ev is at once recognized ; and the case is not different with Thuc. 8. 107, cal és Tiv EtBovav drémepu- Way ‘Inmoxpdrn xal’Emixdéa xopuodvras rds éxeier vats. Even in Thuc, 1. 62 the meaning of éxeiOev-is very different from that of éxe?: cat rv Evppdxwv 6Arlyovs émt “Odvvb0v do- néurovow, Stas elpywor Tods exeiWev eriBonbeiv,—the people from there. The well-known rovxei@ev in Soph. O. C. 505 is not equivalent to éke?, but is due to the same tendency in language which made aé illa parte, e regione, etc., com- mon expressions in Latin— A. GAN ely éyd tedotoa’ Tov témov 8 iva Xp) ora pw edevpeiv, Tobro BovrAouar padeiv. B. rovKetOev GAcovs, ® Evy, Todd’, KTE.

In the earliest Greek mpdéc0ev and eunpoodev, dmicbev and éfdmodev, are constantly encountered by a usage of which rovxei@ev GAcovs is merely an extension, and in Attic times expressions like els rd eédmic0ev, els totmicber, were familiarly employed by the best writers.

XXXI.

“Exrote kata wHdéva Tpdrrov eimHc, GAN é€ éxeivou.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 117

XXXII.

> ‘ om” > ° ' 2 a ‘ ArrorraAat Kai exTaAat AUMOLV ducyepaives, €k TraAatod rap

pH Aeretv,

These words of Phrynichus start an inquiry of great difficulty. It is true that ékrore does not occur in Attic, but Homer used eiodre, against the time when—

pluver erevydpwevor Tov euov ydyov, els & Ke Papos exTeA€ow—pr or peTapevia vyyar dAntar— Aa€prn fpwr tadpyiov, els bre Kév muy

potp’ ddo?) KabeAnor Tavndreyéos Oavdrouo.

: Od. 2. 99.

And Aeschines has «is dmdre, 67. 38, dedrepov 5¢ & ed oldey ovdémore eodueva ToApa A€yew apiOyav els ddr ora. In Plato, eis rére is frequently met with: Legg. 845 C, éav els rére Ta Toladra wept adrod Tovs Tére KpiTds Tis dvapipmryioKy : 888 B, weplwewov ody eis rére kpitns Tept TOv peylotwr yly- veoOar. Inachorus of Sophocles és wére is found—

tls dpa véaros és mre Aner ToAUTAGYKTOY eTéwy dpLiOpuds ; Aj. 1185. and even éédre occurs in a choric passage of Aristo- phanes— yévos dvdciov, Smep eédr’ eyéver’ én’ Eyoi moA€utov erpadn. Avy. 334.

After the Attic period éxrore came into use. Although Lucian, in his Pseudosophist1, ridicules the word, he yet employs it himself in his Asinus, 45. (613), xa« rdre && éuod mpérov HAdev els dvOpdaovs 5 Adyos obros, "EE dvov ma- paxtWews. Moreover it is read by some manuscripts in

1 He makes his friend Socrates ironically compliment a man for using

éxrore: T@ Be A€yovTe Exrore, Kaddv, ey, To elweiv éxnépvot, 6 yap WAdrww és tére Aéyet, Pseudosophist, 7. (571).

118 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Aristotle, H. A. 12. 519. 29, ov8 (dvapterar) Td Kévtpov bray amroBadn 7 pédurra, GAN ex tére Grobvncxe. On the other — hand, neither dé rére nor af’ Sre is encountered till a very late date.

Throughout Greek literature és is used with adverbs of time. In Homer, Od. 7. 318, it is true that the original reading was atpuoy és not és riyos—

mopmny & és Téd ey rexpalpouar, opp €d Eldijs, avpiov és* thywos be ov pev Sedunuevos trve,

for rjyos could not be used of any but past time; but eis ére has already been quoted, and with that may be com- pared the use of és ré in II. 5. 465—

és ri eri xreiverOar edoere Aadv *Axanois ;

No one needs to be reminded of the phase xrijya és del, and. és éwé occurs in Thucydides (8. 23), and els éwe in Dem. 1303. 14. In a different sense, namely, that which appears in phrases like «is éxvavréy— tpls yap tikres pda TeAeopdpoy eis éviavTor, Od. 4. 86. qv mep yap Kral ye reAcoddpor cis eviavtdr, Il. 19. 32. _ the preposition is also attached to adverbs of time. Some of these are éodmag (Thuc. 5. 85; Plato, Soph. 247 E), elcadOis or els adOis (Plato, Legg. 862 D et freq.), éoéreira (Thuc. 1. 130, etc.). The meaning of the preposition in éoavrixa is clearly indicated by Ar. Pax 366—

A. dmddodas, @&ddwAas, Bo és tiv’ Nuépav ; A. és abrika pdda,

All Greek authors from Homer downwards use éovorepov. In both these significations els was in late Greek attached

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 119

to many more adverbs than was allowable in Attic, and expressions like elodyav, els Gdts, elodpti, eloudrny, elodxpi, were used with freedom.

It is’ here necessary to make an important distinction. The meaning of «is and éé, in the combinations discussed above, is decidedly prepositional ; but it must not be for- gotten that prepositions are often associated with adverbs in quite another way. In dmapri the force of the azé is not prepositional, but adverbial ; and the same is true of izo- kdtw, troxdrwder, éndvw, érdvwOev, and many others. In late writers, on the other hand, an dmdpru is found, in which the axé has its meaning prepositional (see p. 71); but in an Attic writer such a meaning was certainly impossible.

The Homeric and late éfér: has not the meaning which its form might suggest, and really has no place in this discussion, but in apooéri the mpds is distinctly adverbial. In Attic, wo years ago is expressed by mporépvow as natu- rally as a year ago by wépvo., but the apd in the former word is not a preposition, but an adverb. In ékzépuov, how- ever, the form which Lucian indicates as little worse than éxrore, the ék would not be adverbial, but prepositional.

In a Comic climax in the Knights, Aristophanes em- ploys mpémada, 1. 1153—

A, tplradar xdOnuar Bovdrcuevds o° evepyereiv. B. éy® 6& dexdmadai ye, cal dwdexdrara, kal xwAudradat, Kal mpotadairahalrada..

Like the adjective zpomdAauos, it is used in sober writing in late Greek. In no case should it be compared with anénakat, as the zpé is adverbial, the 476 prepositional.

A good instance of a compound in which both parts are distinctly adverbial is the word odveyyvs, which occurs in Thucydides and other Attic writers: Thuc. 4. 24, Etveyyvs Keysevov Tod te “Pyylov axpwrnptov tis "IraAlas ris re Meoonvns tis Suxedtas. It would be rash to found any

120 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

argument upon éveyyus, which, at best, has only a pre- carious existence in Quintus Smyrnaeus, an epic writer of the fourth Christian century ; but Aristotle unquestionably employed adpeyyus. The word is typical of a notable characteristic of un-Attic Greek. Instead of accepting common words as the natural exponents of common thoughts, it attempted to say more than was necessary, and in this way defeated its own aim. Sdveyyvs supplied a distinct want; mdpeyyus is a weaker éyyds in the guise of strength, and finds fitting company in wapexe?, wapavrdder, mapavTd0., emuxpdow, amexeiOev, amevredbev, and other late words. The expression ‘un-Attic Greek’ has been _pur- posely used, because, even in Homer and other Classical writers outside the Attic bounds, a similar tendency of language is distinctly traceable. The words perdmodev and dzovdcgiw, of frequent occurrence in the Homeric poems, are peculiarly in point, as they belong to the class now under discussion. *Azdvoodiv is no more than véodu, and perémic$e no more than émoc, and both words involve a violation of the law of parsimony, an instinctive principle which permeates the language of the Athenians, and not only differentiates it from all other Greek dialects, but elevates it above almost all other tongues. [pondpowe is another word of the same class, which may also be considered to include all such expressions as ék d.d0ev, and é€ ovpavddev. ‘In Homer forms like tréxédvex, dvampd, dmompd, are often used with propriety, but the line ought surely to be drawn at améx, which is met with in the Homeric Hymns— airi’ dp’ EldelOuray dmx peydpowo Ovpace exmpoxaderoapevn, erea mrepdevta mpoontda. Apol. £10,

A well-known feature of Euripides’ style, already referred to (p- 35), is the habit of using antique words in order to balance the great number of modern expressions which he introduced into his verse. The tragic dialect, which had

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 121

for its basis the Attic of the period before the Persian wars, was, of course, more or less modified by every great Tragic poet ; but Euripides was the first to give a firm footing to many words of modern acceptance which were either not used at all, or only tolerated by his predecessors. At the same time, a careless observer might regard his style as more than usually antiquated from the free use of such words as cé0ev, inéphev, udder, mori, etc. It would often seem as if he almost consciously used Epic words to give an old- world air to his verse. Accordingly, it is not surprising to encounter in Euripides expressions like perémicOe and anonpé, and similar reminiscences of Homer may be ob- served on every page. Any freak of diction may be expected in a writer like Apollonius Rhodius, who, at an age when Greek had already lost all its great qualities, attempted to write in .an old style which he little understood. He naturally makes even more blunders than are found in modern attempts to imitate Classical Greek styles, and, by mis- understanding the facts of tmesis in Homer, has been led to use many forms intrinsically absurd. In Iliad 10, 273—

Bav f° lévar, Auwérnv be Kat’ add. mdvras dptorous, the xdra belongs to Airérqv, but in Apollonius xaravrd6. unblushingly takes the place of the simple airé@.—

ed yap eyd pv ’ Aackvdov ev peydpoot katavtdé0. marpds épyoto

oid eictddv. ; Ap. Rh. 2. 778.

Another kind of mistake has produced émt djv or émdjv—

ovs éml dy perémerra Kepacoduevor Ard AoiBds. Id. 1. 516. Eropar od« emt biyjv oe Bapv xddrov Alrjrao

exgvyéeiy. Id. 4. 738.

122 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

It is an unintelligent imitation of the Homeric éa) dnpov, which, like éx) roAdv xpédvov, is used with propriety.

Late forms as debased as dzexei, dmexeioe, dnoviv, amoweé, and their fellows, do not merit, and would not repay, consideration.

XXXII.

Tyvika ut el THC dvti tod méTe Eott rap Hpac dsHd@ri- KOV, Olov elmOvTOc Tivéc, THVIKa GTOdHMHGELC; édv eimHc, uweTa SUO AH TpElc Apepac, ovK dpedc Epeic’ éadv

o eimuc €woev A mepi peoHuBpiav, dpedc épeic,

The other grammarians copy Phrynichus, and some of them extend his dictum to the correlatives émnvixa, jvtka, tnvixadra, and tnvikdde. They are all more or less in error. It is true that anvixa and rnvixdde are generally used in what was doubtless their genuine meaning, and that the other words are frequently so employed. Thus their pri- mitive reference to the time of day attaches to myvixa and émnvixa in Arist. Av. 1498—

A. anvlk éorlv dpa Ths huepas ;

B. émnvika; opixpov Te petra peonuBplav. And an interesting passage of Aeschines tells the same story (2.15), 6 yap vowobérns diappndny amodeixvvct mpGrov pey fv dpav mpoojKe: iévar tov maida rov édebOepor cis TO b1da- oxadeioy, énevta peta Técwv Taldwy eiorévar Kat Smnvixa amévat, kat rovs dudackdAovs Ta dbidacKadcia Kal Tovs maidorpiBas Tas madalotpas dvolyew pev amayopever pr mpdtepov mplv Gv 6 HAros évioxn, KAelew 6% mpootdrrer mpd HAtou SeSuxdt0s. In the only passage of Homer in which jjvixa is met with, it has this’ same limited sense—

vov pep dy pdda mdyxv, MeddvOte, vixra pvddéges,

ety} vt padaxy Karaheypévos, ds oe Eoixev®

ovdé o€ y Hptyéveta Tap’ @kedvoio podwy

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 123

Ajjoes Erepxopuévn xpvodOpovos, hulk’ dyweis aiyas prnotnpecot, Sduov kata daira wéverOat’ Od. 22. 198.

and naturally it never loses it throughout Greek lite- rature. Similarly, ryvixadra is employed of a point of time in the natural day by Lysias (93. 43), rovr@ HAlov deduKdros idvrs e€ dypod amjvrnca. cidas 8 eyo Sri ryvixaidra adiypévos ovdéva Karadywoitro olko. Tév énirndefwy: and tyvikdde so occurs very frequently (Plato, Phaed. 76 B, Protag. 310 B, Crit. 43 A).

With the exception of ryvixdde, however, which does not extend its meaning till late writers like Polybius, all these words are found more or less frequently in a more general sense. Even yvixa certainly so occurs in Demosthenes (329. 23), ev riow oby Kal myvixa ob Aaumpds; vik’ dy «ineiv Tt kara Tovrwy dén, and in Ar. Av. 1514—

A. GnddAwdey 6 Zeds' B. ayvie’ Grr amddero ;

no one but a grammatical martinet would insist upon any other rendering. From its generalised meaning of when, which occurs with frequency, érnvixa acquired that of szuce. An example of the former signification is provided by Thucydides (4. 125), kupwOev ovdéev danvika xpi Spyacba, and of the latter by Demosthenes (527. 23), AAG pv daqvlka Kal memoinkods, & KaTnyopG, kal DBper meToinkws halverat, Tors vopovs Hn Set oKoreiv.

It is no rare experience to find jvika corresponding to tore, Plato, Symp. 198 C, rére . . . Hvlka tpiv apodrdyovr, and still more frequently jvik’ dv replacing éray or éreddv—

quite dy mevOdpev iro. Meuvov’ 7 Lapwnddva. Ar. Nub. 622.

Not only does rnvixatra become as general as rére— kdra ylyvoua. maxis

Thvixadra Tod Oépous, Id, Pax 1170,

124 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

but even passes from chronology to Ethics in such pas- sages as Ar. Pax 1142—

eimé poor, TL Tynvixadra dpGpev, ® Kopapyxtdy ;

XXXIV.

"Opepivoc ov, GAN SpOptoc ywpic Tod v.

XXXV.

"Ovivoc, 6uoimc TH OpOptvoc Kai TOOTO GuUdpTHUG. ) ’ M

XpH odv dvev 100 v, dytoc.

Of the second of these words three forms occur, namely, Owipos, duds, and oyios. First met with in a line of the Iliad (2. 325), éyuos does not again appear till late Greek, except in the Oeconomicus, a disputed work of Xenophon (17. 4), 6 mpdimos 7) 6 péoos 7) 6 dYiudraros onédpos. If the book is really Xenophon’s, the words zpéipos and éyiperaros not only afford an admirable illustration of the incon- sistency of his diction, as éyuiatraro. occurs in Hell. 5. 4. 3, and zpqatrara in Cyr. 8. 8. 9, but may well be regarded as another proof of the position, that with an Attic basis his diction is really a composite one, being modified, both in vocabulary and syntax, by the other dialects of European and Asiatic Hellas.

Although the Latin bimus, trimus, etc., are doubtless derived from hiems, and can no more be compared with é&yiywos, than hornus (ho-ver-nus) with épuvds, yet there is. no reason to deny the antiquity of the suffix in dyipos, mpdyos, and dpysos. With the exception of dymos, the words are late as far as literature can inform us, but they may still have had a long and uninterrupted history in some little-regarded corner of Greece.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS, 125

With duds, besides ép0pwds, may be compared yeipe- pwwds, tpepivds, mpwiwds, and the Latin vernus, diuturnus, periendinus, while with éyios and dpOpios are comparable @pwos, TpHos, juepios, and yxewepios. Attention has already been called to the way in which Attic Greek utilised superfluous forms, and some of these words illustrate this habit in an interesting manner. When an Attic writer desires to express some natural fact which takes place ix winter he employs yemepivds, but with reference to inci- dents which merely resemble those of winter xeipépios is the term employed. Thucydides (7. 16) speaks of xewpe- pwat HAlov tponat, and in Plato (Legg. 683 C; 915 D), the winter solstice is called ra xemepwd. Any article of ap- parel or of domestic furniture intended for winter use has xetmepwvds appropriately applied to it. On the other hand, xeyepios is employed with propriety in Thuc. 3. 22, rnp7- cavres vixta Xeusepiov Bdart Kal dvéum, Kal dy dcédAnvov: and figuratively in Arist. Ach, 1141—

vider, BaBad& yxewpépia Ta mpdypara.

There can be little question that the same distinction was made between @epwds and Oépe.os, and that it is merely by accident that 0épevos does not occur in Attic Greek. Simi- larly, jpepwds strictly means of day, as $Gs tpepwdv, while jpepior. avOpwmor, not jepivol, is the correct expression. For the poetical jpépios, prose writers substituted jpepijovos, as Isocr. 343 C, nuepjovos Adyos, a speech that takes a day to deliver. Nvuxrepwds and vuxrepjows are differentiated in the same way.

Tn cases in which nothing could be gained by retaining more than a single form, Attic abandoned all but one— sometimes one suffix getting the mastery, sometimes an- other—as jpuds, peonuBpivds, dmwpiwds, peromwpwds, but Gyros, dpOpios, and mpg@os.

126 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

XXXVI.

Mesovixttoy' TOLHTIKOV, OU TIOAITIKOy.

Even the adjective pecovixrios is poetical, as Eur. Hec.

914, ch.— pecovictios oAduay,

jos éx deltvwy trvos KTe.

Of the substantive, Lobeck remarks that it is first met with in Hippocrates, and afterwards used by Aristotle, Diodorus, Strabo, and others. There was in Attic no word express- . ing for the night what peonuBpla expressed for the day, the phrases peoovons vuxrds, wéons vuxtds, and pécov vuxrav, or vuxrdés, being always employed instead. Even peonuBpla became in late Greek péon jyépa, a form discovered also in the Oeconomicus (16. 14), ef Tis aidrnv ev péow TG Odper kal éy péon TH tmépa xwoln tO Cedyet, and doubtless owing its place in the Common dialect to Ionian influence. Ac- cording to Lobeck, the first instance of the analytical form comes from Hippocrates.

In Thue. 3. 80, péxpt péoov tyyépas, the wéoov used to be regarded as a peculiar feminine form, and not, as it really is, a substantive governing 7jpépas in the genitive.

XXXVII.

“H dupak, A BAOC, BHAUKHc déov, OUK GpoeviKddc.

XXXVIII.

“H mHAdc Zupakovotot A€fovtec Guaptdvovot.,

Such remarks require no comment, except that they are

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 127

correct. In the latter, the purism of Phrynichus comes out in dpaprdvovew, a word which Lobeck has considered worthy of half a page of small print.

It is, however, tempting to seize this opportunity of discussing the derivation of mpomndaxi¢w, a verb generally derived from mydds. This is of course altogether impos- sible, and Curtius has accordingly to coin a form, mfAaf, corresponding to AGAaég, a side-form of BdAos, encountered in Pindar and Theocritus. But of mfdaé there is no trace in Greek authors, and none even in lexicographers, and of mdAdxos in Hesychius the less said the better. Moreover, why should the Greeks have gone out of their way to say mpotnraxiGw, when zmpomndl{m was certainly as legitimate a formation? Asa matter of fact, the verb has no connection whatever with anAds, as there is no mfAa€, and kdra not apd would have been the preposition used to bring out the signification which Suidas assigns to the word, mapa rd maddy émixplecOar Ta tpdowna Trév ariplay Kal BBpw Kara- — WndbiGopévor.

In a passage of Xenophanes of Colophon, preserved in Athenaeus (2. 54 F), the adjective mAfkos occurs in a con- nection in which it must have been familiarly used—

map mupl xph Towadra éyew xeysGvos év pn,

év xAlyn padaky Karaxelyevov Eumdeov dvta mivovta yAukiv otvov, imotpdyovt’ épeBlvOous,

tls 1é0ev ets dvdpGv; mé0a Tor ern earl, pépiore ; mnrlkos jo 60 5 Mijdos adlkero ;

Almost any phrase could be thrown into a verbal shape by the suffixing of -i¢~. From és xépaxas came the verb oxopaxt(w, which by Demosthenes’ time had fought its way into literature (155. 15), of 8 Oray ra péyiora xatopIdcwot, tére pddtora oKxopakiCovrar kab mpomndaxtlCovrar mapa Td Tpoo- jKxov. Similarly, én’ duddrepa supplied éxapydorepi(w, and én’ axpdv, émaxpl{(a. Many words of the same kind must

128 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.,

necessarily have perished, as it is only a tithe of any argot which ever finds its way into literature proper. Even mmAiki{w, or anAaxl{w, was doubtless often used in colloquial Greek of asking a man’s age ; but its compound zpommAaxtw, ask a man’s age before you know him, begin with asking a man’s age, if not primarily so used, must soon have ac- quired the secondary sense which it always bears in lite- rary Greek. The obnoxious antepenult is at once ex- plained, and the preposition has an appropriate and usual signification, while the change of vowel presents no dif- ficulty. The Homeric prototype of verbs of this formation, namely, lcopapi{w, itself exhibits a similar change, that of € to a, as in wAarvyl(@ from mAarayy, a itself has been re- placed by v.

_ Accuracy of scholarship is checked at the outset when a boy turns up his dictionary and finds one of the mean- ings given for gue is or, and is told that mpomnAaxim comes from amnAds, GvywOpl(m from Gyov, mAatayl(m from aAdrn, and évrevrAavé from redrAov. In the latter word even the texts are in error. In the Aristophanic parody—

unde yap Oaveév more cov xwpls einv évrerevtAL@perns, Ach. 894. the manuscripts present nothing but évrerevrAavwpévys, a . formation altogether impossible. The Greek word for deet was redrAov or revtAloy, and from the latter form Aristo- _ phanes legitimately used évrevrAwidv for to cook in beet. Not even in its most debased period did Greek replace tebrAoy or tevtdiov by redrAavov.

XX XIX.

Tloraréc 814 Too + MA eitrHC, GddKkiwov rap, dia Tod déATO

dé Aérwv emi révouc Oricetc, Todamdc éott; Oupaioc #i

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 129

*A@uvaioc, “Eott rap otov &k tivoc damédov. moranic d€ €otiv ef einoy,moTamdc téov tpdtov Ppbyiyoc; émtetkHc ypH obv obtmc Epwrdv, Toide tic cot doxKei

> €lval;

It will be observed that Phrynichus begirfs with denying the spelling with tau altogether, but afterwards proceeds to say that, when so spelt, it has a different signification. Lobeck is wrong in considering the second half of the remark as a spurious addition. The sense is plain. ‘ Ioda- més must not be written with a tau. Its only form in Attic is rodamds, with the meaning of what country? As for the other meaning now-a-days attached to zoramés, that is no better than the spelling, and was expressed in Attic Greek by ios.’

The use of his own name by Phrynichus may be paral- leled from other Grammarians, and the adjective he associ- ates with it is in keeping with the dry humour of the man.

There is no question that sorardés is simply a dege- nerated form of rodamds. Classical texts have on the whole escaped corruption, but a few instances of the vicious - spelling are found; the first traces, according to Lobeck, being met with in some codices of Herodotus, 5. 13 and 7.218. In Alexis—

A. 780 ye TO TGpa" Todards 6 Bpdputos, Tpddy ; B. @dows. A. 8pov0v cat dixacov Ttods §€vovs

aivew Eevixdy, Tors 8 eyyevets emixdpiov, (Athen, ro. 431 B.)

the manuscripts give only woramds or worapds. It is pos- sible that the r is due to Athenaeus, but Alexis wrote zo- sands. Another passage of Alexis— tl A€yets oF; TodaTds odroal dvOpwros; odk enicraca Civ. wWoxpd cor

dravra Trapada ; (Athen, 9. 386 A.)

130 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

was corrected by Dobree. The manuscripts exhibit ri Aé- yews, déomora, TGs otroot..; The lines represent the natural surprise of a chef at the orders he receives, and the con- jecture certainly restores the text.

In late Greek toramds acquired the sense of woios,as N.T. Matth. 8. 27, ngramds éorw otros 6ti Kal of dveyor kal 7 Od- acca traxovove aire ; but that use is certainly unknown to the Attic todamds. A natural inference from a passage of Athenaeus is that the more general signification came from Ionic: Athen. 4. 159 D, Xptourmos 8’, év rh eloaywy7 Th els Thy epi aya0Gv Kal KaxGv tpayparelay, veavloxov pyot twa ék Tis ’lwvias cpddpa mAovo.oy emdnunoa tats “AOjvass. moppuplia ndrecpevoy, exovoay xpvod Kpdoreda. TrvOavo- pévov b€ Twos adrod, mobamds éotiv, amoxplvacba, bri TAOVCLOS. paymore ToD adrod prnwovever Kal “Ades év OnBators, \éywr Gde*

gor 8& Todamds Td yévos otros ; B. mAOvcLos" tovrous d& mdvTes hacly evyeverTdrovs elvau’ mévntas 8 edmarpidas ovdels dpa.

A similar line to. this of Alexis is found in Ar. Pax 186— B. modamds 7d yéevos 8 ef; pace jor. A. plapéraros* where the joke lies in this, that poor Trugaeus is so . alarmed at the terrible greeting of Hermes that, to every

question put to him, he can only mutter puapdraros, the key-word of the salutation.

The speech against Aristogiton. is generally considered —

spurious ; but, if it isa genuine work of Demosthenes, rodamds

oo

in 782, 8 is certainly not equivalent to zotos, but is used .

in its ordinary sense, ri ody otrdés éort; Ktwv, vy Ala, paci Tives, TOD Syyov.. Todamds ; ofos ods pev airia@tar AdKovs civar pn ddkvew” & 5 dynor PUAatrew wpdBata, adrds xareoOlew. ‘Of what breed, pray? Molossian, Laconian, or what? a dog with such a temper that ——,’

re

SS 7

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 131

XL,

Pavoc emi tHe Aautddoc GAAG pH Eri TOO Keparivou Aére. todto d€ Avyvodyoyv Aére.

In the App. Soph. p. 50. 22, Phrynichus is much more explicit: Avxvodxos, Aaumrnp, pavds diadéper. Avxvodxos pév éott oxedos tr ev Kid@ exov Képara, évdov 5% dAdxXvoV hewévov, dia Tov Kepdtwov Td PGs TeundvTa. aymTHp be XaArKody 7) cvdynpodv 7 EvAwov Aapmddioy Gpovov, exov Opvad- Alda. gavds bt pdxedds Tivwy cvvdedeuevos Kal jupévos d Kal 81a ro6 w. Athenaeus (15. 699 D) quotes many passages illustrative of these words. The Avxvodxos was a lantern used in the open air—

kal diacrlABov® dpaper, donep ev Kaw@ Avxvovxo,

mavta Ths e£wpldos. Aristophanes.

2fovew of toms Avyvotxous Sndad7. Plato. dvvody mor e&ehOdv, oxdtos yap ylyverat, kal rov Avxvotyoy expep, evOels Tov Ad VoD. Pherecrates. 6 mpGtos etpov pera Avxvotxov TepiTarety Tis vuxTos av tis Kndeyov Tov daxTvdrwv. Alexis. The ¢avds, on the other hand, was a link or torch consist- ing of strips of resinous wood tied together—

6 pavds éot peotds tdaros obroct: def 7 odx) oelew, GAN amocelew adrdber, : Menander. y In Attic it meant a species of Aayrds, but in late Greek was used for Avyvodxos, dantern. With similar inaccuracy aprds in the Common dialect became equivalent to K 2

132 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Adbxvos, an oil lamp, being so used in the New Testament in the parable of the Ten Virgins.

The Avxvodxos must not be confused with the Avxveior, which was used indoors to support or suspend one or more AdxvoI— ;

Tév 8 dkovtlov avvdodvres 6p0a rpia Avxvelw xpdpeba. Antiphanes, dapavres Adxvov

Avyveloy eCnrodper. : Diphilus.

XLI.

"Ev yp@ koupiac adi, Kai uA wtAdKoupoc.

The substantive xovpfas does not occur in what remains to us of Classical Greek, but may well have existed. It is employed by Lucian, Hermotimus 18. (756), édpwy airods kooplws BadlCovras, dvaBeBAnpévovs edotadGs, ppovtiovtas del, dppevwrovs, év xp@ Kovplas rods mAclorovs, and has the authoritative support of Aelius Dionysius (Eustath. 1450. 32), ) €v xp@ Koupd, 7) WAH Kata AtAtov Atovdctoy, kal mpos Tov xp@ra kal év xp@ be Kovplas. According to Pollux, 2. 33, Pherecrates used the phrase év xp@ xovpidvras, and in Xen. Hell. 1. 7. 8 occurs the expression év xp@ xexap- mévovs. Thucydides has év xp@ metaphorically (2. 84), év Xp@ del mapamdéovres: a usage which may further be ex- emplified by the proverb upe? yap év xp@ (Soph. Aj. 786).

XLII.

Tlewtiv, duyfiv Aére, GAAG pA dia TOO a.

Besides these two verbs eight others in -dw, contracted in eta preferentially to alpha, namely—

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 133

G, civ, live.

Kvo, KV; scrape.

Wa, Wi, rub.’

ope, ony, wipe.

vd, vv, spin.

xp, xphv, utter an oracle. xp, Xphv, am eager for. xXpOpat, xpioda, use.

Many of them have escaped the altering hand of the copyists almost entirely; but it is not surprising if some of them have occasionally been altered, when forms like mewd, Tewav, duds, éxparo, became possible in late Greek. Syvé and Wé will occupy our attention at a future time, but the others may best be considered here. In Plato (Gorg. 494 C) xvfjo@a has escaped, but in Ar. Av. 1586, émixvyjs must be restored in spite of the manuscripts. Although xpépa is really only the middle voice of xpé, give the use of, yet in Attic the place of the active is usurped by xéxpnys, and the middle alone concerns the present inquiry. It is, however, reasonable to suppose that its active voice is retained in xp6, utter an oracle, the connection between the two meanings being best seen in the common notion of furnish with anything of which one stands in need. If this is the case, the above list ought to be reduced from ten to nine.

The verb xp6, am eager for, wish, is very rare, occurring only in the second and third persons singular of the pre- sent indicative. Grammarians explain xpjs by xpy es or 6éders and xphi by xpri¢ee or Oédex. In all Greek literature it is found only in six passages. In Sophocles, Ant. 887—

dere pdvnv Epnuov, etre xph Oaveiv, el’ ev rovatrn (Goa TupBedew oréyn,

the manuscripts read xpy and rupBever, but the gloss of the Scholiast, xpyec cal Oéde1, proves that xp was read

134 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

by him. The same form is met with in Euripides, quoted by Cicero, Epist. ad Att. 8. 8. 2, and by Suidas under Tahapacbat.—

mpos tad’ & t. xph, Kal madkapdacOw

kal wav én euol rexrawécbw* while in Cratinus, as cited by Suidas, the second person occurs—

vov yap 6n oo. mapa pev Oeopol

Tov huerépwv, mapa 8 add’ & Te xpns* where Suidas says, xpijs 7d xpyCes xal 7d b€n (but the copy- ists give xpjs in both text and explanation). It is prob- ably to the same passage that the gloss of Hesychius, Xpiis* O€Aeus, xp Ceus, Should be referred. :

In Ar. Ach. 778, where a Megarian is speaking, the second person appears as xpjo0a or xpioda—a form like épnoba, joda, ndnoOa, etc.—

pdver 6) TY Taxéws xolptov. od xpic0a; ovis, @ Kdkior daoAovpéva.

Now, as in Ant. 887, the true reading has been preserved only in a gloss of the Scholiast, and in Cratinus only by a similar gloss of Suidas and Hesychius, there is no doubt that it was right to restore xpyj to Euripides; and Din- dorf’s xpjs must be substituted for xpy in Soph. Aj. 1373— : gol 8& bpav eeo8 & xpis* and Wunder’s in El. 606—

knpvocé pw? eis Gmavtas, eire xpijs KaKny, etre ordpapyov, elr dvatdelas mAéav.

As it will be shown that oué and wo had in late Greek the un-Attic forms cpyijyo and Wx, which have actually crept into Attic texts, so xv@ and v6 were in the Common

_ dialect replaced by xv and v4. The longer xv7j does

not once appear in the texts of Classical writers till the time of Aristotle; but v@ has been much less fortunate.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 135

The word is rare in Classical Greek, occurring only in the

ten following places— év0a 8 emeira

meloerat Gooa of Aica xara KAGOés re Bapeia ylyvouév@ vicavto Atve, bre pw TéKe pHTyp. Hom. Od. 7, 198. yiyvouévm erévnoe Alvw, bre piv TéKe paTnp- Id, Il. 20. 128. TH yap Tou vet (lege vi) vypar’ depovmdrntos dpayxrns. Hesiod. Op. 777. TH XEtpl vVOcat padOaxwrarny KpdKnv. Eupolis. el pa) Tov oThpova vicw. Arist. Lys. 519. Plat. Polit. 289 C, rots wept rd vOew Kat Eaivew, correspond- ing to a preceding 282 A, kal py €avtixy ye Kat vyotiki kal wavra Ta wep. thy Tolnow Ths écOfros: id. 282 E, ra vnOévra. Ma@Aus pév évyn A€mTov exouw en’ arpdxtw Alvov. Alcaeus (?), Bgk. p. 1333. mémhous Te vijras Awoyeveis vr’ émevdtras. Soph. Nausicaa. Kpoxnv 82) vyncess kal oTrpova.

Menander.

Now of these ten places most help us little, for vjow and éyyoa may come from either of three presents, véw, vie, or vaw: vnbévta may come from véw or vdw: vdoa and évyy from vdw only, while vet in Hesiod and viéew in Plato stand alone. The authority of Hesychius and Photius is in favour of vay from vdw, and, what is more, they also prove the tendency of vijv to be converted into vey. Hesychius—

Nypeptis* dvapaprns Neiv’ vydew Nyvepula’ yadjvyn dvépwr.

136 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

Even the alphabetical order has not prevented the viv, which the lexicographer actually wrote, from being changed to veiv. The same liberty has been taken with Photius—

Nypeprns’ adn O7s Neiy" view Kpdxnv Nyveplat dveywv arovota.

Pollux supports viv, giving véou. as the Attic of v#Oover, Other Grammarians supply vévta?, vépevos*, évn*. That Plato wrote vyrixyj from vv in Polit. 282 A is proved by a Platonic gloss in Photius: Nyrixqv' dvev tod o tiv Tepi 7d vndew Téxvnv: and consequently viGew in id. 289 C at last stands by itself as a solitary instance in Attic Greek of what all Grammarians combine to call an un-Attic form. Doubtless it came from the same hand as vyotixi, while Plato himself wrote rods wep) rd viv Te Kal €atveww, as Hesiod long before had written vj vypara, not, as late copyists wrote for him, vet vjara.

The only Classical form of the verb was vé (-dw), and de- rived from it vijya, vntikds, viow, evnoa, evnOnv, eivynros. Late transcribers substituted vj@ew for vqv in Plato, vy- orixy for vytixyj, as in Eupolis only the best books have retained the participle véoa, while the inferior read vi0e. It is not till late that forms like évjoOnv and veviopat are met with. Hesychius, as was seen, has the gloss vévra* ‘pnbovra, Photius, véuevos* 6 vnOduevos, and both give viv vO, though the copyists accredit them with veiv, as they accredit Herodian, and, through Herodian, accredit Hesiod with the unclassical vet. Naja, runs the gloss in the Ety-

* Pollux, 7. 32, €p’ ob vnOovew 7 vaow" of ’Arrixol yap 7d vAOew veiv (leg. viv) A€youer: cp. 10. 125, Kal dvov ép’ ob vaow,

? Hesychius, Névra: vqGovra, péovra.

3 Photius, v@pevos' 6 vnOdpevos.

* Etym. Mag. 344. 1, “Evvn’ €or: (rod) v@, onpaiver 7d vH0m, 6 mapatakrinds, xai én mp&rns ovlvyias kat emt devrépas . . . ToD v@ 6 maparaxrinds eve, évys, evn xai Theovacp® Tov v, évyn’ obtws ‘Hpwiiavds. For whole question see Cobet, Mnem. N, S. i. 38,

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 137 mologicum Magnum, 603. 34, vijua’ ov« ori amd Tod yyw, vijopa yap ay jv, dAN and 708 vd, 7d vnI. 5Oev Kab

vel viata “Holodos, kal 6 maparaxtixds—

pdduora pe evn’ lege vj viata and Mads pév évvy.

XLIII,

“H ydpaé épeic TO THe GuméAou otHpirna, ov Kata

TO dppevikdy,

In the App. Soph. 72. 3, Phrynichus does not altogether disallow the masculine gender, but requires it for the mean- ing palisade: Xdpak Onduxds él rod ris dumédov ornplyparos* TO pévTor xapdkwpa appevixGs, 6 xdpaé: and Moeris makes the same distinction (p. 410): Xdpa& pev mpds rats dyré- Aois OndrvKGs* 6 8e ev Tois otparorédois dppevixGs, 6 xdpaé. The Grammarians are in fact all so well-agreed on this point that it may be considered established. The rule is violated by none but late writers.

The proverb, 7 xdpaé thy aduredor, is worthy of some re- mark. ‘The ellipse is supplied by Aristophanes—

cira viv eénndrncev xdpak& Thy dymedov. Vesp. 1291, The notion seems to have been, not that of a support failing, but of a subordinate getting the better of a supe- rior ; and the Scholiast in loco is probably right, a6 rév Kaddpov tév tpocdedeuévwv tats dumédois, ot evlore piCoBo- Anoavres brepavovrat dymédov.

- XLIV.

Zkiumouc Aére, GAAG WH KPaBBaToc.

The word xpdé8Baros is not found till late; but Pollux,

138 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

10, 35, states that it was used by Crito and Rhintho, writers of the senile New Comedy: dAAa kal oxiurovs trav évdor oxevdr, ds Kal doxdvtns eorly elpnuévos, Kat oxysmdd.ov" ev be TH Kplrwvos Meconvla cat rO “PlyOwvos Tnrépy at xpéfsBarov elpjoda A€yovow. Accordingly, Salmasius (de Ling. Hell. p. 65), and Sturtz (de Dial. Maced. p. 176) are probably right in claiming it for a Macedonian word, as there is no other dialect on which to father it. It is of frequent occur- rence in the New Testament and in the notes of Scholiasts.

XLV.

*Epetrecear 6 mrowntHc 6 8 Epevreto olvopapeioy,

GAN 6 TrOAtTLKOC Epurravetv AereTo.

A glance at Veitch will show the truth of this statement with regard to Attic Greek; but a point of great interest has escaped the notice of Phrynichus. ' For épedyouar Attic writers used épvyydvw, but the future was beyond question still derived from the rejected present—a fact curiously confirmed by a rule which is quite absolute in Attic Greek, and which will be discussed in detail in a future article. That rule may be thus stated—All verbs expressing the exercise of the senses, or denoting any functional state or process, have the inflexions of the middle voice either throughout or in the future tense. It will be seen that by its means innumerable corruptions may be banished from the text of Attic writers, and many verbs which accident has left defective may be safely reconstructed. Moreover, no inquiry is more rich in side-results, and the history of this law is the history of the Attic dialect. The importance of the generalisation cannot be overrated. It restores to the Athenian language the precision and symmetry which were peculiarly its own, and brings out its grand and simple outlines. It supplies rules for textual

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 139

criticism, it sheds a new light upon the import of many words, and is of incalculable service in tracing the develop- ment of Attic speech.

XLVI.

‘

“O pdpurt appevixadc pev o Emiyapmoc A€ret, 6 dé *Attiukoc H pdpuré.

This is one of those statements, unfortunately too common in Phrynichus, which have little but lexicographical interest. The passage of Epicharmus referred to is probably that in Athen. 10. 411 E— ;

mpOrov pév, at « eoOovr idos viv, droOdvois. Bpéwer pev 6 pdpr€ evd00, dpaBel 8 & yvddos. - The masculine is also demanded by the metre in Euripides— mapeoti’ 6 pdpvy€ ebtpemis éoTw pdvov Cycl. 215, on the other hand, the feminine is equally beyond question in a later line of the same play— cipelas pdpvyyos, ® KixAwy,

dvaotduov Td Xedos Id: 356.

The authority of Aristophanes is for the feminine gender— W abrov émitplhpoper, & papa pdpvy€é. Ran. 571.

éxdcov papvy€ av hydv. Id. 259.

Moreover, the manuscripts exhibit 7 ¢dpvy€ in Thucydides (2. 49), tiv pdpvya in Pherecrates (Athen. 11. 481 A), and in Cratinus (Suidas, sub v. paptAn).

Later authors appear inconsistent. For the feminine, Lobeck quotes Aristidés, Pausanias, Aeclian, and for the masculine, Plutarch, and Lucian.. Hippocrates, Aristotle, and Galen use the two genders indifferently, both in its ordinary sense of the throat and in its technical signification

140 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

the common opening of the gullet and windpipe. The authority of Phrynichus, buttressed as it is by metre in Aristophanes, must be regarded as settling the question for Attic Greek, and in Teleclides (Ath. 6. 268 C), rijv gdpvya must be restored for rév pdpvya, and in a line of Aristophanes, preserved both by Photius and Suidas— Tv ddpvya pndrGv d0o dpaxpas eer pdvas,

rév, the reading of Suidas, must be rejected. The case of Euripides is interesting; it is another instance of the strange combination of forms from two distinct strata of language in constant use side by side—a combination which is the Tragic dialect.

XLVII.

"AvardizecOar A€re, MA avatdevecbat,

This is the suggestion of W. Dindorf for the reading of the manuscripts and editions, which is without meaning, avdadlCerbat dA€ye, wr) dvatdeverOar. There is a wide difference between the meanings of dvaid7js and avédéns, and Phrynichus knew Greek too well to think that there was not. Moreover, av0adiCowar is excellent Attic, being found in Plato, Apol. 34 D, ov« addadiGouevos, and avOddicpa is used by Aeschylus (P. V. 964).

On the other hand, dvatdedouar is read in Aristophanes—

Os 8% mpos wav dvaideverat KTE.

Eq. 396, ch.

and in a subsequent line of the same play (1206), Elmsley replaced trepavaiderOnoowat by trepavaidevOjoouar. But a Grammarian in Bekk. Anec. p. 80. 30, supplies the note, ’AvadlCerOar, ’Apioropdyns ‘Inmetow, and if dvad(Cerar is not to be restored in 1. 396, certainly the later line must be read thus—

olpou Kakodaluwr dmrepavardicOnoopat.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 141

The form in -((oua is more according to analogy and may be compared with einOigouar from ein Os, edpevtCouar from edpervjs, and avdadiGoua from aidddns, whereas dAndedw from dAnO7js is not a deponent, and émdayiredvoua: from émdayiAjs is one of the un-Attic words employed by Xenophon. If the two classes, as a whole, are compared, the words dnorevouat, veavretvouar, EBdopedopar, vwOpedouat, Tovnpevopat, piiavOpwmevopar, Bwporoxevopat, vearirkevopat, ddalovedouat, eipwvetouar, emuknpvkevouat, pavTrevouar, Tpay- paredvowat, Tepatrevowat, TepOpevouar, KoBadrKevouar, and orpay- yedouat are far outnumbered by deponents in -(Coya— ayxad(Coua, avdpayabicoua, avrAlCopat, diayxvdlCouat, KoplCopar, alxiCoua, dyporxlCoua, axparlCoua, dvOpwriGowar, evOerradtl- Couat, AoylGouar, ~vdiCouar, olwvlComar, axpoBorlCopat, amdot- Couar, emidoprlCoua, edvayyeAtCouar, loxvpiCouat, AayaplCouan, padakiGopa, padrOaxiCouar, WedAlCowat, dywvicowar, axxiCoua, daovlCouar, mopraxlCouar, tpopaciCouar, xaplCouar, xapvevri- Cowat, and eorigopar.

XLVIII.

Yiéwc of yevdattiKoi paciv, oiduevor Suotov etvar

T® Oucewe Kai TH MHAéwe.

XLIX.

Yiéor év émmistoAH mote ’AdcEdvdpou tod co@ictod ebpov ToUvoua TOOTO rerpayevov, kal opddpa EuewyapHv’ od rap, érei viéoc kai viel éotiv, edodc Kai tov viéa ebpor tic dv" > ‘ 4 > 4 ey ’ e > a n 4 GAAG THY GITLOTLKHY Ulov AEfoUGIV OL apyatol, TOUTO be kal PiAdkevoc, év toic € mepi thc’ lAiddoc ourrpaumaot, dayt- Aéstata amépuvev, Gddkimov pev eivat Tov viéa, dcKiwov bé

4 cr TOV ULOV.

142 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

The following table exhibits the forms of vids used by Attic writers—

SINGULAR. DUAL. PLURAL. vids vin viels cs cs en vie viéow. viets vidw viels viod or vieos vidwv vio or viel, vigour).

Late forms have in several passages crept into Attic texts. In Thuc. 1. 13 the Scholiast, many editions, and one manuscript exhibit vigws. The same vicious form has manuscript authority in three places of Plato (Rep. 378 A, id. D, Legg. 687 D), in Xenophon, Hell. 4. 1. 40, and in Demosthenes, 1062, 1075, 1077; and was actually restored by Reiske in id. 1057.

The genitive viod is found in Thuc. 5. 16, and the dative vig once in Antiphanes and several times in Menander; but the third declension forms are far more frequent than the second in these two cases of the singular, and are the only forms employed in the dual and plural numbers. The nominative dual appears as vide in Plato, Apol. 20 A, éordy yap aité dvo vige: but there can be no question that the original reading was vif, and that vi¢e is as corrupt as the vw, which some manuscripts present for 6vo. In Rep. 410 E, besides the genuine tr ¢éon rovrw, both 7a picee rovrw and Ta ices TovTw are encountered ; and in Isocrates, 44 B, there are the similar three varieties of reading—the correct r& én rov’rw and the two corruptions r® adédee rovrw and ras aéAes tavras. A line of Aristophanes has preserved the original form—

Kal mpds ye tovrots fxerov mpéoBn dvo, and stone records tell the same story.

Certainly Plato did not use all three forms of the dual of éois, or Isocrates write méAce, 7éAn, and wédes: and

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 143

why should the nominative and accusative dual be exempt from a law to which every other Attic word is subject? There is no reason why scholarship should quarrel with common sense.

The late accusative singular viga, reprehended by Phry- nichus with its plural consort vigas, has not found its way into any Attic text. The dative viedo. has been equally considerate, but in Sophocles, Antig. 571, the Laurentian exhibits the corrupt vidov.

In this word it is probable that throughout the Attic period the iota was never written. Atall events Herwerden (Lapid. de Dial. Att. Test. pp. 11, 12) distinctly states that in no Attic Inscription of a good age does any form but ids appear, except in verse, and even in that case dds, teis, etc., are sometimes found. Accordingly, the forms without iota should be restored to all prose texts, and to Comedy, either in every case, or at least when the first syllable need not be long. The reason for the prevalence of vids, vigos, etc., in the manuscripts of Attic writers is not far to seek. Those forms gradually took the place of dds, déos, etc., in stone records after the time of Alexander.

i.

Tedeutatotatoy A€retv GudpTHMa Tdv Tepi Traidetav do- KobvT@y TeuTdetv, Emel rap apyawTatov ebpov Aerdpevov Tapa Toic apyaiow, GHOHGaV Kai TodTo deiv Aérewv, GAAG

ov -TeEAEUTGIOV A€re,

LI.

“Eoyatov yp Aéretv, odyi éoyaTraTartov, et Kai wapTupa

TrOpeyet TIC,

144 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

LII.

‘ See , en, x ' . Kopupatotatov’ évexaduydunv ebpov rapa Papwpiva

A€re obv Kopu@atoy.,

Phaborinus would find himself in good company now-a- days, and Phrynichus might justly ask the question, Is life worth living? The értracis tmepOécews is not a fault of style, but a virtue in the eyes of many nineteenth century writers. According to Suidas}, Phaborinus was ri rod odpa- tos &&w dvdpdyvvos, but the same reason will not account for Plutarch’s use of the vicious superlative (Mor. p. 1115 E), or for reAevratdraros in Arrian, still less for éoyxardéraros in Xenophon, Hell. 2. 3. 49, ra mavrwv éoxardérara rabeiv.

Lucian (Pseudosoph. 5) ridicules the superlative of xopv- patos: “AAAov be cixdvtos, Tév hidov 6 Kopupatidraros, xdprév ye, &pn, TO THs Kopupis Torey TL. émdvw: and with reference to écxaréraros, Aristotle remarks (Metaphys. 9. 4. 1055. 20°), ovre yap Tod éoydrov éoxarérepoy ein dv tt. In this case, Xenophon is seen anticipating a usage which is rare even in the latest and most debased Greek, and of which there is certainly no trace in any Attic writer.

LIII.

BeBiactat H KdpH AekTéov, GAN’ oby adc Tivec TOV

PHTOpwv EpoapTat,

The same statement is made by Moeris, in three different passages, p. 103, BeBiacpévn “AtrixGs, epOapyévn “EAAn- vikOs: p. 106, Bidoacba *Arrixds, POeipar “EAAnvixGs: and

1 @aBwpivos, "Apredrov, THs év Taddig wéAews, dvijp mohupabs Kara wacav maideiay, yeyovas 5 Thy TOU awpaTos eiv dvdpdyuvos, (Sv pacw éEppappdoirov,) pirogopias peards, pyropucn 5& waGddAov émBeuevos, yeyovas émt Tpaiavod rod Kaicapos, nai mapateivas péxpt TOY ’Adpiavod xpévev Tod Bacidéws. *Avredtho- tipelro yoov Kat (jrov exe mpds TlAovrapxov Tov Xaipwréa eis 7d THY GuYTATTO- pévov BiBAlov dreipoy KTE,

ee

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 145

P- 390; POopéa ai epOapyévnv oddels rv Tmadratdv, adda Tov Biacdpevov xal BeBracpérny' POopeds 8% Kat e&pOapyévy “EAAnvixas. i Certainly Bidgoua: is so used in two places of Aristo- phanes— éay 8 ew dxovoay Bidgnrar Bia Lys, 225. Odpper, py bdBov

od yap Bidoera’ Plut. rogr.

on the latter of which the Scholiast remarks, with appre- ciation, d rovodow of dvdpes, robro én rijs ypads yor.

On the other hand, if Dionysius of Halicarnassus is to be trusted, Euripides employed ¢@apeica, (Rhet. 9. 11), TEptepxouérn yap mdoas ailrias rod cGoa Tra Tadla A€yer () Medavinmn), “ei 8& mapOévos POapeioa e&Onxe Ta maidla Kal hoBovpévn tov marépa, od pdvov dpdoeis ;” and in the Orators d:apGelpew occurs not seldom, Lysias, 92. 10; 93- 16; 95. 17; 136. 3. Ofcourse it refers primarily to moral corruption, whereas Bid¢oua denotes only the physical fact. The distinction is well brought out by a passage of Lysias, in which both verbs occur (94. 41), obras, & dvdpes, rods Bialopevous édarrovos Cnulas aélovs iyyjoaro -etvar 7) Tovs. Tret- Bovras’ rGy pev yap Odvarov KaTéyvm, Tois b& dimAqv érolnce THY BAGBnY, Hyotpevos Tots pev diampartopévovs Bla tmd Tov BiacOdvroy puceicOar, Tos b& melcavtas obtws a’Tav Tas Woxas Siapbeipew, dor olkevorépas adrois mo.eiy ras dddorplas yevaixas 7) tots dvdpdor re.

In late Greek #0elpw acquired the physical reference of the classical Bidgowa, and it is this use of the word which Phrynichus reprehends.

146 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

LIV.

“H BomAHE Aéretat, ody 6 BorAHE,

The same statement is made by Phrynichus again (App. Soph. 69), and by Moeris (p. 376). The to7An€ was distinct from the Badfides, and meant the cord or tape, breast-high, which the runner carried away with him as he passed the BadBides at the finish. The line of starting and finishing, in both foot-race and chariot-race, was the same, the starting

point being Badides, the finishing point BadPides + bomAné. _

A comparison of Harpocration and Moeris suggests this explanation — Badfiow: “AvripGv tept dpuovotas avti Tod tats dpxais* elpntar 8 amd rGy dpopewv yap dnd Tip bo- mrnyya yivopévn ypapph ba rd emi radrns BeBnxévar rods dpouéas BadBis xadcirar: Moeris, p. 103, BadPides, at ézi Tov dpcewn Bdoeis eyKexapaypévat, als éwéBawwor ot Spopets, twa @& toov torawro. 810 Kal of Kijpukes emt Tov TpexdvTar, “ BadBidu! wddas evOere, 7éda Tapa Tdda,” Kal vdv eri Aéyovow, ’ArrixGs. tomdn€ dé xowdv. The primitive term was pre- served in the herald’s formula, even in the Common dialect, but otherwise was replaced by tomdné. The latter word happens to occur only once in Attic Greek, Plato, Phaedr. 254. E, 6 jvloxos Borep ard BorAnyos avaTverdr.

Two explanations of the plural BadPides suggest them- selves—the one, that originally the term was applied to two poles to which two cords were attached, one at the ground, the other breast-high (Gomdn€). This explanation is given in Lex. Rhet. Bekk. An. 220. 31. The other is

more in accord with the facts, namely, that .BaAls primi-

tively signified a projecting edge, and in the plural was applied to a piece of wood placed in front of the runners’

1 The place is corrupt, Padi’ daddos Gre being the only reading. Perhaps the above conjecture restores the text.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 147

feet, and provided with a groove to catch the toes. Schol. Ar. Eq. 1156, 76 éy ri dpi rod dpduov Kelwevov éyxapolws fthov Sep... . aarpotpevor alecay tpéxew. This is in har- mony with the usage of Badf.dé5ns in Hippocrates, 842 F. 7d 8% pds dykGva avtod (rod Bpaxlovos) tAaTd Kal KovdvGdes kal BadBidGdes Kal orepedy eyxowWov dmicbev, and with the glosses of Hesychius and Galen on Badfis in the same writer, Galen explaining the word by xoiAdérns tapaprxns, and Hesychius by 76 éxov éxarépw0ev énavacrdces. Beyond question the true origin of the plural Badides is the second of the two suggested above.

Ly.

*1Abc olvou obK dpedc AéreTat, ToTAaMOG Mev rap iAvC ’ ?

olvou dé TpvE A brooTdeuH,

There is no occasion to doubt the correctness of this remark, because un-Attic writers like Aristotle, Theo- phrastus, and Hippocrates use (Avs in a wider sense. In the Iliad and in Herodotus it is found only in the signifi- cation claimed for it in Attic by Phrynichus—

ovre Ta Tedxea Kad, Td Tov pdda verdOu Aluvns keloeO’ in’ iddos Kexadvppéva’ Kad b€ pv adrov

clAvow Wapud0o.ow kre. Il. 21. 318.

Herod. 2. 7, évOcdrev pev wal péxpt “HAlov médros és Tip pe- adyatdy éorr edpéa Atyuntos, éodca rica inrly re Kal Evvdpos Kat iAvs. Even rpv&, which no Attic writer would use of anything but the lees of wine, has its meaning generalized by late writers, and is applied not only to water, but to oil, fat, and similar liquids. Dioscorides, 5. 120, actually makes it a term of metallurgy, rod xarepya¢ouévov xadkod oloy broord0un kat tpv& Misuse could not go further.

The generic word troordOun occurs in Plato, Phaed.

L2

148. THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

109 C, ob 81 (rod aldépos) troordOyny radra etvar, and was doubtless in constant use in cases in which special words like iAvs and rpvé were out of place.

LVI.

Koptov A kopidiov A KopickH Aérouol, TO d€ KOpaotov ov,

The word xopdo.oy occurs in some verses attributed to

Plato by Diog. Laert. 3. 33, but the whole is in Doric— ‘A Kémpts Motoaot’ Kxopdowa, trav ’Adpodfrav Tyar 7) Tov "Epwr typi ehomrlcopar

and therefore, even if genuine, does not affect the dictum of Phrynichus. Photius also repudiates the term, [a:d:cxdprop, kopdowoy S& od A€yerar, GAAA Kal KeKwpednke Diiaaldys ws &evixdv, and Pollux, 2. 17, characterizes it as edredés. ‘Sed si Arrianus in summa argumenti gravitate, si scriptores sacri et ecclesiastici cum nulla edreAvcpod significatione huc delapsi sunt, apparet eos contra cultioris sermonis leges peccasse .. . . Quod autem Phrynichus xopdovoy contra analogiam factum esse dicit, non eo spectat, quo Pauwius statuit, quod a xépa (pro xépyn) derivatum sit, sed quod nullum Graecorum diminutivorum in -acvoy terminatur.. . Kdrra, xanmmdouv extremae Graecitatis est, [puprdovor » autem et Kopuddovov quae Schol. Venet. Il. 20. 404, cum kopdotoy componit, nullam cum eo praeter terminationis similitudinem habent, ideoque ille xopdov.ov potius Mace- donicum esse tradit. Lobeck.

LVII.

€ , ”

“H pak Epeic’ 6 rap pwe dbo Eyer GuapTHuara,

Eustathius has preserved the authoritative judgment of

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS, 149

Aelius Dionysius on this point (p. 1485. 59, cp. 1633. 42), 6 pw€ Kat codoixtopos Kal BapBapiopds xara AtAtoy Atovdcror. The word is met with in two passages of Attic Greek— in a fragment of Sophocles— jv pev yap olds paddds, tv 5€ Kdymédov omovoyn Te Kal pag ed TeOnocavpiopérn, Nk. 365. and in Plato, Legg. 8. 845 A, éay 8% 87 dodA0s ph weloas Tov deondrny TOV Xwplov dnrnral Tov Tév ToLo’TwY KaTa paya Botpiwv kai cdxov cuxns icaplOyous TAnyas TovToLs paotvyotcbw. There is nothing to show whether the soloecism in gender, and barbarism in form, of the late péé was simply due to ignorance and carelessness, or came from some of the less known dialects. For purposes of lexicography Lobeck’s note is invaluable, but it is needless here to re- produce details which are not worth remembering.

LVIII.

Taytov ot “EAAnvec ob A€rovot, OGtTOV dé.

LIX.

Bpddiov' Kai todto* Holodoc pev Aéret, Bpddtov d€ TlaveAAtvesst pacivel,

Tldtav d€ Kal Oovkudidue Kai of ddKiwot Bpadvtepov.,

To the former of these articles most editions append the words paAdov pev ody “EAAnves 7d TdxLov, OGrrov dé *Arrixol, which, as Scaliger pointed out, est clausula non Phrynichi, sed Phrynichum corrigentis studiosi; a conjec- ture strikingly confirmed by their absence from the best Laurentian manuscript, which also indicates their origin by omitting od before Aéyouor. The meaning of “EAAnves was misunderstood.

150 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

The caution of Phrynichus, Moeris (p. 436), and other grammarians seems unnecessary now, but it must be remembered that Plutarch, Diodorus, and others use the vicious forms.

The line of Hesiod quoted may be found in Op. 528. For the superlative Homer has Bdpductos (Il. 23. 310, 530), but in the fragment of Aristophanes, referred to by Liddell and Scott as authority for Bpddieros, the word is only a useless conjecture of Brunck’s—

évradda & érupdvvevey “CyimddAns tarhp Odas, Bpadtiraros dv év avOpdrois dpapeiv.

No Attic writer could have used such a form.

The earliest instance of rdxvoy is quoted from Menander (Gellius, Noct. Att. 2. 23), but the lines in which it is found will not scan, and baffle translation—

Taidirxdpiov Oepamevtixoy 6& Adyov rdxtov, anayéoOw 5€ Tis 7) dp avrevoaydyo.

To Attic writers 0dcowv (Odrrwv) was the only comparative, and rdxioros the only superlative. Dindorf fathers ra- xvrara upon Antiphanes, but it is easy to settle a case of affiliation when the defendant is dead. The passage of Athenaeus, in which the lines of the Comic poet are quoted (4. 161 D), is one of a kind which has introduced into the company of their betters many forms like raxvrara. The ‘ lines are first adapted to suit the context, and scholars are not to be blamed if they exercise their ingenuity to restore them to their original form: Totrov & tyes, @

piridccpor, ovdey doxeire, GMAA Kal TO TdvTwY XadreToTEpoV —

Aadeire wept dv ovK oldare, kal @s Kooplws eoblovres ToLeire

thy évOeow xara tov Hdicroy ’Avtipdyn* obtos yap év Apa- —

metaywy® déyet, Kooplws Toldy Thy evOeow, pikpay pev ex Tod mpdabe, peotHy 8 evdobev THY xElpa, Kabdmep at yuvaikes,

‘i on ff

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. . I51

Katepayere TdToAXNa Kal taytrara, e&dy xara Tov adroy Tobrov mountiy ev BouPuxig dA€yovta d5paxphs avjcacda’ “Tas mpoc- opous Huiv tpopds, oxdpoda, Tupdy, Kpdppva, wamTapi, mdvTa tabr éoriy dpaxpijs.” The passage is at best not very intelligible, but from Koopiws to yvvaikes the words run tolerably well as iambics. The plural xarepdyere, how- ever, corresponding to doxeire, NaAcire, Toreire, shows that Athenaeus left Antiphanes at that point. In that case taxvrata has its equals in oféare and dvjcacda.

In Xenophon, on the other hand, a form used by Pindar (O. 1. 125), and kept in countenance by the Herodotean taxtrepos (3.65; 7. 194), would not necessarily be out of place, and, accordingly, rax’rara may be right in Hell. 5. I. 27, tas Bpadv’rara mAcovcas Tais dpiota TAEovcaLs Taxv- Tata KareiAjnde. Cobet and L. Dindorf, however, read tax¥ with some manuscript authority.

LX.

KwAterov ph Aére, KwAAVa dé.

This is the only place in which cwAvq¢uov is encountered, but in Latin writers coliphium is met with, as Plaut. Pers. I. 3.12; Juv. 2.53; Mart. 7.67. In all these passages it is used of food for athletes, a signification which in Greek appears to have belonged to xwdjjves. From its use by Plautus it is natural to infer that it came into the Latin vocabulary as a translation from some of his New Comedy models—a supposition that is quite consistent with the hypothesis that -vpiov as a diminutive suffix entered the Common dialect from Macedonia. However, évAjdiov is exhibited in Alexis, ap. Ath. 13. 568 D, and in Hippocr. 682. 44, but it is simply impossible to decide whether évAyquor, évidpiov, or Evddpuov, was the genuine classical form. Thomas has vAlduov, od fvAdpiov, and other grammarians are either similarly corrupt or similarly wrong. It is dis-

152 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

creet to leave unsettled a question on which authority is so divided.

Lit:

Kakodaimoveiv’ oftwc of voewc dttikizovtec. *A@Hvaior rap dia Tob a, Kakodaiovady A€rouctv, Kai GavudceLtev av Tic Tc evdamoveiv uev A€rovetv, ovKEeTL SE KAKOdDALMOVELY, > ‘ ny ‘ n > a ‘ D GAAG Kakodatmovav' Kal Ac evdatovotct ev A€ErovaL,

ovKETL O€ KaKOdALMOVODGIV, GAAG KAKODAILOVASL.

As far as form goes, there is no reason why an Attic writer should not have employed kaxodaipoveiv. The ad- jective xaxodatuwr, in the sense of wxzfortunate, forms a verb kakodaipoveiy as naturally as in the sense of possessed by an evil genius it forms kakodaipovay. Kaxodamoveiy is to be

unfortunate, as edvdaipovety is to be fortunate, and there is -

no eddamovay, simply because the Greeks never thought of men as being possessed by a good genius.

In Xenophon, Hier. 2. 4, xaxodaovetv is quite correctly used, évOamep kal rd eddaoveiy Kal TO Kaxodasovely Tots av- Opdrois azoxeirar, but in Mem. 2. 1. 5 there is no question that xaxodaovvros is the true form: kal ryAtkovroy pev emikeévav TH moixevovT. KakOy Te Kal aicxpGv, dvTwy d=

‘mo\AGY TGV arodvedvrwy Tis Tov adpodiclov emOvylas ev Gdelq, Buws eis Ta Emixivdvva péperOat, Gp ovk 7dn TodTo Tav- Tdmact KaxodaipovarTds eoTw ;

In Demosthenes (93. 24), xaxodaiovGor should replace —

kaxodaimovodor as the context demands: vi Ala, caxodaipov- Gow yap dvOpwro. Kal drepBdddovow advola.

The adjective kaxodaivewv, in the sense of lost to reason, is met with in Antiphon, 134. 25, xalrou 7d elkds ocuppa- xév pot éoriv ob yap dimou obrw Kaxodalywv éyd, bore 7d pev anoxreivat Tov avdpa mpodvvonodunv povos kre, and in Aris-

ee es

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 153

tophanes (Eq. 112) is jocularly used substantively =xaxds dalpov— arap tod daluovos déb01x’ Srws pr TEvEofrar KaKodalyovos.

The class of verbs to which xaxodaiovav belongs is a very interesting one, and comprises the following words—

dyov.d, am in distress. BepwBix.6, spin like a top. BovdiiG, am ravenous. yeitvi6, am neighbour to. yeverd, grow a beard. dayzov6, am possessed. évOove.d, am inspired. épv0p.6, blush. érepeyxepadG, am half-mad. evpwriG, am stale. nAvdAM6, am youngish. Duyy.6, am dizzy. kepouTia, toss the horns. kAavoid, desire to weep. Kyno.e, itch. kow.6, wear the hair long. kom@, am tired. xopuvBavr.6, am frenzied. xopu6, have a catarrh. kpav@ado, have the head- ache. xvdo1b.6, have swellings beneath the eyes. emp, am leprous. Anpari, am resolute. 196, suffer from stone. Aun6, am fat. pado, am bald.

pa0nr.6, wish to become a disciple.

paxxodé, am stupid.

paotty.d, deserve a whip- ping.

waré, am idle.

peAayxoAG, am melan- choly.

epiwve, am anxious.

vapx6, am numb.

vavTt@, am sea-sick.

épy6, am lusty.

ovpyt.6, micturio.

épOavmi6, have running eyes.

modayp6, have the gout.

o1BvdAiu6, play the old woman.

oKorobiiG, am dizzy.

onapyo, swell.

oTpnvid, Wax wanton.

Pappas, poison.

gové, am athirst for blood.

dvo.e, pant.

xada¢6, have pimples.

epaxto, faint.

suffer from

154 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Perhaps words like dup6, rewG, 7186, veo, TWG, pur, kicoG, oppry6, may be rightly added to the list, or they may go with the following, which are less definite in meaning—

(, live. dnvapé, babble. xuB.ioré, tumble. oir, roar. AixpG, play with the Bod, shout. tongue. avr, meet. Aw, take rest. dpiorG, dine. papy6, rage. doxade, grieve. pedid, smile. Bava, sleep. pevowwd, am bent on. Bpovra, thunder. pvd6, drip. KoAvpBe, dive. TeEp@, Cross. oly6, am silent. modo, leap. gio7d, am silent.

oxipto, skip.

No member of the former class has a middle or passive voice as the verbs denote bodily or mental s¢a¢es, but those members of the latter class which come under the law stated above on p. 138 have the middle inflexions in the future, Borjropat, porrjoouat, mndjropat, oKipTHoopat, just as dxpoGpat, GAGpat, BAnXSpat, BpvxSpat, pacGuat, kvv~epat, and others are deponents throughout.

Naturally, verbs of the type da:mov6 occur principally in the present tense. It is seldom that a future or aorist is encountered, and their perfect is almost non-existent. The aorist of tAryyiG is found in Plato, Prot. 339 E, éoxoré@ny kat idvyylaca eladvros abtod radra, and the future in Gorg. 527 A, xaophoer xat irvyyidoes. So dpbarwidoas répvow, Aristoph. Fr. ap. Poll. 4. 180; yuvarét xomdoaow, id. ap. Ath. 3. 104 F; xoyroew, Plat. Phaed. 89 C; peyaxkoakora, Ar. Eq. 62; iv otpyridoys, Vesp. 808; opaxidoas, Pax 702 ; pepywjoas, Dem. 576. 24.

It is a difficult question to decide which is the true form

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 155

of many of these verbs—whether the -dw should or should not be preceded by an iota. On this point Photius says, AvOGvras* rpicvAAdBos, ov ALGiGvTas* TlAdrwv va’ Népowv. Kal Bpayxay éyovow, od Bpayxiav' xai €repa rovatra, But in the passage of Plato referred to(11.916 A) the manuscripts read only AlOwy or AGidv, not ALOGv: dvdpamodov 7) ALOGy 7} oTpay- youpiov. There can be no question that A\.@6v should be read, and that the iota was inserted from false analogy with atpayyoupiav. Lobeck, however, is wrong in suggesting kapnBapay for kapnBapiay in Pollux, 2. 41, cal xapnBapixor, Td 7d0os, Tydexdeldns* TO 8% bxd peOns KapnBapiay ’Apioro- gdvyns. Akin to xapnBapta, the verb has the iota as natur- ally as orpayyoupi6 from otpayyoupla, and ckorodiuid from oxoroowvia, and all verbs of this class which have such a substantive connected with them—édyord, Bovdryud, druyy.d, etc.

As to several of the others, it is now impossible to decide. Certainly \.@6 is no isolated case, and the later Greeks often added the iota to verbs which in Attic were spelt without it. Thus Aeschylus employed xpi06, Agam. 1641, kp\OGvra mGdov, but in later writers xpi0iévra would have been preferred. They even increased the class by new formations which from signification had no right to a place in it. Such a word is dporpiay from d&porpov—a poor substitute for the genuine and unassuming dpody. Of other verbs they merely modified the suffix, making in this way pyview into pyriay, and padklew into padxiav. The latter word has been peculiarly unfortunate. By Cobet’s help (Mnem. 3. 306) wadxtw has been restored to its just position, but till recently the word had practically disappeared. In Demosthenes, 120. 7, its place has in all manuscripts been taken by padak(Coueda: “raéra rolvuy maoxovtes dmavtes pédAdAouev kal padrklouer Kal mpds tovs mAnolov Br€moper, amvorobvres GAAHAots. The primitive reading has been pre- served in Harpocration’s invaluable Aéfeis rév déxa pyrdpwv.

156 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS.

Phrynichus, in App. Soph. 51. 31, assigns the true meaning to the word— Madklew* TO td Kptovs vapKar,

but the word itself has become corrupted to padaxuiy.

LATE.

KopHua ypH Aéretv, ovyi cdpov, Kai Kopetv Kai mMapakopety, GAAG WH oapodv.

LXIII. -

Zapwsov érretdav dkovoHe TivoC AepayaGe: KEAEUGOV se oe KOpHoov Aé€retv, StL OVSE Gdpov A€rovGtv, GAAG KOPHLG kai

KGAAUVTpoV,

The word cdpov is unquestionably an old one, as in the middle of the fifth century, Ion, the Tragic poet, and Sophron, the writer of mimes, employed it. At all events, Hesychius says so, and certainly cafpw is in constant use in Tragedy (Soph. Ant. 409; Eur. Hec. 363, Andr. 166, .Cycl. 29, Ion 115, 120, 795). The words of Hesychius are, Sdpov" KédAvvtpov Bufdytiow. dpov' “Iwv ’Apyetous—

@s madaoy oiklas odpov*

Bapvrovytéov, as mapa Udqpove Oéder 8& A€yery Gre axpynotot elow 81a 7d yfjpas. It is one of those common words which do not die easily. Phrynichus, however, is quite right in denying it to Attic proper. Of the two verbs calpw and xop6, the Athenians, obeying the inexorable law of par- simony, selected the latter, and let cafpw drop out of use; xop® occurs in the Odyssey—

SO — ee

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 157

dypei0’, ai pev dua Kophoare Tomvicacat, 20. 149. and is the only word known to Attic Prose and Comedy, Dem. 313. 12, of Aeschines, rd péAav tplBov, kal rd BdOpa omoyyl(wy, kat To Tadaywyelov Kop :

xaTd0ov TO Kdpnua, ph *kKKdper Thy “EdAdda’ Aristoph, Pax 59.

toutt AaBov Td Képnua, Thy addAnv Kdpet. Eupolis (Pollux, 10, 29).

Probably the substantive xdépnua was of purely Attic growth, and ought to be compared with such words as tdpia (p- 23), which illustrate the extraordinary formative activity of the Athenian mind during the period which began with Marathon and Salamis. It need hardly be added that capotv is as debased a form as dporpiav, GdnOew, opyxew, Wixew, et hoc genus omne.

LXIV.

*AMAME A€rouctv GuaptTavovtec oi pHtopec* Todvavtiov rap A dei ypvtar Tov Mev rap TpecBUTepov PHTeov aqH-

Auka, ot & émi tod wHderrw thc év vouw HAtkiac yp@vrat. 2 .

It is easy to see how these opposed meanings originated. The force of the preposition in the classical sense is the same as in such words as dmapri, dmaxpiBodua, amavdpob- pat, arapxa, etc.; whereas in d@yruE, young, in one’s nonage, the axé bears the meaning that it has in ddv0pwmos, ama- péoxw, Gmorvyxdvw, and other words.

There is no reason to believe that Pollux (2. 17) is right in enfranchising as Attic the latter of these significations : cat Dptvixos pev 5 Kopuxds ras véas adijrcxas A€éyer, Foav Se kai yuvaikes &rdcces. Depexpdrys de Thy yeparrdrny apnALKeoTa- rv, &s Kat Kparivos aijdtxa yépovra. Any late Greek writer

158 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

was capable of misunderstanding a Classical predecessor, and the context is required to fix the meaning of the words by which Pollux confirms his assertion.

LXV.

*Emttpomidgewv’ Ett kai todro diépeaprtat, KaiToL AerovT@y

pavepadc Tdv dpyaiwy brotpomdetv.

According to Lobeck, there is no trace of this corruption in our texts. Phrynichus himself explains the meaning of imotpomid¢ew in App. Soph. 69. 19 by the words érapy ze- mavpévns Tis vécov TéAw emwooy tis. The word is so used by Hippocrates, but does not occur in any extant Attic writer.

LXVI.

TIpokortetv Aérouct' Té dé dvoua mpoKkorm’ map’ abToic

OUK EoTL.

This is a mere question of fact. IIpoxom} certainly does not occur in Classical Greek. Those who care may search for a reason why zpoxomy, eyxom}, éxxom}, ovyKom7], were tabooed when dzoxom}, mapaxomy}, and mepixomy, were in

. use among Attic .writers.

LXVII.

Bipktarpd@oc’ obtw Aérovaw év mévTe GUAAGBaic Kai dia

_ TOD a, obyi TeTPAGUAAGBarc bia TOO o.-

In App. Soph. 29. 29 is found the dictum AuSdromdAns kal BiBAroméAns Kal BiBdroypdpos. It is impossible to re- concile contradictory statements—and there is no means

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 159

of arriving at the truth. There is a discussion of the question in the Parerga to Lobeck’s edition, pp. 655 ff.

LXVIII.

Baokdviov Aérouowy oi dpyaiot, ob MPoBackdviov mera

Thc mpd.

A good notion of the meaning of the term may be got from the App. Soph. 30. 5: Baoxdmov' 3d of dpyabeis mpo- Backdviov' eor. 8€ TL GvOpwmocdts KatacKkevaopa, Bpayd mapndraypévov tiv dvOpwrelav piow, 5 mpd Tov épyacrnpiwy of xeipdvaxtes Kpewavytovor Tod py) BackalverOar abrév thy épyactav.

In a similiar description, Pollux, 7. 108, quotes these lines of Aristophanes—

mi et tis mplarto deduevos Backdvioy ém) Kdpuvoy dvdpds xadxéws.

The zpé violates Attic usage in the same way as ovr in the words ovprodlrns and ocvprarpiétns.

LXIX.

Noidiov Kai Boidtov dpyata Kal dékiua, odyi vovdiov Kai

Bovdioy, dia TOO v,

LXX.

“Potdiov diatpobvrec A€rouatv ot duceeic: rpeic dé

poidiov.

The former of these articles hardly requires annotation, but the latter may even now be insisted upon with advantage.

160 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Any one who knows anything of Attic Greek must feel convinced that the open forms are radically opposed to the genius of that dialect. In late Greek the uncontracted forms were in vogue and have crept into all manuscripts. Other grammarians besides Phrynichus saw occasion to insist upon the old genuine forms. Moeris, p. 275: Olords, ducvA- AdBws *ArrikGs, BédAos ‘EAAnrixGs. In his note on that passage Pierson showed that Attic verse often requires and always allows of the contracted forms, and that ols, bois, oitupds, EvBoida, dumdociba, biTA0l(w, GOpolfm, Kata- mpotferat, ypdd.ov, and the like, should be restored with- out any regard to codices or editions. Porson followed in his steps in his Preface to the Hecuba, and there can no longer be any doubt on the point. Transcribers wrote é.ortés for olords, dis for ots, éAeewds for éAeuwds, just as they substituted ¢vcee for ¢von and wédee for médn. Yet editors will still write @dcewds, picee, and similar forms in prose, and-trust with credulity guides who, as often as there is any evidence external to them- selves, are found to be consistently untrustworthy.

LXXI.

"Ocur yph Aéretv dia Tod o bia pap tod 6, odu', lave: Trapavopel - roov =evopav eic THY TdTpLov did-

Aektoy OOuH AErooy.

It has already been observed, that Xenophon’s diction is an anticipation of the Common dialect. With Attic for its basis, it allows of words from all the dialects, and is wanting in that quality which has justly been termed purity. Moreover, not only the diction, but the style as a whole lacks the masculine simplicity and manly self-re- straint which marks all genuine Attic work, and has many

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 161

of the characteristics of the feminine Ionic. Certainly no pure Attic writer ever recalls by faults of style the Greek of Macedonian times so frequently as Xenophon. He is wanting in dignity, loquacious, superficial, and indifferent to all that differentiates a good style from a bad. He uses different words of identical meaning in the same paragraph, and never exercises his judgment in the se- lection of terms. On the other hand, he does not disdain the trivial methods of ornamentation which every good style is without.

It did not escape the notice of the later Greeks that Xenophon’s diction was very different from that of pure Attic writers, and there are still extant several remarks upon this point. The physician Galen, in his Commen- tary on Hippocrates, compares Xenophon with the great Ionic medical writer in his use of dvéyara ykwoonpartixad Kab tpomxkd—‘ foreign words and figurative expressions’—and the Grammarians use language of a similar kind. In Photius (Biblioth. p. 533. 25) are preserved the following words of Helladius, a grammarian of the fifth century A. D., obdey Oavpacrory dvijp év otparelats cxorAdCwv Kal €évwv cvvov- clats et Tiva Tapakdnret Tis Tatplov pévys* 516 vowobérny adrov ov« dy Tis GrtiKiopod TapadkdBo.. The explanation suggested _ by Helladius is unquestionably correct, and recommends itself to any one who studies the evidence that is still avail- _ able. A busy man, living almost wholly abroad, devoted to country pursuits and the life of the camp, attached to the Lacedaemonian system of government, and detesting the Athenian, Xenophon must have lost much of the refined ' Atticism with which he was conversant in his youth. It is not only in the form of words that he differs from Attic writers, but he also uses many terms—the évduara yAwo- onparixkd of Galen—altogether unknown to Attic prose, and often assigns to Attic words a meaning not actually attached to them in the leading dialect. The fact that

M

162 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

expatriation modifies the use of one’s native tongue was no less true in Greece than it is now, and may be illus- trated by the lines of Solon—

moddods & *AOjvas warps és Oedxtirov

dvjyayov mpabévtas, GAAov exdikws,

dAAov bikaiws, yAdooay odKér *ArriKiy

iévtas, os dy TohAaxH TAavwpEvovs,

ap. Aristid. 2. 536.

and still more aptly by a passage of Demosthenes (p. 1304), diaBeBAjKaci pov tov warépa os e&€vice* kal Sri pev Gdods ind Tov Torculov tnd Tov Aexederxov 7OAEpor, Kal mpabels els

Aevxdda Kredvipw, mepitrvxav TO troxpith mpos Tovs oiKelovs -

€cd0n deBpo0 ToAdooT® yxpdvy, Tapadrcdoizacw, GoTwep bE déov Huas bv exelvas Tas arvylas dmodéoOar, 7d EeviCew adrod KaTnyopyKkacw" eyo 6 e& adtéy Totrwr padior dy oipar byiv euavtov ’AOnvatov dvra émidelEar' kal mpGrov per as Eddrw Kal €od0n, pdprupas tpiv mapéEoua, ewe Ori adixduevos Ths ovotas mapa Tév Oelwy 7d pépos peTeAaBer, «i? Sri ovr ev Tois Synpdrats, ovr ev Tots ppdtopowy, ovr dAAOOe ovday0d Tov Eevt- Covra ovdels mémor’ HTidcato ws ein Eévos—The man had been sold from one part of Greece to another, had always lived among Greek-speaking men, and yet, when he re- turned to his native Attica, he no longer talked Attic.—It is a point, which cannot be insisted upon too often, that the phenomena of language presented by Greece up to the time of Alexander were exceptional to a degree. Several dialects, differing essentially in vocabulary and pronuncia- tion, existed contemporaneously within a very limited area. Moreover, as has been shown, there were, in addition to these, what may be called literary dialects, produced by a fact almost peculiar to Greek literature—that a style of composition had a tendency to keep to the same dialect in which it started. In this way it was possible, even in the case of one people like the Athenians, to have two

1 ¢évp Biadéxtw ExpHro. Vid. Harpocration sub vocabulo.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 163

stages in the history of their language represented in con- temporary literature, namely, the matured Attic of the day, known to us from Comedy and the Orators, and the partially developed Ionic Attic of more than a century earlier, which is the basis of the language of Tragedy. Now, while it has been already proved that, to an Athe- nian of the best age, it was as easy and natural to pass in literature from one dialect to another as from one metrical system to another, yet, at the same time, nothing but constant communion with his contemporaries could have produced that marvellous precision of language which is observable in Aristophanes, Plato, and the Orators. Such precision was only possible in a language spoken by a great people, elevated by events to a still higher intellectual level, inhabiting a limited area with few opposing interests, and thrown into constant communication with one another. No Athenian of the best days used for ordinary purposes épxnrar for in, épxdpmevos for idv, modjow for amoddcopat, téEw for réEouat, kdpra for opddpa, yet the words were known to him, and he recognized that they were in place in Tragedy, and might, for literary purposes, be employed in Comedy. But if the same man moved for a year or two among Greek peoples which used épynrat, épxoiro, twdijow, rééw, ede’rouat, and the like, there is no question that he would follow their example. Accordingly, it is contrary to all reason to treat Xenophon as a genuine Attic writer, and to apply to him the same standard that may justly be applied to Aristophanes, Plato, and the Orators. As it is, there is every reason to believe that his text has already severely suffered in this way, and that early critics have made corrections of the same kind as modern editors have recently been introducing. The word dy) is a case in point. It is not encountered once in the present texts of Xenophon. The Attic dcp has everywhere been substituted for it. Yet, besides that

M 2

164 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS.

of Phrynichus, there is the testimony of other grammarians to the same_ effect; and their authority is far superior to that of manuscripts, more recent by many centuries. Pol- lux has a remark of great value: ‘H 8% dui Kai evodpia doxel pev Tois woAAOTs etvar Kadd dvdpara, ear. dF TounTLKd, ev 8& rots Katadoyddny "Iwvixa wai Alwdtkd. Tlapa b€ *Avri- arte pdve ddpas cal edbodulav} eBpor tis ay (2. 76). In the texts of Xenophon ddyu7 must be restored, in accordance with the authority of Grammarians; and 6du and evodpuia are moreover guaranteed by Pollux to have survived, even in Attic, till the time of Antiphon, or the middle of the fifth century B.C., so that not only did Aeschylus use édpd in a lyrical passage, P. V. 115—

tis ax@, tls ddua mpocénta pw aheyyjs; but the manuscripts are probably to be trusted in exhibiting é3u7y even in Euripidean senarii ?—

@ Ociov dduis mvedpa xTe. Hipp. 1391. Further evidence that the text of Xenophon, as we now

have it, differs in many essential points from the text of the early Christian centuries, is not wanting. Photius*® has preserved the fact that Xenophon used jjdés for éas: "Eas, oxi ids, To Attixov ott. Zevoddr d& jos A€yer Tom- TiKGs, Kataxdépws év Kvpov Tlaidela iv mpos 7, av te mpos éomépav. Yet és now appears everywhere in the manu- scripts. A gloss in Suidas is, Mdcowv, paxporépos: Zevopor

ay ph odd pdoowr 686s 7}. To the examples of un-Attic

1 The editions have dcpds xat evooptav, which means nothing. Antiphon, the earliest of Attic prose writers, retains very many words and forms of words aban- doned at a later period by the Attic dialect, and d3y4 and edodpta do not stand alone in his diction as indications of that earlier Attic, a still earlier stage of — which became the basis of the Tragic diction.

2 The coexistence of donq in Eur. El. 498, Cycl. 153, and in ‘Soph. Phil. 891, Ant. 412, 1083; Fr. Philoct. 630; Synd. Fr. 141. 4, is only another instance of the combination of new and old in the Tragic diction, and of which the new vocoinv, by the side of the old vogot. is a striking instance.

3 In Lex. MSS. apud Valcken, ad Eur, Hipp. 78.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 165

words and forms in Xenophon already referred to (see p- 59), may be added the following: yrworjp=Att. éy- yentis, Cyr. 6. 2. 393 dorip, amodexrijp, 8.1. 9; emraxrip, 2. 3. 43; darip, ppactip, 4. 5- 17; Ocpamevrip, 7. 5. 65; ponaotnp, 8. 4. 15; Avpavtyp, Hier. 3. 3; and in alphabetical order :—

*AyAata=Koopds, Eq. 5. 8, d€d0rav 5 mapa Ocdv Kal dydatas évexa inm@ xaltn Kal mpoxdusdv Te Kal odpd.

*Aypevo, hunt=Onpedw, xvvnyetd, Hipp. 4. 18, Cyn. 12. 6, Anab. 5. 3. 8.

*Ayxeuaxa Orha=Ta py BadrAdueva SmAa, Cyr. I, 2 13:

“Homer: Hesiod,

*Ayxitéppov=yelrwv, Hier. 10. 7, ras b@ dyxiréppovas TéA«Ls : Soph. Fr. Lemn. 352; Eur, Rhes. 426.

*Adans=dotveros, Cyr. 1. 6. 43, oddevds adrdv jyédAnxas ovd ddans yeyevyrar: Hdt. 2. 49; 5.90; 9. 46; cp. 8. 65.

*Adytvopat=dviGpat, AvTodpar, Apol. 8, ddAyuvduevos vdécos h yipa. In Tragedy frequently, in Comedy only in parody or paratragedy.

*Ahéxw =dpdve, if ddé£ouar is read for ddefjpooua in An. 7. 7. 3, 80 nArcEdpnv, ardé£acOa, An. I. 3.6; 3. 4. 33; etc.

*AdéEw = dutve, act. Cyr. 4. 3. 2; middle, Cyr. 1. 5, 13.

*AdeEnrnp = Bondds, Oec. 4. 3, tTais marplow adeknripes: Hom. II. 20. 396.

“AkiGo=d0pol(o, Cyr. 1.4.14; An. 7. 3.48; 6.3.3; Herod: T. 79; 5. 153 7. 12; Eur. Heracl. 403. It occurs in Plato, Crat. 409 A, but only in a philological argument, GXuos ,otv ely pev ay cata Oo adlCew els taird rods dy- Opdrous, éweidav dvarelry.

“Adxyios=Opacts, pdxiysos, Cyr. 1. 2. 10; 5. 2. 25, Anab, 4. Bs As Pole tay Eheie fa 20. 10-5. 7:50. 1, Oec..45 15,,6tc. + In Plato, Rep. 614 B, it is Ranch for the sake of a pun, and in Arist, Plut. 1002, in a proverb.

*Auavpd=ovyxew, apavilw, Cyn. 5. 4, ) oveAnvn dyavpot ra

166 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

ixyn: Ages. 11. 12, dpavpody ra rv Todeniov: Hdt. 9. 10; Eur, Fr, 420.

“Avadxis, Cyr. 7. 5.623; 8. 1. 45, dvdAxidas Kat dovyTaktovs : Soph. El. 301 ; Hdt. 2. 102.

Avid =dvédxw, Anab. 4. 2. 8, Eq. 7. 1.

’ArrapelBouat=daroxpivowa, Xen. An. 2. 5. 15, ein aint 4 bt Bde aanpelpOn: otherwise only Epic.

’Anepiko=Kolv’o, Mem. 2. 9. 2, xévas 0% rpépeis iva oor rods AvKovs ato Tov TpoBdrwv ameptKwor . . . drepixew:

Occ. 5. 6, af 8% Kives Td Te Onpia azeptxovoar amd dopns -

KapTév Kal mpoBdrav. See épixo.

*Apaids==pavds, Lac. 11. 6, dpaat pddayyes: Hom. Il. 16, 161; Hippocr. 243. 36, jv 8% Enpa yn Kai dpatos kelueva. =vraris intervallis.

Apnyw, Cyr. 1. 5. 13, Tols tras dicts: Oec. 5. 7; dpryew Th x6pa: Hom. Il. 1. 77, etc.; Herod. 7. 236; Hippocr. 395. 6, Aovrpdy 88 ovxvoicr Tov vovonndroy dpijyo. av xpeouévorot: Aesch. Eum. 571, P. V. 267, etc.; Soph. Aj. 329, etc.; Eur. Tr. 772, etc.

+A cepethcatanelledanke Lac. 15. 7, dorupéArktov Thy Fae Aelav Tmapéxew.

’ArnuéAnros=juednpévos, Cyr. 5. 4. 18, oddéva éxav ary péAnrov mapédeimev: 8. 1. 14, oddels GrnuéAnros yilyverat. In an active sense, Cyr. 8. 1. 15, Tév olxefoy arnpediTos éyew: Aesch. Agam. 891.

Ax Oewds=Avmnpds, Mem, 4. 8. 1, Td -dxOewdraroy Tod Biov: Hell. 4. 8. 27, od« dyOewGs édpa: Eur. Hipp. 94, Hec. 1240.

“Axos=)ian, Cyr. 5. 5. 6, dxos abroy. éaBev: id. 6. 1. 37, of | GvOpwrol pe karadvovow dyer: Herod. 2. 131; Trag. freq. Buory)= Bios, Cyr. 7.2. 27, paxapiwrdrny Bioriy ... paxaplay

Buorjy: Herod. 7. 47; Trag. ;

Tapérns=drip, Cyr. 4. 6. 3, Tov Tis Baoihéws Ovyarpds ya- pérnv: Aesch. P. V. 897 (ch.); Eur. Supp, 1028 (ch.), Troad. 312 (ch.), .

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS, 167

Tavpotpar=dydAdouat, ématpouar, Hier. 2. 15, yavpodvrar én) TG &pyp: Cyr. 2. 4. 30, émvyavpwOels rh évrohH Tod Kupov: ‘Eur. Or. 1532, Bacch. 1144.

Toéuar=dmodaxpto, Cyr. 4. 6.9, 7) Ovyatip ToAAG yowpéern : on which Pollux (3. 100) remarks, Zevopdv 8% youpery mov Néyet Tountikdrepov : Aesch. Pers. 1072; Eur. Tro. 289; Soph. O. R. 1249, etc. In Ar. Thesm. 1036 in ch.

Tewdpevor of =ot yovets, Mem. 1. 4. 7, Apol. 20; Herod. 1. 120, 122; 4.10; 6. 52.

Aajpor=enioctipwr, Cyr. 1. 2. 12, danuovéotato. kal avdpi- kéraror: Od. 8. 159.

Admredov=dados, de Re Eq. t. 3, at tWndal drAal méppw aad Tod damédov exovor Tiv XeAiddva Kaovpévny: id. domep yap KbpBadrov Woe mpds TO da7édm 7 Kolkn S6mAH: Anab. 4. 5. 6, dvarnkopevns ths xudvos BdOpor eylyvovto peyddAou éore énl 7d ddmedov: Cyr. 8. 8. 16, Oec. 8. 17; Homer; Eur. Hipp. 230 (ch.), Alc. 594 (ch.). In Ar. Plut. 515 in para- tragedy.

Aayirys=apOovos, Anab. 4. 2. 22, xadais oixlas Kal émi- tydelors dayidéou, 4. 4.2: emurpdera 8 jv Savi: Mem. 2. 7. 6, Cyr. 1. 6. 173 Herod. 3. 130. The word occurs in middle Comedy, Sophilus (in Ath. 3. 100 a), by the side of xoprac@joouar, and otpn6. Antiphanes in Ath. 1. 23).

Aeinvi(a=éorid, Mem. I. 3.7, Oec. 2. 5, Cyr. 4. 5.53; Hom. Od. 4. 535, etc.; Herod. 7. 118.

Acondovvos=deormotixds, Oec. g. 16; 14. 2; Aesch. Pers. 587; Eur. Hec. 101, I. T. 439; and in Ar. Thesm. 42 in paratragedy.

Aovr6=«kpotvw, which occurs in An. 1. 8, 18, although in itself quite in keeping with Xenophon’s style, evidently belongs to a gloss; but do870s is met with in An. 2. 2. 19, OdpuBos Kal dod7os iv ofov elkds pdBov éumerdvtos: Homer ; Aesch. Cho. 375; Soph. Aj. 633; Eur. Ion 516. In Thuc. 3. 22. 5, KaréBade ydp tis Kepaplda i) mecotca

168 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Wodor éroinoev, an excellent MS. has é0d70r, which may

. be right—an indication of the immaturity of Attic in the historian’s time.

Apirropar=onrapdoooua, Cyr. 3. 1, 13, yuvaixes dvaBojoacat edptnrovto: id. 3. 3. 67, Karappnyvipeval tre mémdovs Kal dpuTrouevat: Hom. Od, 2.153; Eur, El. 150, Hec. 655.

Atvcedmis=dvédmuotos, dvedtlotws éxwv, Vect. 3. 7, Hell. 5. 4. 31; Aesch. Cho. 412 (ch.),

Adpnyua=sépor, Hier. 8. 4; Aesch, P. V. 626, Pers. 50g; Soph. Aj. 662; Eur. Hel, 883, etc.

"ExrayAos = Oavyacrds, Hier. 11, 3, SmAous 58 Tots exmayAord- Tos avros Karaxexoopnuevos: Homer freq.; Aesch. Ag, 862, Cho. 548; Soph. El. 204; Herod. 9. 48 has the verb éxzaydedpevor, and Eur, Or. 890, Tro, 929, Hec. 1157.

"EprodAn=avia, optria, Hell. 5, 1. 23, 6Axddas yepotocas Tus wey tivas olrov, Tas b€ Kal eurodfjs: evn, Cyr. 6, 2. 39, el 3€ Tis xpnudrwv mpocdeiobar voplte els eumodrhy... AapBavew: Soph. Fr. Scyr. Nk. 508; Eur. I. T. 1111.

’"Efadamd(w = éxmop06, Ar. 7. 1. 29, “EAAnvida 8% els jv mpadrnv TroAw HOoper, tadrnv eLadramdgopuev: Il. 1, 129.

’"Exapyya=enixovp6, Cyr. 6. 4, 18, of amd rév aipywr hyiv énapyfovor: Il. 1, 408, et freq.; Aesch. Cho. 725; Soph. El, 1197; Eur. El. 1350; Aristoph. Vesp. 402, in anapaests.

*"EmdayiAevouar (vid. dayiAjs supra), Cyr. 2, 2. 15, tiv yé- Awros emidayiredoes: Herod. 5. 20,

*Epelaw, Cyr. 7. 4. 1, 6 8% Kipos pnxavas éroveiro ds salu Ta telyn: Homer freq.; Herod. 9. 70; Soph. Ant. 596, O. C. 1373, Aj. 309. .

*Epixw, Anab, 3. 1. 25, éptxew an’ euavrod ta xaxd (see dme- pixw): Hom. freq.; Herod. 9. 49; Aesch. Sept. 1075; Soph, Tr, 120, Phil. 1153; Eur. H. F. 317.

EvOnuoovyn, Cyr. 8. 5.7, kadov nyeiro 6 Képos éy olkla elvat emirpdevua THY edOnuootynv xre.: Hesiod, Op. 471: «v6n- pov, Aesch, Cho, 84,

—— oe he

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 169

Etvdgw, Cyn. 9. 3, 08 av péddy Exdorn tov Eats edvdcew (véBpov): id. 12. 2, ebvd¢erOar oxAnpds bvvarol Evovras cal dvAaxes elvar dyaboi: Soph. Trach, 1242, O. R. 982; Eur. Med. 18, Rhes. 611, 762.

"Ex Opalvw=pucG, Ag. 11. 5, Tov Tappynoratopévwv ovddéva WXOpawev: Soph. Ant. 93 (v. 1. éxAatpa).

*Hidv, Hell. 1. 1. 5, xara rhv jidva: Hom. freq.; Herod. 8. 96; Aesch. Ag. 1159 (ch.); Eur. Or. 995 (ch.), Tro. 827 (ch.).

*HA(Baros, Anab. 1. 4. 4, BrepOev 5& Foav métpa HALBaror: Hom. IL, 15. 619, ire mérpy jAlBaros: id. 16. 35, Od. 9. 243; 10, 88; 13. 196; Hesiod, Theog. 786, Scut. 422; Theognis, 176; Pindar, Ol. 6.110; Aesch. Suppl. 351; Eur. Hipp. 732; Ar. Av: 1732 (ch.). In late prose writers, as Polybius, 4. 41. 9; Plutarch, Mor. 163 C, 935 E; Strabo, 17. 818,

OdrATo=Oeppatvw, Cyr. 5. 1. 11, nde pryGy Tod xetdvos pyde OdrAnecOa. tod Oépovs: Hom. Od. 21. 179; Hesiod, Theog. 864; Aesch. P. V. 590, 650, 878; Soph. Tr. 697, 1082, Phil. 38, El. 888, Ant. 417; Eur. Hel. 183. In Ar, Eq. 210, af xa pe OadrO7 Adyous, in pseudo-oracle.

Ojyo=dkive, Cyr, 1. 2, 10, Thy Woxhy OjyerOar: 1. 6. 41, e@ pev Ta odpara’ HoKnpéva, ed be al Woyal reOnywevar: 2. 1. II, Tas Wouxds Onyew: 2. 1.13, Onyew 7d ppdvnua: 2. 1. 20, Ofyew Tas Woxas els TA TorcuiKd: Mem. 3. 3. 7, Onyew Tas Woxas Tév inméwv: Hom. II. 2. 382, etc.; Aesch. Ag. 1262, P. V. 311, Sept. 715; Soph. Aj. 584, etc.; Eur. Or. 51. 1036, 1625, El, 1142, etc. In Ar, Lys, 1255, in the xépos Aaxdvar,

Ovyydve=tnropa, Cyr. 1. 3. 5, Stay rovrwy tivds Olyns: 5. 1. 16, mupds OuydvTa: 6. 4. 9, Ovyov adrhs Tis Kepadrs: Hippocr. 8. 88; 6. 90; 3. 272, etc.; Aesch. P. V. 849, Sept. 44, 258, Ag. 432, 663, etc.; Soph. O. R. 760, 1413, 1469, O. C. 330, 470, etc.; Eur. Hec. 605, Or. 218, 382, 1602, Hipp. 310, etc, It is not found in Comedy, except

170 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

once in anapaests in Pherecrates, Ath. 6. 263 B, and in Lacedaemonian form, ovyjv=6vyeiv, in Ar. Lys. 1004. In ‘Antiphanes, Ath. 15. 667 A, Ofyn is merely a conjecture of Jacobs’ for réxn.

‘Inndrns =inreds, Cyr. 1. 4. 18, ody trols mapatvyotow imnorats : 8. 8. 20; de Re Eq. 8. 10, 500 imméra ovvTiWeyévw : Hom. Il. 2. 336, et freq.; Herod. 9. 69, of rév OnBatwv immorar: Aesch. Sept. 80 (ch.); Soph. O. C. 899; Eur. Phoen. 1095, etc.

Kaivw=<droxre(vw, Cyr. 4. 2. 24, oro. 8% Kawdvtwr [so xatakaive=droktelyw very frequently in Xenophon alone of Classical authors]: Aesch. Ag. 1562, Sept. 347, 630, Cho. 930; Soph. O. C. 994, EI. 820, -Ant. 1319; Eur. H. F. 865, I. T. 27, 1252, etc.

KAjjGo=Kadé, Cyr. 1. 2. 1, Tepoeidar ard Tepoéws xdz}Covrar : Hippocr. 3. 191; Aesch. Ag. 631; Soph. O. R. 48, 1171, 1451, etc.; Eur. Phoen. 10, H. F. 340, Bac, 1180, etc. In Ar. Thesm. 116 in chorus; soin Av. 1745: but in id. 905, 921 in the mouth of the zounrjs.

KAoredo=Kdénto, An. 6. 1. 1, ékAdmevov «bd pddra Tods amo- oxedavvupévouvs: Lac. 2. 7. Suidas has the gloss, ékAd- mevov, xdentov" Zevopar ev tH AvaBacet. ’

Kowdév=kowwvds, Cyr. 7. 5. 35, KolwGvas TGv KaTaneTpay- pevayv: 8, 1. 16, 36, 40. Pollux says, 8. 134, of xowdves, Zevopérros id.ov: but Pindar uses the word in Pyth. 3. 28, and xowedév is an excellent emendation of Scaliger’s for rov ved in Eur. H. F. 340—

® Zed, parnv dp dpoyaysy o extnodunr, parny d& maidds Tov veov exAnCouer.

Cp. gvvedv, Evvjor. Kvipds, Apol. 29, 6 pev dvijp bd Kvdpds: de Re-Eq. 10. 16, Kvdp$ TO oxjpart, of a horse: Hom. Od. 11. 580; Aesch. Fr. 162 (Nk.). Adgupa=)eta, Hell. 5. 1. 24, kal dzoddéuevos Ta Adupa: cp.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 171

AadvpoT@dAodrres in An. 6, 6. 38: AapvpowoAns, Anab. 7. 7. 56; Hell. 4. 1. 26; Aesch. Sept. 278, Ag. 578; Soph. Tr. 646, Aj. 93; Eur. Rhes. 179, H. F. 416.

Adxos=pépos, An. 5. 3. 9, T&v Ovopevwy Adxos Kal TSv On- pevouévoy: Aesch. Eum. 5, 310, 335, 344, etc.; Soph. Ant. 1303.

Aenkaré =dcudy Totodpat, etc., Cyr. 1. 4. 17, Aendareiy éx Tijs Mnduxijs: 1.4. 20; Hell. 4. 4. 15, et freq.: cp. Aendacia, Hier. 1. 36; Hdt. 2. 152; Soph. Aj. 343; Eur.’ Rhes. 293, Hec. 1143. In Dem. 280. 8 it is in a letter of Philip.

Adxpios=mAdyios, Cyn. 4. 3, ixvevdvrwy tiWeloar tras Kepadas ént yiv Aexpids, Soph. O. C. 195; Eur. Med. 1168: Hec. 1025.

Acwpyés=Kaxodpyos, mavodpyos, Mem. 1. 3. 9, Oeppovpydrarov kal Aewpydrarov: Aesch. P. V. 5.

Anis=Acud, Rep. Lac. 13. 11, Antda dyov: Hom. Od. 3. 106, etc.: Aesch. Sept. 331 (ch.).

Avpavtip=)vpedv, Hier. 3. 3, Avpavrtipas tis TOv yuvarkdv

_ prdtas xpos rods dvdpas: Soph. Tr. 793, Avpavrijs. Maoretw = (y76, Anab. 5. 6. 25; 7. 3. 11, Ages. I. 23; 9. 3, etc.; Aesch. Ag. 1099; Soph. O. T. 1052; Eur. Phoen. 416. The companion form paredw is also unknown to Attic prose and Comedy.

Myjxioros = paxpdraros, Ages, 10. 4, ddixdpevos én 7d piKioror avOpwrtvov aldvos: id. 11, 15, Cyr. 4. 5. 28; Hom. Il. 7. 155, etc.; Aesch. Frag. 275 (Nk.); Soph. O. T. 1301, Phil. 849.

Mnpia=ovrdyw, ovvotéddo, etc., An. 6. 5. 22, Oarrov yap

_ GOpdov eddxer dy otrw mépay yevéoOar rd orpdrevpa i eb Kata Thy yépupay eeynptovro: Hom. Od. 12. 170; Hes. Op. 538; Soph. ap. Ath. 3.99 D, vaira: & éunpicavro vyds iox dda.

Mox00s=7 vos, Conv. 2. 4, amd trav edevdepiwv pdxOwv: 8. 40,

oGpa ixavoy pdxOovs tmopépew: Hes. Sc. 306; Aesch.

172 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

P. V. 99, 244, 314, 383, etc.; Soph. O. C. 105, 329, Tr. 1170, etc.; Eur. Hipp. 52, Phoen. 695, Med. 1261, etc. Mox06, however, though rare, is good Attic,

Moucdrropat=Bdedvrropar, Cyr. 1. 3. 5, bucatrdmevoy Tatra Ta Bpdpara: Hippocr. 477. 25, wvoarrera: 7d oiadov: Eur. Med. 1149.

Neoyvds =veoyevs, Cyn. 5.14, Ta Alay veoyva: 10. 23, veoyvol veBpot: Occ. 7. 21, veoyvay téxvav: id. 24, veoyva Bpépy : Her. 2. 2; Aesch. Agam. 1163; Eur. Ion 31.

Néopat is read by one manuscript in Cyr. 4. I. TI, ods pd- Auora Kaipds iv 7) AaBely 7 Karaxaveiv, otro. ef tamov péovtat ods tpets TpémecOar pev ovv Tois Oeots txavol, bua- kovtes 6& aipeiv ody txavol. Most manuscripts read écovrat. There is little question that the véovra: is right, and that Zeovra: is an ancient emendation, no more worthy of being received into the text than the éxodvro. of Cobet (Mnem. N. S. 3. 389). Xenophon used véovras as he used jpdrynca for jpduny (Cyr. 4. 5. 21), épxsuevos for idv (see p. 109), and such like words and forms. The present inquiry will have served its purpose if it puts an end to unwarranted emendations in the text of Xenophon.

Noopl(o=tpaips, Cyr. 4. 2. 42, xpyuara odk dyvo bri bv- varov huiv voopicacba éadéca av Bovidyweda: Eur. Supp. 153; Aesch. Cho. 620; Soph. Phil. 1427, etc.

*OdBos = etdamovla, Xen. Cyr. 1. 5. 9, where it forms one of

the series 6ABos, evdamovla, tywal: 4. 2. 44 (no Attic writer could have distinguished between ¢Afos and evdaysovia); Hdt. 1. 86, very freq. in all three Tragedians.

“Ox00s, Hipparch. 6. 5; 8.3; de Re Eq. 3.7; Hdt. 4.203; 8. 523 9. 25; 56. 99; Aesch. Supp. 467, Cho. 4; Eur. Supp. 655. In Ar. Thesm. 1105, and Ran, 1172, in parody,

“Owupos, see p. 124.

[adapvatos=dAdorwp, Cyr. 8, 7. 18, ofovs piv PoBovs Tots

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 173

praupovois euBdddovowr, olovs d€ madapvatovs Tols dvoatlo:s émineurovow: Eur. I. T. 1218—

A. ri xpi pe Spay;

B. rémAov bypdtov mpobécbat.

A. pi) madapvaiov AGBo ; According to the Etym. Mag., Zeus had this surname in Chalcis, 647. 43, 6 yap rods abroyeip) povedoavtas Tiywpov- pevos Zeds TaAdapvaios. A€yerar kal év Xadxlé. Madapuvaios. In the other sense of atréyeip, it does not occur in Xenophon, but, according to Harpocration, sub voc., in Hyperides éy ré xara Anyddov, and it is put in Hermes’ mouth by Phrynichus, Com. (Plutarch. Alc. 20). The word is well known in Tragedy, Aesch. Eum. 448; Soph. El. 587.

Tlémapar=kéxrnpat, An. 1.9. 10, dore éxtdvto Kal 0 éxémato ad tis Kucta Kipoy éxpumrev: 3. 3. 18, mévavtar oevddvas : 6. 1. 12; Aesch. Agam. 835, wemapévos. Aesch. has also the future mdocoua. in Eum. 177, and the aorist endow =extyow in Frag, 211 (Nk.). In Soph. O. C. 528—

7H parpdder, ds axovw,

dvoedvupa ékrp’ eTAHoo ;

Nauck is probably right in reading érdow.

Tlepuétw = Oeparéva, xpGyar, Mem. 2. 9. 5, pdda mepieinev avrov: Conv. 8. 38, reirov tats peylorais tisats wepiérew : Cyr. 4. 4. 12, todrov ds edepyérny wal pidrov odx ds d00Aov mepeyowev: Hell. 3. 1. 16, of “EAAnves od mdvy Ti Kadés mepietnovto: Herod. 1. 73, and very frequently.

Tlopctva=eitpenifm, mapackevacw, Cyr. 4. 2. 47, topotvovtes Ta émitndeia; 7. 5.17,70 Tod ToTapLo0 ovrws emopavvero, etc. : Hdt. 9. 7, et al-; Aesch. Cho. g11, 1041; Ag. 1251, 1374, etc.; Soph. O.-C. 341, El. 670, etc.; Eur. Med. 1020, etc.

Ilpédipos, see supra, p. 124.

*PeiOpov =pedya, Cyn. 5. 15, 34; 9. 11; Hdt. 1. 75, 186

174 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. ,

191, et al.; Aesch. P. V. 790, Pers. 497; Soph. Ant. 712; Eur. El. 794.

Lapyvicw, Cyr. 8. 7. 9, Thy Baoideiayv capynvicavta Karaduneiv : Hell. 7. 5.-21; Mem..4; 3.4, Oec. 20. 13fete.5 Aesch: P. V. 228. Sapyvijs=cadys is found in Hdt. 1. 140, ete. ; Aesch, Pers. 634, 738, etc.; Soph. Trach. 892.

Sadrepos, Cyr. 6. 3. 4, dmavta kal cadrepa jv: Hom. Il. 1. 32, GAN 10. pH p? epéOile, cadrepos ws xe vénar. This comparative is formed from odos, which, when contracted, gave the Attic cs.

SyxdGw, Hell. 3. 2. 4, réAos BF Horep ev aidAlo onxacbertes katnxovtiaOnoav: Hom. Il. 8. 131.

Tdpaxos=rapayy, Anab. 1. 8. 2, Cyr. 7. 1. 32, Occ. 8. 10, de Re Eq. 9.4; Hippocr. 300. 41, danperodvros To OoptBo kal rapaxy Tod Ktparos.

‘Trdderypa=Trapdderypa, see p. 62,

‘Tr0Onpootvn=rapatveois, Mem. 1. 3. 7, “Eppyod troOnpootry : Hom. Il. 15. 412, droOquoodynow ’AOjvns.

POivevor oi, Cyr. 8. 7. 18; Hom. Od. 24. 436, etc.; Aesch. Pers. 626, etc.; Soph. Tr. 1161; Eur. Tro. 1083.

PpevG=vovberG, Mem. 2. 6. 1, boxed 5€ por Kal els 7d doKypd- Gew, plrovs drolovs akiov Kracbat, ppevodv, toidde A€yor: Aesch. Agam. 1183, etc.; Soph. Ant. 754, etc.; Eur. Ion 526, etc. .

Dipdinv=dvaplé, Cyr. 7. 1. 37, pvpdnv éuayovto kal weCol Kal immeis: Aesch. Pers, 812.

LXXII.

_ BedAdvu kai BeAovorrmAHc Gpyata, H dé fagic Ti éstiv ovK

dv Tc ryoin,

Of these two words pals was undoubtedly the older, « Beddvy standing in the same relation to padis as xépnya to

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. ; 175

cdpor, and tépiato dyyos. Helladius (p. 17) has the following interesting note on this point: rd pdxrpay kadely ev als tas pacas pdtrovow, ’Atrixdy Kal ody, os Evior doKodaty, ldwwrikdr. GAAG kai 4 E’otpa Tis ordeyyldos Kal Tod dxerod 7 bdpoppo7) Kat 6 dderov tod prov kal Tis BeAdvys 4} padis madatdrepov. According to a grammarian in Bekk. Anecd. 113, Epi- charmus employed padis,—papiia’ rhv Beddvnv ’Extyappos, and Pollux, 10. 136, quotes the word from Archippus— paptda cal Aivoy AaBav Tobe piryya otpparpov. In Attic, however, BeAdvy replaced the earlier word. Pollux, 10. 136, kai feAdvns 8% Tobvopa ev EirdAtbos Takidpxors— eye b€ ye orlém ce Beddvaow Tproly, kat Bedovides, os “Eppimmos év Molpass. Aeschines uses Beddvn in 77. 28, and Aristophanes BedovoréAns in Plut.

175. For Pedowéddas in Pollux, 7. 200, BedovoTddtdas should be read.

LXXIII.

> 4 ’ c ’ > 3 ’ ” ‘ > ‘ AkeotHc Aérousty of mraAatol, obK FmHTHC. “Eott péev Arti» cacbat Gnat nap "Apistopaver év Aattadedot, maizovtt tac “Hotddou troerikac—kai KooKivov Hmricoacbati—ovd dé Aé€re

Gkécaceat TO tatiov.

Phrynichus was before some of our present-day scholars in recognizing that its use, even in the senarii of Comedy, did not necessarily enfranchise a word as Attic, and he explains correctly the occurrence of 7mjcac0a in Aristo- phanes. The word continued in use outside Attica till it became a synonym of dxeio@a. in the Common dialect, and accordingly there is no reason why Xenophon should not

176 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

have employed it. In Cyr. 1. 6. 16 the better manuscripts read janrat where others exhibit dxeotal: domep ipariov payévrwr elol tives jmnral, otrw Kal of larpol bray Twes voor- cwot, Tére lGvrat Tovrovs, and in spite of the fact that in the Svvaywyh AéEewv xpynolpov (Bekk. An. 364. 15), dxeorat is recommended,— Axeoral’ of Ta ipdria akovpevor’ Zevopar' dorep tyarlwy payévtwr eloi twes dxeotat, it is likely that the latter word is simply an alteration of some critic who considered Xenophon an Attic writer. All grammarians, ’ Moeris (p. 48), Photius, Aelius Dionysius (in Eustath. 1647, 57), and others reject both the verb and the substantives irnris and jmifrpva, and it was probably from trust in their authority that some mistaken copyist substituted dxeoraé for j7nrat in the Cyropaedia.

LXXIV.

*Arabdc paAdov Aére, UH Grada@rtepoc, Kal dvTi Tot arada-

Fi \ P TATOC, GFavoC MAALGTG,

There is no instance of the regular comparative and superlative of dya0ds till the Common dialect, and the dictum of Aeclius Dionysius may be accepted as final: dyaddrepos Kal Gyadéraros map ovdert t&v ‘EdAjvov xeirat (ap. Eustath. 1384. 50). Unknown to any dialect of ’ Classical Greek, they were the product of a degenerate age.

LXXV.

"Apyfdev rrointai A€rovct, TMv dé KaTaAoPddHY doKipev ovdeic, GAN €& apytic.

The same statement is found in the App. Soph. 7,

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 177

*Apxndev mapa pev tails dddas biadékrous edploxerau’ “Arri- kois 8& ov dldrov" 816 otre TlAdrwva otte Oovevdldnv eorw eipeiv Aéyovta rovro: and in the Yuvaywyi A€~ewy xpyolpwv (450. 4) there is a very fertile remark on this word: *Apyj- Jev odk ore mapa rots ’Arrixois, mAiy map Aloxtr@* map’ “Hpoddére 8% éort xal rots “Iwon.

The lexicography of the word in Classical times is as follows: Hdt. r. 131; 3. 25,80; 5. 18; 7. 104; 8, 22; Hippocrates, 1195 init.; Pindar, Ol. 9. 81, Isthm. 4. 11; Aeschylus; Sophocles, in Frag. Androm. ap. Hesychium, voc. xovpiov (Nk. 122).

In fact, the history of apy#@ev is like that of a very large _ proportion of the words in a Greek Lexicon. Used in early times, and appearing both before and after the Attic period, it was rejected by Attic writers as unnecessary; but its existence in early Attic is demonstrated by its appearance in the verse of the Tragedians and in Ionic writers contemporary with the fastidious masters of Athe- nian Prose and Comedy. .

Lobeck’s note shows that dpy70ev and its fellows—éypddev, ovpavdber, jaxpdber, yijOev, mupydbev, etc.—were of frequent occurrence in the Common dialect. In Attic this class of words is singularly small, and, if proper names like ’ Aéyjvn- dev, Ayxvander, KovivaAnder, Kp.d0ev, MevreAq0ev, and adverbs like wéppw0ev, exeiOev, xaya0ev, are excepted, few are left to claim Attic citizenship except tarpddev, otxobev, 2wOer, Oépadev. Though pntpdédev does not happen to occur in pure Attic, it was doubtless in use in genealogical formulae, and should take a place by the side of rarpddev.

178 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

LXXVI.

- Faotpizew éni to eurimAacear Aérovotv *A@Hvaiol, ovK eri

Too THY FacTépa TUrTelv.

It is true that Pollux refers to Comedy the meaning here assigned by Phrynichus to yaotpi(ew (2. 168), yaorpr- papyla kal yaotpiuapyos, yaotpoBdpos, Kai yaotpiopds, Kal yac- tploa. kat yaotpld.ov of kwpixol... Kal tmeyaotplero, rd exop- tdero, ) Kopwdta, but in the Attic which has come down to us the verb is used only in the sense which the Grammarian reprehends—

® mors Kal dh, tp’ olwv Onplwv yaorpiCoua.

Ar. Eq. 273.

mat’ avrov avdpedrata Kal

ydorpice Kal Tots évrépois KTE. Td. 454.

orpéBer, TapaBawe Ktx@ Kal ydotpicov ceavTov. Vesp. 1529.

Perhaps in this place, as certainly in some others, the text of Phrynichus has been tampered with, and the words discussed transposed ; but the alteration, if made at all, must have been made at an early date,as Thomas Mag. 182 reproduces the dictum of Phrynichus as it is printed above. F

In either case the remark is of no value. Taotpé(ew is one of a large class of Greek verbs which have their mean- ing defined by the context. Thus the verb xapxiwoty naturally means, to make into a crab or make crab-like, just as dovkG means, to make into-a slave, enslave, and, with a

slight modification, it is so used by Antiphanes (Athen. 15.

667 A) in describing the game of cottabos— avAntikGs def KapKiwody Tods dSaxrvAous, olvdv Te piKpov eyxéat Kal pr) moddy.

In the passive it is frequently applied to the roots of

THE NEW PHRYNICAHUS. 179

trees, Zo become tangled, and might be employed of any object which possessed any of the marks of a crab. One of these, however, is so obtrusive that it puts the rest out of count, and xapxwodv has consequently few modifications of meaning. The corresponding form from radpos should be more prolific, and, as a matter of fact, its signification covers a wide ground. Hesychius has preserved the active voice, and the primary meaning, in the gloss ravpwoov' rad- pov moltnoov, and the passive voice is similarly used by Euripides in the lines—

kat tadpos huiv mpdcber jyeiocOa doxels,

kal o@ Képata Kpatl mpoomedpukévat.

GAN 7 Tor joOa Onp ; Terav’pwoar yap ody.

Bacch. 920,

By Aeschylus the meaning is generalized in Cho. 275, ad tauri ferociam revocari—

amoxpnpdrovor Cyulas Tavpotuevoy' but in another passage of Euripides (Med. 92) it is spe- cialised by the accusative éypa, and becomes equivalent to our own glare—

jon yap cidov dupa viv ravpovpevny. For dupa ravpovyévny here, a writer in prose or comedy would have employed ravpyddv BAémoveay or bpdcav.

The adjective dravpwros suggests still another significa- tion of ravpodv.

The same is true of verbs in -~. It depends altogether upon the context whether depi{w means, pass the summer or mow ; xewdw, pass the winter or raise a storm; and no more fault can be found with éapf(w, in Plato, Ax. 371 C, Ae- pGves GvOeow éaptCdyevor, than in Xen. An. 3. 5. 15, ’ExBdrava, évOa éaplCew héyerar Bacideds. In the only place in which the verb has been preserved, fip(Ceww happens to mean, dance a sword-dance, Crates (?) in Etym. Mag. 270. 5—

Elpue xat mdbiCe Kal Biapplkvov N 2

180 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

but in Aristoph. Eq. 781, dvaiiCouat occurs in the sense of Jight with the sword—

a& ydp, ds Mydoror dieEipiow wep Tijs xdpas Mapabon. Aristophanes (Eq. 358) uses Aapvyy((w in the meaning of throttle, but in Demosthenes (323. 1) it has that of daw/. Many more illustrations of such pliability of signification will meet the student in every Greek author, and it is mere pedantry to restrict yaorpi{m to a single meaning. The lines of Aristophanes, already quoted, establish one signi- fication, and the existence of the substantive yaorpicpds, in the Comic poet Sophilus, implies a similar sense for the verb: Tépiros ev Piidpxo—

yaotpiopos €orar SayiAis KTE.

Athen. 3. 100 A. From another point of view, yaorpi(w, with the sense of eat gluttonously, may be regarded as derived from ydorpis, a gourmand (Ar. Av. 1604, Thesm. 816), but the other ex- planation is preferable. In Eur. Med. 188 the word ravpodpa has been so specialised that it is compounded with dzo, just as 6p6 or BAéww might be; and d¢pyyara dxoravpotrar denotes the fixed glare of passionate excitement. Occa- sionally a preposition serves the same purpose as an accu- sative in fixing the meaning of a verb, and dmockv6i(w, scalp, dvaxaiti(o, rear up, tmockerAlw, trip up, and dmorn- yavi(w, eat hot, convey a very different meaning from that ‘ which would attach to the simple verbs if they happened to exist.

LXXVII.

Tapradizerv Sia tod p Aére, GAAG MH dia TeV dvO Ff,

rarradizety.

‘TayyaAlCew vero quam longe a vetustatis consuetudine

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 181

absit, vel ex eo patet quod Hemsterhusius, unicus Thomae commentator, omnia expiscatus, nullum nisi ex Hesychio et Glossis Graecolatinis exemplum proferre potuit ; adde his dveyayyddtotos trmos, Geopon. L. xvi. 2. 1110.’ Lobeck.

LXXVIII.

Triwov Aektéov dtc Tod H, Kat uH did TOO Ee, réivov.

‘Téivos nusquam locorum vidi, sed yjwos ubique apud antiquissimos pariter ut recentissimos reperitur.’ Lobeck. Of Attic writers the word occurs principally in Plato, Polit. 272 D, 288 B, Legg. 6. 778 D, 10. 895 C, Phaedr. 246 C, Tim. 64 C, 65 D, etc. The shortening of the vowel is due to the same tendency that converted wéya into méya, dvd- Onua into dvddena, Tavorxnota into mavoixeota, yAwoookopetov into yAwoodKopor, etc.

LX XIX.

TAwoodkouov’ tov wev TUmov Kai THy éc.v br dpyaiwv éyet, dtepeapuévac Se Aéretar bd Tav TMOAAdV: éypAv

rap rAwTToKopetov Aéretv, Gormep Gpedet Kal oi dpyaio.

The passage is hopelessly corrupt, but in the App. Soph. 32. 28 the genuine words of Phrynichus have survived: TAwrroxopeiov’ éxl pdvov tod rév aidntikdy yAwrréy dyyetov. torepov 5& kal els érépay xphow kareokevdcero, BiBrttov 7 iparlov 7) dpytpov 7) drovody dAXov' Kadodor 8 adrd of dua- dels yXwoodKopov.

182 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

LXXX.

' . »” ‘ < , » a na Ppvddizetv ditrHy éyet THY Guaptiav, é€v Te TH Tpopopa

‘ ~ = 2 4 n fol ‘ a ’ Kal TH CHUaIvoUeva, Ev ev TH TIPOMopG did Tov duo AA, év d€ TH oHatvouéven, STL Mapa Toic Gpyaiotc TO rpuAizetv éoti TieéMevov Emi TAc Tav bAV Mawvac, ot be viv TaTTOU- ow éri TOV popTikdc Kai doyHudvwc dpyouyévev. €peic

obv rpvdAizew Kal rpudAicpdc bav, ob rpvAALoLdC.

Lobeck’s conjecture of édupoyéver for dpxovjévwr is proved to be wrong by the App. Soph. 33: ypvAAos b€ ba Trav dvoiv AA dpxjparos cldds eoTw, 7) bev ody Opxnots dnd TOV Alyuariay ypuvdAvopos Kadeirat, yptddos be 6 épxotpevos. The two words are evidently distinct, and it is idle to try to bring them together. i~ fe

LXXXI.

Torruan’ kai évtadea audprHya, oi rap maAdatoi Eri tod otporruAou TieEeaotv, oi S€ viv Emi TAc bnd Tav “EAAHvev rorruaAidoc KaAoupévHe. Aére ov emi TOO Aaydvou rorruaic,

GAAG PH rorruAH.

The word yoyy#Aos is probably from a reduplicated form of the same root as supplied yavdAds, a milk-pail (Od. 9. 223), and yadros, a merchant-vessel (Hdt. 3. 136; 8.97; Ar, Av. 598; Epicharm. ap. Athen. 7. 320 C). It was replaced in mature Attic by orpoyyéAos, a word akin to otpdyé, otpay- yevw, orpayyddn, stringo, strictus, etc., and only by accident having a certain resemblance to yoyyédos. The latter word is naturally met with in Ionic, and in Galen’s Lexicon to ‘Hippocrates yoyyvAls is explained by orpoyyiAyn, a usage which may be paralleled from Herodotus, who employs

at — aa

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 183

imnds for tax}, Ids for "Iwvexy, etc. As an Ionic word, it was also not out of place in Tragedy, and Strabo (4. p. 183) quotes from Aeschylus yoyytiwy zérpwr, and Athenaeus (2. 51 D), yoyyéAov ydpov, from Sophocles. Moreover, yoyytAos AlOos aOeros appears in an early Attic inscription (Boeckh, 1. 262 a. 22).

The verb yoyyé\Aw, however, was retained as good Attic, although yoyyéAos disappeared, and the older word was also represented in other ways. Its early feminine was crystallized,as Phrynichus shows, in yoyyvAls, a turnip; and, although yoyy#An was unknown to Attic in this sense, it was still a good Attic word. As the French influence upon Scotch cookery is still indicated by a term dear to northern children, and ‘petit gateau’ survives in ‘petticoat shortbread,’ so yoyytAn (Ar. Pax 28), has a meaning for the student of Attic, and proves to him, as plainly as the Apaturian sausages, that the Athenians inherited a sweet tooth from their Ionian ancestors. The old word was fur- ther stereotyped as a proper name. Athenaeus (4.172 F) is wrong when he classes it with names like Newxdpos and ’AprvotAews, and explains its frequency in the island of Delos by the fact that yoyy’Aa paar were used in the sacred ceremonies of the Delian festival. The first of the ToyyéAot was an Ionian Falstaff—the prototype of ‘the whoreson round man’ of Shakespeare. In Thuc. 1. 128 and Xen. Hell. 3. 1. 6 an Eretrian is so called. Had the proper name been Athenian, and originated in Attic times, it would have been =rpoyytdos, not ToyytAos, but the desig- nation carries us back to old Ionian days.

LXXXII.

Tldvrote uri Aépe, GAN ExdoToTe Kai diaTtavToc,

‘Tldvrore et amdvrore a nullo classicorum auctorum usur-

184 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

patum esse, convenit mihi cum Sturzio, de Dial. Mac. p. 87, cujus copiis mantissam adjicere nolo. Zonaras, Lex. Pp. 1526, rd mdvtore Tap’ odderl TGv doKliuwy eiploxera. Lo- beck. Add Moeris, 319, ravrore ovdels rév’Artikév.

LXXXIII.

Fevésia’ odK dpedc tiderar éml TAc revebAiou reépac. Tevécta rap ’Adrivusiv éoptH. Aérew ovv dei tac revedAiouc

Huépac A revéoAta.

Of course, yevéova, in the sense of a bzrth-day feast, is not a misuse for yevé0d1a, but simply indicates that in other dialects the word had retained its natural meaning, where- as in Attic it had become fixed to the feast in memory of the birth-day of a deceased friend, while its place was taken in the ordinary sense by the newer formation, yevé- Oda. ‘Eopry would be out of place if the reference was to a mournful occasion. From Herod. 4. 26 it is plain that all the Greeks celebrated yevéova, but in Athens the fact that it was the birth-day, and not the death-day, of the dead which they were celebrating, was early lost sight of, probably from the circumstance that it was made a national festival, celebrated in the month Boedromion. The significance of the festival in great part disappeared when men reserved their rejoicing for a day fixed by law; and perhaps Ammonius represents the opinion even of Athenians when he states that it was intended to recall the day of a friend’s death (de Diff. Voc. p. 36), Tevé0dva tdooera. ent tav Cévtwv kal ev 7) Exactos huepa eyevvyOn, yevéowa b& én r&v reOvnkdrwv év f Exaotos huepg TeTehedTyKeE. . To the same effect is one of the Aéfeus pyropixal in Bek- _ ker's Anecdota (231. 17), PevéAca’ ra én) rH fdpg ris yev'-

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 185

cews SGpa Kal Thy edwxlay. Tevéora' éoprh mapa ’A@nvato.s mevOnpepos, of 5 Ta Nexdoua.

It may be observed, in passing, that even yevé0dvos itself is an old word, and in Attic used only in this connection. Like yéveOAov and yevéOdx, it is otherwise confined in Attic literature to Tragedy.

LXXXIV.

Y eo 7 or iis NY

Apr Huépa, uA Aére, GAN Gproc Auépa Kai aproc ruvH,

soe !

Kal Tad AoiTa duolac.

This remark holds true of all Attic Greek; and though inferior manuscripts occasionally present the defaulting forms, the better codices retain the genuine termination. In Cyr. 3. 2. 19, however, Xenophon may have written apyy yj. The word is really a compound, depyds, and fol- lows the rule of compound adjectives. ‘Those who care to have the late usage established will find copious ex- amples in Lobeck.

LXXXV.

a ¢ , ' Tiviroc’ Guaptdvovtec oi Bpaytvovtec TO t ExTeivouct rap

» ma | a eee > a e ‘ , TOUVOMG KGL TA AT GUTOU, OLOV TIVIFHpa KOAUBH,

The example comes from Thucydides (2. 52), and, accord- ing to Lobeck, is an addition by a later hand. It does not illustrate the point at issue.

Moeris (312) has the same caution-—zviyos, paxp@s, ’Ar- TikGs* Bpaxéws, “EAAnviKGs: and avlyw is always long in Attic verse, as—

kal pay méda y enviyduny ta omddyxva KareOdpour. Ar, Nub. 1036.

186 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

‘Idem in centenis aliis accedit, Bpidos, ptpov, ridos, oxi- Aov, oxdros, xtéros, ut librarii inscitia recti nunc acutum pro circumflexo ponerent, nunc acuta circumflecterent.’ Lo- beck.

LXXXVI.

> ~ 4 e , » ‘ , > r Amoxkp.dAvat, dittév dudptHya. éde rap Aéretv GrroKpt- vaceat, Kai eidévat Str TO dtaywpiobAvat cHuGivel, dorepody Kai Td évavtiov adrod, TO curKpLOrivat, Kai €ic év Kai TavTOV édGeiv. Eidac obv todto émi wev tod dmododvar trv éepa- A > ' r > ‘ ~ a 4

THOW TO GrroKpivacbat Aére, Emmi SE TOU diaywpicbAvat, TO

amoKpierivat,

The distinction is just, and is supported by the usage of all Attic writers. The aorist passive is correctly used by Thucydides (4. 72) and Plato (Legg. 961 B). The latter writer also uses the aorist middle in the sense of separate for oneself,'in one passage, Legg. 966 D, but the signification of answer is attached to it far more fre- * quently: Thuc. 1, 28, 1. 90, 1. 144, 1. 1455 3.61; 4. 139; 5. 42, etc.; Plato, Prot. 311 C, D, 329 B, 331 A, 338 D, 356 C; Gorg. 447 D, 463 D, 465 E; Legg. gor C, et al. ; Arist. Vesp. 964, 1433, Nub. 345, 1244, Plut. 902, Thesm. 740, et al.

The perfect has legitimately the four meanings, Zo have separated for oneself, to have been separated, to have answered, to have been answered; but no other tense of the passive seems to have been used in the sense of de answered. This may be set down to accident, and dmexplverat totro, this answer is made; anexpl0n todro, this answer was made, would certainly not have struck an Attic ear as out of place; but such passive usage of deponents was avoided by good writers in the present and imperfect tenses, and

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 187

was not common in the aorist, although in the perfect it was of frequent occurrence.

"ArexpiOnv, in the sense of 7 answered, is encountered in three passages of the post-Attic Comic poet Machon—

Tobr dmoxpiOfval pact TS Bypioddy.

Athen, 8. 349 D. 9 8& todr amexplOn.

Id. 13. 577 D. h 8% yeAdoao’ drexplOn.

Id. 13. 582.

In Xenophon’s Anab. 2. 1. 22 there are two readings, dze- kpivaro Kdéapxos and dmexptOn 6 Kdéapxos, the latter being supported by the best codices. To my own mind there is no doubt that Xenophon employed the un-Attic form, and that dzexplvaro is merely an early emendation. Strong evidence in favour of this view is supplied by another passage of the same book. ’Azoxpivowa: replaced in Attic the earlier due(Bowa. In fact, Euripides was the first of the Tragic poets to depart from the tradition of the literary guild to which he belonged, and introduce into his verse the usurping verb (dzexplvw, I. A. 1354; dmoxplvaio, Bacch. 1272; axdéxpwat, I, A.1133). On the other hand, due(Boua, rare in any sense outside poetry, is certainly unknown to Attic in the signification of answer. Like very many other words, which, by their existence in Ionic and in Tragedy, are proved to have been used in Attica at an early date, duelBowa and dmapelBouar* fell completely into disuse. Xenophon, however, not only employs the words, but actually prefers drnwelpOn to danwehparo, An. 2. 5. 15,

1 Both dpe(Boua and dmapelBopua are familiar to readers of Homer. In Ionic the simple verb is well known: Hat. 1. 9, 35, 37, 40, 42,115,120; 2.173, etc.; and in Tragedy is the regular word, Aesch. Eum. 442, 586, Supp. 195, 2493 Soph. O. C. 991, Aj. 766, Phil. 378, 844;'Eur. Supp. 478, Hipp. 85, Hec. 1196, Rhes. 639, Or. 608, Tro. 903, etc. Xenophon does not eschew it, Mem. 3. 11. 12, Cyn. 9.14. In any sense the word is singularly rare in Attic—dpeiBor, Plat.

Parm, 138 D; dpelBovra, Soph. 224 B; dpe:Bdpevos, Apol. 37D. Demosthenes, 458. 29, has it in a proverb, tots dpoios duePdpevor.

188 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Kvéapxos pev oby rocaira ceive. Tiroapépyns & Sde arnuelpon. Pindar had preceded him in this irregularity—

Tov d& Oapajoas ayavoiot Aéyous

Go dpelpOn’

Pyth. 4. 102.

but there is no other instance till late Greek. This fact crowns the testimony of the manuscripts in favour of dze- kp(@n, and convicts Xenophon once more of a violation of Attic rule. That the true Attic form is met with in other places of his writings, as dmexpfvaro in the paragraph suc- ceeding that in which dmexp{@n occurs, is an argument of no weight to one who is acquainted with Xenophon’s work. Moreover, not even Xenophon uses dzoxpiOjcoua. In the Svvaywy) A€Lewv xpnolwwy occurs the note: dzoxpiveirar ré- yovot wadXov 7) arroxpiOjoerar. Mévavdpos Kavnpépo—

6 8 droxpweira, Kav éyo A€youpl cor *YroBoApala—

@s pndev aroxpworpérm 8 otrw adeiv.

Aristophanes, however, is of more authority than Me- nander—

éy® yap adrix’ amoxpwwodpal cor cadds.

Nub. 1245. The passive future is first met with in this active sense in very late Greek. The number of Greek verbs in which the aorist in -@yv occurs, in an active or middle sense, is very small indeed, if those verbs only are considered which justly belong to it. Many verbs are translated into English as actives which in Greek are genuine passives. Such are the following—

€vavTodpat, oppose, jvavTidOnv. eoTLOpat, feast, eloridOnv. edwx odpar, feast, evox Onv. OppOpar, rush, opynOnv.

TEPALOvPAL, cross, emeparwOnu.

a

A

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 189

TAaVOpAL, wander, émAavnOnv. Topevouat, go, éropevOnv. TOTOMAL, fly, érorHOnu '. poBodpat, fear, epoBnOnv.

This apparent change of meaning may be illustrated by the history of the verb d:ai76. All dictionaries give a false history to this word. Its primitive meaning is to regulate, and S.aitéyou, in the sense of pass life, is passive and not middle, and has for aorist the passive form édinrHOnv. In fact, the aorist middle is only found in the compound xaradiairé in a regular middle sense, as Lys. 172. 38, diavray xaradiairnodpevos oddevds, having got an arbitration delivered against no one.

With these verbs may be classed the three which from the beginning of Greek literature are practically established as passive deponents—

BovAopat, wish, €BovanOnv. dedpat, beseech, edenOnv. dvvapat, am able, eduvyOnv.

' But the fact of édvvyodunv being found in Homer, together with the difficulty of eliciting their signification from an original passive meaning, makes it probable that they are only early instances of the general tendency illustrated in this article.

That all this class have invariably” a future in -jooat is not surprising. The form that is generally called future

1 The present and aorist are in Attic only poetical, their place in Attic being filled by wéropa: and érrépny, but werdrnpar is the regular perfect.

? Forms like duvyPpcopa, poBnPjcopa, BovAnOncopa: must be carefully avoided. They are debased and late, and almost as reprehensible as the aorists edurnodpny, epoBnadpny, €BovAncauny. In Plat. Rep. 470 A and other passages poBjcopua must be preferred,and even Xenophon (Hell. 6. 5. 20) did not write ééwp- phgaro, but the well supported é¢wpynro. In Ar. Ran. 138, repawOhoopa, shall be set across, is intentionally used to give a different meaning from teparwoopar—

A, dra mas mepamwbncopat; B. éy mhowapiy Tevvouvrgi o° dvip yépav vaurns Sidte bY 6BoAw pucOdv AaBwv. It is the exception which proves the rule.

190 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

middle, and is constantly noted by lexicographers as a peculiarity when in a passive sense, is far the most common future for the passive voice, as will be demonstrated by me in my larger work.

Now it is the group of verbs just discussed that intro- duced confusion of voice into the Greek aorist. On the false analogy of zopeJouat, mavyGyar, and the others, a passive aorist was assigned to verbs which had no right to the form in -Onv, just as amexplOnv at a later stage was recognized as equivalent to dzexpwdyunv, and, conversely, éduvnodpny re- placed edvvjOnv. The subjoined groups will exhibit the working of this false principle in Attic times.

I. Verbs which employ the perfect in -ya: only in an active sense, and use both the aorists in -dyyy and -Onv in the same sense— dpvijropa, npynrdapnv. ijpynpat, npviOnv. peTaKexelpiopar, jreTeXElpiodyny.

dpvodyat, deny,

peraxerplCouar, Manage, petaxetpioduat, peTexetploOnv.

pivioKopar, remember, pvyjoopar, eurnodpny. peprnpat, eurnoOnv. punoOjcopa..

dpplCopa, lie at anchor, Spptopar, Oppiodpnv. Sppodpar, jpuloOnv.

Tavowal, Cease, TéTavpal, eravodpny. Tavoopat, eravdny. Tavncouar.

pdCouat (poet.), consider, méppacpar, eppacdunv. ppdcopat, eppdc nv.

mpovoodpat, provide for, apoverdnpuat, mpovvonr dun. Tpovoryjoopar, apobvonOny.

imixvovpat, promise, DTETX HPAL, brecy Opnv. trocxjooua, vmecxéOnv(?).

_. I1.Verbs which use the perfect in -ya:, both in an active and passive sense, and employ the two aorists in an active sense—

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. Igl

drodoyotpa, make ade- dmrodeAdynuat, aredoynoduny. fence, dmodoyjoopar, damedoynOnv. mpayparevouat, labour at, wempaypdrerpar, empayparevodyny. Tpayparetocopat, émpayparedOny. III. Verbs which use the perfect in -ya1, both in a middle

and a passive sense, and which have both aorists in an active sense, and that in -0yv also in a passive sense—

GpirAdrAGuar, strive, jptdAnpat, HpodAnoduny. ; HpudAdAHOnv. koulGw, carry, KEKOMLO AL, exopuodpny. mid. return, exoploOny. Aovdopodpar, rail at, AeAowddpnuat, eAowdopnadpyv. edowdopyOnv. Teip@, prove, meTrelpap.at, erretpacdynv. mid. try, emreupdOnv. Tohirevw, govern, meToAlrevpat, emoATevodnv. mid., live as a citizen, . emoAurevOnv. move, labour, TETOVNMAL, dveTmovnodpnv- mid, d:a-, (du)erovnOnv.

IV. Verbs which have the perfect in -ya1, both as middle and passive, and the aorist in -@yv also in both senses, the aorist in -dunv not being used—

aropoduat, doubt, pass. be in ) , es ee doubt, be disputed, i ‘imdpnpat, qeopniny:

daravGua, expend, dedarrdynpar, edamavjOnv.

dvavoodpar, purpose, dtavevdnuat, b.revonOnv.

V. Verbs which use the perfect in -ya., both as active and passive, but have the aorist in -@yv always in an active sense—

diadhéyouat, discuss, _ 8uefAeypan, 5reA€xOnv. évOvpodpat, consider, evTreOdpnua, — eveOvupOnv.

Now in the history of many of these verbs there are facts which distinctly prove that the use of the aorist in

192 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

-Onv, in a middle or active sense, was comparatively late, and originated in false analogy with verbs like d¥vaya: and Botdoua. Thus the aorist of piprijoxovar is in Homer éuvnodunv, and the Tragic poets, as usual, retained the old faith, and rarely admitted the modern éuxjoOyv, which, from Thucydides’ time, is the regular Attic form of the aorist.

Of dpvodpa Veitch says, ‘In Epic poetry and Ionic prose the aorist middle alone is used; in classical Attic, with the exception of one instance in Euripides, two in Aeschines, and one in Hyperides, the aorist passive.’

The tendency was early at work, as is well shown by metpOuat, Even in the Iliad and Odyssey both émeipyOnv and ézeipnodpnv are met with, but the form in -Onv gradually became predominant. Veitch thus traces its history in Attic: ‘The aorist middle is confined to Thucydides and Plato. In Thucydides it is the prevailing form, occurring six times, and aorist passive thrice. Plato again has aorist middle once only, the aorist passive eleven times.. The compounds, except dao- Thuc. 6. 90; 4. 135, etc. and perhaps xara- Lys. 30. 34, are, in classic authors, not used in the active, and have, we think, always the aorist of the passive form, dzozeipyO9, Her. 2. 73; d:ewepd0nv, Antipho, 5. 333 eemepdd-, Eur. Supp. 1089.’

It is only verbs of frequent occurrence that can be re- garded in such an inquiry, as they only supply a sufficient number of instances to form trustworthy evidence. Thus the aorist of damavGpat occurs too seldom to tell us much. There can be no question that édazavnoduny preceded éa- narvjOnv, but, as far as our records go, there is no trace of it in Classical Greek. In studying the forms of a dead language, it is necessary to exercise reason and tact in the manipulation of materials. The two last classes proclaim the victory of the form in -@ny, but not so plainly as the

“four verbs GuAAGpat, diavoodpat, d:aTovodpar, and Aoidopod-

Pie ~ .

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 193

pa. These are peculiarly significant. Thus Adoidopodpa. ‘belongs to that class of verbs which have a signification to which, for some reason or other, middle inflexions were regarded as especially applicable. Such verbs are péu- popat, pwopdpat, aitiGua, emryAwTTopat, xaprevTiCouat, dypuod- pat, Avpalvouat, AwBdwat, while the vacillation of the future between active and middle in cxdzarw, told lw, bBpicw, etc., points to the same phenomenon. Perhaps the explanation of this is the same as of the middle form in éyAAGpa, and the two compounds of 6d. Whenever é:d¢ introduces into the verbal notion the idea of pitting one thing against another, it requires for its verb the endings of the middle voice, even although in the simple the deponent form would be absurd. This is true, not only when the imported idea is the unmistakeable one of rivalry or contention, as dkovrt- Cw, to throw the javelin, dvaxovricerba, to contend in throwing the javelin, but also when it assumes an almost intangible form, as in d:avoeic@a, which, though ultimately acquiring the meaning of purpose, primarily represented the process of meditation or the balancing of one thought against another. In this way is explained a considerable group of deponents which imply the comparison of oneself with others, either by actually pitting oneself against them or by mentally making oneself a standard by which to measure them. Thus rivalry of hand, word, or wit, is expressed by the verbs pdxopuar, dywridopar, GpiArAGpat, SoriCoua, duxatodo- yotpat, drodoyodpat, KowwodrAoyodpar, BidCopar.

Accordingly, when even in verbs of this class the aorist in -@nv became possible in an active sense, its victory over the genuine middle form might be regarded as complete.

194 THE NEW -PHRYNICAUS,

LXXXVII.

TevnoAvat mapa *Emydpum kai oti Awpiovyy GAN

6 Artikig@v revecdat AereTOo.

There are no instances of éyev#Onyv till Macedonian times, when Philemon and Machon certainly used it—

Kay b08A0s # Tis, odpKa Thy adriy exer’

pboe yap otdels d00A0s eyernOn Tore

7 8 ad réyn TO cGpa Karedovddcaro.

Philemon. OadrAdbv* tapeyernOn yap els Thy *ArriKyy. Machon, Ath. 13. 582 E.

That Lysias employed it no one will believe on the evi- dence of the Sophist Apsines (Rhet. Graec. 9. p. 591, Waltz.) who cites the sentence ’Axpirhs Adans yernbeioa airy anéxrewe. In early recensions of Plato it appeared in two passages, in Legg. 840 D, where yevvndévres is now read, and in Phil. 62 D, where éfeyevij6n jiv has been re- . placed by éefeyéve® jyiv. The future yernOjooua: is equally debased, and in Plato, Parmen. 141 E, is simply absurd. It occurs twice in company with yerjoera: and éora. Td éora Kal TO yevjoera Kal 7d yernOjoerar and ovr éorwv, ovr erertra yernoerat, obre yevnOnoera, ovr orar. ‘Inter yevijoerar et yern- _ Onoerat, Heindorf remarks, ‘quid intersit non video,’ and every man of sense will be of his opinion. Perhaps the v should be doubled. Others may prefer Schleiermacher’s yeyevjoerat. All that is certain is that Plato did not write yevnOqoerat, any more than he wrote é£eyev76y in the Philebus, or than | Lysias penned yevnOeioa. Lobeck’s note will supply nu- | merous examples of the defaulting form in late authors, and it is from this source that the Attic texts became _ corrupted. Even metre was not always an effectual safe- guard. Thus the extraordinary form dy0ec@jooua, which

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 195

violates one of the most consistent of Attic rules, is found in several passages of prose (Andoc, 26. 7; Plato, Gorg. 506 C; Aeschin. 88. 23), but the fact that in Plato, Rep. 10. 603 E, there are the variants dy@écowar and dx0ecOrjc0- po, and in Aesch. in 1. c. ovvaydnoduevos remains in one codex to indicate the original reading, would of itself be sufficient to condemn the longer form even if the evidence of verse was not added. But when 4ydeoOjoea is actually exhibited by a good manuscript in Ar. Nub. 1441—

kal phy tows y’ odk axOéoe Tabav & viv rérovdas,

the case against the longer form is conclusively established.

LXXXVIII.

TleAuproc’ oi duadeic éxteivoust TO a, d€ov cucTéAAetv* :

TreAaproc rap obdéy GAN Hi’ Epetpraxadc Medacroc.

These words still require an interpreter. The following, however, may be the true explanation: ‘Eorum verborum sensus ab Miillero in libro de Etruscis 2. 357, declaratus hic est—ciconiae nomen zeAapyds a brevi esse, [leAapyds vero a longo pronuntiatum nihil aliud esse quam Eretria- cam Pelasgorum nominis formam. Quo simul docemur Pelasgos pronuntiandum esse, non Peldsgos.’ W. Dindorf in Steph. Thes. sub voc.

The two methods of writing the proper name afforded Aristophanes an opportunity for a pun on medapyéds, a stork—

tls bal Kabé£er vie mohews TO Tedapyrkdv ; Ay. 832.

To illustrate the line the Scholiast quotes Callimachus, Tuponver telxiopa Tedapyixdv. In Thuc, 2. 17 one manu- script has TleAapyixoév.

O 2

196 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

LXXXIX.

*Actdparoc’ Kal tobro dvoiv duaptHuaciv éxerat, Ste 2 had ‘ > 2 nn ‘ ‘ a mt ' ’ te év TO T kal ovK év TH @ A€reTat, Kai StL [dtOv TL MuTdV

éotiv drpiov 6 dopdparoc Kai odK év ToiCc Hmepoic KaTa- ’ c n a > ” > ‘ > s A€fouevov’ oO souyv Kpativoc €v aAAOLC AFploLlc AVTO KATA- AEFOV @HGlv" Abdtondty d€ gépet TLevUGAOV Kai GPaKov TIpdc atov, &opaparov, KUTLIGdy Te’ vdTratct 0 GveepiKoc EvHBa Kai PAdLOV AMoovoy date Trapeivat mot ToIC &rpoto.'. dmavta rap Td KkaTaderoueva Grpia. ot d€ viv TWEasL TO a RN ie. Ta a a ‘ ' com ” ev? emi TavTOC GUGbac, TaV Pap Aayavey at avOat CpuEeva KaAdodvTat Kai eEopuevizey TO ExBAGoTdvetv Kal éEaveeiv.

Aére ovv 6ppeva, GAAG pH dotraparouc,. dddkimov rap Aiav,

The same caution is delivered with greater clearness in App. Soph. 24. 8: ’Acpdpayos* 81a tod p Bordyns eldos dopdpayos, mpos tas KaOdpoeis emirjdevov. of b& woAAOL Ta Sppeva Tov Aaxdvwv bia Tod 7 domapayous Kadodot, dvol TEpi- alatovres duapriyacww, ott Te bia ToD 7 A€yovor, d€éov 51a TOD H, kal ru Td idlws Kadovpevov ext twos méas em) mdvtev Tov eLoppevi(dvtwy Aaxdvev riOevrar. Cp. id. 38. 17: ’E€oppevi- Cew* 7d e£avOeciv, Svep of ToANOL exBdAXAELY A€yovotv. Opweva yap kadeirar bad Tov Arrixdr Ta TGV Aaxdvov eLavOjpara. ot "88 woAAOl Kal duabeis (leg. dads) tadra donapdyous Kadodow.

Other instances of Attic aspiration are @unxods for Oun- dos, cxwdadpds for cxiwdadyds, Alodos for Alamos, Hiddxvy for midxvn. The subject is discussed by Wecklein in Cur. Epigraph. pp. 42, 43. Athenaeus in 2. 62 cites from Theopompus— ;

1 The metre is given as restored by Hermann and Meineke.

2 Lobeck omits 7d a after 7:0éact, He should have remembered its use as

7d &v or 7) mp@rov. It is here evidently intended to represent the initial dona- paryos as opposed to the following dopdpayos.

a

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 197

kane ldov dopdpayov ev Oduyw Tut, and from Ameipsias—

od oxivos, od dodpdpayos, od dbapvyns KAddoL, but asserts that Antiphanes and Aristophon employed the form in 7. He even seems to say that Diphilus used aopdpayos for dpyevov: Aidiros 5€ pnow os 6 Ths KpduBns aopdpayos, Aeydpevos idlws dppevos, edoTomaxaTérepds eat Kal evekKpiT@Tepos, drews 5€ BAaTTLKds.

XC.

*AGBOAH MH A€re, GAAG GGBOAoc,

The same remark is made by Moeris, p. 11. In App. Soph. p. 17 Phrynichus supplements his present statement : *AaBodos OndvkGs A€éyovow, ‘IamGvak b& dpoevikGs’ Ties dé Kal THY aoBoAnv.

XCI.

At@adoc Aére Gpoevikadc, GAAG UH aieGAH BHAUKOC,

Heinrich Schmidt in his ‘Synonymik, 2. p. 373, has shown that al@ados differs from &eBodos in connoting the action of fire as productive of a black colour. He quotes aidés in Ar. Thesm. 246—

po, tod tis doBdodrov" aldds yeyévnuar mdvra ra ep rhv Tpdpuy, and justly ridicules the ordinary explanation of the expres- sion aifoy xanvds in Od. 10. 152, as smoke mixed with flame—a meaning which might apply to the smoke from Vulcan’s forge, but not to that gently curling from Circe’s home. Ai0és, aio, and aidév, when meaning dlack, always imply that the colour has been produced by fire. Accord- ingly, ai@oy oivos is not the same as péAas otvos, or even

198 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

€pvOpos olvos, and does not refer to colour at all, but to the effect on the blood of the drinker, ‘fiery wine.’ The Ato- mes received the name from early travellers who imagined that their swart colour was produced by exposure to the sun.

XCII.

OepydtHe Aێre, GAAG WH GEeppacia,

The one word is formed from @epyds, the other from dep- palyw. Phrynichus is right, and no Attic writer could have employed Oepyacla. The general rule of which it is a violation is simple enough. Whenever there exists an adjective in--os which may be regarded as the primitive of a verb in -afyw, the abstract substantive is in Attic formed in -rns from the adjective, not in -acla from the verb, as Oepuds, Oeppatva, Oepudrns, AevKds, AevKalvw, AevKdTNs, epvdpds, epvOpatyvw, epvOpdérns, typds, bypalvw, typdrns, Enpds, énpalyw, Enpdérns. No such substantives as typacta, Enpacta, or Oepnacia, are ever encountered in a genuine Attic writer. They are the spawn of late writers and their badge, and Xenophon was, as usual, anticipating them when he em- ployed @epyacta in An. 5. 8.15. Even when there is no adjective, the substantive is not so formed from the verb. The true form is PAeyporn not ddreypacla, dodpnois not éoppacta. Thomas, p. 441, adds to the statement of Phrynichus when he says, Oepyorns cal O€pun ’Arrixol, Oep- pacta “E\Anves. There are not many forms like @épyn. Besides it xdkn was in common use, and Acvkn, AevKar was the name applied to a form of leprosy. It is natural to compare the English term ‘the blues’ and to remark that the old name for jaundice, namely, the yellows, lingers in the provincial districts of England.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 199

XCIII.

*Artartiv’ Kai rodro mapavevouHTar Kai Tovm Kai G€oet,

XpH rap dttarde A€rew, domep GAAGC.

A grammarian in the Svraywy Adfewv xpynotyov is more precise: ’Arrayas' dpyis otrw Kadeirar tmd tov *ArTiKOv. *Apioropdvys SonEi—

Tov mnAdv Gotep atrayas tupBdces BadlCwv. kal at mAdyio. arrayay Kal drrayas TAnOvvTiKGs.

*AAAGs is not a real parallel as its genitive is d\AGvTos. It was intended by Phrynichus simply to illustrate the accentuation which in drrayGs is peculiar. Athen. 9. 387 F: Tepism@ot b& of “Arrixol mapa Tov dpOdv Adyov Tovvoua. Ta yap «is as Anyovta éxrerapévov brep S00 cvddAaBds, Ore exeu Td a Tapadjyov, Baptrovd éorw olov dxdwas, Saxddas, dOduas. Aextéov be kal drrayai Kal odxt arrayijves.

XCIV.

KodAupBddec éAaiat ob Aéfovtat, GAAG GAuddec EAGat

y@pic Tob t,

This is an apt illustration of the singular purity of Attic Greek. It contents inself with saying no more than is necessary, whereas xodvpBddes is a weak attempt at a picturesque designation. In describing the different kinds of olives, Athenaeus, 1. 56, quotes two lines of Aristo- phanes—

od tadréy éotw GAuddes Kal oreucvda, and— Odacras yap «iva. Kpeitrdv éorw dApudéos.

For the orthography of éAda see supra p. 112.

200 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

XCV.

FpHrope, rpHropel ov dei, GAAG ErpHropa Aé€retv Kai eérpriropev,

Porson first removed the defaulting present from Attic — texts, restoring éypnydperay for éypyyépnoay in Xen. An. 4. 6.22. It isa most debased form and crept into classical manuscripts at a late date.

The perfect tense had originally in Greek a very different meaning from that of the English perfect. Thus the words the door has been opened, direct the attention to a process rather than to a fact, but in Greek the converse is true, and 7 Ovpa dvépxrat originally meant ¢he door is open, with- out any reference to the process of opening. There is in fact no means of expressing dvéwxra: in English, as zs open implies too little, and zs opened implies too much, Js ofen is too absolute and does not convey the notion of agency, and zs opened is not absolute enough, still referring too much to the process of which it marks the completion. The same is true of the pluperfect and the future perfect, avéoxro hitting the mean between was open and was opened, and dvedferar between shall be open and shall be opened.

But when an attempt is made to express the primitive force of the Greek perfect in the active the English language

‘fails still more signally, and the word has to be turned passively. In other words dvémxa thy Ovpay is not J have opened the door, but represents an agent at the completion of his action, without any reference to the steps which led to that condition of things.

This is the meaning which the perfect generally has in the Homeric poems, e. g.—

jmeis 8 SrAa Exacta Trovnodpevor kara via hu<Oa, tiv 8 dveuds te KvBepyntns 7 Wvver.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 201

. s / € 6 / . TMs be Tavyweplys réral? toTLa TOVTOTOPOVONS

dvoeTd T 7éALos, oKidwvTd Te TaTAL ayuat: Od. 11, 10.

and in an earlier stage of the language the numerous perfects with a so-called present meaning had their origin. éypityopa, J am awake, dédo.xa, J fear, ciw0a, J am used, dvwya, T bid, dédopxa, I see, réOnda, I flourish, c€onna, [ moulder, xéxnva, I gape, c¢onpa, J grin, etc. The perfect form of many of these words, such as kéxnva, d5€d0pxa, o€onpa, it would be quite impossible to explain on any other hypo- thesis as to the original force of the perfect.

Although the Greek perfect never lost this meaning, it gradually assumed much of the same force as we associate with the tense and approached our idiom in most respects. Thus even in Homer it had begun to be used for the aorist with the adverbs (xpovixd émippijyara), 75n, TodAdKis, To, ménmote, a usage which was quite incompatible with its primitive signification, but which is not rare in Attic,

XCVI,

ee a

Aveévtue pHderote yptio emi Tob deomdTHc, wc oi Tepi Ta

> a a

dIKAGTHPLa PHTOpEC, GAN’ Erti TOD aUTOYELpoc Povewc.

There are two ways of accounting for the only exception to this rule, that in Eur. Supp. 442— kal pay Orov ye dtjpuos avdéevTns xOovds, trovew aorots joeTat veaviats. Either ai@évrns is, as Markland conjectured, an error of the copyists for «d@vvrjs, or Tragedy has here, as often, preserved an old meaning. The late signification of master must have had some origin, and it is more natural to regard it as entering the Common dialect from some of the older ones than as being a perversion of the meaning recommended by Phrynichus, and frequent in early Attic.

202 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

Latterly aidévrns disappeared from Attic, even in its recognized sense, its place being usurped by adirdxeip. Appearing in Herodotus, in Tragedy, and in Thucydides and Antiphon, it finally succumbed to the law of parsimony, like many other words which are not found in any but the earliest masters of Attic prose.

XCVII.

’Artioyev, et Tic eitrot, St1 Ev TH cuveeTw Avsiac KexpHTat KaTarHOyast, WH Tdvu Treidou" Fiye wév pap Aéroust kai

Anpoobevuc Fiyaot Aéret, GAN OdK GrHOyact.

The passage of Lysias here referred to has not been preserved. The form occurs in Aristotle, Polybius, Plutarch, and other late writers, while some authors used both the disyllabic and quadrisyllabic words,

Notwithstanding the general opinion as to the purity of Lysias’ diction, there are to be found in his writings many slight divergences from Attic usage, which are to be attributed to the fact that by far the greater part of his life was spent in Magna Graecia. He dwelt, it is true, among Athenians, but Athenians who, as colonists, were dissociated entirely from the peculiar civilization of Athens, and from the intellectual and refining influences of its fascinating city life, while, at the same time, they were necessarily thrown more into contact with men of other Greek races.

XCVIII.

Mectdwo6rivat’ Téerpurtat Kai év Toic SikaotHpiotc Kai ev

ToIc GuULBOAGIoLC, GAAG OU mEoErfuHOrivat A€re,

‘Meold.wos praeter binos Aristotelis locos (Eth. Nic. 7.1132.

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. : 203

®23, Pol. 6. 1306. *28) reperitur in Michael. in V. Nicom. p. 66 b. ex ipso Aristotele depromptum ; pécov dikaorHy vocat Thucydides, 4. 83, peotdiwOjvar autem, sive a nullo scrip- torum eorum, quos fortuna nobis reliquos fecit, admissum est, sive adhuc in angulo quodam inaccesso latet, nobis certe invisum inauditumque erat. Lobeck.

XCIX.

KaAAtrpa@eiv, dtaAeAUMEevnc A€rouaLv Ekeivot eic KGAAOC

rpapety:

As far as formation goes the word is quite legitimate, as is shown by kaAAev@ and kadd\tep6. It is only a question of usage, and certainly cadAtypapd does not occur before Aristotle. ‘KadAvypapeiv primum mihi occurrit sensu figurato in subditicia Aristotelis Epistola ad Alexandrum Rhetoricae praefixa.’ Lobeck.

ae

*Axutiv avi Tod Ett Sevopavta A€rovow Grae adt@

Kexphobat’ ob d€ puAdtTou, Aére de ETI.

The signification here reprehended used to be required in Isocrates, 1 C, before ob pev dxpyv pirocode’s was re- placed by col pév dxpyn gidrocodeiv. It is an excellent instance of the copyists’ habit of importing the usages of their own day into the texts of Classical authors, Xeno- phon, however, is past praying for; Moeris (p. 79), as well as Phrynichus, states that in this point he departed from Attic usage, and in An. 4. 3. 26 dxujv is employed as Polybius, Strabo, Plutarch, Theocritus, and their contem- poraries employed the term. There is nothing to choose between Xenophon’s kal 6 dyAos dxphjv b1€Bawe, and Poly-

204 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

bius, 1. 25. 2, cvviddvres Tobs pev axuny euBaivovras, rots be dvayouevous, or id. 6. 51, mapa pry tots Kapyndovlois ri dvvapty 6 dhwos Hdn peTrerAnpet, Tapa dF “Papators axujv elyev q obyKAnTOos.

‘Suidas Sophoclem et Hyperidem testes citat; de Sophocle manifesto errat; Hyperidem testem adhibet in hac causa etiam Antiatticista Bekk. p. 77, sed locum non apposuit, neque fidem fecit judicii sui.” Lobeck.

Ci

2 ow > ’ ’ 2 2 ‘ ‘ Eitev kai émeitev éoyatwe BapBapa: eita obv od Kai

émeita Aére.

Aelius Dionysius, whose opinion is always worthy of consideration, is quoted by Eustath. 1158. 38, é rots Avovvctov péperar Ori ’Arrixa pev 7d efra Kal émeita, Td Be eirey kal émeprev, “laxd. 816, pyol, cal wap “Hpoddr xeivras. In most manuseripts of Herodotus, however, cira and ézeira, or éel Te, are now read, e.g. 1. 146; 2. 52; 9. 84,98. In Arist. Ach. 745, the un-Attic form is put in a Megarian’s mouth— =:

Kymeitev és Tov odKKov d° écBaivere. Machon, the late Comic poet, whose name has already occurred in a similar connection, used ére:rev (Athen. 13. . 582A), and éxevrev eimeiv was justly restored for reir’ évetrev by Porson in another line of the same writer—

éneitey eitmeiy act tHv Tvabatvnov. Ath, 13. 581 F.

cil.

"AvatéAdet ev épetc 6 AAtoc, émttédder 8€ 6 KU@y, FO

J H '

’Qpiey, Fi GAAO TL TOV UH @oadT@c TH HAiw@ Kai TH GeArV

TIOAEUOVTMY. .

ae

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 205

This distinction between dvaréAAw and émiréAAw, dvarod} and émroAj, is always carefully observed in Attic prose. Plat. Polit. 269 A, Legg. 887 E, Crat. 409 A; Ar. Nub. 754; Thuc. 2. 78. In poetry it is not always regarded, and even the simple verb may be used of either pheno- menon. ’EmroA} and émiréAAw, however, are not used of the sun till very late. The meaning of the éz/ is the same as is found in éépxoua: in phrases like éajAvOov dpar in—

GAN bre rérparov HAOev eros kal émndrvOov Spar. Od. 2. 107. GAN bre di) pivés te kal Huepar e&eredrcdvTo dip mepireAAopévov Ereos kal emjdvboy Gpat. II, 294.

CIII.

Evikxatpeiv ob Aektéov, GAN eb oyoAfic éyev.

The words evxatpos and eixaipia are excellent Attic words,

but not in the sense of cxoAatos and cxody. Photius: SxoA7-

r

ovxt 6 témos év @ cxoddCover Kal biatpiBovor Tept maidelav" ovse airy 7) ev Adyous (edpovola) Kal biarpiBH, GAAA iy of Toro) axdpws Kadodow edxaipiav’ Td de edKaipely BdpBapor, GAN dvr) pev rodrov cxodty dyew déyovow. 4 dF edxatpla BdpBapov ov éorw dvopa, Tatrerar b& odk éml cyXoAtjs, GAN em) Katpod Tivds edqpulas Kal dperijs.

CIV.

*E&€eruroAAc Aérousi Tivec, oiduevot Spotov eivat TH eEal- @vue, olov éEemimoAAc TOO MavTéc, dTéMc* oi rap dpyator

dvev TAc €& mpobécewc eitrov émmoAAc.

In App. Soph. 38. 3 Phrynichus traces this corruption to false analogy: ot 6¢ é&emimoAjjs A€yovTes éxAavHOnoay amd

206 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS,

rod é£alpyns nai é£enirndes. It is another instance of the misuse discussed above, pp. 117 ff. Late writers elevated the adverb into a substantive, forming a nominative éau7oAn, and declining it throughout. They combined their new creation with other prepositions besides é£. Athenaeus used dv émmoAjjs, and Strabo actually én énumodjs. The fact that an elevated quarter of the city of Syracuse was named ’EmtoaAal (Thuc. 6. 96) does not prove the early existence of the substantive ézimoA7. It does not mean surfaces, but, derived in the same way as émmoAfjs, adopted the termination -a: on the analogy of ’A@jvar, Ona, etc., just as the -js in the adverb stands on the same footing as the similar ending of éfaldvns.

a

“Evoov eicépyouat, Bappapov, évdov rap €orti, Kai évdoy Le | 0 ~ 2 ” A , ” x eit, OdKktuov, Set ovv elow mapépyouat Aéretv, Eelam dé

diatpiBw obK épeic, GAN Evdov diaTpiBw.

The collocation évdov «lcépyouar stands on a different basis from ¢tow d:arp(B8w, being a distinct violation when used absolutely of the law of parsimony, and, consequently, un-Attic. As a synonym for the simple «icépxoua, Phry- nichus rightly suggests «low mapépyouar. But, although ‘éydov as used for eicw is as barbarous as elow eloépxopar would be, the converse. is not true, and Attic writers frequently employ eicw with verbs of rest, as any dictionary will show.

CVI.

KAupovopety Tévde’ ody ofta@c A Gpyata ypAotc, GAAG

KAHpovoplely TOLDE,

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 207

A sentence of Demosthenes illustrates the only usage possible in Attic, 329. 15, kexAnpovdunkas pev tv Pidwvos Tod Kyndeotod xpnudrwv TAclover 7) TevTeTaddrvTwr, the genitive of the person being dependent upon the genitive of the thing which is governed by the verb. In late Greek the ordinary construction was the accusative in either case— KAnpovowety th twos and KAnpovopety tid.

CVII.

Opidaxa “Hpddotoc idgwv eimev, ripeic Sé Optdakivay

ac *ArtiKol,

This is another instance of the Common dialect pre- ferentially departing from the ‘premier dialect. The lexicography of the word is given in detail by Lobeck.

CVIII.

*EmikAivtpov pxHtéov, obK dvdkAtvTpov,

Pollux makes the same statement (10. 34): Mépn 8 kAlyns kal éviAara Kal énlkdwrpov' Td pev emlkAwwtpov td *Aptotopdvovs elpnuévov, Lopoxdrfs be eine evijdara Edda: id. 6. 9, 7d Kadovpevoy avdkdwrpov énlkAwrpov ’Apiotroparns cine, TO 8 evjAaroy KAwrTipiov. In 9. 72 he quotes, for a different purpose, two lines from the Anagyrus of Aris- tophanes—

tobr aitd mpdtrw 80’ 6B0Ae Kal otuBorov tnd TO 'mixdlytpo’ -pdv Tis avr’ dveldeTo;

The question must rest upon their authority.

208 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

CLA.

*EmidoEov, TO mpocdok@pevoy kai E€ATuduevoy épeic,

> « 2 o ‘ 2 ' OvY, WC OL QUAGELC, TOV EMIGHLOV,

Like verbs of hoping and expecting, éldofos may be followed by the present and aorist as well as by the ‘regular tense—the future infinitive. Isocr. 397 C, émléofos yevjoecOa movnpds: Antipho, 115. 22, Tov peyddAa pe Kaxd mpoteTovOdra, er. d€ pelCova enldogov dvra mdoxew: Isocr. 117 E, énldogos dv rvxeiv ths Tysfs. The preposition seems to have the same force as in the word éaireé or éniroxos.

There is no instance in Attic of the meaning here found fault with by Phrynichus, but that is its prevailing sense in late writers. The signification érfonuos was not, how- ever, a coinage of the Common dialect, but existed outside the precincts of Attic even in Classical times, as is proved by Pindar—

el yap Gua xredvots woAXots erldofov apnra /

Kbddos, KTE. Nem. 9. 46.

Cn

Maupny thy tod matpdc Fi uHTpdoc pHTépa ob Aérousty oi Gpyaiot GAAG THOHV, UdupHy dé Kai poLiov THY WHTeEpa,

> ‘ ss ‘ 4 , 2 ‘ “a 1 ’ GQMaGEC OVUV TO THY MGMUHV ETL THC THOHC AeEfety,

‘Phrynichi praescriptum plerique recentiorum neglectum reliquere, aviam pduynv dicentes, Josephus, - Plutarchus, Appianus, Herodianus, Artemidorus, Basilius, neque ad- versari videtur Pollux, 3. 17, # 5% watpos i) pntpos parnp ™H0n Kal pdppn Kal pappa. Sed cum Phrynicho faciunt

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 209

acriores vitiorum inolescentium animadversores, Aelius Dionysius, Helladius, Moeris, Photius, Suidas.’ Lobeck.

CXI.

Ei mouth eimev duetvdrepov, yatpéro* o¥dé rap KAAALG- Tepov, Ode KpelocdTepov PHTéov. GuUrKPITLKOD fap oUrKpI-

‘ > ' pane S 3 ” ‘ ‘ ‘ * TLKOV OU FiveTat, AEFE OVV AMELVOV KL KGAALOV KGL KPeIGoov,

Stobaeus (Flor. 7. 12. g) quotes from Mimnermus— od ydp tis Kelvov dbniwy ér dpewdrepos pos éoxev é€trolyecOat pvdomidos Kparepiis

épyov. The forms xeupdrepos, xepeudrepos, are not double com- paratives. That xadd.érepov once appeared in Thuc. 4. 118 indicates that this remark of Phrynichus was not uncalled for. ‘Recentiores cum similibus pei(érepos, éhayiordraros, usi sunt.’ Lobeck.

CXIl.

Movépeaduoy ob puréov, Etrepdpeaduov dé. Kpativoc dé , > ‘ U MOvOMeaANov eine Tov KixAwra,

Lobeck supposes the words Kparivos 5¢ povdpOadyor cite ‘Tov Kéxdwra to be a late addition, but they appear in the BvAA. "Artix. of Moschopulus, and may well be genuine, as povdp0adpos or povduparos is the natural word for a Cyclops. A writer in the Aéfers “Pyropixai (Bekk. 280. 22) has the remark: Movdép@adpos: Ovos te dvOpdmwv eva bpOadrpov éxdvrwy* rods yap Tov Erepov éxxomrévtas dpOadpov ErepopOdr- povs kadodow, and Strabo, 1. 43, quotes pordpparos from Aeschylus, AicytAov kvuvoxepddovs xal orepvopOdApovs kat povoppdrovs taropotvros.

Ammonius makes the same distinction: ‘Erepéd@Oadpos kat povdpbadpos biapépovew. “ErepdépOadpos pev yap 6 xara reptr-

P

210 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Two mpwdels Tov Erepov Tov dpbadrpar, povdpOarpos dé 6 Eva podvov dp0adrpov éxwv os 6 Kixdww.

It is an interesting question how the later notion of the Cyclopes originated. In Homer the Cyclops is érepdp0adpos, not povdp0adpos, as Aristarchus plainly saw. On Odyss. 9. 383 he has the remark, 6 Kixdwy xara rdv “Opnpov odK ip povddbarpos iret, GAAA KaTd Twa ovvtvxlay Tov Erepov TOP bPOadrpav areBeBArjxer. bv0 yup dpptas ctxe’ pynol yap—

mdvra 8€ of Brépap’ dudt cal dpptas eboev diitpy. By the time of Hesiod the later notion prevailed, as is seen from two lines of the Theogon. 144—

Kéxdores 8 voy? joav érdvupov obver dpa opéwv

KukAorepys Opbadpos eis evexerTo peTOTO, and became as firmly established as the similar erroneous notion that the Sirens were three in number, whereas Homer plainly says there were but two. Some mistake of an early potter probably originated both errors, and fictile ware tells the same story as Hesiod, Cratinus, and Theocritus, 11. 31—

wv , Ss a ‘ ‘ , Svexd por Aacla pev oppds ext Twavti pero.

CXIII.

*E@viodunv’ eic Adroc mepi tod GuaptHuatoc, évea av

. ’ ’ ’ nan oJ UJ a“ 2 “~ ‘ zs 4 ~ UH duvHOHC TO TIPLAGOGL H ETTPLAUHV GElVAl, EKEL TA ATTO TOU @vobpat! tatte, évoa 8 dv ta dmd Tod Mpiacbat, PuAdTTOU @dTEpov.

1 The MSS, and editions have the unmeaning éwvnpar. After @drepoy they add ofoy édynpa oixiay’ évravOa éyxwpel TO empidyny’ otrw xXphoy éempidpny oixiar. nad ervxov twvnpévos olxiav 4 dypdv' evraida obdtv éyxwpel Tv dard THY mpia- aba’ péver 7d Ewvnuévos Sdxipov, madw Sel éyew mpidpevos, 7d yap avntdpevos — addmpov' obrws ob Kam Tod éwvnodpny: wapdy yap empidpny cimeiv, ph etmys éavnodpnv' 6 ydp Todro A€éywv Anpet. Lobeck justly says, ‘alto hic Phrynichus demersus est Iuto;’ but he fails in trying to extricate him. It is strange that the words following ofoy in Phrynichus should so frequently be unintelligible or contradictory to the rule he lays down. They seem frequently to be late additions.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 211

Herodian (453 ed. Piers.) likewise remarks on the way in which the two stems dve- and zpi- were combined in Attic to make up the verb corresponding to the English ‘buy.’ His words are these, mpiacdar épeis, odk avnoacbar' Srov be pi) dvvardy KNivar Td mplacOa pha, Tore TE dveicOar xpron, ofov éxpidyny, explo, émplaro’ Kal mplw To mpootatixdy. Etrodus mpl por ceddxiov pyol. em) d& rod mapaxeipévov edynpat, ov yap evexdper 6 Tapakelpevos tiv Tod mplacdar xpjow. These dicta are confirmed by other authorities and by the universal usage of Attic writers. The following passages will put in the clearest light the dovetailing of the two verbs into one another. In the ‘Acharnians’ Dicaeopolis asks the price of the Boeotian’s pigs—

ld ‘4 fa \ ‘4 , Tooov Tplopat cor Ta xolpidia; AEye*

and when the answer is satisfactory makes up his mind to buy them—

avycopat cou wepiver adrod.

The enormous sums expended upon fish by Athenian ’ epicures is a common-place in the Middle and New Comedy, and a passage of this kind is quoted by Athenaeus (6. 227 A) from the ‘ Greek Woman’ of Alexis—

abrol (of tyOves) 7° exay AnpOdow tnd rv ddréwy TeOvedres emitplBovor Tovs ovovpévovs. Tis ovolas ydp elow hyuiy dvi,

6 Tpidpevds Te TrMXds evOds amoTpéxel :

Plato, Rep. 563 B, érav dé of éwrnpévor pydev 7rrov edevOepor aot tév mpiayévav: Lysias, 108. 35, ’AvrixAijs tap’ abrod mpid- pevos eLeulcOwoev' eyo b& map’ "Avtixdéovs elpiivns ovens éwpvotynv: Dem. 307. 15, 6 dvotpevos veviknke tov AaBdvTa eay mpinrat. ;

But the locus classicus is the speech of Lysias against the corn merchants (Kara rév otromwAGv): "Ey® trv dpydv- Twv KedevdvTwy cuveTpidpnv.

P2

212 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

“Ap pev rolvuv dmodelén, & dvdpes dixacral, os €or. vdpos ds KeAevet TOUS oiTOTMAaS cvYwvEtcOar Toy ciToy, dv ol dpxorTes KeAdwow, aroynhicacdbe. ef 5e wy, dixatoy tuas kataynploacbat. hyeis yap tuiy mapecxdpeba Tov voor ds dmayopever pndéva TGV év Th TéAEL TAElw oiroy TEvTIKOVTA HopyGy cvveveto Oat.

“Avutos 8’ eyev Os ,... cypBovdrctocev adrois Tavoacbat irovixodow, Hryotpevos cvppépew tyiv rots mapa to’twy @vov- pévois @s Gkidratov Tovrovs mplacba. deliv yap avrods d6B0AG pdvov Twdety Tysustepov. os Toler od cvumpLauevous KaTabécbaL éxéXevev airods GAAa pu) GAAHAOLs avtwvetcOar cvveBovAcver, abrov ipiv “Avurov paprupa tapéfopat, kat @s ovTos pev emt Tis mporépas Bovdjjs rovrous eize rovs Adyous, obror & emi rivde cvvevodvperor patvorrat |.

It may be useful to add a detailed list of the tenses and moods as used by Attic writers. The references are chiefly to Aristophanes :—

davodpa, Arist. Av. 530, Eccl. 1002. Szbjunctive, Lys. 560, Vesp. 493. Optative, Eq. 649. Participle, Nub. 1224, Thesm. 504, Eq. 897, Ach. 549.

éwvotunv, Fr. Com. (Eupolis), 2. 505, and Orators. ,

évycopat, Arist. Plut. 140, 518, Ach. 815, Eq. 362, Pax 1239, 1252, 1261, Vesp. 304, Lys. 600, Eccl. 1034; Orators.

érpidunv, Arist. Nub. 23, 864, Eq. 44, 676, Thesm. 503, Pax 1200, 1241. 2nd sing. ézpiw, Vesp. 1439. Subjunctive, Ach, 812, Ran. 1229, Nub. 614. Ofptative, Pax 21, 1223, Vesp. 1405, Ach. 737. Jmperative, mpiw, Ach. 34, 35; Fr. Com. 2. 743, 883; dmompiw, Ran. 12277. lnfinitive, Ach. 691, 749, Vesp. 253, 294, Av. 715. Participle, Ach. gol, Eq. 600, 872, Nub. 749, Plut. 883. :

1 Cp. Xen. Vect. 4.18, mpidodac .. . aviOn .. . dvodvra . . . dvnbivra.

2 Good MSS. read mplw for mpiy in Nub. 614. The form mpiago in Ach. 870 is probably Attic. Veitch, however, errs when he puts it on the same footing as mpiw in id. 34 by the remark ‘both in trimeter,’ for he has not observed that mpiaco is put into the mouth of a Boeotian.

y

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 213

éovnpat, Fr. Com. (Eupolis), 2. 492, (Aristoph.) 2, 1076; Orators; Pardtic., Arist. Pl. 7.

PASSIVE. ovodpat, Plato, Phaed. 69 B. éwvotpnv, Xen. Eq. 8. 2. éwvnOnv, Dem. 1124, 1126; Xen. Mem. 2. 7. 12, etc. ; Plato,

Legg. 850 A, Soph. 224 A. édvnpat, Pax 1182; Plat. Rep. 563; Orators.

Pollux (3. 124) quotes dmwvnOjoera: from the Comic Poet Theopompus. The verbal évyréos occurs in Plato, Legg. 849 C, and éynrds in a true verbal sense in Thuc. 3. 40, Axida otre Ady Tory otre xpyywacw avytiv. In Plato, Phaed, 1. c., the present is found in the participle évovpevd te kal mimpackéyeva. This is the only instance in Classical Greek, although periphrases are used. Such is spaow ciploxw in a passage quoted by Pollux (7. 13) from the ‘Seasons’ of Aristophanes—

Kpdtictov piv eis tO Onoeiov Spapeiv,

éxel & Ews Gv mpaow ebpwyev pévew, till we find a purchaser’. In the sense of to be for sale, Ovios eivat was used.

éml tais méAaow ob Td Tdpixos SvLov.

Arist. Eq. 1247.

Plato, Legg. 848 A, rpirov pépos driov e€ dvdyxns éoTw TodTo povor, Ty be d00 pepGv pndev exdvayxes CoTw Twrciv.

m@s 6 otros dvios ; Arist. Ach. 758, ‘What is the price of wheat ?’

m7Os otv 6 Tupds év Bowwrots dytos ; Id. Eq. 480. To make a purchase was in Greek avi roretcOa, or, in * The note of Pollux is ridiculous enough and shows how little Classic Greek was understood even by a scholar in the second century A.p., 8 82 of viv pact

ous oixéras mpaow aireiv torw ebpeiv ev tais ’Aporopavous “Opus. He must have translated éws av =‘ while.’

214 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS.,

poetry, dviv ridecIa, as Dem. 894. 27, dviv Tovodpar rijs vEos: aviv ov kal mpacw os Poi drip. : Soph. Frag. The primitive sense of the verb dyopd¢ew was to attend the ayopé either for business or pleasure, but it gradually acquired the meaning of duy. The former signification is encountered often in Aristophanes—Ach. 625, 720, Vesp. 557, Lys. 556, 633, Eq. 1373, 1374; but the latter only once—

kal tais ddeApais dyopdoa xiTeyioy éxédevoey dv, TH pytpl 8 twarld.ov. Plut. 984.

The term, however, both in the active and the middle voice, became ultimately quite synonymous with ovetcdat and mplacda, as Dem. 563, 7, ) 8 efor airn BeAtio mplacda ravrns Tis Tihs Todrov jydpacev. The verb was doubtless complete in all three voices, but in what remains of Attic literature does not extend beyond the aorist and perfect.

CXIV.

Tlapacirouc obk Ederov of Gpyaiot ér dveidouc, wc viv, GAAG KOAGKaC’. Kai dpdua Eott KéddAakec TowodT@y dy-

Oparov.

Athenaeus discusses at great length the word zapdouros (in 6. 235 seq.). For the existence of the aapdovros in Homeric times, he quotes—

éoxe 8 évl Tpdecor TModijs, vids ’Heriwvos, adveids 7 ayabds Te’ pddiora dé paw tlev “Extwp dijpov, eel of éraipos env pldos elAamwaoris® : Tl. 17. 575. and shows that in the time of Epicharmus the character had acquired all its features. It was Araros, however, who first

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 215

employed the word zapdowros in this dishonourable sense, and Antiphanes, Alexis, and Diphilus had all plays of this name. Accordingly, Phrynichus must not be considered as denying the signification xéAa€ throughout Attic, but only as reminding his readers that the term wapdouros had originally an honourable meaning. The words of Athenaeus are on this point very distinct: Té 6 rod mapactrov dvopa mddat pev jv ceuvov kal tepdv. TloAduwv yodv ypawyas teph mapacirwy pnolv otrws* “Td tod mapacirov dvowna viv pev ddoéov éort, mapa d& roils dpxalois edpioxoyey Tov TapdoiToy tepdy Ti Xphua kal TG cvvOotvm tapdmoiov. "Ev Kuvocdpyet pev ody év ro “Hpaxdelw orjAn tls éorw ev Ff Wypiopa pev AdxiBiddov, ypay- pareds 5& Srépavos Oovxvdidov, dNéyerar 8 ey aire Tepl ris apoonyoptas otrws’ ‘Ta b& émprria Ovérw 6 tepeds pera Tov Tapactroy. of 8 mapdowror eotwv ex Tdv vdOwy Kab ray TovTwv maldov katata matpia. “Os 8 dv pn 0€An Tapacireiv, eloayérw Kal - mept Tovrwy eis TO dixaoTypiov.” There is much more to the same effect.

CXV.

EGpaceat odk Epeic mporrapotutévwc did Tod a, GAAG TrapoEuTovac did Tod €, ebpécean.

CXVI.

*Ageidato door did Tob Aa A€fouvciv doyHUovodat, déov dtd Tod Ae Aéretv, GqetAeTo, Kai GqetAduHv dei A€rev dia

Tod 0, GAAG PH Ota TOD a.

- The second of these articles has been brought from another place in the Ecloga. Evpdyny for eipdunv, and apeiAduny for dpeAdunv, represent a common corruption of late Greek. Veitch hesitates, as usual; but on consulting

216 _ THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

him it will be seen that in both cases the form in alpha has disappeared from all texts, not only of Attic, but of Classical Greek writers. The same is true of the active forms etpyoa and cida, jpnoa, and whatever Aristophanes wrote in Thesm. 761, he certainly did not write ééypjcaro. That word crept into the text at a date when éwdpnv might be used for efdov, and dverecdyunv for avémecov. The second line of the couplet destroys the force of the first—

takavrdtn Mixka, tls é&exdpno€é ce;

tis Thy dyanntiy Taidd vov ’Enpjoaro ; Instead of éénpjcaro, which cannot have a double meaning, some word that has is required to correspond with é&exd- pnoe. Lobeck proposed éferpjoaro, Meineke has adopted dtexpoaro. Neither emendation is of value, and the genuine word still awaits discovery, if the line is not re- garded as merely an interpolated extension of é£exdpnce. Many forms, equally corrupt, were imported into Attic books by copyists, who were ignorant of Greek syntax of the Classical age. Thus, in Thuc. 8. to, the historian used the regular construction in object clauses, and made a future indicative follow émws, after a verb of preparing, mapeckevdovro Omws pi) Ancovow adrovs, but textual critics had to banish Ajowow from the received text. They had the best manuscripts on their side, but even against all such authority the change ought to have been made.

- Veitch (p. 411) has a record of other instances. The

case of the Homeric éréAnoa is very different—

GAAG TO wey Kal dvexrov exer Kaxdv, SmTdTE Kev TIS jmara wey Krdaln TuKWOs aKaxipevos irop, vixtas 8 tavos éxnow' 6 ydp r emédnoev amdvtwv eoOGv Hde KaxGv, eel Gp Brépap’ dudixadrdyny. Od. 20, 83. Then the word is causative, the ém/ making possible the active in this sense, just as it helped WndiCoua to an active

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. . 217

voice. As Aavédvw in the active can only mean escape notice, so Wnbl(w had no signification besides that of ase pebbles, calculate. For the causative of Wnpitopa, Zo vote, the compound of éxi was employed, just as émAavdvw supplied a causative to Aav@dvopyat.

The authority of Hesiod used to be advanced for the aorist first of Aelmm—

‘ 2 4 > > , és Kev THY emlopxoy amodchpas éropdoon

a0avdtwv" Theogon. 793.

just as épevéa in Aesch. Agam. 1308— tl totr épevéas; ef te pi) ppevdv orvyos, was regarded as a proof that pevyw had a weak aorist as

well as a strong. In the one case the word comes from drode(Bo, in the other from Peto.

w:6 -

It is true that there are several verbs which in Classical

times used both aorists—the weak and the strong—in the same sense, but in Attic proper, such verbs were singularly rare. Xé(w is an undisputed instance, and with it may go 0dve, the two aorists of which run parallel, except in the participle, which Attic confined to the weak. The case of krelvm and melO0w is different, éxravoy, éxavoy, and émGor, being not found out of poetry. Even ém@dunv gradually retreated before émefoOnv, as Attic matured. Xenophon must be left to settle. the right of xaréxavoy to a place in Attic prose. Certainly, no other writer in that fastidious dialect would have employed the word. The form 7éa stands on precarious footing, but must be admitted in early Attic. Homer certainly used the weak aorist middle—

arap Ka\Xirpixas tamous ical ineE dx€wv, Tapa 5 odiot Bdddrer ebwdjv* €x ToALos 8 akacbe Boas Kal iia pijra KaptaAtums, otvov be pedtppova oivicerde. Il. 8. 505,

218 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

éx méduos 8 Géavro Boas kal ipia phdra kaprahiws, otvov b€ pedlppova oivigorto. Id. 545-

for to read dfeo0e in the former of these passages is criticism of the most futile and puerile kind. Moreover, Herodotus employed zpoeod£avto (1. 190), éodfavro (5. 34), and zpoc- éfavto (8. 20). Accordingly, when the active da is en- countered in Antiphon, and zpoojéav in Thucydides, in a sense perfectly natural, and with the support of all manuscripts, they must at once be accepted as genuine, and regarded as fresh indications of a fact more than once referred to already—namely, that in these two writers the Attic dialect had not reached its full development. Antipho, 134. 41, pa) ody e€€Anrar todro dydv pmdels, Ste Tov pyveriv anéxrewav, kat dverelvayto advtov ph eloeAOciv és tyas, pnd euol eyyevéoOar mapdvTr G€ar Tov dvdipa Kal Bacavioar adrdv: Thuc. 2. 97, pdpos te &k mdons ris BapBdpov Kal tOv “EAAn- vidwv méAEwv, dcov mpocigav emt LesOov wre. Such forms, however, were quite alien to mature Attic, and dmjéas has been justly restored to Aristophanes (Ran. 468), in place of anijgas, rdgavres, to Lycurgus (166. 16) in place of xard- éavres, and perhaps xa0évras even to Xenophon (Hell. 2, 2. 20) in place of xardfarres. In all three passages the sense requires an alteration which there is excellent manuscript authority to support.

The history of the weak aorist of drod:dpdcKm is singularly ‘instructive. Veitch has traced it with his usual care;

‘The first aorist does not zow occur in Classic Greek ;.

anodpdoaca Andoc. 1. 125 (Vulg.), drodpaca (Bekk.), dzo- dpdoas Lys. 6. 28 (old edit.), was altered by Reiske to anodpas, which has been adopted by Bekker and every subsequent editor, dmodpdon Xen. Cyr. 1. 4. 13 (Vulg.), now amodpa (best MSS., Schneid., Popp., Dind.), ééépac’ Eur. I. T. 194 (MSS., Vulg., Musgr., Seidler), now é@& &pas in every edition,’ etc. In fact, dwé}paca must be classed with

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 219

ZOvnta, COpwka, ~dappa, &dnka, epevéa, ereoa, cida, jpnoa, hpdptnca, €BAwka or euddrnoa, ddrlcOnoa, EBadra, ooppdunr, et hoc genus omne. Further, there is little question that, Aristophanes did not use évérega, or Lysias éfAnoa. In Ar. Lys. 553 the manuscripts have évréén or évredén, the latter being also supported by Suidas, s. v. réravos. The true word is lost, as neither évrééy_ nor évredén provides a suitable meaning. For épAncev in Lys. 136. 1, cvxopavrias avrod Karéyvwrte kal SpAncev tyiv puplas dpaxpds, either oPpel- Ancev or &pAev must be substituted.

Some verbs, which originally possessed two aorists of identical meaning, dropped one of them in Attic, just as dy has been shown to have done. Such a word is BAac- tdvw, which in Ionic writers had an aorist éSAdornoa, Hippocr. 7. 528, 546, and dvaBAaorjon must be preferred to dvaPdacrjoe: in Hdt. 3. 62, as even Herodotus could hardly have given other than the middle inflexions to the future of such a verb. The Homeric é0peéa survived in Attic poetry by the side of epayoy, but could not have been used in prose. Both édaxoy and éAdknoa appear in Comedy; but the verb is never used by Aristophanes except in para-tragedy, or when he wishes to have a hit at Euripides, who was ridiculously fond of the term. Of the two forms éppevoa and éppinv, late writers selected the poetical active, as in the case of xarédapOov they pre- ferred the passive form.

The aorist <f7a must not be reduced to the same level as efha, 7A0a, epaya, etc., nor yet must efzov and ciza be regarded as rivals. The two accurately supplement one another in Attic Greek, according to the following para- digm—

es L ° Lf elzov elmarnv elmdTov = t el7as elvopev eime 2 , eimre elmare elmatw elmare

elmarov eltov elmatov elmOvTwv.

2290 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.,

The subjunctive may be referred to either; the optative draws its forms-wholly from the second aorist, which also supplies the infinitive and the participle. The case of iveykov Versus jjveyKa is somewhat more intricate ; but, under

the influence of a transitory desire for system, Veitch has -

demonstrated that, in the indicative and imperative, the forms in alpha were used in Attic, except when the require- ments of metre or a wish to avoid hiatus suggested jjveyxov and éveyxov. The infinitive was always éveyxeiv and the participle éveyxév, and the omicron forms were at least pre- ferentially used in the optative, while the subjunctive may be assigned indifferently to either tense.

The rule for the aorists of r/@nu. and ty is too well- known to need remark; but it may not be unnecessary to remind my readers, that, although the weak aorist of 5/3wpr was occasionally used in the plural, such forms were generally eschewed by Attic writers. Herwerden thus sums up the evidence of Inscriptions: ‘Aor. 1 hujus verbi et compositorum in plurali numero perraro reperitur. In T.N. xiii. m. 45, legitur wapedéxayev. Paullo minus rara est 3 pers. pl., sed ne haec quidem reperitur, quod sciam, ante saeculum quartum,’ (Lapid. Test. p. 48). The aorist éppynxa probably followed the analogy of tw. and r/@nue in the indicative, as it certainly did in the other moods, and the gloss in Hesychius: ’Aréppnoav, apijxav Kparivos Opdr- . tats, should stand ’Amédpecay, kre.

As is now acknowledged, the form érewédppyxe in Eur. El. 1032—

GAN” HAO Exav por pads évOeov Képnv A€xtpois 7 emerreppynke kat vida dvo

tal o 3 a év Totow adrois déuacw Karety’ dpod, -

is no perfect, but an aorist, which in H. F. 1266 has by ~ some fatality been corrupted to émevréhpnoe—

—_~

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 221

ér év yddaxri 7 dvti yopywrods des

ereoeppnke omapydvoior Tois euois* and is recorded by Hesychius in the glosses—

Eicéppynxer’ elojyayev.

E&éhpnxev’ adijxev. Its subjunctive appears in Alc. 1056, éreopp&, Phoen. 264, éxppoor, and its participle in a fragment of Eur. Phaethon— parw “Hdaoros xddov

ddpos emevogpels péhabpa cvppr€eEn tpl.

Aristophanes, Vesp. 162, used its imperative éxgpes, and its

infinitive is preserved in the gloss of Hesychius: Eiodpijvac eiodéat.

CXVII.

“Pdqavov émi tric pagavidoc uA Ofic, oHuGiver Pap

THV KDGUBHY.

‘Idem affirmant Hesych., Suid.. Ammon, Schol. ad ° Aristoph., Poll., et alii, Addit Hesych. fapavidas vocari papdvovs parvos Dorice. Ammon. vero et Thom. ad- jungunt Ionice pépavoy nominari ryv papavida. Aristot. Hist. V. 17. 219 etiam pddavor ait ab aliis kpdyBnv nomi- nari. Nuiiez.

-CRVEN.

Etdvwec éyet pot ph Aére, GAN EedbvotKkdc,

The same caution is also found in App Soph. 38, eévo.- KOs Bdxuov, Td be ebvws pebyew xpy, and it is in accordance with the usage of Attic Greek. Similarly, dvws was not in use, but dvorjrws, and for the Xenophontean duovdws, Attic writers employed dyorvontixés. The adverbs of ddevovs,

222 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

kaxdvovs, and dyxtvous, do not happen to be found ; but as eivoiuxgs was confined to the adverb etvoixGs, edvoixdrepor, edvoxérara, there can be no question, that, if used at all, dvovorxGs, Kakovoikds, and d&yxwoxds, were similarly pre- ferred to the regularly-formed dvevws and dyxivws. There is in fact not a single instance in Attic Greek of an adverb directly formed from adjectives of this class, mpdvovs, xov- ddvovus, evppovs, evrvovs, dvemdovs, etc. It is hardly necessary to point out that words like amAés do not belong to the same category, but even d0péws appears to be under a ban.

CXIX.

Evev: moddoi dvti Tod evotc, diapéper dé. TO Mev rap térovu éotiv, eved “AeHvdv, to d€ ypédvou, Kai A€reTat Goby

TH 6.

This point is proved by the evidence of Aristophanes alone. The form ei@% is demanded by the metre in Nub. 162, Pax 77, 301, Av. 1421, Eccl. 835, and gives the more regular verse in Pax 68 and 819, while in no line is ed@vs found referring to place. On the other hand, «Obs xpovixdy is invariably encountered, being demanded by the metre in Plut. 152, 238, 700, 707, 1121, Nub. 785, 855, 878, 987, 1134, 1215, 1365, 1371, 1373, Ach. 638, Eq. 570, 625, Vesp. 103, 553, 568, Pax 84, 217, 763, 894, Lys. 201, 239, 248, 519, 525, 641, 664, Thesm. 405, 482, 507, Ran. 126, 137, 566, 694, 744, 859, 1029, 1135. Other Attic poets tell the same tale, except that Euripides uses ed@vs for «dU in one passage—

thy ev0ds “Apyous Kamdavptas dddv. : Hipp. 1197. Photius remarks upon the anomaly: Ed@d Avxelov' 70 es Adxetov 80ev "Eparocbévns Kai 514 todro tronreder tobs Me-

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 223

rad\eis’ kal Evpinlins odx 6p06s—

Tiv ev0vs “Apyous Kamidavpias dddv. The author of this MeradAc?s is not known for certain, and without the rest of the line no reasoning can be based on eis Avxeiov, but the words of Euripides doubtless stand as they came from his pen. The distinction between «00 and «i6ds originated in the desire for precision, which ’ is the predominant characteristic of Attic, and was not observed either by Homer or in other dialects at a period contemporary with the Attic. “I@vs is of common occur- rence, as applied to place, in the Iliad and Odyssey, while Pindar employed «i@és in both senses. Accordingly, in Tragedy «ids (rd rérov) is not out of place, and in Euri- pides it may well be a conscious imitation of older usage. In Comedy and Prose, however, the rule was carefully observed, and any deviations from it in the texts of Prose authors should be unflinchingly removed.

Like the English immediately, ei0bs is sometimes used of place, as in Thuc, 6. 96, xwptov dmoxpipvov te kal inép Tijs moAews evOUs ketuevov. In such sentences ¢d6¢% would naturally be amiss.

CXX.

Zwpétepov 6 trottHc, ob b€ AérE eUwpov Képacov Kai

ebgapdtepov, wc “Aptstopdvuie Kat Kpativoc Kai Edroatc.

The poet referred to is Homer, in Il. 9. 203— Cwpérepov b& Képate démas 8 evruvoy éExdory, a line which Ephippus, the Comic poet, had in mind when he wrote— piddnv Exarépa édmKxe kapdoas Cwpdrepov “OunpixGs*

Antiphanes employed (wpérepos in the passage preserved by Athenaeus, 10. 423 D—

224 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

Tobrov éy® Kpivw perarimtplda tis “Tyrelas

niveww Cwpotép» xpépevov Oivoxdw* but without the context it would be rash to regard it as a contravention of the rule laid down by Phrynichus. Herodotus has the simple word (6. 84), and it was probably in use in Tragedy. Its reappearance in the Common dialect is but another instance of what has so often been encountered already—the inability of Attic to hold its own against the other dialects.

The word cté(wpos is found in Ar. Eccl. 227; Eur. Ale. 757. Like dxparos, it formed its comparative and super- lative in -éorepos, -€oraros, Ephipp. ap. Athen. 9. 374 D; Antiphanes, id. 10. 423 E. Eustathius, however, quotes from Diphilus the regular comparative ed(wpdrepov, and he

is confirmed by Athen, 10. 423 E— éyxeov od 82 meiv. eiCwpdrepdv ye vy AC, & wai, bds* 7d yap Hapts dnav rotr éorl rH Wuxi Kaxdv.

CXXI.

Xeipaiv adoxinac, yepot dé.

The same is true of the genitive and dative dual, xevpoiy _ being never used in these cases.

CXXII.

Evéptov mh Aére, GAN evepov iudTtov, TPLoVAAdBwC

Kal dvev Tod t,

Et riva wéAw ppdoevas hyiv evepov

donep ciovpay éyxataxAwivat padOaxyr. Ar. Ay. 121.

a

Man

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 225

The Scholiast quotes yAécoar edépwv Borév from Cratinus, and from Plato (Comicus), the substantive evep(a. On the other hand, there is no occasion to alter evelpov

in Sophocles—

yap tov évouripa mémdov dprlws

éxptov, apyir olds ebelpov TéKo,

Trach, 675.

as is done by Elmsley and Lobeck, for they ought as readily to replace évdurnpa and dpyjra by other words. As an old form, eveipos is natural in Tragedy. It is employed in Ionic, and supported by the gloss of Photius, Eve:pov

af eve pLov.

CXXIII.

Neounvia wh Aére, TOY “lovey rap, GAAG voupHvia,

‘Neownvia non contractis primoribus syllabis perrarum est etiam in vulgari Graecitate.’ Lobeck.

CXXIV.

"Hc év dropd, cdAotKkov. Aére odv Ficba. dpedtepov dé

a n © ’ >. 2 2 > col Xpato dv 6 A€roov, av He €v Gropa.

CXXV.

“Eguc’ €ott uev mapa toic dpyaiotc, GAN OAirov. TO dé

TAeifov Epuoea.

The second of these articles has been brought from a later place. In the case of épyo6a, Phrynichus is too

lenient ; é$ns was never used by good writers any more -

Q

226 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

than js, jes, dns. It is true that the manuscripts oc- casionally exhibit the shorter forms, but as the longer are often demanded and always allowed by metre, they should invariably be restored in verse and prose. The argument from seriation is very strong—

épno-ba otc-0a — dn-c0a jo-0a jeo-Oa

pa-0i to-O1 tor-O1 1-01. but the testimony of verse is much more valuable. It is as follows—

A. drap yeyévntar; B. val pa Al?’ od« HdnoOd pe; 4 ; Ar, Eccl. 551. The Ravenna has 7éy00a, others 7de08a.

GAN obk dv & exous* boa yap Hono e&éxeas aravra. Thesm. 554. The MSS. 7jdes. ravras pévtor ov Beds ovoas odx Hono odd’ évducces ;

Nub. 329. Ravenna #éns, others 7dets.

The second person does not occur in Aeschylus. In Euripides it is found only twice— mGs ; TopOpoyv odx Hdncba Tarpeas xOovds ; Cycl. 108. MSS. 7fSeroOa.

ndnoda yap dir dvdovoy yhpas yapov. El, 926.

In the two cases in which it occurs in Sophocles the verse admits of the true form— ,

ap eéndno® Scov iv Képdos. MSS. é&jéns. nonvOa Knpvx evra) pi mpdoce Tdde; Ant. 445. MSS. 7éns rd. The evidence for 08a is overpowering. ‘There is no line

Trach. 988.

1 Cobetus emendavit. For the plural participle cp. Ant. 576— dedoypev’, ws Eouwe, THYSe KarOaveiv.

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 227

in Attic verse in which js is required, though it occurs sometimes in the manuscripts. Thus in Eur. I. A. 339—

os tarewvds io0a mdons befvas mporbiyydvew,

all the manuscripts have jjs aadons. The following details are of value. In Sophocles alone jjo@a occurs fourteen times, and in eight of the fourteen passages the disyllabic form is required by the metre. In Aristophanes, out of nineteen lines in which the word occurs, nine require the longer form. In Aeschylus it is found twice, once doubtful and once required. About jje.o0a there is some question, the word not occurring in verse. Aeschines (77. 11) is credited with wepujers, and Plato, Tim. 26 C, Euthyph. 4 B, with dujerr0a. Tlepujers is certainly wrong, but is dujeoda right? The legitimate form would be dujo0a. While oicda is claimed for mature Attic, it is probable that ofjas should be acknowledged as old Attic, as it appears in Eur. Alc. 780— Ta Ovnra mpdypar otdas iy exer piow ;

_ and as forms like oféare, oléayev, were good Ionic, and should be retained when found in Attic as early as that of Antiphon. It is quite natural that at a period of transition he should write oféauev in one passage and topev in another. The same licence must be extended to Xenophon as a Greek cosmo- politan. What in Antiphon was due to the time at which he wrote was in Xenophon caused by the migratory life he led.

In the case of oféa a third form has certain claims to notice. In his note upon the dictum of Moeris: Otc6a, xwpls tod o, “Arrixds. ofdas, “EAAnvixGs, Pierson quotes the following passage of Eustathius (Od. 1773. 27): To be otc0a yap olos Ovpds- edéyxer Znvddorov kal Tovs Kar’ aitov KaxGs ypdpovtas Td oloOas mapa TH TownTH. ev Téree bev yap orlxov 7) Kal emipopa pwvievros ein dv yevéoOar ovy- xwpnbcicay rovadrny ypadyy, évradda be ovx dy yévouro bid

Q2

228 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

7d Kaxomerpnrov. AlAos pévtor Atorvovos ypdper Ori Kal rd olaba Kai 7d oicOas dpdpw “EAAnviKa Kade Kal jjo8a Kat jobas. Any record of an opinion of Dionysius always merits careful - consideration, but here the ambiguity of the term “EAAnvixa robs his words of most of their value. Hesychius, it is true, enfranchises ofo0as: Oiodas* otdas, Exatépws ArrixGs, and Photius does the same: Oic@a’ dyti rod ofdas* Aéyerar Kal Xwpls Tod o* peta 8 Tod o wore 7) Sid pérpoy 7) 51a TO ph ovykpodcat ciudwva: but Nauck is rash in the extreme to alter ofdas to ofc@as in Alc. 780. The authority of his favourite Grammarian, George Choeroboscus, is advanced in its favour, efpyra: 5 kal peta Tod o ofeOas os Tapa Kparivo év Ma)@axois: but dependence upon the broken reed of one of the least talented and least critical of the old grammarians is a weak ‘spot in Nauck’s work, and has often seriously misguided him. There is, in fine, not one assured instance of the form ofs@as in Attic of any period. The passages quoted by Veitch in its favour are as evidence quite worthless. ;

The evidence for 7ja6as is still less, as it does not occur at all in Greek. ;

On the other hand, the easy remedy which it would apply to—

mOs ody dy evOad io8 ev Tpola & dua, Eur. Hel. 587.

almost justifies Nauck’s introduction of the form in that line, and, if it were once established there, his alteration of Eur. Her. 65 and I. T. 814 (ofo0as for ote@ év) might be adopted at once. But the question of Comedy and Prose is not affected by such lines of Tragedy, and the forms in -Oas must be denied in both till more convincing evidence ~ is adduced of their existence in any species of pure Attic writing,

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS, 229

CXXVI.

*Hkukdesay, €rerpagecav, émreTtoirikecav, Evevorikecav

> mm 2 > > ‘ * 2 , Epetc’ GAA OU GUV TO Lt, HKHKOELGQV,

No error has spread so widely through the texts of Greek authors as the late endings of the pluperfect indicative active. The genuine inflexions of the singular are proved not only by the evidence of verse, but also by the best manuscripts of prose writers, to have been for the singular -n, -ns,; and -e, or before a vowel -ew. The forms known to late Greek were those which now rule in our texts, and it is to the pestilent habit which late transcribers had of altering texts to suit their own age that this wholesale corruption of the manuscripts is to be ascribed. In regard to the third person plural, however, the corruption is not so great. For example, in Plato the lighter ending predominates in the manuscripts, there being perhaps no example of the heavier _ suffix undisputed.

Attention was first drawn to the question of the pluperfect endings by a scholar who occupies a high place in that remarkable company of Greek critics who in the last century made the name of England respected for acute and sensible scholarship. Dawes was always willing to accept the lessons which the study of Attic Comedy taught, and had the rare good fortune to have many of his emendations on Aristophanes confirmed when the Ravenna manuscript was subsequently given to the world.

The common reading in Aristophanes, Nub. 1347, was till his time—

os otros ei pn Te TémoWev od« dv iv otrws axdacTos.

Dawes showed that the pluperfect, equivalent in sense to an imperfect, was required by the context, and altered the

230 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

unmeaning wéroev to mem 0lOew, i.e. énemolew. ‘At enim dicet non nemo,’ he goes on, ‘ quid sibi vult prima singularis, cum otros tertiam postulet? Age igitur, attento paulisper fac sis animo.

“Dum veteres avias tibi de pulmone revellam.” Itaque tandem dicas temporis praeteriti perfecti termina- tionem Atticam -ew non jam primae singularis, uti omnes didicimus, sed tertiae; primae vero alteram istam -y esse propriam. Id quod ex poetarum Atticorum scriptis ad examen revocatis fidenter assevero. Solutae autem orationis scriptores nihil moror. Nam in his quidem grammaticorum recentiorum insomnia constanter conspicienda sese exhibent. Immo in poetis etiam non raro, sed nusquam nisi ubi veram scripturam versus recipiat.’

Dawes’ emendation ’zerofew was afterwards confirmed by the Ravenna. Dawes further proved that the copyists sometimes actually changed the genuine -y of the first person into the late -e.v, not only in violation of the laws of metre, but with a total disregard of common sense. In Aristoph. Av. 511—

tour) rolvuv odk 75n *yo" Kal dfrd w eddpBave Oaidpa, jee *yé was read in most manuscripts and by all editors, till Kuster restored 78y from the Vatican—a reading sub- sequently confirmed by the Ravenna. There could hardly be more convincing proof of the futility of trusting manu- scripts on this question. A further argument he based upon the fact that -7 is the natural contraction from the Ionic -ea, and -e:(v) from the Ionic -ee(v), and he demonstrated that the genuine third-person ending -ew was occasionally preserved because the copyists mistook it for the first person. This is the case in Vesp. 635—

ovk, GAN’ epyyas GeO obdros padiws Tpvyjcoety®

KaAGs yap qdew os eyo tadrn Kpdriords elu.

The second line might just be translated as ‘me ¢tamen noram

os ee

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 231

quid hic valerem,’ instead of the true, ‘ Probe enim norat me hac arte plurimum valere.’ To the same mistake is due the preservation of the ancient form in Pax 1182—

7@ 8& auti’ odx edynt’® od yap dew e€idy,

and a slight alteration of és for és enabled the transcribers to retain #dew in Vesp. 558—

bs uv ob8 dv Cur’ dew, ef pry 1d Thy mporépay andpevfw.-

In fact, passages in which it was just possible to make sense by translating the third person by the first escaped violation. Ali others were altered, but altered as a rule in a way so puerile as not to disguise the primitive reading. Two instances of this—Nub. 1347, and Av. 511—have already been described as corrected by Dawes, and another, Av. 1298, was similarly emended by him—

Oprv€ éxadeiro, kai yap iKew dprvyt

No manuscript has the genuine jxew.: They read jjxev, hxev, HKev. Even the Ravenna has efkev, as if etkm could represent ovxa, and ¢fxev or ijxev stand for the Ionic édxeuw. All the best editors have now adopted the emendation of Dawes. Photius supports jjxew by the testimony of some unnamed critic. Once between j#ia and jicper occurs, jikew" byoos Fv: and again after fxew comes, "Hxew, rd edxew éxi tplrov mpoodmov. otrws Apiotopdyns. The two glosses taken together prove the truth of the émendation of Dawes. The v édeAxvotixdy after the diphthong -e was a constant stumblingblock to the scribes. In Aristophanes, Plut. 696, a few manuscripts read correctly—

A. 6 8% Oeds tyiy ob mpoojew; B. oddérw

but even the Ravenna changes mpooyjew into mpoozje y’, the ye possessing no meaning whatever.

How little faith can be put in manuscript authority in cases of this kind is proved by nothing so much as the

232 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

mistakes made by scribes in reproducing the glosses of ancient critics. In regard to this very question under dis- cussion, a Greek grammarian (Bekk. Anecd. p. 422. 4) has the excellent note: "Améppwyev' odk dméppyxrat’ Kal dmeppadyet kal ody TO v ateppdyew 7d tplrov mpdcwnor (quoting the end of an iambic) — Kar’ amepp@yew 6 mots"

but the transcribers have made him say, daeppdéyn Kal ov TO Vv Grreppoynv.

As in Aristophanes the late form of the first person led to an elisional absurdity like 7jéew ’yé, so the inability of the copyists to understand the classical #dew of the third person occasioned an eloquent hiatus in Euripides, Ion 1187—

kovdels Tad Hdeu ev xepoiy exovti 8é,

where Porson restored 7jéev. These two instances would in themselves be sufficient to warrant us in affirming that the first person’of the pluperfect active ended in Attic in -y, and the third before a vowel affixed y; but even in prose good manuscripts occasionally preserve the true forms, and there is no lack of other evidence fully as convincing.

Thus in Homer the first person singular of the pluperfect ended in -ea,and the third in -ee(v) or -ex(v) :—

&vP rou pev eyo duepG odl hevyéuev hucas Hvdyea, Tol b& pwéya vyToL odK émlOovTo. Od. 9, 43.

tov 8 ay avdyea airiy dd6v yjoacOa. Id. to. 263.

Tlefpacov € ju Hvdyea port olkov dyorra. ; Id. 17. 55.

> +7 « avtap éralpovs

tpeis dyov olor pddwora meToien tacav én’ iddv. Id. 4. 433.

—

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 233

GAN ev mpdroiow dio

Eupevat, Opp Bn te wewoiea xepol 1’ euiow. Id. 8. 180.

Os 8 atrws kal Keivo lday ereOiren Ova. HY Id. 6. 166.

And for the third person, those passages only being quoted in which a vowel follows the pluperfect :— TAnwdrcyos 8 dpa pnpdv dpiorepdy eyxet paxpo BeBAyjxew, aixur 6€ biécovTo paywdwoa,

Il. 5. 660, kal 6€ rdd° ivdyew elmeiy eros al x’ e0€édnrTe. Id. 7. 394. deifar 8 jvdyew 6 TevOeps op’ amddouro. Id, 6. 170. oriOos BeBXjxew drep dvrvyos, dyydO. deupis. Id. 14. 412. éorjxew ds tls te A€wy Teph olor Téxecow. Id. 17. 133. éorjkew aitod yap danjpime paldiya yvia. Id. 23. 691. Tay viv o tweyew dromeureuer Str. Tdx.oTa. - Od. 5. 112. 0 6 SeBermvyjxew, 6 8 exavero Delos dordds. Id, 17. 359. BeBAyjxew, GAAos 8F OUpyy muKwas dpapviav. Id. 22. 275.

ovdé tis &AAos

fideev ote Gedy ore Ovntav dvOpdrwr. Il. 18. 404.

Tyrtuaxos 8 apa piv médrar ideev evdov edyra. Od. 23. 29.

Now the first-person ending -ea became in Attic -n by the ordinary rule of contraction, just as -fes, which in Homer is the nominative plural ending of substantives in -evs, became in Attic -4s—

oxnmrobxo. Baciijes* éeneooevovto 5€ daol. Il. 2, 86,

234 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

of & aud’ ’Arpelwva bi0Tpepées BactaAtjes. Ic. 447. meCol 0 tmmies Te’ odds 8 dpvpaydds dpapet. Od. 24. 70. Yet even here the -js is often corrupted to -es, as the -n of the pluperfect to -ev. But the manuscripts of Thucydides, Plato, Aristophanes, and the Orators, though often ex- hibiting forms in -eis, yet preserve the old -js sufficiently often to prove that it was the only form known to Attic of the best age. In fact -e1s is as depraved for the nominative * as it is for the accusative, and in the case of the accusative the verdict of verse in favour of -éds is final. Eustathius is very clear on the question of the Attic form of the first person pluperfect active. His words are (1946. 22): Tlapadidwor yap “Hpaxdeldns Ste ’Arrixol rods tovovrous

c A n 8 / an 4 / imepovrteAtkods ev TO ira pdovm TEparodow, dn AێyovTes Kal

1 ‘Non funditus interiit Attica forma in Codd. nostris. Bodleianus yov7s et Baoi\js servavit in Sympos. p. 178 B et id.196C. In libris de Rep. Parisinus A. fol. 19 v. xaAxfjs, 58 v. BactAfjs, 83 r. yov7s, 110 r. Spopijs, dederat, quae omnia corrector depravavit. Intactum mansit fol. 61 v. domep ypagqjs, sed prima manus fol, 41 v. of Bpadeis scripsit et 62 v. ofoy of ypadets ne unquam librariis certa fides haberi posit.’ Cobet, in Mnem, N.S. V. 19.

The rarer the noun the more likely is the old ending to be retained. "Thus in Arist. Plut. 807, all the best MSS. have dpdopfjs, and of his two Plays the one is more commonly entitled ‘Imefs, the other "Axapvijs.

As to the accusative, itméds occurs six times in Aristophanes, Nub, 120, 554, Eq. 610, Ach. 7, Lys. 676, Ran. 653. So Axapyéas, Ach. 177, 200, 203, 222. But in late Middle and New Comedy, as also in Euripides, sometimes -eds, and even in the singular -d, but never -es. Antiphanes, Stob. Flor. 79. 7—

mpos Tovs éavTod yovéds ovK éorw KaKds.

Alexis, Athen. 11. 473 D— / névOapov, karaorpépovra, mAnatoy 5% Keiytvov orpwparéd wal yiAvov abrov.

On the other hand, forms like ix@vas are certainly un-Attic, and must be-

replaced by ix6is, etc. Theocritus even uses ix@ia and dppva for Ixbvv and égppdv, but Theocritus uses ijow = soya, and pabedpar = =pabnoopat!

Wecklein (Curae Epigraphicae, pp. 19-21) states the evidence of Inscriptions. The nom. pl. of nouns in -evs ended invariably in -fjs up to Ol. 100 (376 B.c.). From that date till Ol. 113 (about 325 8. c.) -#js was still the commoner form, but -eis had begun to be used, After 325 B.c. -e:s prevailed.

According to Herwerden (Lapidum de Dialecto Attica Testimonia, p. 49), the earliest examples of -es for the accusative -eas occur in Inscriptions of a date just before the close of the fourth century B, c., 307-300.

xen

ol

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 235

évevonkyn Kal emerounkn’ kal otrw dnol Tavairios éxew ras ypapas mapa TlAdrwm, cat Oovkvdldns d& Kéxpynrar TE ToLov’rm *Arrix@ 0. The best manuscripts of Plato use both forms, but the better the manuscript is acknowledged to be, the more frequently do the forms in -y occur in its pages. Moreover, in a genuine form like dwwA@dAy, -ew is often written over the -y, as in Apol. 31 D, 36 A, etc. In Plato, Rep. 337 A, xal rotr éy® 76n Te Kal trovrous mpovrAcyor, the 70 has escaped from being mistaken for the adverb.

The following passages of Photius are probably the authoritative dicta of Aelius Dionysius: ‘Ewpdxy'! rd zpdrov Tpdcwmov, as erendvOn' Kal ememoujxn! Kal ydn1 Td 7dEu. TlAdray trois tovvros xpijrar éxnpaticpois. Again: Kal ro 70n dvtt rod jdew Kal Td emendvOn avti Tod enendvOe.

Aristophanes uses the first person of the pluperfect five times, and in every case except one the form in -y has manuscript authority:—

dre by KEXTvN TpocdoKGy Tov Aloyxvdor.

Arist. Ach. Io. MSS. xexjvn- nKnKon yap @s *AOnvaiol wore. Vesp. 8or. Some MSS. jjxnxdew. Ravenna 7xnxdn.

s > ¥ > , toutl rolvuy odk dy “yd KTE. Av. 511.

Some MSS. dew ’yé. Rav. and Vat. 75 ’yé. ey b€ y tyuas tpocdoKdc’ eypnydpn. Eccl. 33. MSS. éypnydpew and éypnydpovv. Porsonus emendavit.

dewodv pévrou eremdvOn. Eccl. 650.

MSS. ézendvOe. Rav. and Suidas éwendvOn.

Here it will be observed that, except in the case of Av. 511, the metre affords no assistance. The point is proved by the weight of the documentary evidence.

1 Even here the transcribers actually write -e for - all the four times.

236 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

The metrical evidence of Tragedy is even less than that of Comedy, there being in no tragic Poet a single instance of the first person preceding a vowel. But the verdict of the manuscripts is plain enough in the case of the frequently occurring past of oida.

Of the two forms 75 and 7dew the former is found in—

od ydp th o 75 papa pwrijcort, ézel. Soph. O. R.. 433.

Laurentian A has #/de: with v written above.

718n 8 SOodver” Gvdpa Kal warpoxrdvov. Id. O. C. 944.

All MSS. én, although three lines infra all read fvvpdew for évv7jdn.

non KadGs kal o° éxrds addelwy TvAdr. Id, Ant. 18.

Laurentian A has jjdew, but that the Scholiast read 75n is plain from his gloss, dvri rod 7jdea. ot ae tédawa’ tobr éxeiy’ dn cages. Id. El. 1115. The MSS. have #én, the true form being preserved by being mistaken for the adverb. non & aroppupotocay amnyye\dounv. Id. 1018. Laurentian B indicates the original reading by 7jénv. Other - MSS. have dew. |

non Tad’ ovdey pdvrews der ppdoat.

Eur. Rhes. 952. One MSS. 7j8n, others 75eu.

To 8 épyov 76 Thy vdoov Te dvoKdea.

? - é Id. Hipp. 434. MSS. jn, 7/5y, and 7deuw.

On the other hand, #e without variant is met with in the following passages :—

joew tl 8 odx éuehAov; Cupar yap jv. - Soph, Ant. 448.

~~

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 237

« > > ow a a IOS n os odk dp’ dew Tay euev ode” KaKdv.

Id. El. 1185. eyo Evujdew xOdviov dv0 bs od« ea. Id. O. C. 748.

mddat pev dew o dyta Toiodroy dice Eur. Cycl. 649.

mapetxov' moew 8 due xpiv vixav méow. Id. Tro, 655.

There is no question that 73 must be everywhere restored.

In regard to the second person, the evidence is by no means so complete as that which establishes the true ending of the first and third persons. As a matter of fact, however, no evidence is required ; for if the original endings were respectively -ea, -eas, -ee(v), and it is proved that -ea became -n, and -ee(v), -x(v), then -eas must have been represented in Attic by -ys. The frequently recurring past of ofda,. which naturally occurs more often than a true pluperfect, is of some service in deciding the genuine ending of the second person, although it has retained the old suffix -0a, 76nc0a. The mere fact of its being #dno-0a, and not ndeto-Oa, is good evidence for -ns in ordinary pluperfects.

To return to the dictum of Phrynichus on the third person plural. On that point the authority of Aristophanes is decisive, and whenever the form with a long penultimate syllable is encountered in Prose it should be replaced by the lighter ending :— g

tov Ildodroy nomdgovro Kai thy vbx0 brnv

éypnydpecay Ews bieAapaper Hepa. Arist. Plut. 743.

of 8 dvexpdérnoav cat mpds ey? éxexrvecay. Id. Eq. 648.

éxexpdyeody Te Tovs mputdvers aréva. ¢ Tb. 674.

In Thucydides, 4. 27, éedofkeoay is supported by the manu- scripts, as it is Xenophon, Anab. 3. 5. 18. In Anab. 4. 6. 22 éypnydperay was restored by Porson, and is now the

v.&

238 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

accepted reading for éypnyépnoay. The latter, from the late present ypyyop6, is a debased aorist form and no pluperfect. (See supra p. 200.)

The other persons had also a short penultimate, and if Avw is taken as a typical verb, the Attic inflexions of the pluperfect are these—

eAcATKY eAeAVKEMEY éAeAUKNS €\eAUKETOV eeAUKeETE edchvxei(v) éAeAvKerny eAeAdKecar.

The plural of 38n is in Attic jjoper, Hore, joav, but in Euri- pides, Bacch. 1345, an older form has survived—

dy? eudde? jas, dre 8° expiiv, odK ydere" as in Sophocles, O. R. 1232—

Aelwer pev 088 & mpdoOey deer’ Td pH Od KTE. The line of the Lysistrata (1098)—

@ Tlodvyxapeldav dewd xa *memdvOeues,

though the words are Laconian, furnishes important con- firmatory evidence.

In fact, it is impossible, on philological grounds, to account for the long penultimate.in Attic. By rejecting it, forms like oper, zore, fuer, re, are satisfactorily accounted for ; and in two out of the three cases in which the plural of the pluperfect occurs in verse, a short penultimate syllable is demanded by the. metre.

CXXVII.

'O puroc épeic, ob Td pirtoc,

The masculine gender is proved by Aristophanes—

Tods pirovs dvactdcat, Lys. 1200,

and read in all other passages of Attic writers. ‘‘O pumos

1 MSS, deer. Elmsley emend,

“oc

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 239

Atticum esse Aristophanis et Alexidis, Athen. 4. 161 D, testimoniis constat, eoque genere etiam vulgo usi viden- tur. Lobeck.

Of much more importance than the gender of the sub- stantive is the meaning of the verb connected with it. If pirrw is really akin to pdzos, then its signification is ano- malous in the extreme. In the lines at the beginning of the Acharnians—

GAN oddendror e& Grov ye piTropat,

otrws edyxOnv td Kovlas tas ddpis,

as viv, the sense of become dirty is as agreeable to the con- text as wash myself, and recalls a well-known passage of Sterne’s unholy wit; but the meaning wash is demanded in Aristotle, Meteor. 2. 3. 359%22, pimrew Ta ivdria, and Theophrastus, H. Pl. 9. 9. 3, tpvé 7} pumrducda. If it is said that, as from un-Attic writers, these passages are not of authority, and if the meaning of the word is, from the evidently corrupt state of the text, little helped by the

lines of Antiphanes— €pxeTat,

perepxe? atrn, mporepxer, od perépxerat,

ijket, mapeoti, pUTTETaL, TpooێpxeTat,

oparat, krevicer’, exBéBnke, TplBera,

Aodrat, oxomeirar, oréAderat, puplCerar,

koopeir, adelper’, av 8 &xn te amdyxerar’ nevertheless Plato has the adjective fumrixds, in the sense of cleansing, in Tim. 65 D, ra 8% rotrwy tre putida Kal wav To TEpt Tv yAOtray amomAvvoyta xTe., just as Plutarch, in Symp. 697 A, kal xataxav0évtos 7 Téppa puntikwrdrny Ta0- éxeu kdviv, and Aristotle, de Sensibus, 5. 443 °1, mAvytixoy 7} pumtixoy éyxtpuov Enpdrnros.

If the substantive and the verb are related, then there is

no reason why the derivation of /ucus from|/uceo should be treated with ridicule and contempt. tou

240 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

CXXVIII.

"Anreiv épeic, odk &MHOetv, Kai Fidel, OOK FAHOev,

GAodca, obyi S€ GAHOOdca.

“Awew te mlvovl? mamepel kdxpus yuvaix’ ddodcar. Ar, Nub. 1358.

cira mpds Tovrovow jAovy dpOpiar Ta cuTia, Pherecr. (Athen. vi. 263 B).

For the perfect and aorist passive of this verb see p. 98; and for late forms similar to dAj@w see pp. 134, 155, 157-

CXXIX.

Méevcoc dvrip ob Epeic, GAAG pEsuGTiKdc* ruvaika dé

épeic weducov Kal peOtcHv,

Grammarians are in accord upon this point. Pollux, 6. 25, remarks that Menander first used péOvcos of a man: Me6v- orixds, ) yorn b& peOton, Kal peOvoTpia wapa Ocomdur@ TO Kopixg. 6 yap pé0voos ext dvipdv Mevdvipo deddc0. It will be observed that there is some difference of meaning between peOvorixds and péOvcos, the former denoting a habit, the latter not necessarily so. ‘The man is a drunkard, and his wife tipples, 6 pév dvijp peOvotixds éoti, ) b& yori) pedton. The usage probably originated from some ethical cause.

CXXX.

“Hunv, et kai ebpioketar mapa toic dpyaiotc, odK

Epeic, GAN Ay era,

That Phrynichus should allow the possibility of jyny in Classical Greek is even more surprising than his uncertainty

‘a el

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 241

about 7js and joa. In two passages of Sophocles juny was once read— éy® yap iiunv éxretAnypérn pdBy. Trach. 24.

& 7 expos juiv és roadvd’ ex Opavréos. Aj. 679. In the former jjpnv has been restored from a correction in the Laurentian, and from the Scholium, funy, dacéws, tva ovvddy TO— AAN Goris Hv Oaxdv arapBrs Ths Oéas,—el 6 WidGs, dvtl rod injpxov. The corruption arose at a date when such construc- tions as N. T. Ep. ad Gal. 1. 22 became common, jjunv 6% dyvoovpevos TS Tpocdrw Tails exxAnotats Ths Iovdatas. In the Ajax all the manuscripts exhibit jjunv as well as Suidas sub voc. ijunv, but jyiv was restored by Bentley from Suidas sub voc. djua, and is now the acknowledged reading. In Eur. Hel. 930— kvovtes, eloddvres, Os Téxvais Dedv Gdovr ey b& mpoddris otk ap iy pidrav'

jjpnv was substituted for dp’ jv from the Etym. Magn. on the authority of George Choeroboscus, the Grammarian, whose vagaries it has already been necessary to reprehend. "Ap iv has excellent manuscript authority, and must be retained. Considering the way in which jjynv originated in these three places, no one will hesitate unreservedly to alter it in the two passages in which it is found in Prose. In Lysias, 111. 16, €ro.yos ijpnv should become érowos einv, and even Xenophon, Cyr. 6, 1. 9, cannot have employed such a form. It is one of those words to which false analogy gave birth in late times, and though joa itself made room for js, it bore jynv in time to receive its dying breath.

That Nauck should conjecture jjnv in Eur. Tro, 474 is another instance of his ignorance of the science of Greek forms, and his unreasonable dependence on Choeroboscus, who, if possible, is more ignorant than himself. The manu- scripts present the passage as follows—

R

242 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

jpev Tupavvor Kelis TUparvy eynudpny,

Kavtav’ dpictevovr eyewvdyny réxva. Now the jjyev répavvoi is simply a corruption of 7 pév répavvos, caused by the misunderstanding of 7j, the genuine Attic form of the first person singular imperfect of the substantive verb. The Grammarian Porphyrius, in a scholium to Od. 8. 186, which appears also in one codex in Il. 5. 533, dis- tinctly states that in his time 7jv had completely superseded 4: Td hv emimoddce viv, Tov be? ArrixGy of pev dpxator povo- ypdauparov attd mpoepéporto’ and again: Td povocdAAaBov trav °ArtixGy éor. Tapa Kparive év Wvurivy—

yous) & éxelvov mpédrepoy 7, viv 8 ovdkere kal mapa Sopoxr ey rh NudBn—

H yap piryn ’y® rdvd_ Tot mpodeprépor cal év Oidizod: Tupdvve —

} d08A0s odk @yynTds, GAN oiKxor tpadels*

kal mapa TlAdrau ro pirocdpo ei pev ydp eye eri ev bvvdper |

} Tod padlws (wopeverOat els 75 Gorv). The last passage is from Rep. 328 C. Even in the text of the scholium itself the copyists have substituted 7v for 7 in the passages adduced to prove the latter form.

In Soph. O. C. 973 and 1366 7 is found in L., but in 1366 v has been added by a late hand. The jy in Trach. * §64— ae | hépwv em pots, Avie iv péow Tdpe, may, as Cobet suggests, be no more than a misreading of

so?

4 vy’ péow épm. In Aesch. Cho. 523—

oid’, @ réxvov, map ydp’ éx 7 dverpdrwr, the true reading was restored by Porson from its lurking- place—the manuscript reading wdpe. Neither in Sophocles

nor in Aeschylus is there any line where jv is required by the metre, but in Euripides and Aristophanes the case is

Re

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 243

different. On this point Elmsley’s opinion was that jy in Euripides was a corruption, and in Aristophanes, as occurring only in his last play, was to be explained as a growth, or rather decay, of Attic. Soph. O. R. p. 12, ‘7 pro jv, eram, quater reposui. *Hyv aliquoties ante vocalem legitur apud Euripidem, ut in Hipp. 1012, Alc. 655, I. A. 944, Ion 280. Quamquam haec omnia corrupta esse suspicor. Sic etiam ter Aristophanes, sed in Pluto, novissima omnium fabula, 29, 695, 822. Nihil tale apud Sophoclem reperitur. As a matter of fact, Euripides in this, as in many other cases, allowed himself a licence of which neither Aeschylus nor Sophocles would have availed themselves, and introduced into the dignified company of yeyds, dduap, TéEw, CAedoopat, etc. a modern form, which even Aristophanes for long eyed askance. That any Attic poet or prose writer ever used jv before a consonant is subject to grave doubt, and probably in prose the biliteral form was unknown even before a vowel. With regard to Aristophanes, the facts are these. In no case is 7 required by the metre, but in many it is read by the best manuscripts, and in others the scholia prove that it was known in the texts to which they were appended. The Ravenna reads 7 in Plut. 77, Vesp. 1091, Eq. 1339, Lys. 645, but in Av. 1363 it has jv, although the Scholiast anno- tates 7} dvtl rod jw ’ArrixGs. On the other hand, jv is demanded by the metre in Pl. 29, 695, 822.

In Plato, Cratylus 396 D, the Bodleian has ovrf, but v written at the side. This is simply an indication of what has happened in every case. The Attic form became un- intelligible to late Greeks, and was either changed at once or explained in the margin, as in this passage of Plato. In Phaed. 61 B, cat adrds od« 7 uvOodoyixds, even Stallbaum has been forced to admit the genuine form.

It is worth quoting the scholium on Ar. Plut. 77—

deyew & Kpbnrew 7} wapecKevacpévos,

if only to show the strange mixture of truth and error R2

244 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

which was the learning of most of the scholars through whose hands the present texts of Classical authors came and suffered ; with all its absurdity, it contains an attempt to appreciate the philological argument for 7}, which is of some value: T6 7 dvev rod v dyti rod inv’ of yap ’Arrixol 7d jv kal dafpxov eyo h pact: obtws dd Tod cipl rd tmdpyw ylverar 6 mapararikds ety bia dipOdyyov os Kal amd Tod eldnu Hdew Kal diadrdcer “lwvexy ris et dupOdyyov els € Kal a ypderar Ea, os Kal

TO Hdea Kal TO TWEior TLOacw, H) xphos be map’ “Opnpw os TI— > ‘ 3 ” od yap dpernvos éa eita KipvOvtes TO € kal a eis 7}, } paciy; os Kal évradOa Kal ev

a” c Led c , Tots é&fs ebpyoers.

CXXXI.

“QuduKev, OKodduHKev did To w dptota Epeic, GAN

od dic TOO Ot, OLDHKEV, OLKODOMHKeEV,

A general rule must be elicited from these examples. Manuscript authority is naturally of little value on such a question, and is not to be regarded. On the other hand, stone records are of signal importance, and serve to establish on a sound footing the augmentation in imperfect, aorist, and perfect of Attic verbs which begin in a diphthong. It ‘is true that they undermine any faith in manuscripts with which the inquirer may have started; but to the serious scholar little is lost thereby, and with pleasure he draws his ‘pen through the elaborated records of what are really manuscript corruptions.

One general principle of great importance is clearly —

demonstrated by stone records, namely, that verbs be- ginning with diphthongs were in the best age of Attic subject to the same laws of augmentation as verbs be- ginning with a simple vowel. Thus, népucKoy, nipor, nipyxa,

Met

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 245

nixounv, ndypat, ijxaCov, ijKaoa, must be restored to the Tragic poets, to the writers of the Old and Early Middle Comedy, to Thucydides, Plato, Antiphon, Andocides, Lysias, Isocrates, and Isaeus; but for Dinarchus, Ae- schines, and Demosthenes, there is no rule possible. It is true that, up to the archonship of Euclides, the letter E represented the two sounds of 7 and e¢, and accordingly till that date the augmentation is not v7szb/e ; but the inscrip- tions written in the enlarged alphabet prove that, till the middle of the fourth century B.C., e&- by augmentation became ni-, and ¢«i/- became 7j-, and by parallelism at- and ol- would become 7v- and @- respectively.

This rule, however, is subject to one limitation, which must not be disregarded. It is true in regard to e?- and oi- only when these syllables immediately precede a consonant; when they are followed by a vowel, that vowel and not the initial diphthong receives the augment. Thus, nidaidvovr, nvookipovv, nvddéovr, niOdpoovy, niOvpovr, niraBodvpnv, ndvo- potpnv, nipicxov, nioéBovv, nidpawor, nrxdopny, etc., but ednyyeAcCounu, edypyérovr, edwddOnv, eddpxovv. When the vowel succeeding the e«d- is already long by nature, the verb has no augment, evewdrovr, edn OiCdunv, ednuepovr, evoxnOnv. Similarly with oi-, gdnoa, gxetovy, dxovy, OxuCor, GKoddpovr, GKotpovy, OKTEtpoy, Opa lor, @vdpiCov, @oTpovr, @xounv, but oiwmddrovy, while oiwvi€ounv, oidkiCov, olwvo- oxdrovry, remain unaugmented. Accordingly, Dindorf is wrong in reading niwyxnpyévos in Aristophanes (Lys. 1224, Vesp. 1305), and Porson in changing oidxootpépovv (Aesch. Pers. 767) to gaxoortpddpovv.

CXXXII.

co Cons

*Avistato A€re kai UH Hvictaro.

The form jvicraro is due to the principle which in

246 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

pp. 81 ff. has been proved to have been active even in Attic of the best days.

CXXXIII.

Bpa@yoc’ mavu égHtHTat, ef yp Aéretv emi tric ducw- diac. péypt ovv ebpickeTat Emmi dUcMdiac Gyapww douHY A€re

cep ot KapMdorroLol:

In our existing texts Bpduos certainly does not occur till late. When necessary, écy1 was defined by an adjective,

generally xad7 or Kax7.

CXXXIV.

“Hpakdéa, Tepikdéa, OeuictoKdéa EmreKteivav trv eoyd- THY Aére, GAAG pH “HpakAfv Kai TepikAriv kal Oeuto-

TOKAHV,

‘Nominum in -«Ajs genitivus in -«Aéov et accusativus in -kAjv maxime recens est, nec fortasse ante Ol. 123 referen-

dus.’ Wecklein, Cur. Epigr. p. 23.

CXXXV.,

2 : < 4 , A ‘ ’ > : Avéwrev H 6Upa GOAOLKLGNOC, XPH rap AETELV AVEWKTAL.

CXXXVI.

Atepoopdc aina tdv duaedv tivec iatpdyv Aérouaw obra, soAotkizovtec, déov A€retv dtepeappevov aiva. TO rap dié-

pope, diEpoeipev.

In the manuscripts the second of these articles follows

that on tepdévror (138 infr.).

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 247

Veitch makes a signal mistake in quoting dvedye. as a pluperfect active from Pherecrates. That writer used dvéwye, the only form of the imperfect known to Attic (see p. 85 supra). For the perfect and pluperfect dvépxa and 7jvegyxn were alone used.

In the intransitive sense, here reprehended by Phry- nichus, Veitch quotes the word from Hippocr. 7. 558 (Lit.) ; Aristaen. 2. 22; Plut. Mor. 693; Luc. Gall. 30, D. Mort. 4. 1; Herodn. 4. 2. 7; Polyaen. 2. 28, adding the sentence, ‘ which earlier Attic (sic) writers seem to have avoided, and used avéwypat instead: Dinarchus, the Orator, is said in Cramer’s Anecd. 1. 52 to have been the only exception.’ The writers first named are not generally regarded as Attic, and even Dinarchus could hardly have employed dévéya intransitively, although his Attic was far from pure.

Besides dvewydres 6pOadpol in Gall. 30, and rod cxagudlov Ta dvewyéra in D. Mort. 4. 1, Lucian also used dvewyvia mahatotpa in Navig. 4, although in De Soloecismo, 8, he ridi- cules this departure from the rules of Attic.

In De Soloec. 3 it is doubtful whether or not Lucian is of malice prepense using épOopa as a neuter; but in Plutarch, Josephus, Heliodorus, and other late writers, it has always that sense. If @pévas jAcds did not occur in other passages of Homer, as—

Mévrop araprnpé, ppévas ndee, motov éeumes, Od. 2. 243.

it would be tempting to separate the two words in—

pawopeve, ppévas nré, 51€pOopas’ 7 vb row atrws ovar’ dxovewev ott, vdos 8 amddwde kal aldds, Tl. 15. 128. but there can be no question that the perfect is there neuter, as also in Hippocr. de Morb. Mul. 2. 23, ala d:ep- Gopds, and id. 2. 5, yuvatk) dvepOopvty. In Attic, however, 8€p00pa had the same signification as

248 ' THE NEW PHRYNICAUS,

d:€pOapxa—the latter occurring in Plato, Apol. 33 C, Legg. 636 B; Lysias, 93. 15; Aeschin. 22. 38; Demosth. 1109 21; Eur. Med. 226; the former in Soph. El. 306; Eur. Hipp. 1014, I. T. 719, Med. 349; Cratin. 2.226; Pherecr. 2. 327; Aristoph, 2. 1149, 1173, etc.

CXXXVII.

Oi fipwe od A€rousiv, GAN of Hpwec tpisvAddBac emi dé THc airtatiKAc, dicvAAGBwc Tobc Fipwc. mat Biasbeic *Apistopavuce bd tod pérpov ot Aipwe eime, TH 8 HvarKas-

Mév@ ob YpHoTEov.

The passage of Aristophanes is probably that referred to by Choeroboscus (Bekk. An. 3. 1197), who quotes from Herodian a remark similar to this of Phrynichus: Etpyrat kata Kpacww Tapa Apiotopaver ev "Oprioww, olov—

of yap iipws eyydbs elov, dyti tod of jjpwes. No such words occur in the Azrds, and “Hpwow has been proposed for "Opyicw. On the other hand, there is no question that Aristophanes

never used ffpwr for fjpwa, and the Scholiast on Il. 13. 428 must be in error: “Hpwy ties” AtrixGs— "AAN els Tpwv TL mapypapror, *Apioropayns. The Attic form was jjpw. The dative singular was in Attic jjp@, not fp, Plato, Com. (Ath. 10. 442 A)— npe Kednti d€pya kal OvdAnjpara. In the Agamemnon, |. 516, Aeschylus employed jjpws as accusative plural—

Npws Te Tovs mepapavras, evpeveis maAw.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS, 249

CXXXVIII.

“lepdeutov odK épeic, GAN Gpyaiwc Gedeurov.

In the App. Soph. p. 42, Phrynichus has the words, @OcdOura (& of todo tepdOuta Kadotor) Kparivos ra rots Bevis Ovopeva tepeia. The defaulting term is encountered in—

dmokekAjKapev Swoyeveis Oeods

pynkére thy eyyv biaTepav modW,

pndé ti’ tepddvrov ava ddmedov dy ere

THde BpotGy Ocoior wéurew KaTver.

Ar. Av. 1263.

The lines are burlesque, but even so tepdé@vrov must go with xanvov, and not with ddmedov, the smoke of victims sacrificed. All Phrynichus reprehends is the use of tepd@vros for OedOvros. A late writer said tepd or tepeia tepdOvra, whereas the Classical expression was lepd. or tepeta Od0ura, sacrifices offered to god.

CXXXIX.

"Avarotyeiv pH Aére GAAG StarTouyeiv.

*Convenit Poll. I. 114. In App. p. 34, Phrynichus idem sed paulo copiosius dixit: d:arouyeiy 76 eis Tov Erepov Tolxov Tis veos diaBalvew ev TO TAG Srep of idiGrar avTiTorxelv héyovow. Sed dvrirorxeiv veriorem esse scripturam exempla docent quorum praesidio dvriroixeivy caret. Quamquam autem neutrum horum verborum, de quibus nostro loco disquiritur crebro usu tritum est, tamen, quid veteres pro- baverint, non obscurum esse potest. Antiatt. Bekk. p. 89, diarotxetv dvi Tob dvarotxeiv EVBovdos Karaxoddwpeve. Aristid. Leuctr. iv. 462 1. 1.: kat yy, 76 Tév TAESVTwY, peTaoTpeYran Tpds Tov éAdtTw, diatorxodvras del.’ Lobeck.

250 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

CAL.

“Hvuotpov Aére, MH évuotpov.

"Ey® 6€ y jvvotpov Bods Kal xowdlav vetav. Ar. Eq. 356.

\ 4 > , s 4 4 Kal XOALKOS WVUOTpOV TE Kal yaoTpos Tomo. Id. 1179.

CXLI.

*EAAbyviov’ Kal Todt Ta&v eiokwyaodvtTwy Taic ’Aérivate,

Opvardida obv putéoy.

A second article to the same effect—éAAvxvi0v “Hpddoros Kéxpntat, “A@nvator 5 OpvaddAtda Aéyovo.w—appeared near the end of the codex used by Nuiiez, and is also read in the margin near the end of the first Laurentian munuscript in still another form—édAvxvi0v rapa “Hpoddr@, of 6€ A@nvaior Opvadrlsa, The word entered the Common dialect from the Ionic, as it is found in Hdt. 2. 62; Hippocr. de Nat. Mul. p. 569. 55, de Morb. Mul. 2. 670. 43.

CXLII.

Ovupérnv’ TobTo oi pév apyaiot dvi Tod Auciay éTiBecay

ec ‘ an > ‘ nm , 2 ~ / > > = > ’ , oi dé viv emi Tob TOmou Ev TH GEdTpw EM Ov AvAHTAL Kai KLBap@doi Kai GAAOL Tivéc GrovizovTal. ov MEévTOL, EvOa Lev ‘ ‘ oo, ' a > & J s k@uwdol Kai Tparwdoi Grwvizovtal, Aoretov Epeic. Evea dé

oi avAHTai Kat Ot YOpol, OpyHotpay Kal UH OUpEAHV,

‘@vpuéAn pro orchestra apud veteres non memini me legere praeter quod Pratinas, Athen. 14. 617 C, Arovyordda zoAv- mataya O@vyédav in hunc sensum dixisse videtur. Saepius apud recentiores pro scaena et re scaenica atque musica

ee.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 251

occurrit, ut Plut. Mor. p. 405 D, thy 8& rijs Tvélas havi kal dudAextov Gomep ex OvpeAns ovK dvydvvtov ovde AuTHV GAN ev metp@ Kal dyxm... POeyyouernv : Lucian. de Salt. 76 (309), éml rod maxéos 6@ kal Tyedods dpxnotod mndav peyddra TeLpw- pévov, Acducba, pacar, mepeicba Tis Ouyédns.’ Lobeck. He also cites from Procopius, réy ris év Ovyédn TeTOpvervpévav = mima; from Plutarch, pipows yuvarét cal xiOapiorais Kab Ovpedrkois avOpd7ois: from Eunapius, 6 xaxodaiyev tov Ovpe- AGv xépos=histriones ; from Josephus, rots év tH povowxy diayopuévots, Tois Kal OvpeAtxois kadovpévors: so that there was good reason for the caution of Phrynichus.

The word was, in fact, not Attic at all, being confined to Tragedy: Aesch. Supp. 669; Eur. Supp. 64, Rhes. 235.

Its employment in the sense of the sacred cake is at best only doubtful, being dependent upon Hesychius: Ovpéda- of Popol cal ra GAdira ra émOvdyeva: and App. Soph. 42. 25: Ovpédyn’ Depexpdrns ra Ovdjpara, drep éotly addira olv Kal @dalp pepaypeva, otrw Kade? Ovpédrn.

CXLIUILI.

Oveiav Aێre, pH tpduv.

Pollux, 10. 103, rhv 82 Ovelay Kal Oveldiov elzois dv Kara ’Apioroparny év TlAovr@ déyovra’ cal tydw d& abriv Kexdijeact, Lrwr Te éy Trois iduBors Aé-yor—

onevdovor’ 8 of pev tyduw, of 8& olAquor, of 8 ob€os"

kal és capéorepov ’Avtipdvns KopotAddo— ybvar, mpos adddv HAGes, dpynoes mdALv ti tybw*

* Adopting Casaubon’s conjecture for the unintelligible revaid’.

252 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

éort pev oty tydis épyioews oxjyat 6 6: alley zpos Tovvona K@pPLKOS emiyaye— tiv Ovelay ayvoeis ;

touréotiv } tydus

Phrynichus is here reprehending rots tzeparrixiovras. The old word tydus meant a mortar, and in that sense appears in Ionic, Hipp. 635. 34, TpiBe év tyde!: and in old Attic, as in the passage of Solon cited. In Attic proper, however, it was replaced by @vela, but retained, as the name of a certain dance, in which a pestle-like motion was con- veyed to the loins: Etym. Mag. p. 464. 49, éori 6& kal

cldos dpxjoews tydiopa, ev eAdyiCov tHv dodpiv euhepGs TO

doldu«Ku. ,

Unlike many other such terms, tyéus did not find its way into the Common dialect in the sense of @vefa, as is demon- strated by a passage of Sextus Empiricus, adv. Gram. p. 265, TO avtd dpropdpiov Kat mavdpiov réyeTaL, Kal wadw Td ai7o orapvlov Kal dpuld.or, kal tydis Kal Ovia, GAA oroxaCopevor Tot Kah@s Zxorros Kal capGs kal Tod pr) emvyeAacOjvar b7d TGv diaxovotyrwr jpiv Tmadaplwv Kal idimrdy, Tavdpiov epoduer Kat ei BapBapdv éotw, GAN odk aproopida, Kal orapvloy, GX’ odK dulda, kal Ovtay waddov #) tydw.

CXLIV.

‘lotay Aére, GAAG HH iote@v. GuaptHoet rap TH A€fovTe duoimc KaAGHEdV, iTTE@V, Gvdpe@v, S€ov KAAGODY, iTV,

Kal Ta Guola.

The longer forms came into the Common dialect from.

the Ionic. Of this class Lobeck mentions dvdpév, yuvaixér, maplevev, Eevdv, prrév, xompov, inmdv, oivdv, mOdv. The exceptions to the rule of contraction are interesting.

1 Corrige pro MS {yép.

ore

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 253

Nothing fixes the form of a word so effectually as attach- ment to the soil, and in this way the old Ionic forms xeyxpedv and Bodedv remained unchanged through all Attic, the former a Jocative from xéyxpos, a grain, being at an early date attached to the place where the grains of metal from the mines at Laurium were purified, the latter signifying the public dust-heap of the city. Both are ex- plained by Harpocration: Keyxpedv' Anuoodérns ev tH mpds Tlavratverov rapaypapi, “kdmeur emeure Tovs olkéras Tovs euods KabéCerOat els Tov KeyxpeGva,” avtl Tob els TO Kaapiorypiov, Sov Thy ek Tov peTdAdwv Kéyxpov diéyuxov os troonpalver Ocd- ppactos év TO Tepl etdAAwy : BoArcdves* 6 TéT0s drov 7) KdTpos BadAcrat Borewy kadeirat. Nixavipos, év y’ Arrixijs dad€xrov : “ BodcOvas én tv aypGv «is ods Tu Kdmpia exépet.” obrw Aci- vapxos xal PiAjywv kal dAdo. The former word is better explained in the Aéers “Pytopixal, p. 271. 23: Keyxpedy' Tonos A@jynow ott Kadotpevos, bmov exabalpero %) dpyupiris kéyxpos Kal Gppos 7 and Tdv dpyupelwy dvapepopevn. The same explanation serves for mepiorepedv, which occurs four times in a well-known passage of the Theaetetus, 197 C, D, 198 B, 200 B. The dove-cote was a familiar appendage of the Greek household, and at Athens retained the old form of its name when words less domesticated underwent change.

CXLV.

Abtavane pri Aére, GAAG WtAdc avAHTHic étrel Kal

ETEPOC KUKALOC GUAHTHC.

This use of WiAds is common in Plato, Legg. 2. 669 D, diacnGow of Tounral pvdpov pev cal oxnpara pédovs xupls, Adyovs Yidods eis pérpa TLWevTes, pédros 3 ad Kal pvOpodv dvev pnpdroy, YAH KiOaploe. te Kal addAjoer mpooxpopevor. Cp. Symp. 215 C, Polit. 268 B.

254 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

CEVA

Karampottetat ov dpedc diatpodci, d€0v Katampoigerat,

Ot ro. xarampolfer, pa Tov ’ATéAAw, TodTo bpdr. Ar. Vesp. 1366- ov Tol, pa To Ged, Katampol~er Muprias. Id. 1396. The word is used also in Ar. Nub. 1240, Eq. 435, Thesm. 566; Herod. 3. 36, Kpoiow pev cvvndecbar, en, meptedvtt, éxelvovs pévtor Tos Tepimoijoartas ov KarampotgerOar: id. 156, ob yap 8H eué ye Gde AWBnoduevos Katanpoifera. This isolated future, always so used with a preceding negative, and in Attic Greek never found outside of Comedy, is an excellent type of the class of words mentioned on p. Io. To those there given may be added 4A¢dvew in the sense of etpioxew, fetch a price (cp. Hom, rap0évor ddpeotBorar), Bekk. Anecd. 382. 8: ’AAddver' edpioxer. "Apiotopdyns Oc- opopopracotcais— oluo Kaxodaluwr ths T00 iypépas bre einéy wv 6 Kipu€, otros dAddvet. Eirods Ta€idpyous— ov Oatrov ari Sedpd por Tay TogorGy

dywv amoxnpbv&eu tis 6, Te dy addr.

CXLVII.

Ai vtec épeic, oby al vaic. odAotkov rap. Auaptoy MévTot Papawpivoc, Modéuav, kai ZbAdAac, ai vate eimdvtec* Tac vfiac ovK Epeic, GAAG Tac vadc, AodAAavoc 9 Oo co@toTtc > , UJ o > ‘ c co ’ > c QKOUGOC THAPa TiVOC, OTL OV YPH aL vauC A€felv, GAAG al vAiec, GHOH deiv Aéretv Kal THVv aittaTiKHy dyoiwe Tac vHac. odk éyet 5€ obTwc’ GAN Emi pev Thc edGEiac dicVAAGBac,

éml d€ THC GITLATLKAC MOVOGUAAGBwC,

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 255

CXLVIII.

Kvupida, mivakida, Kapida’ Bpayéwc rovTmy THY Ta- GaTéAEUTOV. THV pévTOL Ppagavida éxtTeivovct Kal GUGTEA- - ?

AOUGLY,

The passage is either corrupt or contains an erroneous statement.

CXLIX.

Kady currédouc padi, GAAG WH KAadEveELv,

The editions have xAaéay instead of xAGv, both here and in Thom. Mag. 535; but it is very probable that Hem- sterhuys was right in supposing xAadap to be an early cor- ruption of the text of Phrynichus, ignorantly reproduced by Thomas. Moeris escaped unaltered, p. 229: KAdoa ?Arrixol, kAadedoat “EAAnves. Hesychius: KAGy: réuveww dyreé- Aovs Strep hyeis KAadeveu.

éx tuxwijs 8 Gdns mrdépOov KrAdoe xeuph Taxely. Hom. Od. 6, 128. Theophr. C. Pl. 3. 14. 1, rév 8 dyréd\wv rév tedéwv dy TpOrov pev Kal péyrotdv éotw 7 KAdous: id. 3. 14. 2, Kara Thy kAdow Kal dymedovpyiav. Hesychius has the two glosses— KAaoripiov dpéravoy 7d ris dymédov. KAdorns* dyumedoupyds.

CL:

TloAitHe Aére, GANG LH GULTIOAITHC,

To words like wodfrns, which imply fellowship, no Attic writer added ovy. He left that emphatic weakness to poets

a ork ey, ~ ~ + re

256 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,.

and his negligent successors. In late Greek it is the rule to prefix the preposition in such cases, cvyrarpidtyns, cvudov- Aérns, ovvdnpdtyns, cvvaxddrovdos, cvvéraipos, cvykactyvytos, : cvvopaiywv. But to words like orparnydés, xopnyds, TAavirys, etc. it was natural and necessary to prefix the ovv in order ; to convey the sense of partnership. Euripides, I. T. 800,

has ovyxactyyyjrn, and if Antiatt. 113. 20 is right in attri- buting ovurarpidrns to the Comic poet Archippus, the word must have occurred outside the iambics, or in para-: tragedy: Suprarpidrys”Apyxinmos. 7d p€vtor warpidtys, “AdeEs.

Cit

Tuany, et kai ebpoic mov, ob Kvépadoy Aére,

Pollux, 7. 191, ‘ Tzepeldns 5% év TG bmep Muxddov ey epi- oddcato tudupdvras. Lookdrs 8 edn AwoppadH tudeia. Ev- modis 8& Kédakt xexpthadrot te Kai TéAy. “Avtipdvyns be ev Pdr, otpdpara, Kdivas, tUras: id. 10. 39, Ta pev ody TvAEla Kal Ta Kvédada od pdvov Tapa Tois Kwumdots eoTLV, GAAG Kal év Anuiorpdros témparat, kvépadov Kady Kal Kvépadrov maar. kal tvAcia 8& map’ Edroddl éorw idgovts ev trois Kodagt, xat mapa TH Looxdct év TO “loxAci A€yovtTe GANA Kal Awoppadi tudeia, Sv Kal Tovs Texviras Couey “Crepeldns ev TO dnep Mokdadov évoydew elzav, euicOdoaro tuAvpdvtas . . . ev be 7@ Avtipdvovs Pdwrt kal Kata Tv Kowhy xpioly eotiw edpetv tds TUAas, oTpdpata, KNivas, Somep Kal Tapa Lamdoi.

From the words Eirdud: idGovrs, and cal év Anpompdrors, the history of the word is plain. An old Ionic domestic term, it fought hard for life, and was probably in daily use in the households of Athens, as it was retained in public- auctions, and in the Tragic dialect. Hence it naturally cropped up from time to time even in Prose and Comedy.

The other meaning, knot, hump, remained good Attic. It is interesting to compare the Latin forws, which has the

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 257

same two meanings, appearing in that of rvAn=rvaAciop, chiefly, if not only, in poetry, and in the other being common in prose. This marked similarity of signification, the identity of quantity in the v and o, and the existence of a side form rvdos, which at first had doubtless no difference of meaning, all point to the fact that rvAn and ¢orws sprang from the same root.

CLII.

To fdmtoua odk év yprioet’ ypd obv TH Kabapa. TO

. ‘ , : t n ‘ “~ 2 ‘ , , rap THY ryvasov TIAGTELG TH XéLpL TARE, €ml KOPPHC TATG- Ear Aeuvato! pasty.

Phrynichus here finds fault with two late usages, the employment of fdmopa, and of wAjgac as the aorist of tiztw. No Attic writer ever used mdjéar, or any other form but wardgar, as the aorist equivalent of rémrew, in the phrase éml xéppns témresv: Dem. 562. 9, Tavpéav éndrage Xopnyotvra ent xéppys. No Attic rule is so carefully observed as this. By an unfortunate accident the Attic equivalents of the English term strike were for centuries sadly mis- represented. The verb tézrw was selected by unscientific grammarians of the Byzantine school to convey their own crude notions of the Greek verb.system. A more unsuitable choice of a typical verb it was impossible to make. It is in all dialects markedly irregular, in no dialect more irregular than in Attic. A very large portion of the forms, which till recently every Greek grammar presented, are not met with in any Greek dialect of the Classical period. A search throughout Greek literature as a whole for forms like rérupa and rérvra would end in disappointment, and the words Tivo, ervpOnv, tuPOjcoua. are quite without Classical authority. When such tenses were required they were supplied in a different way. Yet téntw has become an

S

258 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

institution, and even in an English dictionary place might reasonably be given to the Shandean hybrid rumrwing.

It is almost reprehensible to destroy such a time-honoured structure, and root up so many fond associations, and it will readily be believed that the following pages were penned in a turbulence of spirit almost equal to Luther’s when he nailed his articles on the church door at Wittenberg. Attention must be drawn at starting to a just distinction between two significations of the present rézrw, namely, 7 wound and I beat. In both senses—in that of ferio, or mAnyiy didepm, no less than in that of verbero, mdnyas 5ldop~i—the present Témtw, with its passive témrowar, was in general use; but TUmtw Was more common in the sense of wAnyas euBddrw, and rémroyat, though occurring in the nobler sense, was still principally employed as a synonym of wAnydas AapBdve, or vapulo. The verb zafw was similarly used, and in reference to present time Tinto, malo, mAnyds euBddAw, TUTTopaL, matopar, tAnydas AapBdva may be regarded as absolutely interchangeable in Classical authors. But the correspond- ence did not continue throughout the tenses. In the future there was complete divergence—péya yxdopa éornpixto. Tinto, ferio, had its future rardgw, whereas réarw, verbero, made a future rumtjow by extending its own stem from tunt to trumre’, The aorists were equally divergent. For Serii, vulnus inject, Classical writers employed émdraga, and in elevated styles occasionally éraroa. On the other hand, érdrafa was almost unknown in the humbler sense of verberavi. The aorist was supplied by a periphrasis like mAnyas évéBador, évérewwa, or évérpupa, but Xenophon is not to be imitated in his use of éraica in this signification. The perfect of both was drawn from a third stem still, - and if Anyas dedwxévar was the ordinary equivalent of

* Compare xalpw, xaipqow: maiw, maijow: Kdralw, Kaew: BGAAw, Bar- Anow: KabiCopa, nabiCnoopat.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 259

cecidisse or verberibus contudisse, yet memdrnyévar had cer- tainly the baser as well as the nobler meaning— ds dy memAnyn Tov marépa veotrds dv" Arist. Av. 1350. Xen. Anab. 6. 1. 5, 6 repos rov Erepov male. as Taw eddKer meTAnyevat Tov avdpa.

In the passive voice the presents rémroyar and mralowat were used in all authors in either signification, but the periphrases wAnyas «iAnpdévar and mAnyds AaBetv were the equivalents of vapulasse in its perfect and aorist force. There was no single word to express it. Aristophanes, however, in Nub. 1379,

GAN adOis ad tumrjcopart, makes tumrjcoyat as authoritative as tAnyds Anoua.

The perfect of témroya, ferior, was mwémAnypat, but the periphrastic mAnyjy «tAnda and mAnyhv éxw were sometimes employed. For futures the aorist ézAnyny, itself Classical, supplied 7Anyjoouar, and the perfect formed memA7jfoua.

These results may be thus presented synoptically :—

VERBERO, Tintw, malo, TAnyas euBddrdw, ertelvw, evTpiBw, 56am. TUTTO. mAnyas évéBadov (éraica). mAnyas d€dwxa, TéTANya.

FERIO.

Tinto, Talw, TAnyny dap. natdéw, Talcw.

éerdragéa, émaoa.

mennya.

1 The reading rumjcopna, found in some texts, is merely a conjecture of Buttmann’s, as baseless as it is uncalled for,

$2

260 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS,

VAPULO.

TinTopal, Taloua, TAnyas AapBdve. TUTTHoopaL, TAnyas AnYrouat. mAnyas €daBov.

mAnyas €tAnpa.

FERIOR. rénTopat, TAnyny AapBdve. emAnyny.

TANYHoopAL.

TéeTAnypal, TAnyHY elAnha, TAnyIy exo. memAnEopaL.

The habit of Aristophanes in regard to these words is representative of all Attic writers,

In the sense of verbero, caedo occur témres, Nub. 1325, 1332; ténret, Nub. 542, 1326; turn, Nub. 494, Eccl. 643; rinrot, Eccl. 638; rénros, Ran. 585; rémre, Ran. 622, Nub.

1433, Av. 1364; témrew, Nub. 442, 1333, 1413, 14473

Tintwy, etc., Ran. 624, Av. 1327, Lys. 357, Eccl. 664; érumrov, Nub. I 3325 érumtes, Nub. 1409; érdmrere, Pax 643. Special attention may be called to Eccl. 642—

tore 8 avrois ovK eyed’ ovdev

Tév dAdorploy doris TéxTor viv 8 iv TAnyévTos dxovon.

pay adrov éxetvov téatn dedims Tols bpGo.v Todro payxetrau’ and to Vesp. 1322—

emer emery) “uéOvev, olxad épxerar

réntwy dxayras, jv tis aire ocvvrdyn.

681 8@ Kadrds opadAdpevos Tpocépyerat,

GAN éxroddy dey amply TAnyas AaBeiv.

The future rutrjow occurs Nub. 1444 and Plut. 20.

Of passive forms are found the following—rérropa, Eq. 257, 266, 730, Nub. 1379; Témre, Ran. 636; réarov, Ran. 1024; tumtdéuevos etc., Nub. 962, Av. 1031, Thesm. 917,

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 261

Ran. 1097, 639, 1407, Nub. 962, Pax 744; érumrdyny, Plut. 1015.

The future and aorist of riztw, ferio, are found, sardgéw in Ran. 645, 647; éwdraga, in Eq. 1130, Ran. 645, 647; éndrage, Ran. 38; wardéa, Ran. 741, Vesp. 1254, 1422; maraéas, in Av. 757—

el yap év0d8 early aloxpdv tov marépa rénrew voum, Tobr éxel kaddv map jyiv éorw qv tis TS Tarpl Tpocdpauev eixn maTagas, aipe mAfxtpov ei paxel. In this passage, as in Ran. 150, 547, Lys. 362, 635, it is used of striking one in the face, and in Ach. 93 of striking in the eye so as to gouge it out. In Ran. 54 it has a metaphorical meaning— eLalpyns 7d00s THY Kapdlav émdrake, mds oler opddpa;

The present aim is found in Ach. 686, Av. 497; malew in Pax 899; and wafovea in Eccl, 542: all rather in the nobler sense, as the aorist éaica in Nub. 549, but zafover, in Ran. 1094, in the meaner. It is extremely frequent. in the second person singular imperative wate, as in a line from the ‘Samians’ of Crates quoted by Athenaeus (3. 117 B)—

mat éxeivov, ayy’ exeivor' ev Kém ris huépa;*

In this way it occurs about a dozen times in Aristophanes alone, Nub. 1508, Eq. 247, 251, Ach. 282, Vesp. 398, 456, 458, Pax 1119, Av. 365. In several of these places it is repeated more than once and generally in a storm of Comic heroics.

The use of wémAnyyar in Ran. 1214, Ach. 1218, Eq. 271,

"Ey Kew ris jyépa; is thus explained by Hesychius, émt rav ob« ebyvd- ata. obdels yap oldev ev Kéw tis } huepa, bt odx éaraow ai Hypa, GAN’ ds Exacta OéAovowy dyovow. It was a sort of slang phrase, like ‘What time of day is it?’ *What o'clock is it?’ ‘Does your mother know you are out?’ but seems to have been often used to finish off a riddle or guess, in a sense like *There’s a nut for you to crack;’ ‘Guess me what’s that.’ It is probably so used here, for the four lines preceding that quoted are almost unintelligible.

262 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS.

Av. 1299, Thesm. 179; éaAnynv, Ran. 1048; mAnyels, Vesp. 399, Pax 613, Av. 1492, Thesm. 694, will be seen to cor- respond with the paradigm on p. 260; but Eccl. 642, quoted on the same page, proves distinctly that éaA7jynv was some- times employed in the baser sense of vapulavi, or mAnyas é\aBov. The latter phrase is itself used in Ran. 673, 747, Vesp. 13253 mAnyas éxew in Nub. 1425; and wAnyds Anwouat in Pax 493, and Eccl. 324.

The habit of one Attic writer in regard to these words has been thus carefully analysed that he might serve as a mirror of all, but the following quotations will show still more clearly how these tenses, simple, composite, and derived from different roots dovetail into one another as consistently as gépw, olow, yveyxa, and évyvoxa, or as the Latin fero, tuli, latum, ferre.

Lysias, 94. 9 and 17, wardéas xaraBddAw . . . TAnyels Karé- meoev: id, 102. 12, Kal mérepov mpdrepos emdjynv 7) emdraga éxelvn waddov dy Tdev : id. 136. 23, 6 prev OpactBovdros rénre Tov Ppdbvixov kat karaBddde mardgas, 6 de’ ArokAdSwpos ody Haro,

Antiphon, 127, rénrew ras mAnyds ... 6 pev mardgas Kab py aroxteivas Ths TAnyhs Bovdevtis eyévero, 6 be Oavaclyws rénTwv Tod Oavdrov ... ear. 8& H pev Atvxla Tod maragavtos, H Be ovppopa tod tabdvros.

Thuc. 8. 92, 6 Bptvixos mAnyels améOavev mapaxphya kar

6 mardgas duépvyev.

‘Demosthenes, 572 fin. ocxéros exwv éndumeve, kal rotre peOdwv endra€é tiva éxOpdov tmdpxovd’ air: eddxer yap bBpe Kal ovk olvm timrew xre.: id. 525, 526, Tov Oeopoberny ds eayxos émdjyn ... 6 Tov Oeopobérny mardéas: id. 1264 fin. T@ nardgayri rénrew Tapexedevoaro.

Plato, Hipp. Maj. 292 B, % obk evduxos tyiv i wéAus éorly, ;

GAN éG ddlkws téntew adAHAovs Tos ToAlras; DQ. od8 Srw- ot.oby €G. “III. odxody décer dikny adlkws yé ce TémTwv... 2Q. odxody etm cor kal Ff adrds olowa dixalws dv rénrecOat

tabdra dmoxpivduevos ; 7) Kal ov pe dxpitov tunTHcels. ... €lme

. ‘ —— OO

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 263

po, dyoet, ® Séxpares, ole. dv Gdixws mAnyas AaBeiv; id. Legg. 879 D, rod rénrew d& cipyéoOw iva méppw ylyynras tod rov émixdpiov dv roApioal more mardéar... réntew... Tardén.

Xen. Cyr. 1. 3. 17, emt jd wore dlxn mAnyds édaBov as ovd« 6pOGs dixdoas ... ev Tovrw ad pe enaoev 6 duxdoKados: id. Rep. Lac. 6. 2, jjv 5€ tis mats more TAnyds AaBov tm’ GAdAov karelan mpos Tov marépa, alaxpdv éort pi) odK GAAas TANyds ep- BddAew TO viel.

Dem, 1261, woAAdkis wept Eratpas Kal eiAndévar kal dedw- kévar TAnyds. : 2

No Attic writer employs the forms ria, éruya, rérupa, rérura, réruppar, ervpOnv, érdany, TupOjoopar, TuTATopaL, TeTV- Youar, or érinrnoa, terinrynxa, teTénTnuat, érumTiOnv. Un- known to Attic, in fact almost unknown to Greek, are the forms mardcow, mendtaypyat, enatdxOnv, mataxOjooua, and ménmatka, mématcpat, emaloOnv, matcOjooua. In no Attic author is there a single trace of mAjoow or TAjTTH, TANLa, éxdrn€a, wémdnxa, TANTTopaL, ewrAnEdunv.

The Ionic dialect supplies the words éruja, rérvppa., erianv, éerupdpnv, and mAjoocw, wAngw, emAnka, éeadrnédynv. These were naturally used in Tragedy as belonging to the early stage of Attic, and in Aeschylus occurs an additional form not otherwise found—

Kauol mpooéotn Kapdlas KAvddvioy xoAs, eratoOnv & ws diavtalw Bede. Cho. 184. A. tacOels eraicas.

I. od & Caves xataxtavor. Sept. 961.

As Cobet justly observes, the latter line would in Attic Prose or Comedy assume the form mAnyels émdragas’ od bé ¥ anéOaves amoxtetvas.

Even in Ionic the simple tatacow was irregular. It had

the meaning of wdAAopat, palpito, but egenaraga, éxmendray-

~

264 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

pat, and éferardyOnv were used in the sense of é£érdnfa, éxréndnypar, and egerivdxOnv.

In Nub. 1125 and Lys. 459 the future forms zaujoopev and rawjoere are met with. The analogy of xAaujow and BadAjow makes it probable that waiujom was a word re- cognized in Attic Greek.

The middle of réarw was not an Attic form. Xenophon has the middle of walw in Cyr. 7. 3. 6, éralearo Tov pnpdv, ‘Smote his own thigh.” There was no middle to rardgo, éxdraéa, and wAjfouar and éxAn&dynv were confined to Ionic. In Ionic too rérrowat was employed in the sense of dewazi, for which the Attic term was xéaropa, Plato, Rep. 605 D, 619 C, Phaed, 60 A; Ar. Lys. 396—

c > c rw ec AX . 4 “a / 7.8 tronmevwxut yuri) emt tod Téyous “kénteoO “Adwovw” dyotv.

The interest of so striking an example of the delicacy and precision of the Athenian mind in its best days has too long diverted the attention from the principal point dis- cussed by Phrynichus. The justice of his dictum as to fdmcpa cannot be questioned. It is true that Antiphanes (Ath. 14. 623 F) used the word—

revdis, petaddAagaca AevKavyh Pow

capkos TmupwTgis avOpdxov panicpacw f ” a c SWS 4

EdvOaow avtpais cGua wav dyddderat’

but the lines are para-tragoedic and suggest that the word might have been used in Tragedy—a fancy which receives valuable support from the fact that the verb pamitw was used by Xenophanes (ap. Diog. Laert. 8. 36) and Hipponax (Tzetz. Hist. 5. 746) and occurs in Herodotus. In 7. 35, and 223 it has the sense of lash; in the former, of the lashing of the Hellespont by the order of Xerxes, in the

latter of the Persian custom of encouraging troops by the

lash. It is encountered in two other passages of Classical

——_

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 265

Greek. According to Athenaeus (13. 571 A) Timocles wrote the lines—

dywviacat Kal pamicOqval re Kal mAnyas AaBely Gradaion xepolv, Hdd ye

but the context, if consulted, will show that the meaning of pari¢ew there is very far different from that of éi xéppns téinrew. The place of Demosthenes (787. 23) in which it does bear its late meaning belongs to a speech which on good grounds is considered spurious. In another passage (537 extr.) the true term is employed and its meaning clearly marked by the context, én xéppns réntew being distinguished from xovdtAas rézrew: Odd 76 TUTETIaL Tois €devdepors orl dewdv, xalwep dv dewdv, GAAA 7d ep’ BBper. TOAAA yap av Toinceev 6 TUnTwY Sv 6 TaDav Evia Od8 dv azay- yeihar dtvail érépm, TS oXIpati, TE Br€upari, TH pwry, Srav és tBpllwv, Srav ws éxOpds imdpxwr, Stay Kovddra1s, Gray ent KOppns.

CUHUL

Tlapowic 16 dyov, odyi S€ TO Grreiov' TobTo de TpUBAtov

H Aekdpiov KaAovoty,

Phrynichus also insists upon this point in App. Soph. 60. 3, and Moeris, p. 297, is no less strict; but Athenaeus (9. 367 D) quotes from Antiphanes a line in which the word has the signification common in late Greek and seen in N. T. Matth. 23. 25, 7d €£@0ev rod wornplov kal rijs mapowiésos, and in Juvenal, 3. 142—

-*Quam multa magnaque paropside coenat.’ But this line— xahéoas te tmaparlOnow év mapowie., is the only one of all the passages quoted by him in which

266 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

mapowls has necessarily the meaning of a vessel. In some of the others, as in Sotades—

mapowis civat patvoua TO KpwBvdrq*

Todroy pacarar mapaxareoOler 8 eye, the word is certainly employed in its true sense, while in others its reference is doubtful. The English word dish has the same ambiguity of meaning.

CLEV.

Kpodoat tHv Oupdv, (owe mév Tov TapaBeBidorat A

ypHoic’ duetvov d€ TO KOrITeW THY OUpay.

Phrynichus is much too fine here. Not only was xpoveww iv O¥pay in constant use, but both dévw and dparrw—words in other respects little used, survived in this connection as is proved by Aristophanes (see pp. 6, 10).

The phrase xéarew tiv Ovpay occurs in Ar. Pl. 1097, Eccl. 976, Ran. 460, Nub. 132, Ach. 403, cp. Nub. 1144, Av. 56; Andoc. 6.29; Lys. Fr. 45.4; Dem. 1156.18; Xen. Hell. 5. 4. 7, Anab. 7. 1. 15.

Whereas xpovew tiv Ovpav is employed in Ar. Eccl. 316, 990; Plato, Prot. 310 A, 314 D, Symp. 212 C; Xen. ‘Symp. I. 11.

This forms an excellent illustration of the lines on which Phrynichus worked. Like all true scholars, he disregarded exceptions, and considered the knowledge of anomalies not science but pedantry. Till the rules are known—and every usage which is true in three cases out of four should be elevated into a rule—no attempt need be made to elucidate departures from them.

on ——

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 267

CLV.

*EvHAata KAivHe A okiutrodoc ob ypH Aéretv TOV

“ATTIKZOVTA GAAG KpaGTHpLA.

Euripides thrice uses the word éjAarov, in Phoen. 1179 and Supp. 729, of the rungs of a ladder— kAfuaxos dpyel(Bov b€or evynddrwv Bddpa* and— ds év te Tois Sewololy éotiw GAKysos

pucel & bBpioriy Aadv, ds Tpdcowy KAAGs eis dxpa Bivar kAdkov évydata Cntév amoddeo’ GABov © xpiicOa tapi’ and in Hipp. 1235, of linch-pins (ra éuBaddAdueva pds TO afov. Bote ph eEvévar tov tpoxdv, Schol.)— avpiyyés T dvw Tpoxav érjdwv adver 7 evqdrara.

According to Pollux (10. 34), Sophocles had the word in the sense which Phrynichus reprehends: Logoxdjjs d” év Ixvevrais Lardpois épy—Evyrara tra tpiyoupa diaropeboat defrar, but the words are too corrupt to convey any mean- ing. On the other hand, xpaorypia is not met with else- where, although Hesychius has the gloss: Kparnpla rév éyvnrdrwv at kepadal cal ovpBorat kcal dxpa. The question must be left unsettled.

CLVI.

Kripavoc odk épeic, dAAd KpiBavoc dia Tod p,

Athenaeus, 3. 110 C, has the instructive remark, Ofda dé 8ru Arrixol pev 61d Tod p orotxelov A€yovor Kal KplBavov Kal Kpi- Bavirny: “Hpddoros 8 év devrépa rv toropidy Epn “ KALBdvy b.0~

268 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS, +

gavet,” kat 5 Sddpov d& py “rls orauriras tj kALBavlras, hurdpria néooe;” which indicates from what sources the xAfBavos of the Common dialect came, and makes it probable that the form with A is correctly read in the lines of Aeschylus quoted by Ath. 9. 375 E—

éy@ 8& xotpoy Kal pad’ ebOndrodpevov révd éy poodytt kuBdvo Ojow. Th yap dpov yévour av dvdpl rodde BéArepor ;

In parody, choric songs, and some other metres, xA‘Savos was probably employed even in Comedy; a consideration which may give a value to such remarks as that of the Antiatticista, p: 103. 3: KAtBavirns dpros* "Apeuplas ’Avoxor- raBi¢ovow. To this article some sciolist has appended the words, 8:2 7d Thy mpdrnv tpopiy Tév avOpdrov kpiOjy eivar.

They cannot be by Phrynichus.

CLVII.

Kuvidiov Aére. Ocedrroutroc dé 6 Kapwddoc anak tov

kuvdplov elev.

CLVIII.

Avwdpiov mdvu puddtrov Aérew, Aoidioy dé,

The manuscripts assign to the second of these articles a place near the end of the book. .

‘Hic ut renunciemus Phrynicho cogit nos Plato. Nam xuvdptov usurpat bis in Euthydemo 298, cui Xenophontem, Theophrastum, Lucianum, aliosque permultos addunt. Neque perstitit in sententia Phrynichus; nam in App. Soph. p. 49, Kuvdpiov xai xvvidiov ddxiwa: illud ex Alcaeo Comico affert Antiatt. p. 104. De multis aliis hujus

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS., 269

generis diminutivis inter ipsos Atticistas controversia fuisse videtur, Phrynichus, App. Soph. p. 49, KAwdpwa, 0d pdvov kAuvidia, “Apiotopayns (Poll. 10. 32). Idem, p. 43, ‘Inzi- d.0v, od povoy imndpiov.

‘Alterum A@dpiov, Thomae improbatum, nullum auctorem habet Theophrasto antiquiorem (H. Pl. 3. 7. 5) quem se- quuntur Philostratus, Alexander Trallianus, Dioscorides, Geoponica, A:Ofétov Plato, Lucianus, Themistius. Lexicis deest AfOvov Paus. 2. 25. 8.’ Lobeck.

CLIX.

*Edediecav: kal todto tAc AoAAtavod potcHe’ ot dé Aére

TETPAGVAAGBWc aveu TOD €, Edédi0av,

Such forms as dcdlaper, dediare, ededfeoayv are as corrupt as d:ddapev for dfdouer, or brddare for didore. The record of Comedy in regard to the legitimate forms of this present perfect is as follows :— dé501Kxa, Ach. 370, Eq. 28, 112, 395, Nub. 493, 508, 1133,

Vesp. 427, 630, Pax 173, Lys. 620, (Ran. 1260), Eccl,

338, 585, 870, 1063, Plut. 199, Fr. ap. Photium Tév rpidv. dédouxas, Vesp. 628, 629, Thesm. 202, 1186, dédouxe(v), Vesp. 1358, Fr. Babyl. rv adrod oxidy dédouKer:

Alexis, ap. Athen. 6. 240 C. déb1a, déd1as, Sé5ve never occur, except bdéd.ev in a Frag-

ment of Amphis (Ath. 10. 448 A)—

bia TO AewTGs Kal TuKVds may eLerdew dédvev ent Ta mpdypara éppay mpoxelpws.

The plural forms are unfortunately rare: d¢dolkare oc- curs in Eccl. 181, but dedaow in Eq. 224, 1113.

The only form of the past encountered in Comedy is ededolxns in Plut. 684.

Of imperative forms 86.0: occurs in Eq. 230, Vesp. 373.

NA nA,

270 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

The participle is ded0xés in Pax 606; Alexis (Athen. 6. 226 A); Antiphanes (Athen. 4. 156 C); Anaxandrides (Athen. 15. 688 B).

But dedids in Eccl. 643, Plut. 448; drodedids, Av. 65. Acdiéra occurs in a corrupt line of Xenarchus (Ath. 13. 569 A)—

dedidTa ev TH xeEipl THY Woxjv Exovta,

while S@5.wia is quoted from Eubulus by Antiatt. p. go. 1.

Acdoixévat may be found in Plut. 354, Nub. 1461, Vesp.

109, whereas dediévar is not met with in Comedy till Menander’s time, ap. Stob. Flor. 73. 43, ap. id. 32. 2. _ This record demonstrates the inaccuracy of Dindorf’s statement in Steph. Thes. 2. 936: ‘In Prosa Atticorum vix credam reperiri déd1a, ded0ikaper, dedolKacw, Sedorxévat, sed dici dédo.xa (Thuc. 1. 81, 6. 38), d€direr, dedlacww, de- duévai, alia autem promiscue usurpari ut éd¢edolkecav (Thuc. 4. 27), et eéd.cav.’ The facts seem to be that the sin- gular of both present and past tenses was preferentially formed from the longer stem, but the plural from the shorter; in the participle both forms were in use, while in the infinitive both dedcévar and dedornévar; in the impera- tive certainly only 5é6161, dedirw, etc. were legitimate.

The subjunctive 8<3fm is well-established by ded in Xenoph. Rep. Ath. 1. 11, d¢dfmox Isocr. freq., but the optative depends upon one passage of Plato. In Phaedr. 251 A the books have kat el pi) dedueln Thy Ths cPddpa pavlas ddav Odor dv ds dydApart cal Oe@ Tots matdixois, and even that instance is destroyed by Cobet: ‘Prudenter Buttmannus judicat de Platonis loco in Phaedro, p. 251 A, ubi ridiculam for- mam et prorsus barbaram deen Bekkerus recepit. Sen- tentia loci postulat «if ji) époBeiro (non goPoiro), itaque scribendum est: «f pi ededler thy THs odddpa pavias ddbay

'. Ovo. dv wre. Certainly, the substitution of the irregular for

the regular conditional sentence does in this case emend

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 271

the passage. The narrative both before and after refers to present time, and the meaning required for the sentence in dispute is, he is afraid of being thought mad or he would sacrifice.

CLX.

Ovseic dia Tod 6 et Kai Xpdcimmoc Kai of du@ adtTov a , 4 4 > ’ ’ c ‘ > a“ ‘ oftw Aérouat, od d€ GmoTpéTrou A€éretv. of rap Gpyaior dia

Tod 5 Aé€rovety.

The corruption had its beginning long before the time of Chrysippus. Wecklein (Cur. Epigraph. p. 30) shows that in the archonship of Nausinicus B.C. 378-7, undevt occurs twice in one inscription, and that after that date the spel- ling with the aspirate gradually made its way: ‘Ex titulo a Rang. II. 381 edito, Ol. 100. 3 exarato, in quo bis scribitur pyevi, discimus jam Ol. 100. 3 scripturam od0els, pnOels in usu fuisse. Tab. Nav. I. a (Ol. 101. 4) od6év, (Ib. III. et XI. rursus ovdéy legitur), etc.’

As Herwerden thinks, (Test. Lapid. p. 61) such a usage can hardly have been found in writers anterior to Aris- totle.

Wecklein cites the disjoined form pydé «fs from an in- scription earlier than Euclides: ‘Rang. I. 271 (ante Eu- clid.) wndt evi; C. I. 73 b (c. Ol. 84) odd &a, M.H.E. Meier. Com. ep. 2 (post Ol. 114) pnté efs.

‘ORE cs, pnde ets (oddeels, pndects) frequentat Aris- tophanes (cf. Ran. 927, Lys. 1044, Plut. 37, 138, 1115, 1182), A Tragicorum usu od efs (nullo vocabulo inter- posito ut 0d8 dv efs, Soph. Trach. 1072) abhorret. Soph. Fragm. 769, Ovnrov & ovdels, non OvyrGv 8 odd efs ha- betur.’ ;

Herwerden appends several points of great interest: ‘Unum tamen addere juvat idque valde memorabile ; si- quidem unicum, ni fallor, exemplum est hodie formae

27% THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

God separatim positae in sermone Attica. Videlicet in tit. II. 11 exarato inter Ol. 96. 3 et 98. 2 legitur pyde éy0d pro pndapod. Praeterea notatu dignum videtur in antiquioribus certe titulis paene constanter (si non prorsus constanter, quam in rem diligentius inquirere nunc non vacat) scribi, od mpds Eva, pnde mpds eva, ovde I” évds pro mpos ovdéva (und€éva), tx odderds (underds) similia.’

CLXI.

Adrvuc 81d Too H, GAAG pH Adrvoc.

Pollux recognizes both forms, 6. 188, 6 pavduevos én’ apodicra Adyyns dv Kal Adyvos pnOetn, whereas Photius sup- ports Phrynichus: Adyvns ob Adyvos m6 rév ’ArrixGv déyerat,

rowatra pévror TAN dvayxalos exe maoxew Srav Adyrnv roy dPOadpdv ophs* 7) 5& dvadoyla, oiwar, kal Adyvnta, ws Kpdrnra kal Mdyvnra.

Lobeck compares déoA¢oxns, which gradually gave way to dddéAecxos: ‘Sed déddeoxos jam in Aristotelis scriptis hic ibi emicat, et paucis saeculis post ita divulgatum est ut v. c. Plutarchus in commentatione wept ddoAcecxlas sexies adod€oxns, GddAecxos autem plus quam vicies usurpaverit, neque Pollux 6. 119 unum prae altero probasse videtur .. . Etiam ¢Aoyévns a nonnullis magis probatum est quam

" piddyvvos, conjicere licet ex Antiatticista Bekk. p. 115, Pirdyvvos, od pdvov diroydvns, cp. Piers. ad Moer. p. 391, quorum secundum probat Pollux 2. 46, vicissim yuvaixopiAns improbans 6, 168. Idem 2. 47 seq. dytvns, prcoyduns* ’Apio- ropdyns &yvvoy tov aybynv' Pptyixos 8% dybvaixos.’ Lobeck.

CLXII.

Aarac, 6 ’Attikdcy Sta Tod 0 6 “lwv Aaréc.

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 273

The Attic form came from the Homeric Aaywés— aprdgwv 7) apy’ dyadhv 7) mTGxa daywdr. Il, 22, 310.

The Ionic Aayés may well have been used by Sophocles ; Ath. 9.400 D : Aéyovot 8 kat ’Arrixol Aayds Os 6 TopoKATjs— yépavot, KopOvat, yAadkes, ixrivot, Xayol*

but only in Tragedy could that form appear in Attic.

CLXIII.

Aigavov Aére t¢ dévdpov, TO dé Ouptdmevov ALBaverTdv’ et Kai dtd THY TOLHTLKHY AiBavov Kai TodTo ZomoKAfic Aéret. Guetvoy d€ Mévavdpoc év TH Zapia pHot’

pepe THY AtBav@rtdy, od 8 Eridec TO nbp, Tpiqu,

‘Ammonium (p. 88) quam Phrynichum hic sequi maluit- Thomas p. 577 qui, ut Af{Bavos pariter de arbore quam de lacrima dicatur, concedit, ABavewrdy nisi de thure dici vetat; cui Theophrastum opponunt A:Bavewrdéy etiam de arbore dicentem. Sed neque is magnam in hac re auctoritatem habet, neque multum valet ad sententiam Phrynichi oppug- nandam, si Eurip. Bacch. 144, Anaxandrid. comicus Athen. 4. 131 D, atque recentiores Diod. Sic. 3. 41, Herodian 4. 8, Galen. Theriac. ad Pamph. p. 964, B. T. 13, aliique, thus, quod Aristophanes et Plato A.Bavwréy dicere solent, arboris nomine vocaverunt. De singulis locis nemo praestet, quum saepe codices inter se dissentiant, Herodo. 4. 75, Joseph. Antiq. 3. 6. 136, sed liberiorem fuisse hujus vocis usum vel ex eo colligi licet, quod similiter xeAdévn de supellectile testudinea (rpfkAwa xedAovns Philo de Vit. Contempl.) et oapdé pro sardonyche Philostr. Imag. et éAvooa pro melle usurpatur Soph. O. C. 481, ut notiora praeteream.’ Lobeck.

T

274 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS.,

CLXIV.

THv Atuov Awpteic, ob d€ dpoevikdc Tov Aimdv Pat,

‘Femininum genus recte doriensi dialecto adscribi patet ex eo quod Aristophanes Megarensem hoc genere utentem facit quodque Spartae in Apollinis templo Amds erat dua ypadiis amopeuipnuevos exwv yvvaikds popdiv, Athen. 10, 452 B.’ Lobeck.

CLXV.

*Edovduny, édovovu, éAoveTo, Aovopat, AovETaL, EAoUdLENG, €Aovovto, Aovecbat’ TdvTa obT@ Aerdueva GddKiwa. Ei dé , U > ‘ nn 1 ‘ \ > ' 7 ’ ddKiwa BovAEt adTa TroLicat TO € Kal TO O apatper Kat AEre Aodceat Kal Aobuat, AodTat, éAovpHY, EAodTO, EAOUMEOG,

édobvto’ obtw rap oi dpyaior A€rouoty.

There is only one verb in -éw which has its first person singular present indicative active disyllabic. Xdéw, heap up, contracts according to the same rule as its polysyllabic fellows, x6, xots; xol, xoBrov, xodmev, xodre, xodou(v). Im- perfect, éxovv, exovs, Exov, exodrov, exodrnv, éxodmev, exodre, éxouv. Subjunctive,. x4, xozs, etc. Optative, xolnv, xotns, etc. Imperative, xod. Participle, xév. Infinitive, xodv. Passive, xoduar, exovpnv, xodc0a, etc.!

But in some of its forms Aovw, bathe, wash, behaves as if |

its first person was Adw. It is in fact a mixed form,

following both the contracted and the uncontracted con- —

jugation. Those persons in which the ending is preceded by a short connecting vowel, « or o, are supplied as if from

1 Thuc, 2. 102, pooxot: Hdt. 1.161, xv: Plat. Legg. 958 E, xodv, where the late form xwvvuva actually occurs in some MSS. Thue. 2. 75, €xovy bis.

ee Ce

esis

setuid li,

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 275

déw, and contract the o of the stem with the connecting vowel. The other persons are formed from Aovw, which by some grammarians has been regarded as itself contracted from Aoéw, an extended form of \éw. The modification Aéw is encountered in Homer in’ the imperfect— és p’ dodpivOov Ecaca dd’, ex rplmodos peyddoto, Od. ro. 361. and in the middle in— ovd’ és Badaveiov AGe Aovodpevos* ob bE donep teOveGtos xatadder pov Tov Blov. Arist. Nub. 838. In the latter case, however, all the manuscripts read xara- Aove, and possibly Bekker ought to have left that form alone, as it is quite possible to consider the diphthong short, like the o. in wové and rotodros. Now, although 706 oc- casionally occurs in inscriptions, wo. is the regular form, and has been retained in verse even when a short penult is demanded by the metre. The fact is, both 706 and Aovw _ were in Attic pronounced in such a way (see p.113) that there was no difficulty in giving them either an iambic or spondaic value, Other diphthongs were similarly affected according to their position ina word. Thus, ded(w (from Oeios), but émied¢er? in a line of Pherecrates quoted by Suidas: *Aparar... evxeTar i KaTaparar, Depexpdrns— torepov aparar Kameda. TG marpl.

Similarly, 0a6, fumigate, from Oeciov, brimstone, but Tept- Oeardrwoay in Menander—

kal mepewodtwocay amd Kpovvay Tpiav.

1 In Aesch. Cho, 856— Zed, Zed, ri A€yu, w60ev dpEwpat 748 émevxopévn KambedCovo’ ; and Eur. Med. 1409— Opnva Kamdeatw Haprupépevos Baipovas, In both cases the MSS, have émBod¢w,

T2

276 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

It is the same tendency which gives ’Apeonayirns and ’Apeotayitixds from “Apewos méyos, and rehéws and redeody from réAcvos.

But whether xaradover or xaradde is written in Aristo- phanes, the general rule remains unaltered, that Aovo supplies those forms in which the ending is not preceded by a short connecting vowel, and Aéw those in which it is. The testimony of Phrynichus is very distinct (cp. Eustath. Od. 1560. 28: Aotuevos* ofrw yap of Arrixol, od piv Aovdpevos ; Photius, AodcAar A€yovow, ody? AoverOar), and it is more than borne out by the test of metre—

cir adtov dmédov Kaxdbaip 6 8 ov pdda. Arist, Vesp. 119. - éreir’ @doduev. B. vy Al’, eddaluov dp’ Fv.

_Plut. 657. drav d.apiOuav dpyvpidiov rvxn

ivOpwros otros 7) Kadijrar Novjevos.

Ay. 1622. THs yvvatkds ovpévys. Pax 1139. dvijp yépwv woxpa Oaddrrn Aovdpevos. Plut. 658. Boris oe Oepue yor AodcOar TpGrov ovd« edceww. Nub. 1044.

GAAd wdvTas xp) Tapadodcbar Kal Trois ondyyous ea. Id. ‘Anagyrus.” ‘Aristophon, ‘ The Pythagorist ’ (Athen. 6. 238 C)—

Ddwp 5& mlvew, Bdtpaxos’ amodhadoat Odpov Aaxdvwv Te, Kaun’ mpds TO pr AodoOaL, pizros.

Antiphanes, ‘ Malthace’ (Clem. Alex.)—

opnrar, kreviCer’, exBeBynxe, tplBera, Aodrat, oxomeirat, oreAAeTaL, puplCerar.

Pherecrates, ‘The Oven or Wake’ (Pollux, 10, 181)—

Hon ev Gav Aovpévm mpoCdvvurat.

ee

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 277 Menander, ‘Anger’! (Athen. 4. 166 A)— GAN’ odk edoduny Tevrdkis Tis fuepas. Ephippus (Athen. 2. 48 B)— os Sa oKipTO mddat

drov poddrv0a otpdpuar eort Kab pvpors Aodpat Wakacrots.

By the rule given above, all the forms of the subjunctive and optative, active and middle, are derived from dove. The other moods of the present and imperfect tense are inflected as follows, the forms from Adw being printed in spaced type :—

PRESENT INDICATIVE.

ACTIVE. MIDDLE. S.1. dAoto : Aotpar 2. overs dover 3. Aover Aodrat D.2. rAodroy Aotcbov 3. Aotrov Aodcdov P.1. dAodpev Aotpeba 2. Aotre Aotacbe rin Aovovar Aotrra.. IMPERFECT. S. 1. €dovuv éhovpny 2.. €dovs édovov 3. €dov éAotro D.2. édrodrov €AXotc dor eS éXovrny eéAovadnv P.1. édXodpev éLotpeba 2. édodre éKodobe 3. edXovv éXobprro.

* "Opyn, his first play, 8. c. 322.

278 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

IMPERATIVE. ACTIVE. MIDDLE. S. 2... rod dovov 3. ovTw Lotcbw D.2. Aotrov Aotcbov 3. dovrwv Aotcbwy P.2. Aotre Aotabe 3. AovvTav Aovcbwv. INFINITIVE. ovew odobar. PARTICIPLE. Aovwv, Aovodca, Lody Aovpevos, 7; ov. CLXVI.

Avucwneisbat TlAourdpy@ pév éott rrepi duowmiac Bt-

‘ BAiov, todro Step oierat SHAoby TO évtpérrecbar Kai pH Gvreyetv O¢ aidd. GAG oHpaiver H buowmia mapa Toc

Gpyaiowc tHy bpdpacw kai Td bromrevely,

‘Idem pronunciant Moeris p. 125, Suidas s.v. Zonaras Lex. p. 585, et Thomas p. 255, neque errant. Avowzetoar ‘ et ionicum vezetcOa, quantum ex etymo intelligi potest, proprie de oris confusione dicitur, quae ex variis pertur- bationibus, metu, suspicione, pudore existit. Sed veteres illi tantum de praesensione instantis periculi vel molestiae usurparunt.’ Lobeck. Plato, Polit. 285 B, pa dvvardv elvar dvowmmotpevov taverOar: Legg. 11: 933 A, Svowmov- pévous mpos GAAjAovs: Phaedr. 242 C, kal mas Civowmodpnu..- py TL... delyo: Demosth, 127. 25, kal rods els rod0’ imd- yovtas tuas dpGv ovk éppwd6 adda dvewrodpar: Xen. Mem. 2. I. 4, Tabra yap (ra (Ga) dimou ra wey yaorpl dedrcaCdpeva, Kal

ny

<=

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 279.

para évia bvowmrodpeva, duws TH emOvuia tod payeiv d&yspeva

mpos TO dehéap GAloKerat, TA be TOTS evedpederar.

CLXVII.

ZaAmuKTHe’ TO ddKiwov did TOO Kk, ody! dé d1d TOD G, Kai TO

oaAdticat did TOO G Mapatrod, Sid Tod E dé Aére.

The testimony of inscriptions is given by Herwerden (Test. Lap. p. 64) as follows: ‘Zadzixrjs, cadmoris. 2. 444, 44. 445, 18. 446, 40 (qui tituli ad sec. 2. a. C. pertinere putantur) exhibent cadmurds. Bis cadmikrijs legitur 3. 1284 (37/8, p. C.), bis 3. 1288, praeterea 3. 1284 et 1285. Tertiae quae in codd. nostris reperiri solet cadzuyrijs in titulis Atticis nec vola est nec vestigium.’

This evidence has little bearing upon the Attic period, as the word is not found in Attic inscriptions before the second century, so that Liddell and Scott are in grave error when they say, ‘The Inscriptions are in favour of cadmuyktifs.’

No manuscript can be of any value in such a question, and for the present the authority of Phrynichus must be regarded as the guide best to follow. The analogy of ovpixtys and gopyixryjs is in favour of his dictum. Ac- cordingly, if odAmyéa is retained in Homer, Il. 21. 388, yet éoddmiéa should be restored to Archippus, ap. Athen. 6. 322 A—

oddmns 8 eoddm ent dBodrodrs picOdv pépwr, and to Xenophon, An. 1. 2. 17, while the more numerous instances of cadmvyxrys should receive a still shorter shrift.

CLXVIIL

“Agtepdcat’ Kai todro Papwpivoc: ob bé Kkadtepdcat.

280 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

The verb dduep@ is good Greek, but not as an equivalent of xaOtep6. In Aesch. Eum. 451—

mddat mpos GAdous Tadr ddrepopeba olkorot kal Borotot kat purots mépo.s,

it is found in the sense of dpoctody, the force of the prepo- . sition being the same as in dmodovew, dmopudocew, amo- popyviva, etc. There is no instance in Classical Greek of dduepody in its late sense as equivalent to xa@vepodv. For the treatise ‘de Morbo sacro, which sometimes goes under the name of Hippocrates, is probably a late work. In it (Hipp. p-. 301. 36) dgvepody is equivalent to xa@vepody: euol be doxéovow of mpSrou TodTo TO vdonua Apiepdoartes ToLodrot elvat

&vOpwror ofor kat vov elow pdyou Te Kal KaOaprat Kal ayvprat. p pay p

CLXIX.

KoAAGBouc tovc év TH AUpa H pév GAAH dicAeKToc AéEret’ od @povtic ‘ImmokAeltdH @aci. ot b€ wc *AdHvaioc Aére KOAAOTIAC.

,

Even in late Greek xéAdaBos for xédAdow is very rarely met with. In Attic xéAAaBou were a kind of loaves: Athen. 3.96 D; Ar. Ran. 507, Pax 1196.

CLXX.

Niupa 6, moAuc Aéret, Hiueic améviTTpov Aéromev, dc

*Aptotopdvue kal ot dug’ adtév.

“Qonep andvintpov éxxéovtes Exmépas. Ar. Ach, 616.

“Andvyypa pro sordibus elutis Clem. Alex Paed. 2. 3.

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 281

Hoeschel. Simplex viyya ne in recentiori quidem Graeci- tate frequentatum v. ad Thom. p. 100. Veteribus autem plane ignotum fuisse videtur.’ Lobeck.

CLXXI.

NH ta ea" Spkoc ruvatkéc, ob uA dvHp Opmetrat et WH

FuvatkiotTo.

Photius, pa rT 0€6, yuvaixetos Spxos* duiKGs 5é duvtbover Thy Kopnv kai riv Ajyntpav. dvdpdor 5% od mpéret rotrov duvdbvat. In Ar. Eccl. 155 a woman dressed as a man betrays herself by this expression— é A. éuol pev ov doxed pa Td Ded. B. pa To Od; téAdawa Tod Tov vody exeLs ; A. ti 8 éorw; od yap b) mely y rnod ce. B. pa Al’, GAN dvijp dv to Oe® KaTopocas, xalro. Ta y’ GAN elrodoa defidrara. Among the Spartans, however, val r® clw referred to the Dioscuri, and might be used by men as well as women: Ar. Lys. 81; Xen. Anab. 6. 6. 34, etc. In the mouth of a Boeotian, in Ach. 905, val r® o1@ probably refers to Am- phion and Zethus..

CLXXII.

MeooddktuAa évautiaca todto dkovcac totvoud. Aérouev e

obv, Ta LEGA TOV SaKTUAOY.

‘Vellem narrasset nobis nauseator Phrynichus fabrica- torem vocabuli, cujus tanta est raritas ut lexicographis plane non innotuerit. Reperimus tamen apud Dioscor- idem 4. 188, payddes év pevodaxrvdois. Lobeck.

282 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

CLXXIII.

Adstavpoc oi wév vov ypdvrat én Tav mrovHpay Kal aEiov

stavpod: of d€ dpyaior émi Tod Katamvrovoc,

‘Adoravpos pro homine improbo generaliori sensu usur- passe videntur Theopompus (Athen. 4. 167 B) et Alciphro, Ep. 1. 37 extr. Lobeck.

CLXXIV.

Maan obk épeic, bd paAHC MEvTOL,

The accusative iz pddnv, which some read in this place, is not found till very late writers like Anna Comnena (9. p. 254), and was not written by Phrynichus. No Classical writer uses pdAn, except in the phrase ird pdAns, but that occurs with frequency.

camera ddpu 870 ind pddns Tees exov ;

. Ar. Lys. 985.

Plato, Gorg. 469 D, AaBav bxd padns eyxepldov: Legg. 7. 789 C, aBdvres b7d pdAns Exacros, Tods wey Adrrovas (dprias) els ras xeipas, peiCous 8 brd Thy dyxddnv évtds—a sentence -which indicates how fixed the phrase had become: Xen. Hell. 2. 3. 23, Eupidia xd pddns exovtes :

dor ekeddav éx Tod Avyvodxov tov Avxvov

puxpod karaxatcas €aé? éaurdv, tnd wddns

Ti yaotpl pGdAdov Tod b€ovtos mpotayaydv

Alexis, ap. Athen. 15, 698 F.

Diphilus, ap. Athen. 11. 499 D.

Demosthenes has the phrase metaphorically, 848. 12, GANA phy od8 els od8% B00 Tair’ toacw, ods bxd pddns 7 TPd- kAnots yéyovev add’ év rH dyopa péon, TOAAGY TapdvTwr.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 283

CLXXV.

Merisrdvect ’Avtioyoc 6 copiattric BiBAtov Tt brérpapev *Aropayv émirpapduevov, évea tobvoua E@HKev (owe Me- ; > , > ‘ , a 2 ' © be vavdpw akoAousHoac, ob rap OH Tivt TOV Gpyai~v: Fpeic dé od perliatdvec EmMouEvot Toic apyaioic avdpdow, GAAG

uéra duvayevouc Aérouey,

The passage, or passages, of Menander have not come down to us. Sturtz, in Dial. Maced. p. 182, has shown that this and other words date from Macedonian times.

The collocation péya dévaya: is met with in the following places, Hom. Od. 1. 276—

ayy irw és péyapov marpds péya Svvapyévouo* Herod. 2. 143, avnp péya dvuvdyevos, (cp. 7. 5, duvdyevos ev Aakedalpou péytota elvwv): Aesch. Eum. 950— péya yap dvvarar notve "Epwis mapa rt ddavdrois*

Eur. Hel. 1358 (ch.)—

péya tor dvvarar veBpav mapmotkido. oro\les”

Ar. Ran. 141— os péya dtvac8ov Taytaxod To 8b’ bBodd*

Thue. 2. 29, dvvduevoy map’ adr@ péya xre.: id. 6. 105, alcba- vopevos adrovs péya rapa Bacirel dévacba: Plato, Rep. 2. 366 A, ai rederal péya ddvavraz. Xenophon has it very frequently. So paGddov, mréov, peiCov, péyiora, pddicra bv- vacda. This use of pyéya must be carefully distinguished from its use with adjectives, which is unknown to Attic Prose or Comedy, though found in Ionic, Tragedy, and Xenophon (see p. 28).

284 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

‘CLXXVI.

Aértoc’ ac ot TOAAO A€foucty éri TOO detvod eineiv Kai byHAo’ od TLWEaAoLV O' Gpyaiot, GAN én Tod Ta év ExdoTH

Over Emyopia €EHpoupevou éumreipac,

‘Recte Thomas et Moeris ab Atticis Aoylovs dici robs

modvicropas contendunt, a vulgo scribentium rods AexTiKods.’ Lobeck.

CLXXVII.

"EEtdtagovrat’ Kai todto PaBwpivoc A€ret KaKac,

i8todceat rap 16 ToLodrov A€rousty of Gpyaiot.

According to Antiatt. p.96, Diphilus used the defaulting word, ’Efididoacdar Aididos ’Emitpo7y : but there is no other instance till writers like Diodorus, Strabo, etc. Id.08ea1, on the other hand, is common enough, and é&d:0dua also is met with, as in Xen. Hell. 2. 4. 8; Isocr. 241 D.

Certainly the form in -é@ was the natural one for a Classical Greek to use. Verbs in -d¢w from adjectives in -os are rare at the best, and though dripd@, durdacidGw, and one or two more bear a transitive meaning, the majority of ‘such words are neuter—dévrid(w, iodo, jrdidlw, jovydee, peTpidlw, vedo, podid(w, oxvdpwrd, érevdepidtw, and others.

CLXXVIII.

Mixac ph Aێre, GAAG WOKHTAC,

"Erevot yotv rotcw dAdxvots odrou pdKyTESs,

pret & bray robr’ i movely derov pddtora. Ar, Vesp. 262.

He

a

Sy oa

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS, 285

In 2. 60 Athenaeus quotes from Antiphanes and Ephippus. The former poet supplies the lines—

poxntas epovs dv payeiv euol Sox, and—

énra ptxntas mpivivovs tovadi dvo° while the latter has the words—

tw” donep of pbxntes dmonvigaysl ce. Even in late writers the correct form often appears, and with the passage of Aristophanes may be compared the line of Agathias—

pamore, Adxve, ptKnTa Pépors, pnd’ duBpov eyelpors ; and with Ephippus another of Strato—

tis kdAvkas ovvéxpive Baty; tls coxa pdKnow ; The form pty was, however, not merely late (Theophrast. Fr. de Sig. 3. 5; Aristias, Nicander, ap. Ath. 9. 372 F, etc.), but entered the Common dialect from the Doric, as Athenaeus quotes from Epicharmus the words—

otoval ptxas dp émuoxAnkdres mri€eiobe.

CLXXIX.

Abtétpogpoc pH Aére, GAN oikdotToc, dc ’A@HVatot

MHOE OikOrevA, GAN oikdTpLBA. d

The words that follow in the manuscripts and editions— pimore 88 kal TO olkoyerns @s boxlum xpnoréov—cannot be by Phrynichus, even if the clause preceding them is assigned to him. As it is, they are an idle iteration of the erroneous part of his article. The words olxdérpupy and oixoyevijs are both excellent Attic terms.

Athenaeus discusses olxdéoiros in 6. 247, quoting from Anaxandrides, ‘The Hunters ’"—

vids yap olkdéoiros nov ylyverai.

286 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Antiphanes, ‘ The Scythian ’— Taxd yap ylyvera KaKkAnolactys olkdctTos. Menander, ‘ The Ring’— olkdotrov vepdlov ovdey dedpuevov mpoixds eLevpijxapuer.

Id. ‘The Harper — ov« olkoclrovs Tovs axpoaras AapBdvess.

These passages show the meaning of the word to have been self-supporting, with an income of one's own. Suidas: Olxdouros’ 6 éavrdv tpépor.

CLXXX.

T6 ddospupatov ExBadde Kai HTOL GpUpHAaToy Aére. ‘ '

The editions add 7 éAdcgupov, which cannot have come from the hand of Phrynichus, although Photius has the gloss, ‘Oddoqupov' 7d ddAooptparov: and Hesychius, “‘Odd- opvpor' ddooptparo. Lobeck is wrong in considering the a in 6Aoo@¥paros as in any way a departure from ordinary usage. If there had been an Attic verb opupar, its verbal would have been odvparos, not opdpnros. TZpupijAaros stands on quite a different footing.

CLXXXI.

OnwpormdAnc: toOe oi dropaior Aérouoty, oi dé Tre-

Tradevptévot STI@pavHe ac Kai AHjoGbEvHC,

The passage referred to is De Cor. 314. 13, cdxa kal Bérpus Kab édalas ovddAdywr, dotep dtwpdvns ex tOv adXo- rplwv xoplwv. As dxdpa and even érépai were good Attic for the ‘fruits of autumn,’ it seems ultra-purism to find fault

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. — 287

with dawpozéAns. Plato, Legg. 8. 844 D, ds dv dypolxov érépas yevonta, Borptwv etre al ovxwv: Isaeus, 88. 27, xaré- Aimev Eximda, TpdBara, KpiOds, otvov, dmdpas, && Sv everddnoay TeTpakiox Alas évvakoctas.

‘Thomas érwpaév avirwp of dyopator, od b& drwpdrys, qui cum cetera e Phrynicho hauserit, mirum mihi est, unde illud é7wpo7édAns omiserit, vocabulumque nunquam lectum, neque plebeii coloris, dvjrwp érwpév sublegerit. Photius érwpévas ovyntas émépas interpretatur .... Pollux vi. 128 érwpevys et drwpotddns eodem loco habet, neque dearpdyns et Ocarpomédns, éAadvyns et éAaomdAns differunt: quod valet de omnibus, qui coémunt aut conducunt per aversionem, quae singulis divendant.’ Lobeck.

CLXXXII.

Nosséc, vossiov’ duoiv Aeitet TO €, Std ToOTO GddKiua" Aére obv veotTéc, veotriov iva dpyaioc paivy. voosdptov éK-

BAHTEéOy TEAEac,

‘Nihil eorum quae hic a Phrynicho reprehenduntur in Attici sermonis monimentis cernitur” Even in Menander, quoted by Photius and Suidas s. v., there is no necessity to read rov votrdv for rév veorroy as T6 veotriov better serves the purpose—

kal Terrdpwv @Gy pera TodTo, hidrdrn, TO veotttov.

CLXXXIII.

Xplcea, drptpea, ydAKkea, kudvea, Ttadta “lakd draipov- meva, pH obv Aérew ypucd, dprupa, Kvavd Tov arTt-

KigovTa.

288 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. Xpucodc A€re. TO rap yptceoc “lakdv, Moavtwc kai Gprupotc GAAG pH aprbpeoc’ yadKodc, Kvavobc Kai Ta

OMota,

‘Ex scriptoribus qui aetatem tulerunt prope nullus reperitur tam antiquus tamque incorruptus quin vel sua vel librariorum culpa eo declinarit.’ Lobeck. The open forms are quite alien to Attic proper. For ovddpeos in Comedy see p. 49.

CLXXXIV.

"Extp@cat kai €xtpapa Taira pedre, Aére dé EEauBAO- Gat Kal GuBAWMA Kal GUBAIGKEL, .

*E&étpmoev 4 ruvl pH Aere’ EEHMBAWGE dé.

“Extp@pa pHdé todto Aére, €€duBAMMa de Kal GU

BAweptdtov.

Of these three sentences the two second have been brought from a later place in the manuscripts, where they are in juxtaposition. :

Lobeck’s note on these words is peculiarly apt, but vitiated by his inability to draw the just inference from his facts. They are these :—

’Extitpdoxw, Herod. 3. 32, cal pw exrpoodcay anobavely: Hippocr. de Steril. 686. 27, jv yuri) extirpéoky déxovoat id. de Aer. 287. 28, mpds TO pu exritpdoxerOa. Tpwopds= éxtpwouds, Hipp. 206 D et freq. ; rirpwopds, id. 601, 30; Aristotle, H. A. 7. 4, p. 585. 22, kat éxrirpdoxovoal rwes cvvéraBoy dpa: id. 9. 3, p. 610. 35, exritpdoxer eay Toxn xtovoa: id. De Gener. An. 4. 5, p. 773. 18, xujpara éxalarer TmapanAjnova Tois KaAovpévors éxtpdpacw : Dioscorides, 3. 147, gaol 8& bru Kav eyxvos drepBh Thy néay exritpdoxer: Plut. Mor. 974 D, xarapadciv rats éyxtous tiv Bordyny mapeixov

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 289

extpwrixiy ddvayiv eéxovcay. Add Diodorus, Apollonius Dyscolus, ‘et recentiores medicos,’ ’EfapBrloxw, Ar. Nub. 137— A. dmepipepluvas thy Odpay dedGKTLKaS kal dpovtld e&jpBrwxas eEnupnuévnv. ‘B. GAN’ elré por 7d mpaypa rovénuBopévor.

Plato, Theaet. 150 E, woAAol dmjdOorv mpwalrepov rod d€- ovtos, GmedOdvres 5& Th TE AowTa eEHuBAwoay Kal TA dW ey0d parevdevta KaxGs tpépovtes Gmédecay: id. 149 D, rlkrew Te kal dpBrloxew. The existence of dyBrwbpfliiov in the Orators is proved by Harpocration’s gloss: "AuBAwOpld.0v" 76 épBrwbev Bpépos, and GuBdAwors Pollux quotes from Lysias, and dyBdepa from Antiphon. (Pollux, 2. 7.)

Moreover in Tragedy either word might be used—

hyeis yap el conv maida pappaxevouev Kal vnddv egapBrodpev. Eur. Andr, 356. Hesychius preserves éxrirpdéoxw in Sophocles: ’ApBddvone’ efapBrot Kuplws b& emt duméAov' Kal extitpdocKet, DooxdA7s ’Avdpopedy.-

The words are a type of many others. Tirpdoxw or éxtitpécxm—the older word in this connection—was ousted in Attic by éfayBAlcxw, but reappeared in the Common dialect with its early meaning—a meaning which it had never lost in the dialect of tragedy, the representative of Early Attic.

CLXX XV.

Avoi pr Aére, GAAG dvoiy, dveiv & éott wev dSdKimov, TH d€ GAAOKdTwC att ypficbai Tiwac émTapdtTerat emi rap

Mévue revikAc TideTat, obyi € doTtKAc,

All of this article, except the first five words, is quite erroneous, and probably the error is to be explained as in U

J

290 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Art. 179. In Attic Greek the only forms of the second cardinal number are d¢vo0 and dvoity—the former being em- ployed for the nominative, vocative, and accusative, and in earlier writers like Thucydides even for all the cases, while the latter is confined to the genitive and dative. The dual number is of very frequent occurrence in Attic Greek, and as a general rule dvo or dvoiv is added, as td do ed, To do vedvide, Totv dvotv Oeoiv, rotv. dvoiv veavldow. The form évo, however, may be attached to substantives in the plural, whereas if dvoty is used the substantive must always have the inflexion of the dual number, except it be an abstract noun. This rule was first formulated by Elmsley, and the exception first perceived by Wecklein: ‘Com- probatur igitur quod statuit Elmsleius ad Eur. Med. 798 Not., dvoty apud Atticos duali semper jungi, évo vero inter- dum plurali, dummodo veteres Atticos intellegamus. Cor- rigit Elmsleius Aesch. Eum. 600, dvoiv yap efxe mpooBodas puacpdrow, ubi. libri pawpdrwv, Ag. 1384, Kav dvoiv olpwy-

pdrow, ubi libri oludypacr. Pers, 720 dualem M. cum aliis:

libris exhibet (dvoty orparevpdrow) cfr. Ch. 304, dvoiy yuvat- Koiv, 944 dvoty pracrdpow, 1047 dvoiy dpaxdvrow. Elms- leium secutus est G. Hermannus, Dindorfius, libros Weilius. Vide ne apud Tragicos alia ratio sit in nominibus ab- stractis. Sophoclem quidem video in hominibus etiam dvo0 semper cum duali jungere (cfr. Phil. 539, dvdpe d00, O. R, 1505, O. C. 532, Ant. 533, vo & dra—hoc enim eandem vim habet—Ant. 55, ddeApe dv0, 989, 0 ef Evds BA€rovTe)— ut uno loco Trach. 539, 60 odoa, vel in 6 ovca, vel in bv évre corrigi debeat, contra dicere Phil. 117, do dwpyyara. Itaque valde dubito an Aeschylus in abstracto puwdopara,

olvéywara duali usus non sit, et ut velis Eum. 600, duoiy

puacparow scribere Ag. 1383 dativum dual, nom. abstracti nullo modo probaverim. Cho. 931, autem révd¢ mutari debet in roivde.’ (Wecklein, Curae Epigraph. pp. 16, 17.)

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 2gt

CLXXXVI.

*Orotc pH Aێre, Gc Tivec TOV FpaumaTiKav GAN Wo.

Phrynichus is here reprehending those grammarians who suggested that, because dra, the nominative, and drwy, the genitive plural, might be regarded as belonging either to the second or third declension, therefore the dative could — be dros as well as dof. They were led astray by the anomalous accentuation of the genitive plural érwv,and the

genitive-dative dual érow, these cases being accented as if from @rov.

CLXXXVII.

Meipaxec kai peipaé’ A ev K@pwdia mraizer Ta Totatia* ‘ ‘ a ‘ ' > ‘ n , iY ‘ TO fap peipag Kai peipaKec Emi OHAELv TdTTOVOLv, TO de

wetpakickoc Kai meipdKtov Kat wetpaKvAdtov Eri avdpav,

The zat¢e refers to places like that in Cratinus— mobdamas tas etvar pdoxwy, @ pelpaxes, ovk dv dyapreiv, where elxds adrovs OndvKH mpoonyopia oxémtew Tos TacxXN- tiévras. Otherwise the distinction is carefully observed by

Attic writers.

Me(pag, of a girl, in Ar. Eccl. 611, 696, 1138, Plut. 1071, 1079, Thesm. 410; Xenarchus, Ath. 13. 569 A; Cratinus, Ath. 2. 49 A.

Metpdxiov, of a- boy, in Ar. Eq. 556, 1375, Nub. 917, 928, 999, 1000, 1071, Vesp. 687, Av. 1440, Ran. 1071, Eccl. 702, Pl. 88. 975, 1038, 1096 ; Theopompus, Ath. 14. 649 B; Philyllius, Ath.11. 485 B; Epicrates, Ath. 2. 59 C etc.; Plato, Prot. 315 D, Parm, 126 C, Conv. 215 D, Apol. 18 C, 34 C; Charm. 154 B, Theaet. 142 C, 144 C, 168 E, 173 B, Gorg. 485 A, C, D, 499 B, Rep. 468 B, 497 E, 498 B, Lach. 179 D, 200 D, Legg. 658 D, etc.; Aeschines, 6. 14, 25. 3, 50.26; Isaeus, 55-7; Lysias, 96. 24,97. 18; Xenophon, Mem. f. 2. 42, etc.

U2

292 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

MeipaxtvAdwopr, of a boy, Ar. Ran. 89 ; Anaxandrides, Athen. 6. 227 C; Epicrates, id. 262 D; Demosthenes, 539, 23.

On the other hand, either pewpaxtoxos or petpaxloxn may be used—the former occurring in Alexis, Ath. 12. 544 E, id. 10. 421 D; Plato, Phaedr. 237 B, Rep. 7. 539 B, Theag. 122 C; the latter in Ar. Ran. 409, Pl. 964.

The words are not known to Tragedy. The Attic rule is thus just the converse of the Latin, which gave puella for the feminine, but for the masculine the unqualified puer. In late Greek the above distinction is not observed.

CLX XXVIII.

"Avadbécbar Kak@c of tdidTat od dé d&vaBdAAOUAL abl.

ot rap émi tovTov tdTTovTEC TO Gvabecbat GuapTdvoust.

; {

A€roust rap dvarivenat eicaboic TO Mpdrua, a&rvoobvtTec, we ri)

TO dvaTieévar So cHuaivel, Ev pev TO peTarirvOsketv Eq”

? l

oic eipHke, Kal dppHta rroteiv, érepov 8 dvariévat Td

@opriov.

The word ididrns has its usual sense of an untrained man, one who does not know. Phrynichus finds fault with the use of dvari@ewar in the sense of dvaBdddAopat, put off, which it bears in late writers, as in Themist. de Anima, 3, rodro yap dvebéucba emuoxéwacba, we put off discussing this point, and in his own example, dvariOeyar eicadOis TO Tpaypa, I put off the business for another time (lit. to again). He recognizes as Attic only two significations, the one, Zo re- tract what one has said and do what one has not suggested, the other, to put on one’s shoulders. The former meaning is found in Plato, Gorg. 461 D, kal éywye @0éAw TOY opodo- ynpévwv dvabécbat & te dv od Botdy: id. 462 A, Prot. 354 E, '. Phaed. 87 A; Xen. Mem. 1. 2. 44, etc., the latter in Lys. 110. 7, dvabéyevos 8 6 Bonddrns SxeTo andywr 7a Edda.

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 293

This second sense is, with the necessary modification, also found in the active. That of retract is a metaphor from draughts, as is shown by a note in Harpocration’s lexicon: *Avabécbar' "Avtipay ev t@ Tlept duovolas, ‘ dvabéoOar d& Somep metrov Tov Blov od éotw. avtl Tod dvwbev Bidvar peravor- cavras él ro mporépw Blo" elpnrar Se ex peraopas Tay TerT- revowevov’ TAdrwv év ‘Inmdpye 7 PiroKépdet. The passage of Plato is 229 E, adda pv kal domep metrevav eéA\wW cor éy Tois Adyous dvabécbar 6,7 BovrAeL TGv elpyuevwr.

CLXXXIX.

Zravepdc dvepwroc: obtwc ob ypdvrat of dpyaiot, GAAG oTabepa MEV pEoHUBPia A€rouct Kai oTABEPA FaAHVH, oTG- Bepdc S€ dvepwrroc obdaudc, GAN EuBpioric’ 08 KAaA@C ody

PaBwpivoc stavepdc dvOpwrroc einev. P Pp

The phrase oradepa pconpBpla is referred to by Plato, Phaedr. 242 A, pajmw ye, & Sdkpares, mply dv Td Kadpa mapér- On 7} obx Spas os oxeddv 75n peonuBpla torarar % 47) Kadov- Hévn otadepd* and Photius, in addition to this passage, quotes the adjective from Aeschylus and Aristophanes, Ties Kal émt Tod oracliyov as Aloyvdos év Luxaywyois, otabepod xevparos, kal Apioctopdyns ev Lpodywvi, atabepa 8é xédué veapas 4Bys. The word, as a whole, is much more frequent in late than in Classical Greek.

CAC,

*Avatreceiv ob KaAdc éri TOO dvaKkALeAvat TdaTTeTaL, Edv & éni tod trv yuxyHv GdHuovAcat, KaAdc* olov dvéTrecev dv-

Opwtoc dvti Tod THy yuyHv HObnHoeV,

Besides its primitive signification of fall back, avaninrew,

294 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS.

was employed as a technical term for throwing oneself back in rowing, as is well shown by Polybius, 1. 21. 2, dua mdvras dvaninrew ed atrovs ayovras Tas xeipas Kal mdAw tpovetew eEwOotvras radras. In this sense the word is met with in (Xen.) Oec. 8. 8, év rdger pev KdOnvra, ev rager be mpovevovo, ev Taéer y dvaninrovew, and in Cratinus (Ath. 1. 23 B), podla¢e xavdaunre.

In the metaphorical: sense Thucydides (1. 70) has vixo- pevor em €ddxioroy dvanirrovor: and Demosthenes (411. 3), déd50iKa pi) dvarentoxdres ite. In the last writer it is also applied to things (567. 12), dvemenraxer Tra rhs e€ddov, There is no instance in Attic Greek of the meaning recline, as in the passage of Alexis, quoted by Athenaeus in 1. 23 E, the verb has a special reference.

CXCI.

> a ‘ lot >» ‘ > > tal , Avakeitar’ kai todro GAAO ev Tap avtoic oHpuaivel, évT GAAov dé STO TV TOAAMV Tiderat, "AvaketTaL pev ‘ > ‘s ‘ > 4 nA 2 ed > U rap dvdptdc kai dvaeH pata Kaddc épeic, &vaKELTaL

8 emi the KAivHe ovKETL, GAAG KeiTaL.

As is well-known, xeiua: is always used in Attic Greek as

the perfect passive of ri@nu, the perfect ré@epar being |

always middle in meaning. Accordingly, dvdxear as naturally refers to dvaOqjpara and dvdpidvtes, as it supplies a perfect passive to dvarl@nuc in phrases like dvariWéva ra Tpaypata, s. thv airtay twl. Herodian represents some

comic poet as ridiculing that use of the verb which Phry-_

nichus here reprehends, Pierson’s ed. p. 441: Karaxeiodar" ént tév éotiwmpévwr, dvaxeicbar 8 emi elkdvwv Kal dvdpidvrov* elmdvros yotv Tivos “Avéxerco!, 6 Kapixds mral(mv avSpidvtas éorias pn.

1 ’Avammre, the reading of the editions, cannot be right.

— ee

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 295

CXCII.

*Avtipadeiv’ Kai Tobe Erepdv Ti cHyaiver Kai ETEpwc bd TOV TOAAMY A€feTat oHuaiver rap ToLodrdv Tt, dtroiov Td

> ia 4 a > ‘ n > cal a&vtitiévar A€retat dé vov ayti TOU AVTAVAFVOVAL.

The manuscripts have dvaridévar, which sprang from av7u- Oévai, produced by the accidental omission of one of the two adjacent syllables. Phrynichus, in App. Soph. p. 27. 10, again remarks upon this late use of dvriBdddew: ’Avrava- yvavar’ xphowor, odk dyT Barely, 003° dvre€erdoat, and a writer in the Adfers xpjowor, p. 410. 31, refers to Cratinus for this use of dvtavayryvdckety, to read in order to compare. The practice is well exemplified by Lobeck: ‘Lexicon epi mvevpdrov a Valckenario editum: dvriypddois diadpdpors (alternis lectionibus) avtiBdrnOev Kai dpdwbév, p. 207, tva dvTiBddns 6 pereypdyw Kal karopOdons mpds Td dvtlypapov ... Neque id solum in comparatione librorum in exemplaria transcriptorum dicitur, sed etiam si quis quaelibet alia mapddAnra e&erd¢er, ut v. c. €va mpos Eva dvtiBadeiv Damasc. Suid. s. "Exlxrnros, quod qui integre et sincere loquuntur, dvtimapasddAdew dicere solent. Isocr. 111 B, Plato. Apol. 41 BY

CXCIII.

Zkoprizerat’ “Exaraioc név TodTO Aéret “lav dv, 6 *Attikoc 8€ okeddvvuTat paci,

The word is of frequent occurrence in the Common dialect, but the passage referred to by Phrynichus is the only instance known in Classical Greek.

296 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS.

-CXCIV.

Katacydoat iatpoi uév Toto Aérovow Exovrec GrroAoriay, @c dytoc Tapa Toic apyaiorc Tob Eoywv Kai Eoyagov kai Exev-

Touv, GAAG KaTaVUEGL Hueic Ae€romev.

The evidence of literature does not support Phrynichus in his preference for xaravééai over katacxdoat. Xenophon employs oxd(m in Hell. 5. 4. 58, larpds oxdGer tiv mapa ro ocprp@ dr€Ba avdrod, and the word is also found with the same meaning in Hippocrates and Aristotle. Hipp. 552. 40, oxdoa adrod rods dyx@vas kal ddaipéey tod alyaros : Aph. 6. 5. 21, oxdew ras év trois daly dmobey pdréBas: Arist. H, A. 21, 603. °15, Bonde? 7d Aovtpov kat édv Tis oxdon tmd Thy yAOrrav. On the other hand, no Classical writer employs xatayicow is any sense, whether lay or medical. There is practically nothing in his dictum. ZS xd(m and vicow were both good Classical words, and the one might well be used of opening a vein by cutting, the other by pricking ; but in xaraviccw, no less than in xatacyd¢w, there is an attempt at that false emphasis which vitiates all late Greek.

CXCV.

“Pée, céet, mAéet, “lakd tabta diatpotmeva, A€re

2 cn . “ OUV pel, 2el, TTAEL.

CXCVI.

*Edéero, éAéeto, “lovika tatta’ 4 Oé ATTLKA ouvHdeta

PS Bom a ell ge ouvaipel, €d€iTo, ErtAeito, Eppeito,

ee as

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. — 297

CXCVII.

TIposdeicdat Aére, GAAG WH TIpOcdéecbat diatpav, dc

Papwpivoc AErov duaptrdver.

These articles were brought together by Lobeck. The third is not found in the Laurentian manuscripts, or in the editions of Callierges and Vascosan. The middle éppetro actually does occur in Eur. Hel. 1602—

dove 8% vads éppeiro’ mapaxéAevopa 8 iv kre.

being either a natural outcome of the same feeling which prompted pevoouat, or an artificial imitation of the same.

If the first person singular present indicative active is in its uncontracted form disyllabic, this fact influences the contraction of verbs in -éw1, but leaves those in -dw un- affected. Thus, while dpdw was contracted to dpé, just as Tysdw to TyuG, and as dpdom. was in Attic replaced by dpgny, just as Tyuwdoysu was replaced by rim@ny, yet xéo was retained by the side of the contracted moi6, and yéouyu was not modified like zovofnv. On the other hand, xéeus con- tracted to xe/s, just as movers to movels, and xéet to xe, like mover to moved.

The rule for the contraction of verbs like xéw is, how- ever, extremely simple.

They contract only when the vowel « is followed by another simple «, or by the diphthongal endings -es and -e. of the active. In all other cases their inflexion is identical with that of Adm. Their subjunctive and optative are consequently regular, xéw, xéns, xén, etc., xéouut, x€ors, xéor, etc., and in the optative they do not, as polysyllabic verbs like wovgw, assume the Attic singular forms in -«p, “UNS, lt) -—

1 For verbs in -6w, see p. 274.

298 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS.

PRESENT INDICATIVE.

ACTIVE. MIDDLE AND PASSIVE. S.1. xéw xéopae 2. xels xéer 3. xe xetrar D.2. xetrov xelobov 3. xelrov xetobov P. 1. xéouer xeducba 2. xeirE xetobe 3. x€over xXéovTau. IMPERFECT. S. 1. eeov exedunv 2. exeus £x€ov 3. exer éxeiro D.2. éxe?rov éxetobov 3. exelrny exeloOnv P. i. éyéomev exedueba 2. éxelire exelobe 3. €xeov €x€ovrTo. IMPERATIVE. S.2. xe x€ouv 3. xelTw xeloOw D.2. xeérov - xeloov 3. xelrwv xelobwv P.2. xelre xelobe 3. xEdvTMY xeloOwy ’ INFINITIVE. xeiv xetobat. PARTICIPLE. xéwv, x€ovoa, xéov XEOMEVOS, TN, OV.

xéovros, xeovons

ee

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 299

The evidence of verse is conclusive— Gor emerdy *EnpéOn, pet ov Td Sdxpvov Tord. Arist. Lys. 1034. Kardxer ov THs xopdis TO péAv’ Tas ontlas ordOeve. Id, Ach. 1040.

év yn téverOar pGddov 7 TAovTodvTa TAéiv. Antiphanes (Fr. Com. 3. 53). yépov dv cal campos Képdous Exati Kav éml pumds méou. Arist. Pax 699.

eitouw dv GAdrovs el phy pnxdtvew déor. Id. Lys, 1132.

GAG Trelrw Xwpls abrds és Képaxas, ef Bovderat. Id. Eq. 1314. morapol pev GOdpys kal péAavos Cwpod mA b1a TOV oTevanGy TovOodyodvTes Eppeov. Pherecrates, ‘The Miners’ (Ath. 6, 268 E.).

In fact to this rule, that verbs which have their first per- son singular present indicative disyllabic, and ending in -e, only contract in those cases in which the e of their stem is followed by another e¢, or in the active by -e: or -evs, there is no exception in Attic verse, except in conjectural emendations. Thus Dindorf alone is responsible for such forms as 67 for 5én in Arist. Ran. 265, etc. In Arist. Plut. 216 the Ravenna, it is true, and other manuscripts, read kay det, but it is the conjunction and not the verb that is amiss, just as the Ravenna also exhibits xdy Bote for kel BovAer in the next line—

A. éy@ ydp, &@ rotr tod. wiv bef p? arobaveiv abros biampdéw radra. B. kav Botha y éydt

Like Dindorf, Westphal and Veitch go very far wrong in making exceptions for themselves. True, éxee(v) is not

> Cobet reads xdv xpi and xdv BovAp, emendations adopted by Meineke.

300 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

uncommon in Greek, but it is not an imperfect form, as they imagine, but an aorist, and, as such, not subject to the rules of contraction. This is conclusively proved, first, by the meaning of the passages in which it occurs, - and, secondly, by the fact that the forms éppee(v) and émdee(v) are never found, because the aorists of séw and mréw are éppevoa and édevoa, That éxe is imperfect, éxee(v) aorist, is seen from the following examples— ovdémor eye TdéAeuov ofkad’ dodéFoua, ovde zap’ éuol more Tov “Apuddiov doerat ovykataxAwels 8rt mapowikds avijp eu, Boris él mdvt’ dyd® exovtas erixwpdoas clpydoaro mdvta Kaxd, Kdvérpeve Kagéxer Kapdxeto Kal mpocért ToAAa mpoKadovpevov ‘give, xatdxewoo, AaBE THvde pidornctay, Tas xdpaxas ijmTe TOAD padAov ev TG Tupl, eféxer 6 ijuwv Bia tov otvoy éx rav aurédov. Arist. Ach. 979-987. evel 5& OGrrov juev jprotnKdres 6 mais mepieide Tas tpanélas, viupara éréxer Tis, dmen(dueba, Tos orepdvovs mdédw tovs iptvovs AaBdvres eorehavodpeba. Dromo, ‘The Music Girl’ (Athen. 9. 409 E). Here xagéxer, é€éxeu, éwéxeu are, by their place in a series of imperfects, as conclusively proved to be themselves im- perfects as the context of the following shows xaréyeev and évéxeev to be aorists— GAN obk énidero Tois eyois oddty Adyots, GAN inmepdv pov Karéxeev Tdv xpnudrov. Arist. Nub. 74. Pherecrates, ‘ Corianno’ (Athen. 10. 430 E), in a conver- sation between Corianno, Glycé, and Syriscus— Co. amor éo7’, & TAv«K. Gl. sdaph ’véxeév cor; Co. mavtdracr pev ody Bdwp.

—— oe " _

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 301

Gl. rl cipydow; mds, & Kardpare, 8 evéxeas ; Syr. 80 tdaros, & pdyyn. Gl. ri 8 otvov; Syr. rérrapas. Co. pp és xépaxas* Batpdxovoww olvoxoeiy oe dei.

Such passages of prose writers as copyists have cor- rupted from ignorance of this natural and simple distinc- tion ought at once to be corrected. Thus, in Plato, Rep. .379, ovvexeev is right because the aorist is wanted, but in Antiphon, 113. 29, évéxee should be substituted for évéxer, though a few lines above the imperfect évéxye. must be retained.

There are two verbs, however, of this class which follow the analogy of polysyllables and contract throughout—the frequently occurring defy, fo bind, and the rare flv, to polish.

There is no undisputed instance of the imperfect or any mood of the present of £éw in Attic writers as the ‘ Theages,’ in which (124 B) the participle rév ¢edvrwy is found is certainly not a genuine Platonic dialogue. But in In- scriptions the participle occurs twice, and both times con- tracted—dvaéépv and xarafodvru }.

The following lines prove the case with regard to }6—

Anpows avaddv rods vixGvtas tov Trodroy &G wap’ EavTe.

Arist. Plut. 589.

0. 81) od Tepid0d Kal traxéws dvnp yevod.

Id, Eccl. 121. tév 8 dxovtiwy

ovvdodvtes dp0a tpla Avxvelo xpdpcOa. I Antiphanes, ‘The Knights’ (Athen. 15. 700 C.). n—

dye vuv brodvov Tas Katapdrous éuBddas

tacit & dvtcas trodo0v Tt Tas AaKwyikds, Arist. Vesp. 1158.

the word izodod is merely a conjecture of Hirschig’s for tnd6v01, as dnoAdvov in the preceding line for drodvov or trodvov. The reading tmodvov is probably right, as imodvov

* See Wecklein, Curae Epigraphicae, p. 32; Herwerden, Lapidum Tes- timonia, p. 43.

302 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

is certainly wrong, and dzodvov merely an attempt to cor- rect it, but there is more doubt about irddv6s. It is true that trodeieOa: is the ordinary word for ‘ putting on shoes’ in every age of Greek, as in the well-known imé tocaiv 2di}- caro kaha médtAa, and in another passage of Aristophanes—

drodeiocbe 8 Gs Tdx.cTa Tas AakwriKds. Eccl. 269.

but the commonly received trodjoacda in Vesp. 1159— éy@ yap ay rralnv drodjcacbal Tore’

and drodnoduevos in id. 1168— dvucdy 70? srodnodpevos KTE.

are in themselves merely conjectures of Scaliger’s for the manuscript izodvcacdai and trodvedpevos.

In a passage of ‘The Dolon’ of Eubulus (Athen. 3. 100 A) there is the same difficulty—

eyo Kexdptacpar pév, Gvdpes, od Kakds,

adr? eld mArpys, Sore xal pdodis mdvv

bredvodunv anavta bpav tas éuPBddas* but in a line from ‘ The Sirens’ of Theopompus (quoted by the Scholiast on Arist. Lys. 45)—

b70d00 AaBov Tas mepiBapldas, the ordinary expression is unquestioned.

It may well be that trodvoua: and iréduv were used as slang to express the same thing as drododua, and, as slang, were not out of place in Comedy, just as the middle of ox4(, ‘cut,’ is used in the sense of our English slang term ‘cut,’ ‘have done with’ —

TovTwr yevod mor cxacdpevos Thy tamiy, Ar. Nub. 107. «cut the turf.and take to books:’ Plato, Com. (Schol. Ach.

351)—

kal Tas dppis oxdoacbe cal ras dudaxas,

“have done with your temper and your gibes.’

4

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 303

This question, however, does not affect the rule of con- traction for 36. The texts of prose writers generally exhibit the true forms, but not in every case. Thus Plato is credited with d¢ov in Phaed. 99, but dod» must be restored. In late Greek the uncontracted forms prevailed, and it was probably from want of familiarity with the shorter and earlier imodév for their own trodéwv! that led the scribes to replace it by id woddv in one passage of Plato, Prot. 321 A, ézeidi) 88 adrois ddnddoPOopidy d.apvyas énijpkece, Tpos Tas éx Ards Spas eddperay eunxavaro duduev- pus aita muxvats te Opiét Kal orepéois S€ppaci, tkavois pev dpivat xewdva, dvvatois dé Kal kavpata Kal eis edvas lodow bmws tndpxo. Ta adira Tatra otpwyrt olkela te Kal adroduijs éxdoty’ kal bnodGv Ta pev SmAais Ta dF OpiEt Kat dépmacr ore- péois Kal dvatyos, where trodév corresponds to duduervis above. The true reading was extracted by Badham from the jd modév of the manuscripts.

CXCVIITI.

*Aptokéroc, GddKiov, yp &€ dptomdroc H apTorrotdc

Aéretv.

Lobeck considers that in this article the words dproxézos and dpromows have changed places, and that Phrynichus finds fault only with the latter. At all events dproxdmos rests on excellent authority, being quoted from Attic In- scriptions (C. I, vol. 1. p. 548, n. 1018), and occurring in Plato, Gorg. 518 B; Xen. Hell. 7. 1. 38; Hdt. 1. 51, 9. 82; whereas dpromoids has at best no better warrant than Xenophon (Cyr. 5. 5. 39), and even that weakened by the fact that in the passages of Plato and Xenophon already

1 8@ seems to have been for the most part replaced by deopevw in late Greek. Pollux. 8.71, dev. . . Acivapxos 52 nal Sodcay ri decpevovoay: Moeris, p. 130, Bodow 'Arrindis, Sexpevovow “EAAnvin@s : Hesych. dodo, Secpevouct.

304 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

cited inferior manuscripts present dprozoids. In another place (App. Soph. 22. 23) Phrynichus has the note: ” Apro- motetv' otrws “Arrixol 61a Tod mw, and to the same effect are the words in the Svvaywyt AéLewv xpnoipwv' *Apromdéroy kat ’Arrixol xal “Iwves roy apromoidy' gore 6€ 7d aproTomeiv év Movorpér@ Y¥pvvixov.

The form dpromézos comes from zém-tTw (cp. adé7-avor, a cake), and there can be no question that dproxdézos is also from that root (Lat. coquo), and not from xkémrw at all.

CXCIX.

"Everikn’ rd wév Trapeverikh Strac bd “Hpoddtou el pHTt Estepov dwoueba, TO b€ EvOHKH, Gc Ol TOAAO! A€rousty,

dromov, &popurv rap Aérouaty of apyaiot,

In the sense of ‘something put in besides, Herodotus employs rapevOjxn several times (1. 186, 6.19, 7. 5, 171), but the words of Phrynichus in regard to it have been lost. A hint like this occasionally conveyed indicates how careless and perfunctory have been the transcribers of his work.

Harpocration thus explains ddopuy: "Adopyy’ Sray tis dpybpiov 8G evOijKnv, aopyh Kadrcirar ldlws mapa rots ’Arti- ‘xois: and the following passages will put in a clear light the sense of the word under discussion: Lycurg. 151. 20, olkav év Meydpous, ols map’ tpadv e€exouloaro xphpacw adop- Bij XpOpevos, ex Tis jmelpov mapa Kreordrpas eis Acvxdda éor- Thyer kal exeiOev eis KépivOov: Demosth. 947. 22, ef jv ldla tis Aoppi tovrm mpds TH tpanvéCn: 958. 3, mlaTis apoppH nacGv éort peylotn Tpds xpnpatiopov : Lysias, Fr. ap. Athen. 13. 611 E, otros yap ddethov dpytpiov ent rpiol dpaxpais Swowdpo TG tparecirn Kal ’Apiotoyelrov. mporeAOav mpos pe edciro yu) TEepideiv adtoy bia Tods TéKoUS ek TOY dvT@Y ExTETOrTA.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS, 305

“carackevd Copa dé,” epy, “Téxunv pupewiKyy, Gpoppufs Se déouar, kal olow d€ cor évvé’ 6Bodovs Tis yas TéKOUs.”

cc.

*E€unviceAvat ob ypH Aéretv, GAN d&quTviadAvat.

©Eévrvioat uno ore damnant Herodianus Philet. p. 448, Moeris, p. 61, Thomas, 134.’ Lobeck. It certainly is not employed by any pre-Macedonian writer, whereas agumviv is met with in the following passages :—

Aristides (Orat. 49. vol. 2. p. 521, Dind.) cites it from Cratinus, cal ris abrav év Gpyn Tod dpduaros peyadavxovpevos as mpopyrns mpoayopever Tordde*

adunvicerdar xp mavta Oearny,

dnd pev Brepdpwv advOnuepivGv Tointdv Afpov aévra, aorep ev exelvn TH tpépa pédAwv &xavtas copods te xa o7ov- dalovs moijoew* diddEas bt rods Xelpwvas cre. In the Dvvaywyh AéEcwv xpyotpwv, p. 473. 8, the word is quoted from Phere- crates : "AgdumvicOjvar’ 7d e& Envov éyepOfivar. PDepexpdrns

WW’ adumvicbir obv axpoact, dn yap Kal A€Eouer, and it is found in the Rhesus (of Euripides) 1. 25—

étpuvov eyxos delpew, apdavicor.

CCI.

BadavrokAéntHe WH Aére, GAAG BAAGVTLOKAETITHC,

Thomas has the same sensible dictum, p. 140, Badayrio- kAéntns, o8 Badavrok\éntns, kal Badavtiotdpos, od Badarro- topos. The editions, which on this passage all exhibit Badavoxdéntns pn A€ye GAAG BaAdaveroxrémrns, were justly ridiculed by Scaliger : ‘ Badavrioxhénrns legendum esse in Ed. Paris. anno praeterito notabamus, et Padavroxdén7ns. Nam quam ridiculum esset BadavevoxAéntns? id enim non esset qui in balneis furatur sed qui balneas furaretur.’

xX

306 THE NEW PHRYNICHAUS,

CCIl.

a > Basidtssa: ovdeic TOv dpyaiwyv eimev, GAAG Baoidera A

BactAic.

CCIII.

Basidtcoav “AAKaidv pact tov kwpwdorrotdv Kai *Apts- ToTéAHy éy Toic “Opripov dmopHyaciv eipHkévat’ od dé BactAikdc EmtoToAevc dToMaveeic dvdAorov TH cavTod Napa- GKEUH FevviK@TaTOV Hiv Exdutoac uapTUpa Tov cUrrpayavTa 4 ‘ ' a ‘ - ‘ » < ’ A >. 8 TOV KATA Neaipac: 6c dia Te Ta GAAG STr@MTEvOH MH eElvat Anposdevove kai dia Ta TOLadTA THy GdoKiL@V dvouaTOy. ToIC TAEloGtv OUV TreLOdMEVOL BaciAeLav H BactAida AEfapey.

obtw rap diakpivew ddEaiuev dv Té Te KaAdV Kai TO aloypdv.

The latter of these articles is in the manuscripts the second of the second part of the Ecloga. From this it is natural to infer that the Imperial Secretary, to whom the book is dedicated, was not so strict an Atticist as its author. It would almost seem as if Cornelianus had found fault with the stringency of the earlier dictum. Phrynichus humorously turns upon his friend: ‘In your authoritative position, and from your great learning, you ought to know better than you do. Though I omitted to mention them, I knew of better examples than yours, which does you little credit. Even Aristotle, whom I care not-to follow, is better than the author of the speech you cite, and my instance from Alcaeus is more authoritative still. Moreover, you know how little I allow one exception or two to affect my rules.’ The article next but two is prob- ably a similar addendum.

¢

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 307

CCIV.

Zikyaivouat, TO dvtt vautiac dEtov robvoua, GAN épeic BdeAUTTOMaL wc ’A@Hvatoc,

*Verbi ovxxatvouar nulla antiquior memoria quam in Callimachi epigrammate; huic accedunt Arrianus et M. Antoninus V. 9. 87. Neque plus auctoritatis habet primi- tivum ouxxés, Plut. 2. 87 B, Athen. 962 A; oxxacla, Mos- chio de Aff. Mul. 28 ; ouxydrns, Eust. 972. 35.’ Lobeck.

CCV.

TeAdotmov pr A€re, GAAG reAotov.

CCVI.

TeAdotmov' Ztpadttiv wév Pact Tov KOU@doTroLdy EipHKévat TOUVOMNG, GAN Fipeic ob Toic Amak— eipHyévoic mpoceyouev Tov

vobv, GAAG TOIC TOAAGKLC KeypH}lévoic’ KeypHTaLdé TO Fedotov,

The principle of Phrynichus’ work is here lucidly stated, and there can be no question about the genuineness of the second article, although it is not found in the Laurentian manuscripts. No hand but his could have presented so clear a statement of his position as an Atticist.

CCVII.

> ‘ c , > ' ‘ ’ Adexropic ebpioxetat év Tparmodia mov Kai Kkwouwdia,

Aére 5€ GAekTpudyv Kai émi OrAeoc Kal émi dppevoc wc ol maAaol,

No Comic poet could have used dAéxrwp or ddexropls except outside the iambics, as Cratinus, ap. Ath. 9. 374 D— aomep 6 Tepoixds Spav macay xavaxGv dAddwvos ddéxtwp,

X 2

308 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Plato (Eust. ad Odyss. p. 1479. 47)— ot 5& KoxktCwv dpOpv GrAéxtwp mpoKxadeira., or of malice prepense, as Aristophanes in the Clouds, and parodying the Tragic poet Phrynichus in Vesp. 1490— mjoce. Pptyixos as tis dd€éxTwp. The words of Phrynichus have been preserved by Plu- tarch (Amat. 762 F)— én ddéktwp dodAov ws KAlvas TTépor, and as an old term dAéxrwp was naturally common in Tragedy, Aesch. Ag. 1671, Eum. 861., Athenaeus cites apepdpar’ ddé€xtwp from Simonides, and from Epicharmus— @ea xavos KddexTopliwy meTenvar. Both old words, éAéxrwp and dAexropis, were in Attic super- seded by ddexrpuvdv, one form for both genders, but re- appeared in the Common dialect. The orator Demades, as dvouaroOypas, used dAéxrwp in a pompous metaphor,

speaking of a trumpeter (Ath. 3. 99 D) as xouvds ’A@nvalov GAEKTMp.

CCVIII.

PAwssidac avAdy A brrodHudTo@yv ut Aére, GAN ac ot

doKiMoL FAMTTAC aVADV, rAMTTAc brodHUdToy,

There is the same caution in App. Soph. p. 32, yAérrau avAGv Kal yhOrrar brodnudtrwv & yAwrridas A€yovoww of dua- Geis. Athenaeus (15. 677 A) cites a passage of Plato, in which there is a play upon the different senses of yAérra— xalrot popeire yh@rray év brodijpacw — otepavodcl imoyAwrrlow brav alynré ov, Kay KadAepire, yAGrrav dyabhy méumere’

and Aeschinus makes a point by the same means (86. 27),

érav & @€ dvopdrwy ovyxelevos avOpwros, Kal Tovrwv muKpOv

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 309

kal Teplépywr, emevta én tiv Gmddrnta Kal Ta epya karapedyn tls dv dvdoyowro; ob THY yAGtTav, domep TGV addrAGv, edv Tis apedn, Td owtdy odbd€v eorwy.

CCIX.

Tpit kai tobro Tay mapameroinpévwyv, TO rap ToLodTov

dmav rpupéav oupBépHKe KaAEiobat,

The words are explained in App. Soph. 33. 32, I'puyela, iv of moAAol ypirnv. Aldidros dvev Tod 1, ypupéav' ~orr Se Tap’ ’AOnvators mihpa Tis ypuyéa Kadovpérn, ev 7 Tavrota cxe’y éori. LTampd 8% ypérnv Karel thy ptpwv Kab yvvatkelov twov OfKyy. The Attic form is also found in a passage of Sotades, quoted by Athenaeus (7. 293 A)—

Kapidas €AaBov mpSrov, aneraynuica

Tatras amdcas* yadeds elAnnrat péyas,

OmTnoa TA péoa, THY 5 owmhv ypupéav

&fw rouoas tplupa cvkapylvwor. Its existence in Sappho indicates the source from which ypirn entered the Common dialect. In Geopon. 20. 1 it is used as ypuyéa is in Sotades, rijv Aerrhv yptrnv Oadracclav.

CCX.

Atapuroc, dStopurt, Sipura, ov. ot rap d&pyator 1adTa dia TOO x Aéfovot, drdpuyoc, diwpvyt, diapuya.

‘ Aidpvé, dispvxos per x semper apud Herodotum (uno loco excepto) et Platonem scribi monuit Valckenarius in Notis Posth.ad Thom. p. 157, itemque scribitur ap. Thucyd. I. 109, If. 109, Xenoph. An. 1. 7. 11, Theophr. H. Pl. 4. 8, Plut. Vit. Ages. 39, Caes. 49, Arrian. Alex. 3. 6, 7. 18, Dion. Cass. 42, 41, Heliod. 9. 5, etc. Altera forma d:dpuyes (Hippocr. de Aer. et Loc. 5. 83) in Atticorum scriptis non deprehenditur ; sed recentiores, Polybium, Diodorum, Stra-

310 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

bonem, Pausaniam, partim ea sola, partim utraque com- muniter uti Hemsterhusius ad Thom. et Tzchuckius ad Pomp. Mel. vol. 2. 3. 292 docuerunt. Sic etiam xarépugé ab Aeschylo et Sophocle per x flectitur.’ Lobeck.

COX

Aixpavov tobro oi d&pyaior dikpouv KaAobowv,

In Attic dixpoww &Aov means a forked stick, a fork, as in Timocles, ap. Athen. 6. 243 B— Tov Tapapacrrny AapBdver dikpovy Edrov* and Aristophanes substituted xexpdypaow in Pax 637, mapa mpoosoxtay, for &VAous— THvde pev Sixpois edOovy Tiv Ociy Kexpdypacw. Plato has dixpovs=with two branches, of the throat, Tim. 78 B. In Lucian the later form occurs in Timon. 12. 120, kat povovovx? dixpdvors e€edOer pe Tis olklas kabdmep of rd rip éx TOV XELpOV amoppiTTodrTes.

CCXII.

Atédoxoupot, d6pedtepov Atdckopot. reddcet ovv Tovc

ovv T UV A€fovTac,

Lobeck’s note on this article is in his best style: ‘ Nimi- rum natura ita comparatum est ut dualis numeri longe major sit usus, apud veteres praesertim, quam plurativi nominis, Avooxdépw Eur. Or. 465, Arist. Pax 285, Eccl. 1069, Amphis ap. Athen. 14. 642 A... Atque haec ipsa causa fuit cur atticismus in hac formula in qua fixus et fundatus erat, diutissime retineretur ; certe Themistius inter delicias Atticionum numerat 76 dy70vev Kal 7d Kamevra Kat

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 311

to Avoxépo, Or. 21. 253 D. Genetivus est in illo Men- andri versu a Grammaticis decantato, 6 Odrepos peéy Toiv dvoiv Atocképow. Tév Atocképwr, Plato, Legg. 796 B, sed Auooc- xovpw, Plat. Euthyd. 293 A, Atooxotpwrv, Thucyd. 3. 75, unico codice germanam scripturam servante ... In recen- tiorum scriptis exempla hujus generis ita spissantur ut Attica forma ne tum quidem satis tuta reponatur, ubi ex uno aut altero chirographo emerserit. Ac perrarum est ut in ea libri editi et scripti conspirent. Verum ista scrip- turae discrepantia ab ipsis vocabuli stirpibus progenerata est: «épn in pedestri sermone tritissimum hac una forma gaudet; xépos et xodpos tantum in certa formula usur- patur; xovpw xal xdpn, Plato, Legg. 6. 785 A, cui statim succedit rectius kép@* xdpov Kat xépns, 7. 793 D, xdpovs kai kdpas, p. 796 B,..In Tragicorum diverbiis Attica forma tantam habet constantiam ut Valckenarius non dubitaverit in Eur. Frag. Meleagri, 6, pro xodpor reponere xépo.. Man- sit veteris dialecti nota in vocc. Kovpedris, xovpetov, kovpo- tpdos.’ Lobeck. Like that of Comedy, the evidence of Tragedy is in favour of the short penult—

duccol b€ oe

Avéoxopot Kadobpev. Eur. Hel. 1643.

KaAdodot pntpos otyyovo. Atdoxopot. Id. El, 1239.

In I. A. 769, Atocxovpwv ‘“EXévay corresponds to plnrew £avOovs moxduous: but in a choric passage the older form is quite in keeping.

CCXIII.

“Yorepizetv TH kaip@ ob A€érerat, GAN Votepizetv Tod Katpod,

Papwpivoc dé ody bridc Kata dortKkty ouvTdttet,

Dem, 260, 13, torepiCovcay thy médAw tv KaipGy: id. 5I. 12, toreplCew tdv epywy: 730, 19, Tots Tod moA€uov KaLpois

312 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

dxodovdeiy kal pndévos toreplCew: Isocr. 30 D, storeplCover Tév Tpaypdrav: 204 A, torepllw ris dxyhs ris éwavrod.

The meaning is different with the dative, as with torepeiv in Plato, Rep. 539 E, tva pn® éureipla torepGor rév ddAdwv.

CCXIV.

TlapapdAtov’ dddKkiwov toto. TH ev ovv 6vouaTL od KéXPHVTOL Of TaAQLOL, TH Se PHuart, Paci rap obrw, mapa- BaAAOMAL TH EnavTOD KepaAH. ExypAv obv Kadri ToUT@Y Aéretv,

TApaBaAdopat G&prupio.

TTapaBdAAoua was occasionally used for wapari@ewar in the sense of make a deposit: Hdt. 7. 10, huéwv duporépwy mapa- BaddAopévav ta téxva: Thuc. 5. 113, Aaxedaovlors mArcioror 37) mapaBeBAnpuévor. The substantive, however, is unknown in the Classical age, rapa6jxn or mapaxarabjxn being used instead, the former by Ionic, the latter by Attic writers.

CCXV.

Zratoc’ 6 THY AVAHTOV yIT@y ob AéreTat, dc PaBepivoc,

GAN OpGocTddi0c ytTav, \

Pollux, 7. 48, explains the xray dpOocrdé.os as 6 on Cov- ‘vipevos, i.e. falling straight down without being drawn in at the waist.

CCXVI.

TlatdiokH? todto éri TAc Geparraivuc oi vov TLWEaoLY, ot

& dpyator éri tAc vedvidoc,

Moeris is more precise, p. 319, [ladtoxny, kal tiv eAev- Oépay Kal tiv dovAnv, ’AtTiKGs* THv. dovAnv povov, “EAAnvIKGs. Neither Grammarian asserts more than this, that in an

a

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS, — 313

Attic writer the term refers to age, not to condition, and that no such usage as N. T. Ep. ad Galat. 4. 31, od« éopév matdloxns téxva, GAAG Tis éAevbépas, is possible in Attic Greek. Accordingly, the dictum is not refuted by such passages as Lysias, 92. 41, 136. 8; Isaeus, 58. 13, in which the English word gzr/ naturally translates the Greek term. The women there referred to were in a humble or debased position, but labour is not incompatible with tender years and immorality, but too frequently accompanies them.

CCXVII.

Tlaiéat Awpteic 81a Tod &, 6 dé AtTiKOc Taicat, Kai »

Traioate Kai cuuTTaistHe dia TOD o Epeic,

Moeris, Thomas Magister, Timaeus, Hesychius, Sutdas, and Eustathius, all insist upon the forms in sigma. The words of the latter are very precise (ad Odyss. p. 1594), rd b¢ matcate dvti tod mal~are ard Tod Tallw, malow, GOev Kal 7 ovpratorpia kal 6 ovpmatotwp “Arrixds. The line of the Odyssey to which this note is attached is 8. 251—

matoare, ds x’ 6 Eeivos eviorn olor piro.or,

and there can be no doubt that in id. 23. 134, giromalopwv should be substituted for ¢Aoralypav—

abvrap Oeios dovdds exav pdpysyya Alyevav

heiv jyelsOm piromatypovos dpynOpoio. Certainly in Attic such a form was impossible, and yet it is occasionally exhibited by manuscripts. Till Bekker restored the form in o- from the best codices in Plato, Cratyl. 406 C, giromalcpoves yap Kab of Oeol, the un-Attic form disfigured the text, and in Plat. Rep. 452 F, etre ris prtoratcpwr eire orovdacTikds, the genuine reading has still less numerical support, but is attested by Paris A. In Ar.

314 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Ran. 335 is read iAo7aiyyova and in 411 cvpmaotplas, but neither in the senarii, and as yet too little is known of the literary use of the dialects in Greece to warrant the change of didoralypwr into dirotalcpav.

That Xenophon should write cvyraixrwp in Cyr. 1. 3. 14, kat matdas b€ cor ovupmatktopas mapé€w, is as natural as that he should use the form in -rwp for the Attic form in -rns, (see supra p. 59), and the reading ovuméoropas should have no weight. The future wa:fodua, in his Conv. 9. 2, stands on a different footing still, and has already been considered (see p. 91). A glance at Veitch will show that the Attic rule is now generally recognized in Attic texts; but in Lysias, as cited by Pollux, in 7. 200, wypomaixroto. must give way to Wndoraorotor' Ei 5@ Avolov 6 car Adroxdéovs Adyos ev @ yéypanrat ynpotaotodar Td Sixavov xre., Play fast and loose with right.

CCXVIII.

Tladatorpikdc’ “AdeEw paoiv eipHkevat, 6 8€ dpyaioc

TIOAGLGTLKOV AErel.

The words were in Attic distinct—mada.otixds, ‘expert in wrestling, ‘a wrestler ;’ madaotpikds, ‘connected with the madatorpa’—but it is not surprising that the latter should have filled the part of both in an age when nice distinctions, either in meaning or pronunciation, were disregarded. It must also be remembered that madatorpixés was a natural formation from wadaiorjp, which was probably used in late Greek (see p. 59). In some cases it is quite impossible to decide upon the correct mode of spelling an adjective in -xés belonging to this class. Thus the manuscripts support AnoTiKSTepov Tapecxevacpévovs in Thuc. 6, 104, but & Anotpixijs Meoonviwy tpiaxovrdpov in id. 4. 9. Both were probably good forms at this stage of Attic, the one from Anoris, the other from Anorip.

oh

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 315

CCXIX.

*Enaoidh idiatHe Aérov Guaptdvet, Aére obv Spode Eemdii,

€rrel TO S1aLpOUMEVOV TIOLHTLKOV.

*Phrynichus App. Soph. p. 38, 7G émaowdy Kai dod) od xpnoreov, kav “Ounpos eirev. Ionica forma in omni genere et parte sermonis poetici locum habet, neque iambum scenicum, si paullo altius exsurgit, dedecet. Ion ap. Athen. madalérwv tyuvev dodol, et Phrynichus eodem loco wWaa- potow avtlonacr deldovres peAn. Sed ultra non egreditur.’ Lobeck. See supra, p. 5.

CCXX.

Adodcw* év tH mepi EdyAc PaBwpivoc obtw Aéret, déov

diddac1, Td rap Sid0b0tv GAAO Tt cHyaiver.

The words 16 dev which follow onyalver in the manu- scripts did not come from the hand of Phrynichus, but are the senseless addition of some transcriber who was not ac- quainted with the dative plural of the participle, and yet recalled some rule about the anomalous contraction of the verb 86, J bind.

It is only by accident that d:d0801, the Ionic form of the third person plural d:ddéa01, presents the appearance of that

.of a regularly contracted verb, and d:d0001 is no more con- nected with 6:86 than d.dolyv, did07rov, or SdGpev. This is proved by the existence of rideio1, the Ionic form of riOgaou. There are in fact only four forms of 8(é@us which come from the imaginary 8:34, just as there are only four forms of rl@nuc which come from the imaginary 7106. For dieu there are the three singular persons of the imperfect and the second person singular of the imperative, while for

316 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

rlOnu they are the second and third persons singular of the imperfect and the second person singular of both present indicative and imperative. Besides edidovv, edldovs, edidov, and dfdov, the regular 8:86 is inactive, and similarly 706 exists only in rifeis, ér(Oeis, ér(Oe., and ri@e. This is the Attic rule. There is no tiOciv, riOetrov, érlOovv, ériOodper, rWolnv, TLYWdv, No siois, ediodTor, SidotTH, Biddv, Zwoa, ded(Swxa, or &:5d0nv. The middle imperative r(Oov is for rl@eco, and that the optative forms riOolunv, TiBoiro, etc., if Attic at all, are not from rieio@a is proved by the ex- istence of similar forms in the aorist Aotunv, Ootro, oto, etc. Aidés and 886, d¢s and 8¢ similarly demonstrate that it is only by accident that the subjunctive 1106, r.6js, T1097 may be ascribed to ri0eiv. Many scholars refuse to acknowledge 7 even the Atticicity of rieis as second person singular of the present indicative, and consequently disfranchise ies as well, since tae corresponds throughout with r/@ny1, except that efuar has a passive no less than a middle signification, whereas ré@eyzar has none but a middle sense.

All scholars recognize the fact that érideis, éri@e, tes, te. were used preferentially to éri@ns, éri@n, ins, &, and that r(@e. and te: were the only forms by which the meaning of the second person imperative present could be conveyed ; but the authority of Porson (ad Eur. Or. 141) has induced many scholars to prefer ims and rl@ns to tefs and riGeis. -Brunck, on Arist. Lys. 895 and Soph. Phil. 992, took the opposite view to that of Porson, and in this case the verdict of the great English critic must be reversed. The authority of the manuscripts is wholly on the side of Brunck. Thus _ in Ar. Lys. 895 the Ravenna exhibits diaries, and on Eq. 717 évrideis. Further proof is supplied by the mistakes of copyists. They often substitute the participle for the indicative, as in Euripides—

éxou vuv' ixvos 8 expvdaco’ brov ries, Ton 741.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. SIF

éreita TH Oe@ TpootiOcis THY airlay, Id. 1525. where good manuscripts read refs and mpooribels, exactly as in Ar. Lys. 895, dsari0eio’ is a variant from dvarieis. In Soph. O. R. 628— ei d& Evvieis pndev;

all the best manuscripts read fvrieis, or, in other words, substitute the imperfect for the present in accordance with the extraordinary remark of Eustathius, 1500. 52, that fess, peOiets were used of present time, xara évaddayiy xpdvov. In Soph. El. 596 for the true iets the manuscripts present ts or tes, as in id. 1347 they divide between fvries and évuvins. The plain inference to be drawn from the above facts is that the contracted second person singular, being unknown to late Greeks, was altered when possible into the participle, otherwise was converted into the imperfect or late ins.

CCXXI.

TIpoaAdc* todto doKet por ruvaiKdy eivat Tobvoua, dvid-

. pot dé tt dveip Adrou GEvwc KéypHTar att Papwpivoc, Tobro pév obv dnodiomounmMpeda, dvr? adrod S€ Aér@pev

TIpoTteTac, .

The article is absent from the best Laurentian Manu- script, and from the editions of Callierges and Vascosan.

Neither adverb nor adjective is found in Attic writers. They were, however, probably both old words, as Homer employed the adjective in Il. 21. 262—

7d b€ (sc. tdwp) 7 Bka xare.Bdpevov KedapbCer xSp@ evi Tpoadre?, POdver b€ Te Kal roy dyorTa.

A fact of this kind throws considerable light upon the constitution of the Common dialect.

Fainton

318 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

CCXXII.

Tlhydv, miywct dewdc Exdtepov dvattikov, déov

THYE@Y Kai THYEOC,

Verse does not afford any help on this point, as mnxéur, mxeos might, if necessary, be pronounced as dissyllables by synizesis—

oxtdos Te Kicood mapéber’ els cdpos tpidv mxéwv, Bd0os S€ Texodpwr éepalvero, : Eur. Cyel. 390. but there can be no question about the correctness of Phrynichus’ rule.

CCXXIII,

Dount@ua MOAAGKIC ebpov Keivevov Tapa Papwpivw ev tT TrepiIdedv Adr~. Tmd0Ev d€ AaBav EOHKeV OvK oida, ypH obv cuvtuyiav Aéretv H AUoavtac ott, cuveTecev adm TOdE reveceat,

AnposbévHe =mévTot €v TH Kata Atovucodmpou dmakt

eElpHKe TOUVOMG,

The last sentence probably belongs to a second edition

_ of the Ecloga, but compare art. 203 supra. Perhaps the

exception was, in this case correctly, discovered by Cor- nelianus himself. The place of Demosthenes is 1295. 20, «i yap as GdnbGs dxotoioy Td cvpBay eyévero Kal f vads éppdyn, TO peta Todr’, ered emeckevacay THY vadv ovK dy els Erepa dijrov eumdpia éulobovy airy GAN ds tyas axé- ote\Xov enavopOovpevor 75 axotciov otpntwpa. The term is also found in Thucydides, 4. 36, cai of Aaxedaysdvio Bad- Adpevol Te dpyorépwlev dn Kal yryvdyevor ev TO adTOe ovp- mrdpatt, as pikpov peydd@ elkdoa, TE ev Oeppor’dais kre, Plato uses replarwpa in Prot. 345 B, tmd vécov 7 bad aAdAov

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 319

Twos TepinmTépatos, and perdmrwois in Legg. 10, 895 B, pndeulas ye év adrois otons eunpoobey perantdcews: these words are eschewed by Attic writers. In late Greek they are used without restraint, and rapdnropa, anérrapa, rapdatwors, meplatwois, andmtwots, ExmTopa, ExTTMOLS, EeuTTTwoLs, erlaTwors, KaTdtTwpa, kaTdntwots, ITdnTwoLs, dvaTT@os are encountered in different authors.

CCX XIV.

“Exoeua BapBapov’ ot dé Aére mpdrpappa,

The verb éxridéva:, in the sense of mpoypddew, publish, is also late, but the low estate of the substantive may be inferred from its make. Moeris is only giving one example out of many when he says, p. 28, ’Avd@nywa Arrixds, dvddeua “EAAnvixGs. Similarly méua became aédpa, etpnua etpeua, dpopa dpoua, evddua evduya, kAiwa kAtwa, while the formation of a word like ddua (=8dé6pov) became possible. It is to the same tendency that the insertion of the sigma in ypiya is to be ascribed. The Attic form was xpiva; in late Greek it became xpicpa.

CCX XV.

Katope®pata’ duaptdvovet Kavtatea oi pritopec, ob etddétec Stt TO Lev PAya SdKimov, Td KaTOpedoat, TO 8 dro ToUTOU dvoua GddKiWov, TO KaTOPOwua' A€retv obv ypH dv-

dparadrivata,

It is the philosophical sense of the late xarép@aya which Phrynichus is here especially reprehending, as the sub- stituted term dvdpayd0nyua shows ; Cicero, de Fin. 3. 7, ‘Quae autem nos aut recta aut recte facta dicamus, si placet, illi autem appellant xarop@éuara omnes numeros virtutis con- tinent, id 4, ‘illud enim rectum quod xarép§wya dicebas

320 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

contingit sapienti soli;’ id. de Off. 1. 3, ‘ Perfectum autem officium rectum, opinor, vocemus, quod Graeci xarép0wpa ; hoc autem commune, quod ii xa@jxov vocant.’ As a matter of fact dvdpaydé0nua is as late as xarépOwpa. At all events neither dvdpayabeiy nor its substantive appears in Attic books. Thucydides has dvdpaya0{Gouat in rather a con- temptuous sense in 2. 63; 3. 40, but dvdpaya0la had a good sense and was used by good writers.

In the other meaning of a@ success, xardépOopa is equally un-Attic. Demosthenes employs the neuter participle of the intransitive active, 23. 28, viv pev émoxorel rovrois TO katopOodv" ai yap etmpagtar dewal ovyxptpat ra Tro.adra dveldn, but 7d ép8ovpevov was more often used, as ép0ovmevos was equivalent to successful, Thuc. 4. 18, cal @Adxuor’ ay ot rowtro. mratovres bid Td pH TO opOovpév adtod moredovres éxalpecOar: Antiphon, 130. 7, 6p yap rods mdvy eumelpous padAov dpOovpevovs :

tév & dp0ovpévwr ode. TA TOAAA odpal” 7 TeLOapxta. Soph. Ant. 675.

On the other hand, xardép@wo1s has the authority of Aeschines in 51. 5, dmayyelAas tolvyy mpGtos Tip Tis moAews vikny byiv kal thy Tov Taddv tperépwv KarépOwo.v, and of Demades in 179. 28, mpooehOdy be Tots Kowois odk eis dikas Kal Thy and Tis Noyopadlas épyactay €0nxa Tov wévov, GAN els Thy and Tod Biparos mappyotar, 7) Trois pev A€yovow éemicpadry mapéxera TOV’ Blov, rots 8 edAaBovpévois peylorny dsldwow aopyhy mpos xatoépOwow. Both éravdépOwors and érardpOwya were excellent Attic, the former occurring in Plato, Prot. 340 A, D, Theaet. 183 A; Dem. 774. 20, and the latter in Dem. 707. 7, while dudpOwors, with the meaning right arrangement, has the sanction of Plato, Legg. 1. 642 A.

THE NEW PHRYNICHAUS. 324

CCXXVI.

“Yrraepov wH Aére, TO d€ brTaiOptov TeTpAacVAAGBac.

To this rule there is no exception in Attic Greek except the use of traOpos in the phrase év iralOpe, sub dio, is to be so regarded, Antiphon. 130, 29; Xen. Mem. 2. 1, 6. In that phrase tralOpuos is unknown.

CCXXVII.

To ev KotT@v GddKiMoy, TO S€ MpoKOLT@Y Ob ddKtMOV. « a ‘ ‘ n~ ~ 3 ~ 2 ’ , Hiv 8€ KaAdV ypHicbat Tm’ ATTIKm dvdnatt npodwpdtiov

rap A€rovoty éTei kai Se@pdtiov TOV KoLTava.

According to Pollux 1. 79, Aristophanes used the de- faulting term, xowrév' ei yap cat Mévavdpos adrd BapBapixdv olerat, GAN *Apiotoddvyns ta Towatra miotdérepos avrod év Aiodoolkwv

koirav amdoas els, mbehos be wl apKéoes, but little can be proved by a single line in a case of this kind, especially in a play like the Aeolosicon, which must have teemed with para-tragedy. On the other hand, dapd- tiov has the sanction of Aristophanes in Lys. 160, Eccl. 8 ; Lysias in 93. 18; 94. 7; Plato in Rep. 390 C.

CCX XVIII.

Zufirua Kai ouhEat kai ta Towadta dvattiKa’ TO Pap aTTIKOV

ouAua Kal GuAGal, TO Mev dvev TOO fF, TO dE da TOD o.

The tendency of transcribers to introduce the late cpjxw is strikingly illustrated by a line of Antiphanes cited by Yy

322 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Clemens Alex. (Paed. 3. 2), in which opera: actually stands in open violation of the metre—

opAra, krevicer’, exBéBnxe, TplBerac.

Accordingly, the genuine dvacpundels should be substituted for the debased dvacunyx ets in Ar. Nub. 1237—

édolv diacpnbels dvair’ dy otroct.

Even a transcriber was forced to leave opwpéryy alone in another place of the Comic poet—

GAN dpriws katéAumov adthy cpwpéevny

ey TH TVEAQ* and opjoas seems to have escaped in Alexis ap. Ath. 7. 324 B—

opnoas Te AeTTOIs GAct, dermvotvTwY Gyua, but cyjjwa was less fortunate in Antiphanes ap. Ath.9.409 C—

év bam 8 dxpodual cov, Kédevody pol twa

épew aroviipacda. B. déTw Tis dedp’ Tdwp

kal opijpa. Some manuscripts however, even here preserved copia, which is also vouched for by Eustath. 1401. 6. In two passages Pollux mentions yi opnrpis, 7. 40, Thy (lege yiv) dt opyntplia Kndioddwpos év Tpopwvin elpnxey: 10. 35, Ta dE mept tiv Oeparelay tov éoOjtwy oKedn, TAvvol Kal TAvVTIpLA kal yi opntpls Kara Nixdxapw. The reading optxpida in the one case and opnris in the other indicate the original hand.

Syxo was, however, not merely an invention of the

Common dialect, like dporpié and others, but came from an ancient source—

éx Kkehadijs 8 éopnxev adds xvdov arpvyérouo,

Hom, Od. 6. 226. Owpikov TE veoopynKTwy caxéwv Te pacar, Il, 13. 342.

and in Tragedy, or in a writer like Xenophon, would doubt- less have been as little amiss as in Homer or Hippocrates.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 323

Accordingly, it is not surprising to encounter its neighbour katayijxew in Euripides, Hipp. 110—

tpameCa mAnpys’ Kal Karajyew xpewv and yx in Xenophon (Eq. 6. 1; 4. 4), while apnypa should be retained in Sophocles, Trach. 698—

pet wav Gdndov kal Karéyrnxrar xOovt, By the side of 7 in id. 678 it is simply another illustration of the conventional character of the Tragic dialect in which forms that had long dropped out of use in Attic were retained side by side with those before which they had given way.

CCXXIX.

Zaxxoc’ Awpteic S16 THdv dbo Kk, of 8€AtTiKol SC Evdc.

KAdwy peyapieis* ovK adyoets Tov odKov; Ar. Ach, 822,

daca kal ploe. odkov mpds roivy yvddow exovea. Eccl. 502,

But in Ach. 745 ocdxxos is used as a Megarian is speaking— Kimeitev és Tov odKKov @d éoPatvere.

Accordingly, in Dem. 1170. 27, caxyupdyrns should be re-

placed by caxvdpdyrns, as there can have been no reason

why caxvddvrys should not have been said. Our method

of pronouncing Greek is apt to mislead us on such points.

CCXXX.

Ténawv: todro Kas’ abtd obk dpOdc TLBéHeEvov bpd. cH- uaivet rap TO Ovoua Tay TO ev TeTIdvoet Ov. TiEact 0 adTd oikeimc él TOV cikv@y. yp obv obTwm A€rewv, @c 6 Kpati- voc, cikuoy otrepuatiav Fi el @éAetc TeTTOva GikUov, Kad abTd

dé TO TéTI@yv Emit TOO adtod wH TieeL.

v2

324 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

There is the same caution in Soph. App. p. 63, Sixvos onepparias, dv of wodAol rérova odk dpOGs A€yover. 7d yap TéTav Kata TavTav pépera Tov els Tew POacdvTwv. It is only late writers who employ wémwy as a substantive. Lo- beck quotes from Galen, 7) 7ézovos i} ovxdov, and from Nicetas Choniates, rév oixtvov Kal Tov TeTrdver.

CCXXXI.

*Enapistepov ob ypH Aéretv, GAAG oKaLdv.

The prepositional phrases, én? de£id (cp. mpds deid, xerpds els 7a SeEid), and ém” dpiorepd (cp. mpds Ta dprorepa els dporepd), gave rise respectively to the adjectives émdéfios and éa- plorepos, with a meaning practically the same as the simple deéids and dpicrepds. However, while émdéfuos acquired even the metaphorical meaning of 5deéids, énaplorépos did not win its way in Attic even to the physical sense of dpiorepds, and ocxatds, which had practically been driven from the field of physical relations by dpiorepds, kept a firm hold ofthe signification awkward, uncouth. It is this sense of émapiorepos which Phrynichus is here reprehending, a sense which gradually made way as the language de- generated, being first found in the Comic poets of the early Macedonian period.

énaplorep cuales, & mévnpe, ypdupara. Theognetus. A. mpos TO mpGyp exw kakGs. B. émapiorépws yap aitd AapBdvets. Menander.

CCK x KI:

TlAdktov’ éri bTIoGéGewC TETAErUEvHC Ol EiKkator THE GGL.

‘ Gavudea odv TAC 6 Mpdtoc d6Eac Tay ‘EAANv@y eivat

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 325

PaBwpivoc éyptito ev ourrpaumart émirpaponeven mrepi tic Axnpuddouc cwmpposbvue.

The words trd0eois wemdeypévn here signify an in- volved or intricate argument. It is doubtful whether Phaborinus used wAdxioy as a substantive or adjective; but it is of no moment, as neither use is possible in Greek.

CCXXXITI.

4. ; F Ztunnéivov TeTpasvAAGBac od XpH Aéretv, GAAG dveu'

a 4 TOO € TPLGVAAGBac, oTUTTILVOV.

There is no means of deciding which is the true spelling of this word—or¢amvés or ordmwds—and the same doubt attaches to orummeiov and orvmmeionédAns. All that verse

can tell us is that the v is long, but whether by nature or - position is uncertain. The tetrasyllabic form of the ad- jective entered the Common dialect from the Ionic.

TéAoc Tob mpwtou tHuaToc,

Fav.

326 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS.

Tod abtod supa dedtepov.

CCXXXIV.

’AvtippHot wh Aére, dvttAoriav dé.

Veitch and Cobet are alike actuated by an elevated devotion to genuine learning, but while the Dutch scholar relies upon an intellect of striking natural vigour, trained by long and wide experience in textual criticism, the Scots student trusts too implicitly in the authority of codices and editions. Cobet’s bold and unflinching manner rather courts such attack, and too frequently supplies Veitch with an occasion for criticism. Such an occasion was given him by the too absolute statements of Cobet (in Var. Lect. p. 36) in regard to the forms of déyopevs used in Attic. Cobet’s rule was unquestionably right, but he erred in denying all exceptions. These Veitch proved, and the Dutch scholar subsequently revised this question in some critical remarks on the Second Oration of Isaeus, rept rod MevexAgovs xArjpov, which appeared in the New Series of Mnemosyne (vol. 2, ‘p. 127 ff). The following is a modified transcript of the results there stated.

The rule followed by Attic writers was indisputably this:— Whether as a simple verb, or when compounded with a pre- position, dyopedw had for its future ép4, its aorist elon, its perfect elpyxa; and in the passive voice it employed the aorist 2ppyiOnv, the perfect elpnuar, and the futures pnOjoouar and elpjooua. Every schoolboy knows that etpnxa was the perfect of Aéyw, and that the aorist was as often ¢fov as éde€a, the future as often épé as A¢fo. According to our rule, there-

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 327

fore, \¢yw must have had a rival in dyopedw. As a matter of fact this was so, as Arist. Plut. 102— -

ov nydpevov Or. mapéLew mpdypara

ewedr€ryy pot ; and in the ancient formula, ris dyopevew Bovdrcrar ; but such a use was rare. The true sphere of dyopedw was in com- pounds, to supply the place of Aé€yw, which was never compounded with any preposition except dytl, mpd, and ent. ’Enayopevew never took the place of émaAéyewv, or éxlppynots of éxtdoyos ; but mpoayopevew and dvrayopevew were sometimes used for mpodéyew and dvtiAéyew, Asa religious term zpoayopeveww was constant in the formula excluding the profane from participation in religious ceremonies. Similarly atpoayopevew tii eipyerOar tepdv Kal dyopas was ‘to give notice to one accused of murder that he was deprived of religious and civil privileges.’ Such notice of exclusion was termed zpédppyois}, as is seen from Antiphon, de Caede Herodis, § 88, and de Choreut. § 6.

But, except with ézi, dvri, and mpd, Xéyw was never com- pounded ; its place was taken by dyope’w in the present and imperfect, while -Aéfm and -éAe£a completely disappeared before -ep6 and -efrov, and -eAéyOnv and A€Aeypat before -eppnOnv and -etpnya. In this way dmepG, ameirov, and del- pnxa, etc., are to be referred to dmayopetdw, just as ofc, jveyka, and évqvoxa are ascribed to ¢épw. A Greek naturally used otcw as the future of @épw, as Socrates in Xenophon (Sympos, 8. 6) says to Antisthenes—riy 8 GAAnv xadendrnra éyd cov kal pépw Kal olow didikds, and the case was not different with dyopedw. Any one wishing to use the future or aorist of dmayopedw, mpocayopetw, mpoayopetw, drayopedva, katayopetw, dvayopetw, acvvayopedw, diayopetm, made use of

1 Pollux says it was termed mpoaydpevots,—EipyeoOai 5¢ lep&y nal dyopas of év Karnyopia pévov dxpt Kpioews, kat Todro mpoaydpevots éxaketro—and he may be

right, for Inscriptions prove that dvayépevois was as good as dvdppyats, although dvappyots is preferred by writers.

328 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS.

amepG, mpocepG, etc., of dmeizov, mpoceimov, etc.; and so ame(pnxa, ameipntar, ameppyOn, amoppnOycera, are to be re- ferred to dzayopedw, and tpocelpyxa, mpocelpnuat, mpooeppyOnv to mpocayopedw; and in a phrase like apocermy obk ayti- mpoceppyOnv the forms are to be referred to spocayopedw and dvtimpocayopetw respectively. Thrown into present time, imepG Tov Spxov becomes inayopetdw tov Spxov, and cvvelpyKa is the perfect of ovvayopevw, xareimov the aorist of xara- yopevo, dielpnxa and b:elpnrar perfects of d:ayopedw, and the same method of tense formation was maintained in all the compounds without exception. Only very rarely did good writers draw upon the stem dyopev for tenses other than the present and imperfect, using apocayopedoas for mpoceirar, and danydpevra: for dmefpnrar. Later writers did so with frequency, and employed even nouns and adverbs derived from dyopev. In Classical Greek the noun corresponding to Tpocayopevw was mpdopnois, and similarly apéppyois, dzop- pnows, and dydppnows answered to the verbs mpoayopeva, arayopedm, and dvayopetw, while the adjective dméppyros corresponded to drayopevw.

The verb dvayopeveww was commonly used of proclama- tions by herald, and was sometimes replaced by the peri- phrasis movetoOa. rv dvdppnow, as its passive might be turned by phrases like ) dvdppnois ylyverar. In the speech of Aeschines against Ctesiphon, in which the orator en- ‘larges on the mode of presenting the golden crown to Demosthenes, the Attic usage is very clearly demonstrated. In § 122 is read, 6 xijpvé dynydpever, and shortly after, 6 xijpvé dveimev : in § 155, mpoeAOov 6 Kipv& ti mor dvepel: in § 45, — dvappnOjvar: and in § 189, de¢ ydp rov Kypuxa devdelv bray Thy dvdppnow ev TO Oedtpw Tovfjrar mpds Tovs "EAAnvas: and again in § 153, vouload’ dpav mpoidvta tov xipuxa Kab Thy ex Tod Whhloparos dvdppnow péddovcay ylyvecOa. A similar testimony is more succinctly conveyed by Plato in Rep. 580 B, picOwodueba ody Kipuxa... 7) avros dvelmw Ort KTe.. . «

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 329

dvetppncde col, épyn. i ody mporavaydpevors . . . 3 Mpocava- yépeve, pn. So Plato, Legg. 730 D, 6 méyas dvinp év mode dvayopevécOw: id. 946 B, racw dveineiv bru Mayvijrwv 7) wédus kre. The phrases dveiev 6 xhpvé, and mpdcbe trav érovipwv dvevneiv, are in fact of constant occurrence, and hardly call for the explanation of Hesychius—dveimev* éxipugev, di KI}puKOS €lTrev.

As xnpirrew was compounded with the prepositions zpé, ent, and mpds, SO mpoavayopeveww, emavayopeve, and tpocava- yopevety were good Attic words. The expression dpy)piov or xpipara émixnpirrew tit is well) known in the sense of ‘setting a price on a man’s head.’ It is thus used in Dem. de Fals. Legat. 347.25, dd radra xpijyad’ avrg rods OnBalovs énxexnpvxévat, and slightly varied in Lysias 104. 44 (vi. 18), Tods d€ hetyovras Enreire cvAapBdvew, exiKnpTTovTes TddavToV dpyuplov décewv TG ayaydvtt (MSS. dadyovti, corr. Cobet) 4 droxtelvavtt. The same meaning attaches to éravayopetw in Aristophanes, Av. 1071—

THdE mévror Onuépa padior eravayopedverar jw droxrelvyn tis tpav Avaydpay tov Mij\uov

AapBavew rddavrov : Ay. 1071.

and to éravereiv in Thucydides 6. 60, rév 52 diapvydvrav Odvarov Katayvdvres énaveimov dpytpiov TG droxtetvavtt. It is probably to this passage that Pollux refers in 2. 128, énaverm@y apytpiov otov émiuxnptfas, and Hesychius in the similar note, éraveimov, érexipvgav.

The meaning of d:ayopedw was often expressed by a periphrasis with the adverb évappydnv.. It was possible to say either d:ayopedver 6 vdpos, or 6 vdpos Siapphdnv Aéyer. The adverb is formed like ryjdnv (runOels), dvednv (dveOels), KAy- dnv (KAnOels), otdnv (ovdeis), pvpinv (pupGels), etc.,and may be at once pressed into service. In Plato, Legg. 6. 757, d:a- yopevdpevor is quite unintelligible—doiro ydp dv kal dermdrau ov dy more yévowro pldou ode ev tras Tysais diayopevdpevor

330 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

gatro. kal onovdaio. The meaning required is certainly not that of d:appydnv Aeyéperor. The genuine reading has been preserved in Photius in a learned note on ¢addos, from the pen of Boethius—rdrrovro & dv xal ént rod pox Onpod Sr’ dv diacréAAnTal Tpds TO oToVvdaiov, os IIAdrwy' dodAor yap Kal deondrat ovdé Tor dv yévowrTo pirot, odd’ év toais Tiwats drayevd- pevor paddo. cal ovovdaioz. The question is thus settled not only by the authority of a true scholar, but also by the inherent excellence of the reading d:ayevouévor. There is no mistaking the meaning in Plato, Polit. 275 A, ovpmdons rijs médews Gpxovta. abrov arepjvayer, Svriva dé tpdrov od dielroper, that is, od dvappHdnv (explicitly) efrouev. In the same sense it is used in id. Phaedrus 253 D, dperi 5e rls rod dyalod 7 kaxod xaxla od duelopev. Hesychius is therefore not accurate when he explains dvertety by dunyjoacdor, diarex Ova, and goes still further wrong in another place—Avayopevew' Oeorier, dvayyeAAet, and again in Avelpyrac’ dujyyeAra. The true meaning of the word was in fact lost in late Greek, as is proved beyond question by the corrupt variants which have taken its place in the manuscripts of Classical authors.

Herodotus employed the word in its true sense in 7. 38. Pythias has addressed Xerxes in the obscure terms—@ déonora, xpytas dv tev Bovdoluny tvxeiv Td col pev ehadpov Tvyxdver bTovpyjoat, éuol b& péya yevdpevor, and the king will

‘ have him speak to the point (d:appydnv A¢yeww)—éqy Te drovp- yioew Kat duayopevew éxédeve Srov déo1ro. The manuscripts have 6) dyopedewv.

But it is the perfect forms which have suffered most. — They are constantly confused with the similar forms from d:alpw—drelpnxey 6 vopos, drelpntar, Ta dietpnweva, being fre- quently altered to duper, dijpnrar, and dinpynpéva. It is never difficult to restore the text, as a moment’s considera- tion is sufficient to decide which word best adapts itself to the context. A passage of Plato (Legg. 932) provides an

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 331

unequalled illustration of the Attic usage in regard to diayopeveww—Ta piv Oavdowsa adrGy drelpnrar, Tov be GAwv ovdéy mw dieppyOn* durral yap 8} pappaxetar kara 7d TGv avOpdTav odoa yévos exiaxover Thy Sidppyow, iv pev ydp Tavoy SvappHdynv elnouev xte. Yet even here the noxious dujpyra: has manu- script authority in its favour. Ast has noticed this con- fusion on Legg. 809 E, radra ofrw co. mavra ixavds tapi Tod vouobérov duelpnrar .- .. os ovmw duelpyxé cor. Here also most manuscripts read duyjpyrar. Among other instances he quotes Legg. 813 A, kal raira iv év rots mpdcdev dielpnrat mavtTa +... ddnOf kal rabra d.elpnxas, but he makes a grave mistake in adding to his list Legg. 647 B, &doBov jpyav dpa det yevérOar Kal poBepdv Exacrov' dv 8 éxdrepov Evexa, _ dinpipeda. The Middle dijpnua is unquestionably required. He would have done better in restoring d:elpnxev for 3 elpnxev in Legg. 809 A, viv pev yap di elpnxer oddév TH capes odd ixavoy GAAG Ta pev Ta & od.

The Orators have fared as badly as the Philosopher. The text of Demosthenes supplies the following variants— 465. 20, p40 as capds pndéva elvar tpinpapxlas dred drelpnKer (dujpnxer) 5 vdpos: 644. 4, Kal GAN Arra dbuelpnKev (Su7}pnxev) & xpi) motfjoa . . . . 6 vdyos: 976. 28, capds 5 védpos d1€lpn- Kev (dujpyxer) Sy elvar dlkas mpoorjxer petraddrds: 666. 13, dtelpnrar (dizjpnrar) tt paxréov 7 wy. In all these passages Dindorf, following Dobree, has edited d8ufpnxev and dufpnrar, but a careful examination of the passages will show that the perfects are all to be referred to d:ayopevew, i.e. d1appif- dnv A€yew. It is easy to understand what is meant by the sentence 6 rdpuos diayopever pndéva eivar tpinpapylas aredf, but substitute d.aipet for dvayopever and the words become un- intelligible. The verb dvaipety is found in combination with 6 vouos—é vopos diate, d1eidev 5 vdos,—but only when the law distinguishes between two distinct things. Dem. 115. 10, ris yap GAdoerat ér. Tore Wevdopaprupiav el paptuphoer Te & BovAerat xal Adyov Gv Botdrerar ddoe; GAA’ ody obrw Tadra 6

332 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

vépos betdev. ‘The law,’ he says, ‘makes no such dis- tinction, but requires that everything stated as evidence should be taken into account.’

There is only one passage of Demosthenes in which the perfect passive occurs without a variant, namely, 212. 13, Govro dua te vavTnyioecOa evradda Kat mAnpdoccOa ev rails kowats duoroylats dvepnuévov pndey Tovodrov eiodéxecOu. Yet even here the accusative dveipnyevov is demanded by the rules of Greek syntax.

In Isaeus, 86. 10 (11. 22), the primitive reading must have been dvefpyrat, although it is not represented in the manuscripts—é@AN’ Sri dielpnrar ka’ Exacrov weph adTav, éx Tod vopov yvdvat pddiov. Immediately after follows, 6 vdyos... diappydnv KerAebwv Tod pepovs Exacrov hayydveu.

In a preceding paragraph, 84. 37 (11. 12), GAN aaeé- dwKe ... Tiy KAnpovoulay Kar& Tabra KaOdmep Kal e& dpxfs Fw treypnuevov, the perfect imeipnuévoy is to be referred to tmayopevw, as ‘throughout Isaeus the correspondence be- tween dyopetw, ép, elrov, etpnka, etc., is consistently main- tained.

’"Anayopedw corresponds with dméppyois in Isaeus, 2. 28, amnydpeve Tots @vovpévors fi) @veloOar. . . TovT@ de Aayxdver dikny tis amoppjoews. The series is completed by De- mosthenes, 902. 20, danydpevev 6 Tappever . . . wi) yryvdoKew dvev tov ovvdiurnray . . . brav bi) dvev ovvd.aTnTGy Tapa ‘ thy andppnow of dedunrnxévar: and about the same thing in 899. 10, ob pdvov dudicBnrnbels GAA Kal Gmoppndev aire ovdey irrov Thy andpacw emoujoato. . » : 903. 20, dmetme bE aiT® pi) dvarrav. A common meaning of daayopedw was to

disinherit a son, and because this was generally done by a _

crier, there occur phrases like 7d xjpuxos dmayopedeww, anevneiv, and dmoppyOijva, in the sense of dmoxnptrrew, éxxn- purrewv, etc., all which terms are used as interchangeable in the Eleventh Book of the Laws, as 928 D, rév vidv ind kipuxos amemeiv: and 929 A, tnd rod yévovs dmoppnOfva

OE

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 333

mayrés. Hence dadppnows was used for dmoxrpugis disin- heriting, a fact expressly mentioned by a Grammarian in Bekker, Anecd. 1. 216, 10, dadéppyots’ kal TO droKnptocew. In fact, daéppnois is used in all the senses of dzrayopedu, whether forbid, disinherit, or become weary. It has already been quoted in the sense of forbidding, corresponding to admayopedm aS a synonym of dzmavié and the Homeric amepvbedunv, and with the meaning of giving in, the word is found in Plato, Rep. 357 A, rod Opacvpdxov tiv daéppynow ovk aedéEaro. Such is the common usage in the Orators with regard to drayopedw ; but in Dem. 1021. 20, dmnydpevoev is used where the rule calls for daeivev, namely, danydpevoev aiT@ py diatrav, and a few other aberrations from ordinary usage are encountered here and there in Classical Greek. After the time of Alexander these exceptions became the rule, and the verb formed its tenses regularly, -ayopetco, -nydpevoa, -nydpevka, -nyopevOnv, -nydpevua, while substantives like mpocaydpevors, dmaydpevots, took the place of mpdcpnois and dadppnots.

In Attic writers use was occasionally made of -nyépevoa, -ayopetow, etc., by the side of -e?zov and -epé, etc., to emphasize distinction of meaning. Thus, dzayopedw, when - it signified droxdyrvw, had always dzrepG, dreinov, and drelpnxa, and the compound with zpé always mpoatep6, tpoareirov, mpoanelpnka; but when it had the meaning of forédzd, its aorist might be danydpevoa, and its perfect passive dan- yopevxyat. Similarly tpocayopedm in the sense of domdCopar had zpocep&, mpoceizov, and mpoceppyOnv, but in the sense of call sometimes employed zpocnydpevoa and mpoonyopevOny : Xen. Mem. 3. 2, 1, tod evexey “Ounpov ote. tov ?Ayapeuvova mporayopedoat Touseva rAa@v; By itself the authority of Xenophon would go for nothing, but Plato uses zpoca- yopevtéa (Phaed. 104 A), and Demosthenes—if the speech is not ascribed to Dinarchus—zpoonyopevOnv, 1008. 5, drav tis dvdpat. pev ddedpds mpocayopev?y tidv. lpoayopetwo

334 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

formed poep, mpoeizov, mpoelpnxa, but as ta mpoeipnuéva meant avte dicta, for edicta ta mponyopevpéva was used.

It is in a similar way that Cobet explains danydpevoer in Dem. 1021. 20. It was possible in the sense of forbade, but could not be used with the meaning gave im. Ac- cordingly, for the aorist drayopedons, the present dmayopetns should be substituted in Plato, Theaet. 200 D, when Socrates having said od ydp mov drepodpey yé mw, Theaetetus replies jjx.ota, édvrep mh ot ye dnayopedons. The change is easily made, and perhaps restores the text, but few scholars will listen to Cobet’s proposal to alter mpocayopedoouer to mpooepoduev in Theaet. 147 D, nyiv oty eioidO€ Ti Tovodroy... meipabjvar ovddaBeiv eis tv btw Tdoas Tabras Tpooayopetooper Tas duvdyers. If mpooayopevréa was, as he admits, used in the Phaedo, and zpocayopetd@n by Demosthenes, without any essential difference of meaning from zpocayopetoouer in the present passage, then it is not only perilous but in- consistent to demand zpooepotyev. The rule once established, such rare exceptions should be regarded as anomalies, and relegated to the obscurity which they merit. No purpose is served by burdening the memory with unquestioned anomalies in language, and no intellect is safe from de- generation which occupies itself in finding a metaphysical explanation for every irregularity of syntax. Irregularities in construction, and still more so anomalies in form, are generally due to the desperately corrupt condition of the manuscripts. To rise by the help of broad generalisations and careful inductions to a knowlege of the Greek language as used by the Greeks themselves should be the aim of

every true scholar, as it is certainly the only course which

a man of sense can follow.

CCXXXV.

Evarredizouat oe Kai tepi TautHc Tc cuvTdeewc dta-

ee

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 335

skeTITOMevoe él cuyvov dH ypdvoy elTe aiTLATIKH GuvTaKTéoV

abTo MTwcet ette SoTIKA, Ebpickw KaTa dSoTLKHY FpLocHévov"

*Aptotopadvouc pév obtm Aérovtoc év Toic ‘Innedotv, Evarredicaceat mpdtoc buiv BovAopat.

* Ppvviyou sé Tod Kwuqdod év toic Zatdporce obtwe.

The rest of the article is corrupt—*Or: amply eAdeiv adrov els Bovdty ee. kal ratr’ dmayyelAavra médw mpds Tov Oedv fixew, eyo & anédpay éxeivoy devpraviv dei. Kal ofrw Aéyovow evayyerlCoua 7) edayyeAG' oF 6 TlAdrwy 1d detrepov mpdo- wmov héyer ebayyedcis. William Dindorf imagines that two distinct articles have been confused, and that the mutilated lines from 67: to Sef are a quotation intended to establish the true forms of the aorist of dmod.dpdoKnw—a supposition which is supported by App. Soph. 11. 1, ’Amédpayev rerpa- ovdAd Bus, cal dmédpare kal dmédpav, Bpaxelas rijs rob amédpav éoxdrns cvhAaBijs' GAda Kal 7d évixdv Tpdtov mpdcwroy aré- dpav, éxrerapevov Tod emt rédovs a, kal dnédpas Kal dnédpa, ovx as of piropes amedpdoapuer’ Td be dxédpay tives TG pnTdépwv

1a Tod w cimov, Gnédpwv, GAN Gpewwov 614 Tod at duolws Kar e&ebpav.

The passage of Plato referred to as containing the form evayyeAcis must be either Rep. 432 D or Theaet. 144 B. In both of these places ed dyyéAAeis is the received reading, and in neither do manuscripts exhibit the compound verb. There is the same difficulty with xd« dyyéAAw versus kaxay- yeA6. Photius has preserved the dictum—Eskyyedciy ip év A€yovo. kal Kxaxayyedeiv, and if ebayyedeis is assigned to Plato, then xaxayyeAGv and xaxayyedeiy may respect- ively replace kdx’ dyyéA\Awy, and xd’ dyyedciv in a line of Euripides—

tl ois; tl dpdoas; ® KaxayyeAGv wdrep— H. F. 1136. and in a tragic senarius, ap. Dem. 315. 24—

kakxayyedeiy pev to. pn OédovT’ eye.

336 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

In Lobeck’s edition will be found the various unsuccess- ful attempts to restore the passage from the Comic poet, and a Greek dictionary will supply proof of the classical construction of the verb edayyeAlCouau.

CCXXXVI.

"ExadécOu, KaEGOEIic, KAGEGAriGoUaL Kai TA TAHOUVTLKG KaGEceHoovTal, Expuda. Aére obv KabEegouat, Kabedodpat,

KabEdoovTal, KABEdOUMEVOC.

Probably éxade¢éunv should be here substituted for xadé- Copat as éxadécOnv suggests. Moreover, the form xa0é{opac is by some scholars denied to Attic Greek, and when ex- hibited by manuscripts is replaced by xa0igopar. As is well known, éxa@eCéunv has generally the force of an aorist, and would naturally correspond to the late éxadéoOnv.

The three verbs, xa0iGw, xabéCowar, and xdOnpat, supple- ment one another. Kaéi¢w has both a transitive and an intransitive meaning. It is possible to say either xadigw Lexpdrnv xpirhv, J make Socrates sit as a judge, or 5 Swxpdrns kpirhs KadiCe, Socrates sits as a judge. Notwithstanding this intransitive use of the active voice, the passive—it is passive and not middle—is also in use with the signifi- cation of siz. The aorist, however, is not found, its place ‘ being filled by xadica or éxddioa and xabeCduny. KdOnpar may be considered as the perfect passive of the transitive xa0iGm, but a perfect which must necessarily have much of a present force. Lucian, in his Pseudosophist, well brings out the difference between xd0ie and xd@noo—

A. 1d xabécOnt. HKoudy cov r€éyovTos as Eat expvdov.

B. xal ép0Gs ye ijKovoas, GAG 7d KdOicov Tod KdOnTO diadépew pul.

, \ cal > > ¥ A. kal t@ mor’ dv ein diddepor ; B. r@ 7d pay mpds Tov éorGra AéyerOar 7d KaOoor, Td

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 337

be mpos tov KabeCouevor qo, ® &eiv, hyets be Kal GrAdAoO djopev &Spyv avti tod péve xabeCouevos.

Attic writers observe the distinction.

xd0nuat may be used intransitively of everything of which xa0i@wm is used transitively, as Thuc. 6. 66, of ’A@n- vaiow xabicay TO otparevua és xwplov emurnderov' id. 2. 20, mept tas ’Axapyds xaOjuevos ef emeflacw' dua yap abrd 6 XGpos émirjdecos epalvero evorparomededoar «re. Similarly, kablfew dvdpidvta, but 6 dvdpids KdOnra, and robs dixacras or 70 duxacrnpiov KabiCew, but of dixacral xdOnvrar. ‘To bring one in weeping,’ as an actor would present a cha- racter, is in Greek xa0iCew tia kddovra, and the character so presented may be said kAdwy xadjjoda..

The Attic forms of these three alternating and mutually supplementary verbs are confined to the following :—

TRANSITIVE. MIDDLE. xa0l@w, set, make to sit. KabiCouat, set for myself. xabidov, éxdrCov. KabiCounv, exadrCounv. xa0o. Kkadvodpat. kabioa, éxdbica. Kadioduny, exabcodunv.

INTRANSITIVE. PASSIVE.

‘cable, sit, take my seat. KabiCopat, [xa0éCouar]. xadicoy, éxdOucov. exaduCounu kadioa, éxd0.ica. KabiCnoopwat, Kabedodpar. xdOnpo, am seated. exadeCouny. Kadnunu, exadjunu. KdOnpat Kadnunv, exabhynv.

Though not met with till late, the perfect kexdOika was

certainly in use in Attic, at all events in its transitive sig-

nification. Ka0ié, however, was not used intransitively

Moeris 212, xaOedet Arrixol, xablcers “EdAnves. KadiGnoopat Z

338 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

and xadedodua. were sufficient. The corrupt tpocxabecOjoer has manuscript authority in Aeschin 77. 34, but has justly succumbed to mpocxabijoes.

‘Participio aoristi Josephum, Apollodorum, Lucianum et horum similes alios usos esse demonstravit Graevius. Indicativo, éxaéo0n, Longus, 3. 5, meptexadéoOn Eunapius, émixabecOeln Geoponica, xafecOj Pausanias, xabecOjva Li- banius, émixabeoOjvat Eusebius.’ Lobeck.

CCXXXVII.

> Z £ , Eh ’ ’ e 2 t ‘ Avéxaéev’ pudaktéov éri ypdvou Aéretv, olov dvéKabéey

2 ‘ ’ > ‘ ‘ , ‘ > s >? a Mot éorti pidroc, emi rap tomov TatTovow avTo oi’ Abxvaiot,

t > ‘ ' L 2 , D Mérovtec GvéKxabev KaTETEGE, A€érelv OV YpH, dv@Oév 601 pidoc eipi, el d€ Tic pain Emi ypdvou trap’ “Hpoddtm eipficeat Tobvoua, GAHOH Mev gricel’ eipHTat rap. ob priv T® b@ ‘Hpoddtov eipfiobat TO ddKtmov THc ypHocwc Tapé- xeTat. od rap’ lavikay kai Awpixay efétaoic €otiv dvoudTav

GAN *Attikdy.

The word dvéxafev is not Attic in either signification. It is one of those old words which lived on in Tragedy from: Ionic times, and with the meaning ‘from above’ it occurs in Aesch. Eum. 369—

pdda yap ody Gdopuéva dyéxadev BapuTeci Katadépw odds axpdv.

In Herodotus it is frequent, and from Ionic it passed into the Common dialect. Herod. 4. 57, of place, rorayds, ds péer Tavexabev éx Aluyns peyddns dpyedueros: but more

frequently of time, 1. 170, dvdpds 7d dvéxadey at. Polvixos: —

6. 125, cay Ta dvéxabev Aaprpol.

Plut. Num. 13, 7 dvéxa0ey gopa: Lucian, Jud. Voc. 7 (91), Boudrios 7d yévos dvéxabev: Polyb. 16, 12, 2, edxovrat 7d dvéxaber ’Apyelwy arorxa yeyovévar: et frequentissime.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 339

~CCXXXVITI.

Kepadatwdéctatov’ todto totvoua ebpovy év dpyA tdv Todéuavoc tod *laviKod cogtstod ‘lotopidv Kata mpooitov, Kal Bavidge Zexobvdou tod currevopévou adit rpaupariKod, Tac dy Ta GAAG SeEtoc Emi AGELV Kal émravopdayv ta our-

rpdupata To copistod, todto mapetdev dddktpov dv.

The Polemo here referred to flourished in the first half of the second century A.D. That he should have kept a grammarian to correct his work shows no less clearly than the work of Phrynichus himself the state to which liter- ature had fallen in the second century.

The defaulting form is cited by Lobeck from Lucian, Diogenes Laertius, Eusebius, and others, and the com- parative from writers equally debased. Such énfracis imep- 6écews has already been considered (p. 144).

CCXXXIX.

” > 2 é ' ’ ¢ : ‘ » @ Eo@’ én" ti mdoyovaty oi ob rw Aérovtec, dedv Eotiv Ste A€fetv, OUK Gv TiC eikdGelev, GAN AH TOTO dOvov STL AMeAH-

névot eisiv ot TobTm TH dvouaTt ypapevot,

Examples of this transference of éo6’ dan from its legi- timate meaning, ‘in some way,’ to the absurd sense of ‘sometimes,’ are cited by Lobeck from Herodian, Galen, Aristaenetus, Nicetas Choniates, etc.

oo, Bi Op,

BdkHAoc: duaptdvoustv of rdtrovtec todtTo KaTd Tod BAaKOc, oHuaiver rap 6 BaKHAOc Tov droTeTUHMEevoy Ta Z2

340 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

aidoia, 6v Biouvoi te Kai Actavoi TaAdov Kadodot. Aére otv

BAGE Kal BAaKiKdy, dc of dpyaior.

The correction, BAaxcxdy for BAdkwoy, restores the hand of Phrynichus. Both BAdé and BaAdxixdés are of the best authority in Attic.

CCXLI.

‘Exoov eivat' kal rept todto iiatHc pév odk Gv TrTaicete fal 4 ’ * , > ' na La TOvy S€ cpddpa MpocTroLoupévav Gpyaia Movi KEekpIevH ypAoeat, Tode GudpTHua TOLOOTOV EoTIV. Ol Lev TAAQLOL ObT@ suvTdttoust TO Ekdv €ival, GoTe TdvTac amardpevol H a > ‘ n” : e c ‘ > > ‘ GpvHaw érmipéperv fi pooTideval, Olov, Ekv Eivat ov WH TOLHGw. ObTw Kai of vOv eb PpovobyTec. door de Emi KaTO-

’ ‘ c 4 > e © \ > ” Pdcewc TIWEAct TO Ekodv Eival, Olov, EkOV Eivat ETpaka, ‘

Ex@v Elvat ETEBOVAEUGAPHY, MEfloTa GuapTavouoty.

The rule is absolute in Attic. . Plato, Phaed. 61 C, od8 érwctioby cor éxdy elvar meloerar: Phaedr, 252 A, 80ev 5) éxodoa etvat odx amodelnerar: Gorg. 499 C, karo. odk @unv ye kar’ dpxds tnd cob Exdvros elvar eLararnOjcec0a os dvtos gtdtov: Apol. 37 A, mémeopar eéy® Exov elvar pndéva dduxely av0pdrwv: Thuc. 2. 89, rov 8% dyéva odk év To KATO ExoV ‘ivan Toujoopar: 4. 98, viv b€¢, ev & peper eloly, Exdvres elvar ds éx oderépov obk amevar: 7. 81, Oaoody re yap 6 Niklas ijye, voullwy od Td dropevew ev TE TovodTm ExdvTas elvar Kal pdxeE- o0a. owrnplay. Thomas, p. 290, adds that the phrase could stand in interrogative sentences which are virtually ne- gative, as tl ris dy éxav elvar woujceev, and there can be no question that he is right, as such a usage is in accordance with the facts of language. To extend the phrase to con- ditional sentences, as L, Dindorf would do (in Thes. Steph. 3. 653) on the strength of Plato, Legg. 646 C, davpd comer

ee SS

es

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 341

ay «ef moré ris éxdv elvar én 7d rovodroy adixveira, is quite erroneous, as in this case efvya: is not found in the best manuscripts, being merely a late interpolation, and, more- over, the sentence is not a conditional one, but illustrates the well-known use of «i after @avpd¢m, The same scholar errs still more grossly in denying that the negative in- fluences éxdvras eivat in the third passage of Thucydides cited above. No one, however, questions its use in affir- mative sentences in Herodotus, as 7. 164, 6 5 Kddpos obros «+ €kéy Te elvat Kal devod emidvros otdevds GAAG amd SiKaL0- ctivns és pécov Keouor xaradels rhv dpxjv, and it was this looser use which was followed in the Common dialect.

CCXLII.

“Opepoc viv dkobw tTHv MOAAdV TLeévTWV eri TOO mpd Alou Gvisyovtoc ypdvov. ot d€ dpyaiot dpepov Kat dpepet- ‘ ; ‘ > r © ’ 2 2 os U , ’

€s0at TO TPO GpyouévHe Hpepac, ev w Ett Abyv@ dvvaTat Tic ypAo@at. 6 Toivuv Guaptdvovtec of MOAAOi A€érouciv

Spepov, Tobe ot dpyator Ew Aێrouotv.

The usage of Attic writers is distinctly in favour of this view. In his App. Soph. p. 54, Phrynichus places dpépos after péoa: vixres,and explains it as 4 dpa ris vuKros Ka? jv ddextpvdves Gdovow. The expression dpOpos Babds is well- known. ;

CCXLIII.

Maretpeiov’ 16 wey pdretpoc ddKmov, TO dé pareipetov

ovKéTt, dvti 5é ToUTOU 6mTdvLOV Aérousl.

The words rijs pév devrépas ovddaBis d€vrovovpévns rijs dé rplrns ovoreddopévns appended by some editors to this article are merely a gloss, but a correct gloss as is proved by verse—

342 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

expoiray 7 és todmrdviovy Ajoer oe Kuvyddv. Ar. Eq, 1033. toutl 8 dpar dmrdviov jpiv as Kaddv. Pax 891.

A. émrdvov éorw; B. gor. A. kal kdmvyv exer. Alexis (Athen. 9. 386 A).

Pollux, however, quotes payeipeia from Antiphanes 9. 48, kal payeipela Trav TédAEws pepGy odx ImEp TA oLTa TOV ind tats Téxvais épyaotnplov, GAN 6 Témos BOev puobodvrar rods payelpovs ws ’Avtipdyns ev Erparidtrn brodnAobv éovnev—

"Ek Tov poyerpetov BadlGov euBadrdv els TovWov.

The passage does not traverse the dictum of Phrynichus. The lexicography of the two words is given by Lobeck with his usual elaboration.

—

CCXLIV.

Turydvo: Kai toUTa@ mpocexréov' ot rap duedeic ottw Aérousl, PiAOc Got TUFydva, éyApdc wot TUryavec. det d€ TH PHuaTt TO Ov MpooTieéval, PiAoc mot TUSyaveEtc 3

@v, €XOpdc mot TUrydvetc ay.

Even in the best age the participle of the substantive 1 verb was sometimes carelessly omitted after rvyxdvo. If . the Prose instances are set aside as of no importance in such an inquiry, there is a line of Aristophanes to confute such scholars as would correct the texts of prose writers by the | dictum of Phrynichus— ;

s n A »” Kat TOv Oearav «lt Tis evvous TvyxXdveEL. Eccl. 1141.

There are, however, seven lines in which the correct con- struction is unquestioned—

rov 8 vidv bomep dv pdvos por rvyxdver. PL, 35.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 343

el tuyxdvor y 6 baxrddvos dv rnAlas. Pl, 1037.

ph Kal tis dy avip 6 mpoowwy rvyxdves. Eccl. 29.

pa tov Al’, od yap evdov ovoa Tvyxdve. Id. 336.

erdyxavev yap ov tpiBwv dv inmis. Vesp. 1429.

bru Tvyxavet AvxXvOTIOLOS Ov" mpd TOD pev odV Pax 690.

el 8 Tvyxaver tis dv Dpdvé pndev jrrov SmwOdpov. Av. 762.

These at once elevate the construction with the participle into a rule, and shew that the omission of the substantive verb is quite exceptional. Such exceptions are sometimes unfairly multiplied by such lines as—

ei 8& Tvyxdver Tis BuGv dbparérns eoTiypévos

Ar, Av. 760. on the one hand, and

corhp yévour dv Zeds én’ domldos tvxdv Aesch, Sept. 520. on the other. In the former of these lines éoruypévos is participial, not adjectival, and in the latter the participle is naturally supplied from yévouro. Aeschylus does not else- where employ this construction, but in Sophocles it occurs five times—

évdov yap avip apru tvyxdve, kdpa

Aj. 9. peyiotos abrots Tuyxdver dopvéévev.

El. 46. Ovpaiov olxveiv' viv 8 dypotor rvyydvet.

Id. 313.

xalpos dv et vor xapta Tvyxdvor rdde.

Id. 1457. pévou, adv’ HOcdov & av exros dv rvyeiv. ‘ Aj. 88.

344 THE NEW -PHRYNICHUS.

It will be observed that in four of these five lines is found the construction which the evidence of Aristophanes proves to be exceptional in pure Attic, but on such a point the testimony of a Tragic poet is as little to be regarded as that of an un-Attic, or late writer, or even of Homer.

év0 evel és Améva KArvTov HAOower dv Tépe wérpH

HALBaros tetbynKe Siaptepes dyorépwler. Od. 10. 87.

CCXLV.

Lurkpicic’ Tlaottapyoc émérpawe otrrpayyd tt Tov

abtoo—

ZUrKpicic Aptotopdvouc kai Mevavdpou. kai Oavudg@ dc @idocopiac Em AKpov Agpirpevoc Kai capac eiddc 6 tt TMoTé Eotiv A ovrKptotc, Kai 6 TL didKptctc éypricato ddokiuw povd. duoiwc dé Kal TO ourKpivet Kal ouvéKpivey HUGPTHTOL, XpH ovv dvreEeTdzetv Kai TapaBaA- Ae Aéfetv.

‘Haec quoque labes temporibus Alexandri Magni nata est. Primus, quod constet, Aristoteles Rhet. 1. 9, 1368 * 21, ovykplvew ti mpds TL pro dvrumapaBdhAew usurpavit: Polit. 4. II, 1295 *27, mpos dperhv ovykplvover tiv trep rods iieras : H. A. 9. 38, 622 °20, ds mpds radda ovyxplverOa. Hine ‘verbi usum accepit Theophrastus, C. Pl. 4. 2, cujus aequalem, Philemonem, o¥yxpiois usurpasse contra Phrynichi mentem notat Berglerus. Nihil jam in scriptis Graecorum frequen- tius quam hoc vocabulum. ...In librorum elogiis id fuit unum celebratissimum ; sic olim legebatur Chrysippi, S¥y- kptois Tov TpoTiKGy Géiwydrwy Diog. La. 7. 194; Caeciliani Siculi Svyxpuois Anpoobévovs xal Alcxlvov, Suid.; Meleagri Gadareni AexiOov al paxfjs, Athen. 4. 157; Plutarchus ipse comparationem Graecorum et Romanorum imperatorum obyxpiow vocat, Vit. Flamin. c. 21.’ Lobeck.

: os

——————— ee

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 345

CCXLVI.

Kar éxeivo kaipod- Kal érd pév puddttesbat mapatva ot ypricba. ef 8, Str Oouxvdidnc elpHKe, Oappoin tic XpHicbat, ypricdw pev ody d€ TH GpOpw. Tapa Mev rap GAA Tdv dokiav ovy ebpov. Hrodmat Sé Kai Ooukvdiduy év TA Hi

metd Tob dpepou eipHkévar Kat éxetvo Tot Katpod.

The phrase is not met with in Thucydides, but in the seventh book, not the eighth, are encountered the corre- sponding words, xara rotro xaipod (ch. 2). Lobeck quotes Thuc. 7. 69, dAda Tre A€ywr Goa ev TE ToLotdTm 7dn Tod Karpod ovtes GvOpwrro. etmovev Gv : Demosth. 20. 13, karpod pév 87) mpos tovro mdpeott Pirlna® ra Tpdypara: Aristoph. Pax 1171, ty- vikadra Tod Ogpovs: Eq. 944, ovdels mw xpdvov: Plato, Rep. g. 588 A, ered} evradda Adyou yeydvapev: Theaet. 177 C, ovkoby évtrad0d mov ijyev Tod Adyov. Similarly in Rep. I. 328 E occurs émeidi) evradda 75 ef ris jAtklas, but in 329 B, boo. evtad0a 7APov HAktas. Of course no such rule as Phrynichus would fain lay down was known to Attic authors, the article being employed or omitted according to the whim of the writer or as the meaning required.

CCXLVII.

> ’ 7 2 , » 4 nn > ‘ ‘A Enéotuse kai émotdcewc dtiov tO mpdrua, dvti tot HimdpHoe Kai dropiac GEtov TO Mpdrua. obtw ypouévay Tav ZTOMKAV PiA0cdMay TOAAGKIC AKHKOG, ef SE Kal apyaiac ’ fi doKiuac, GEtov émioKkéweae,

Two passages of Classical Greek will show how this meaning was acquired by énloracis and égiordvar. The one is the well-known speech of the Guard in the Antigone of Sophocles—

346 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

avat, &pO pev obx 8rws tadxovs tro

dvomvovs ixdvw, Kodpov efdpas mdba.

TodAds yap éoxov ppovrldwy emordceis,

Sdois KuKAGy guavrdv els dvactpodiy"

Woxn yap nvda modAAd por pvOovpévn,

Tddas, Tl xwpeis of poddy ddceis dSiknv;

TAijpov, pevets ad; KTE. The third line precisely expresses the state of mind de- scribed at greater length in what follows—resolves sud- denly adopted and as suddenly cast aside, the current of the man’s thoughts receiving a check (éricracis), as a horse is quickly pulled up by its rider.

In the second passage Isocrates says that the benefits which Evagoras had conferred upon the state were sever- ally so important that refusing to appraise them the mind adjudged the palm in succession to each, according as it was forced to consider it in particular: 203 A, et tis €poird pe tl voul(m péyorov elvar tév Evaydpa mempaypevor.. . eis TmoAA}y amoplav av Katacralnv' det ydp por SoKel péytotoy eivar kal Oavpaotdrarov Kad’ ort dv adtay émorhiow THY didvo.ay.

Good writers also use the second aorist as the intransi- tive equivalent of the active with didvo.av, as Dem. 245. 10, ad’ iis hpépas emt traira éméornv: Isocr. 213 d, émoras éxi Ta Onoéws épya: Epicrates ap. Athen. 2. 59—

TpOTioTa pey ody TaVTEs dvavdets

Tor énéoTnoay Kal KiwWarres

xpdovoyv ov ddrlyov diveppdvriCov— but the use of édiornu, émiornow,-eréotnoa, without vodr, yvoépny, or didvoray, is unknown to Attic, and even with these accusatives it is rare. In Epicrates as cited the me- taphor is still crisp, éséornoay meaning ‘were pulled up sharp,’ rather than ‘were at a loss’ (jmépncav). As it is, the Attic of the lines is not high, as a pure Attic writer would have employed dedpovrl(ovro rather than dueppdvricov.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 347

CCXLVIII.

Evotddera, evotadric, mé0ev Kal Taira eic THv TaV “EAAvwv gaveilv eicepptn, GdoKiu@TaTa dvTa, pPpovTidoc

GEtov. GAA ob EuBpioeta Aére Kal éuBpLorc.

The defaulting terms are both of great antiquity, al- though unknown to Attic. Homer and Hippocrates use the adjective, the former applying it to buildings in the sense of ‘firmly built, the latter to diseases and to the weather, with the meaning ‘equable.’ Il. 18. 374, éord- pevar Tept Toixov evorabéos peydpo1o: Hippocr. Aph. 1247, Epid. 1. 938, etoradées votoo.: Epid. 3. 1091, Oépos ovk evotabés. In the form edorabin the substantive is met with in Hippocr. 24. 45, mpds rods dxAovs Tods emuywomevous edo- Tablys (peurijrOar) ris ev EavT@.

Epicurus re-introduced the words, and his example was followed by subsequent writers, Plutarch, Josephus, Ap- pian, Arrian, Philo, and others. Cleomedes, Cycl. Theor. 2, p. 112, ed. Bak., expressly mentions edora6js among the corrupt terms employed by Epicurus, éel apds rots ddXows kal Ta Kara Thy Epynvelav aire (sc. Emxotpw) dvepOopdra éori, capkos evotaby karacrjpara (equable temperament of body) Adyovtt kre. Phrynichus ought to have suggested ordowos rather than éu8p.07s as the authorised equivalent, the latter word being properly applied only to men of solid and dignified behaviour.

CCXLIX.

TldAv' obo A€rovow oi viv prtopec Kai TrownTai, Séov meta TOO v TGALV, dc Ol Gpyaior Aérouat.

This article is not found in the Laurentian manuscript, or in the edition of Callierges, and is not given by Phavorinus.

348 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS.

It is of no intrinsic importance, and if it really came from the hand of Phrynichus subsequent grammarians had the sense not to repeat it.

CCL.

“Yndotacic Eprwv Kai tolto Tav FeAHpévenv, eri TOAD dé Tapa Toic EproAdBoc Tav Eprwv. gHToCvTec dé Ti dv dv? avtdv dpyatov deinpev dvoua, ot padiwe dypt viv ebpi- okoplev, ei 8 etpedein, dvarerpdayerat.

The reading dadécracis is due to Nufiez, whose manu- script had the first letter omitted for subsequent illumina- tion. ‘“Yzdoracis is undoubtedly right, and must have meant the ‘plan’ of the work submitted to contractors.

CCE,

Tevvipata moAAayod dkove THy AéEtv TLOEMEVHY Eri TOY Kapr@v, éra S€ ovK o1da apyal ai SéKiuoy ovcav ; pria@v, er@ de ida dpyaiav Koi doKiu oav. XpH

2 > A a £ \ ’ \ , os , OUV OVTL TOU FEVVHMATA KOpPTTOUC A€retv EHpouc Kal Ufpouc.

This late use of yevvijara supplies an excellent illustra- tion of the tendency of debased Greek to adopt poetical modes of expression, and neglect simple terms, and such as commend themselves to common sense. Of the authors who used yevvijpara as a synonym of xapmol, Lobeck enumerates Diodorus, Polybius, Zosimus, Gregory Nazian- zene, Apollonius Dyscolus, while the word is also found in the Septuagint, the New Testament, and the Geoponica.

CCLII.

“Iva GEwotv od ypH A€retv, GAN’ iva ardrwotv.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 349

CELIN,

*Edv d&uc obdeic dv paix, GAN édv ardrue.

The second article has been brought from a later place in the manuscripts.

The question has already been discussed in an earlier article, see p. 217.

CCLIV.

Zuvrivreto Kal GtvtTeTo TOLHTLKG. ypH obv dmHvTHoe

Aéretv Kal GUVHVTHGE.

The middle dvrowa: is common in the Homeric poems in the sense of ‘meet,’ and in Attic Tragedy governed the accusative of a person with the meaning ‘approach as a suppliant, but to pure Attic the deponent form is un- known. It is confined only to the present and imperfect tenses, but in ovvavrjowyrat (Il. 17. 134) Homer transferred to the aorist of the cognate dvrdw the middle inflexions, which, if used at all, an Attic writer would have attached only to the future.

*"Avroua, to meet, entreat, Poet. Emped. 14 (Stein); Soph. O. C. 250; Eur. Alc. 1098; Ar. Thesm. 977 (Chor.); Ap. Rh. 2.1123; -erOa1, Il. 15. 698 ;. -dpevos, 11. 237; Pind. P. 2. 71; amp. ivreo, Callim. Epigr. 31; #fvrero, Il, 22. 203.’ ‘ovvavropat, pres., Od. 15. 538; Hes. Th. 877 ; Pind. Ol. 2. 96; and zmp. ovvjrrero, Il. 21. 34; Archil. 89 ; Eur. Ion 831 ; Theoer. 8. 1, but dual unaugm. ovvayréoOny, Il. 7. 22.’ Veitch.

CCLV.

Zivamt ob Aektéov, vartu dé,

In Attic Greek there are no substantives ending in iota

350° THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

as dorv ends in upsilon, but foreign words were naturally represented in the Greek characters which corresponded to the original sounds, as «fx. in Plato, Tim. 60 A, and vamv frequently in Aristophanes. In the same way zézepi, xdppt, and xwvdSapt must have been in common use. They were, however, not declined in Attic, although Eubulus seems once to have used wezrépidos as the genitive of wémepi—

Kéxkov AaBodca Kvld.0v 7) Tod wemépidos tphpar duod optpyn didnarre tiv dddv. Athen. 2. 66 D. Un-Attic and late writers generally attached the inflexions of vowel stems. Accordingly vary was replaced not only by olvam, olynm, or olvamv, but by forms like owdrews, olvnnov, owdre, and cwdrvos.

CCLVI.

> ' ‘ > ' > ‘ ' € 4 Ovuyizetv Kal €€ovuyizetv’ TatTo cHuaiver éExdtepa Kal ' > ‘ na > i”. A > > ’ ‘ ‘ TtOETAL ETL TOU akptBodrorelobat. TO 0 ATOVUXLZELYV TO TAC > ’ a > U > a) ‘ > ‘ > . avéHcec TOV 6viyov G@atpetv oHpaiver. "“Eneda 8 6 TIOAUG oUp@eEToc A€fouctv dvbyicdv YE Kai avuytoduHv, dia ToOTO GHUaIvdpEsG TA SvduaTA Kai Papyev, STL ei wev Eri TOD Tovc dvuyac dpatpetv Ti@Hoi Tic, ypHoatTo av TH drrovuyizetv, ei d€ él tod AkpiBodoretobar Kai EEeTdzew GKpiBAc, TH

' évuyizetv yprioatt av,

There is a sad irony in reading authoritative dicta upon Attic usage expressed in language so slovenly and incor- rect. What would an Athenian have thought of 87 follow- ing dapyev, or of onyawdueba as used here? The credit of Phrynichus may be saved by a supposition of some credi- bility, namely, that few of the articles are now worded as they came from his pen. Thus, the Paris manuscript here presents the concise sentence: "Ovuxicew kat ebovvxicew

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 351

ravtov, TWerar be emt Tod axpiBodroyeiobar’ 7rd 5€ amovextcev, 7d Tas avéijoes TGV dvixwv apapeitv. The distinction is also clearly drawn in App. Soph. 13. 13, and 55. 9, and is natural and convenient, although there is practically no authority for it beyond the statements of grammarians. Photius and Suidas assert that Aristophanes employed évuxlerar in the sense of dxpiBodoyeirar, and Hippocrates used dzopvvx{CerOar as a term of the toilet, 618. 38, ras xeipas xp) Gmovexlracbar.

CCLVII. .

“O va@toc dpscevikdc Aerouevoc Guaptdverat. odderépac

d€ TO V@Tov Kai Ta VATA doKiac dy AérotTo,

The truth of this statement is established not only by the unimpeachable evidence of Attic Comedy but also by other kinds of verse—

KUVOKOTTW GOV TO VOTOV.

Ar. Eq. 289.

és Tas mAevpds TOAAR otparia Kadevdpordunoe TO vGTov. Pax 747-

é£w relxovs kai Awroddrns male. poTdAw pe Td vOrTOD. Av. 497.

ériy TO vGTov THY pdx 7” oikretpoper.

Eur, Cycl. 643.

Ta 8 éomepa var’ édratver. El. 731.

dorepoeidéa vara bid:pevovo’. Ar. Thesm. 1067 (parody of Eur. Andromeda).

It is, however, still possible to regard rdv vérov in Xen, Eq. 3. 3 as the genuine reading, as the word was certainly often masculine in the Common dialect, and a writer like Xenophon may well have used that gender.

352 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

CCLVIII.

Bpéyew éri tod Sew év tivt Kou@dia apyaia mpocriwWeEpeves Turexrcidu TH KMUMdsH ectiv oftwc eipHuevoy. Sep et Kal rvctov fiv TO dpdua, Td Gmak eipficbar Epudctdued dv.

o ‘ / > ’ a > a ” 6trote b€ Kai vdGov éoTl, TMavTeA@c GtTrOdoKIMAGTéoV ToUVOUG.

‘Quamdiu Graecia in fastigio eloquentiae stetit, verbum Bpéxew a communi usu sejunctum poetisque aptum fuit, (unde est Pindaricum Bpéxe xpvodais wipddeoot pro toe xpuedv,) postea autem eviluit proletarii sermonis com- merciis. Sic primum Polyb. 16. 12. 3, obre viperar otre Bpéxerat: Arrian. Epictet. 1. 6. 26, od xaraBpéxeode, drap Bpéxn, et pluribus versionis Alexandrinae et Novi Testa- menti locis. In eadem culpa sunt substantiva Bpox7 pluvia et dBpoxla pro dvouBpla.”? Lobeck. ©

CCLIX.

Aduupoc: ot viv pév tov ériyapiv TH dvdpatt cHuaivovowy, c > > ad ‘ > ‘4 \ mek ot 8 dpyator tov trapov Kal dvaida.

The adjective is very rare in pre-Macedonian Greek, . occurring only in Xenophon and the Comic poet Epicrates. Xen. Symp. 8.24, ef 5& Aaywupdrepov A€yw, pH Oavpdcere 6 yap otvos cvvenatpe.: Epicr. ap. Athen. 6. 262 D—

ydotpw Kadodor kal Adwvpov bs dv payn

Hpav tu. Tovrwv.

In both places the Latin zmprobus would supply a cor- rect rendering. In the Common dialect it occurs frequently, but can hardly be said to exist in literature as an exact synonym of éxfxapis, although it approaches that signifi- cation in Plutarch, Mar. Vit. 38, dvos mpooBdépas to Mapio

‘

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 353

Adpupdy ti kal yeyyOds: and in Eunapius, 58. 3, rod masdlou TO TepitT@s KAA Kal Aapdpw byxOEvres Kal GAdrtes.

CCLX.

*"Eridecuoc Kai érridecor dpoevikdc pH A€re, OddeTEpwe d€ TO émidecuov Kai Ta Eridecua, dc dpyatot.

The word only occurs once in Attic Greek, namely, in Ar. Vesp. 1439, and then the gender is indeterminate—

el val Tay Képay Thy paptuplay ratrny édoas ev rdxe énldecpov empl, vodv dv elyes TAclova. There can be little question, however, that Phrynichus is wrong in claiming the neuter gender for the singular. Certainly otvdecuos and not otydecpov was the true form of the compound with ovy, and there is no reason why the compound with ézf should differ in gender from the simple ‘word and the other compounds. The distinction between the plural forms decywol and decud is worthy of mention. The masculine and neuter inflexions are not interchange- able, and though decpol is occasionally used for decud, no Attic writer ever employed deopyd for deopoi. As Cobet well puts it (in Mnem. 7. 74), ‘deopud sunt vincula quibus quis constringitur, sed decpds est in carcerem conjectio et captivitas in vinculis. Sic Athenis bdeopdv xarayvyvéckew ~ dicuntur judices, quorum sententiis aliquis in custodiam ' publicam conjicitur, et decpuds significat fere Td dedéc0ar, ut Odvaros est rd reOvdvat. Itaque ut de pluribus @dvaro. dici solet, sic deayof a Xenophonte est positum de pluribus qui in carcerem a tyranno olim conjecti fuissent.... Utraque forma et caeteri Graeci omnes et Attici utuntur, sed non promiscue, ut inter se permutari possint, veluti in Platonis Rep. 2. 378 D, “Hpas 8& becpods tnd vieos cal ‘Hdatorov Aa

354 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

plpeis dnd matpds, id est, rd dedéc0a1 “Hpav tnd vieos Kai ind marpos “Hpaorov eppipOa, ita dictum est ut decpd pro decpovs suppositum risum moveret. Accordingly, it is very natural that dona should be met with far more fre- quently than decpuol or decpods.

Putting aside the genitive and dative cases as identical, in Euripides the masculine occurs in Bacch. 518, 634, the neuter in Andr. 578, 724, I. T. 1204, 1205, 1329, 1333, 1411, Rh. 567, Bacch. 447, 647, H. F. 1009, 1055, 1123, 1342. Similarly, Aeschylus has the masculine once, P. V. 525, the neuter thrice, P. V. 52, 513, 991, while Aristo- phanes employs only the neuter, Pax 1073, Thesm. 1013 ; cp. Pollux, 4. 181, efzous & Gv cal deopa. . . ev Pnpvrddn.

As remarked above, éxfdeopos is not found in the plural, and xarddeopos is equally unfortunate; but odvdecpa is en- countered in Eur. Med. 1193, Hipp. 199, Bacch. 696. Evidence such as this permits the scholar to claim mas- culine inflexions for the singular number of deopuds and its compounds, and, with the reservation stated anor, neuter endings for the plural.

Forms like déopya, décparos, déopara, émidéopara, bnitees pldos are allowedly un-Attic.

CCLXI.

To okdtoc’ Kai todtTo én eddeiac TLOEMEVOV Guabec" Fevi-

kfic rap éott mradseac, ToD cKkatdc, H dé eddeia TO Gkap.

J , ‘ c ‘ 4 4 > 4 ‘ ’ n : Guaptdvovtec dé of MOAAOI THY HEV OpOHV TO GKATOC TOLODGL, —

THY d€ reviKHV GUV TH v, TOD GKdTOUC.

No writer of the Classical age can have used cxdrovs, and Athenaeus, 8. 362 C, or his transcribers, must be in error in fathering so manifestly late a form upon Sophron— ~

BaddAlCovtes tov Oddapov oxdrovs évémdncav.

a

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 355

His mimes would have excited more laughter than he reckoned upon if they had contained debased inflexions of this kind.

CCLXII.

Pdoic Kal tobro HudprHtat ot rap “A@Hvator pAéwc Aé-

rouct. Kal t¢ dmd TobTOU MAeKéuEva pAgiva KaAEITAL.

The Attic forms were dws, gréwv, préw, Prem. The genitive @Aé€w is read by most manuscripts in Ar. Ran. 243, and should replace ¢Aéws in Pherecrates, ap. Athen. 6. 228 E—

ent thydvois Kabloav® ipdntew Tod préw. The Scholiast on Ran. 243 quotes the accusative from the Amphiaraus—

md0ev dy AdBoyuw Biopa TH TpwKTa Hdr€wv ;

The monosyllabic pAods entered the Common dialect from the Ionic, as is seen from Hdt. 3. 98. Pollux (10. 178), in discussing the adjective, records that PAdivos was not only used by Herodotus (3. 98), but also survived in the Tragic dialect : Evpimfdov év AdroAtcm Sarvpix@ eladvtos—

oxowivas yap Irmo pdoivas jvlas mAéKeu

n 8 try GOev emdr€Kero prods pev xara Todvs “Iwvas, Préws BF kata Tovs ’Arrikots.

CCLAIIT.

Tleroi@Hotc obk etpHtat, GAN fitot moTevew Fi

TIETIOLOEVaL.

Such formations as wemolOnots, dvtimenovOnors, and éypi- popo.s have a certain resemblance to the Homeric éawz77, but have really no kinship with it or with the Attic dywy, 2387, or dvoxwyn. Substantives in -o1s, from the perfect stem, were not used by Attic writers.

Aaz

356 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

CCLXIV,

TladastH TO pétpov Kai OHAUK@c A€éreTat Kai Gvev Tod G&uadeic & of Aérovtec oby TH t Kai obv TH 6, TAAGLOTHC, s ’ nw > ” c ’ > ‘ 4 > OMMVUUOC TOd OOAHTH’ O MEVTOL GPAHTHC TIOAGLGTHC apoevi-

KOC KOAEITOL.

Inscriptions establish the forms preferred by Phrynichus. ‘TIaAaor}, tpimddacros: has formas unice Atticas esse pro madaiorT}, TpimdAaotos cett..... confirmant tituli I 321, II 167. (Herwerden, Test. Lap. p. 61.) Accordingly, the spelling with iota is wrong in the words of Cratinus and Philemon, quoted by Photius: laAacr# O@nAvKGs, Kparivos Népous—

petCov TO d€0s! madaorys. ° Dirjuov ’Ededplrais—

okymrddtov ev Kal K@d.ov Kal yidOvoy

tows TaXaoTis.

‘Alterius formae, quam Phrynichus praefert, vestigia ita

obliterata sunt, ut Perizonius ad Aelian. V. H. 13. 3, nemi-

nem reperiret ei obsecundantem. Sed translucet adhuc in

Homerico wadaorjoaca, ut nonnullis scribere placuit Od. 1.

252, et in scriptura Medicei Herodot. 1. 50, éfamdAacta,

tpimdAaota, kat madaotiaia, quae et hic in ceteris codd. et ‘ 2. 149 in omnibus iota destituuntur.’ Lobeck.

CCLAYV;.,

*Errtov émi tod érrutepov wt Aére, GAN eprurepov’ émi dé d Tod év TH fF, olov Erretov KTHma, et Tic yp@To, Gpicta av

ypHoatto, wc. Kat Anpoceévuc Erretov TOKOY A€ret.

1 Rhunkenius éos non inepte corrigit. Fortasse pro 7é est od etiam scribendum.

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. ‘3am

The Attic comparative and superlative of éyy’s are éy- ytrepos and éyyéraros, even if an early writer like Antiphon once employs éyyiora, 129. 14, Tov 5& puapdy Tots éyyiora TipwpetoOar broretrere. Liddell and Scott err here, as they do frequently in such cases, by quoting éyyiora from Demosthenes when the word is really from a spurious decree. Ionic writers used éyyiov and éyyiora just as they used even dyxordrw and dyy.ora. Hippocrates has éyyiov in De Vict. Rat. 2. 356. 32, éyytov rod mupds Kal rijs épyactys elot, and éyyora in id. 353. 32, Ta eyyora Exarépwy, while Herodotus uses dyxyordtw in 2. 24, and dyxiora in I. 134; 4. 81; 5.79. The Ionic words linger in Tragic poetry and early Attic prose, dyyordr being met with in Eur. Fr. 623 (chor.), and ayywora in Aesch. Supp. 1036, as also in Antiphon, 115. 25, Ta 8 dyxora tepGy Kdom is Svoiv Taddvrow yeypappeévos, ‘and most recently having been indicted of sacrilege.’

The question as to the orthography of the compounds of yj is again referred to in App. Soph. 47. 14, xardyevov" _ odxt Kardyatov bia Tis at dupOdyyov. The verdict of Phry- nichus is right. In Doric and Ionic, the forms in -avos were regular, but in Attic the diphthong « replaced a. Thus, éyyetos in the original spelling in Plato, Rep. 491 D, 546 A, Tim. 90 A; Dem. 872. 12, 914. 10; Lys. Fr. 59; éntyewos in Plato, Rep. 546 A (Axioch. 368 B) ; and xardyewos in id. Rep. 514 A, 532 B, Protag. 320 E. On the other hand, Xenophon may have written xardyaws in An. 4. 5. 19, as Herodotus used that form in 2. 150, and manuscript authority is in favour of éyyaws in Xen. Symp. 4. 31. The spelling with a is no more out of place in Xeno- phon’s style than in that of late authors like Aristotle, Plutarch, and Polybius, or in Ionic prose writers and Attic tragedians of his own century. It would be rash also to alter éyyafov to éyyefov in Dem. 893. 15, dAAov dé avpBodratov otk dvTos euol mept rodroy, ovre vavTiKod ovre

358 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

éyyalov, as old pronunciation survives for generations in legal phrases.

There is, however, no excuse for peodyata in Thuc. 6. 88. 4, when, peodyera has the support of the best codices in I, 100, 120; 2.102; 3.95; 7- 80; and peodyea should be retained in Plato, Phaed. 111 A, and pecoyelwy in Legg. g0o9 A. In Xenophon, An. 6. 2.19; 3.10; 4.5; Hell. 4. 7.1; 7. 1. 8, the spelling must remain undetermined.

The form Aemroyéws is unquestioned in Thuc. 1. 2, but it stands alone in Attic Greek, as the substantive dvéyewr, so familiar to juvenile Grecians, is really a word of no author- ity. In the only passage in which it is found, An. 5. 4. 29, the true reading has been restored, from the corruption dvoxatwy, by Dindorf, who reads xdpva 8% én) rév dvaxelwr qv tmokAd. Akin to dvag, dvdoow, and dvaxds, the word dvaxeioy is naturally used in the sense of ‘ store-cupboard ;’ dvax6s éxew tt having the meaning of ‘keep securely;’ Moeris, Attic. 43, dvaxds os TAdrwv 6 kopixds—

kal tas Odpas dvaxés éxwv

dvtt rod dopadds 7) pudaxrixés. The question is discussed in detail by L. Dindorf in Steph. Thesaurus, I. ii. col. 1067, 1068, and the same facts are presented, with slight varia- tions, by Zacher, ‘De Nomin. Graecis in -auos,’ pp. 119-121.

CCLXVI.

=Votpav wh Aére, GAAG oTAerrida,

This question must rest upon the authority of Phrynichus, as, in the sense of ‘scraper,’ neither word is encountered in Attic writers.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 359

CCLXVII.

Mappdepertov uh Aére, THOEAGDSOOY dé.

* Mappdperros tantum in Schol. Arist. Ran. 1021, Acharn. 49 et Poll. 3. 20, legere me memini. Quo accidit Atticos cum pdppn de avia dicere subterfugerent, non potuisse facile pappd0penrov denominare eum, qui ab avia educatur. Tn@ad- Aadods quod ex comici versu citat Eustathius, p. 971. 490—

“Oxveis Aadeiv; otrw opddip ci THOaAAaBoIs ; varie scribitur in glossis grammaticorum, quas Steph. collegit. Ego illam scripturam tenendam puto, quae et: plurimis testi- moniis et ipsius Phrynichi loco App. Soph. p. 65. 30, nititur.’ Lobeck.

The article is probably not. by Phrynichus at all, being absent from several authorities.

CCLXVIII.

Zidpuv' Kai TobTo diepeappevov, TipHy rap oi MaAatol

Aéfouctv.

This article is not found in several other authorities, and in the first Laurentian manuscript only in the margin.

‘Triplex reperitur hujus nominis scriptura; una usita- tissima ofAdn Aristot. H. A. 9. 17. 601. 93, Aelian, H. A. t. 37, Lucian, Gall. c. 31 (749) ; Dioscor. 1. 38.77, tum Galenus, Aetius, Paullus; riAdy Lucian, adv. Indoct. C. 17 (114); tertia rin Ar. Ach. 920, 925, Pollux 7. 20, quae et Phry- nicho restituenda videtur’’ Lobeck.

CCLXIX.

Ybar of ev aTAGc Guaptdvovtec did Tod v, oi d€ dumAA ‘

£ U s ral e , bu ‘ \ , duaptdvovrec dic TOO ot, oloy woia. éort dé Kal TO dvoua TOAD KiBDHAOV. ve@pov otv Aére,

} The Laurentian has confirmed this conjecture.

360 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Photius supports Phrynichus, wdas 7 wolas 7) 6a xpy Kadeiy map’ oddevt artikdv ebpov, of 8& madaiol youvacrat éAdnrexa tpocayopevovowv. Hippocrates uses the word in de Artic. 810 C, and de Nat. Hum. 229. 31 (cp. 279. 41; 304. 14), and in H. A. 3.3, 512.21, Aristotle quotes it from Polybius. In Euphron, a poet of the New Comedy, it is found in company with AoBés—

AoBds tis éore kal ybar Kadovpevar. Athen. 9. 399 B. On the other hand, vedpds has excellent authority, the singular being used by Aristophanes in Lys. 962, the dual in Ran. 475, 1280, and the plural by Plato in Tim. 91 A.

CCLXX.

“YAtotHp tpvrouTov TodTO KaAodoLV ot doKi“a@c diare-

roMevol.

Xpépuvros. duos & ered) Kal rov olvoy n&lovs mivew, ovvexmoré’ éorl cot Kal thy Tpvya. Neavias. GAN ore Komidyn tpvé Tadrara kal campd. Xpépvdos. ovxodyv tpvyouros tadra mdv7 idoerat. . Aristophanes, Plut. 1084. The word occurs again in Pax 535. ‘YArornp, on the con- trary, has but a poor record: Dioscor. 2. 123; Oribasius, p. 54. ed. Matth.; Geopon. 7. 37, 20. 46; Tzetz. Hist. 13. 420. . CCLXXI.

_ Tldmupoc’ tomdoeev dv tic Airdmttov eivat todvona: oA

rap kar Airurrrov mAdzetat. Fipeic S€ BiBAov épodpey.

“az

—— Es eee

40 =)

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS, 361

The word found fault with is quoted only from late writers, Plutarch, Strabo, Dioscorides, Achilles Tatius, Nemesius, and the Geoponica.

CCLXXIL.

"Appovitpov’ teAga@c é&iTHAOV Kai GddKimov. py obv

AITpov Aerfelv H AtTpov a@pov.

Lobeck proves that such compounds as a¢pévtpov, ado- cav0os, xddxavOos, kvvoxavpara, Onpiodjypara, pntpadeAdos for adpos virpov, adds dvOos, etc., are very late. He quotes the expression from Hippocrates, 621. 46, and Dioscorides, 5. 131, and the word from Galen, vol. 2. p. 320 (1. p. 168 L), Julius Africanus, Cest#z, 3. 290, and the Geoponica, 2. 28.

CCLXXIII.

Nitpov: tovro AioAetc j1év dv etrrot, Somep odv Kal 4

Zarpa dia tod v, Asuvaioc S€ dia Tod A, Attpov.

Perhaps the spelling with nu may be permitted to Alexis—

Taknopar els TO pavepoy éxvevitpwpéva’ Athen. 11. 502 F,

but the testimony of Moeris (p. 246), Photius, and Phry- nichus is too authoritative to allow of any form but A(rpov in Attic writers of an earlier date.

CCLXXIV.

*E€adeA@oc drrodtoroumHtéov, dveyioc dé PHTéov.

The late word supplants dveyids in the Septuagint and in Christian writers. Lobeck’s note gives minute details.

362 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS,

CCLXXV.

“YrdAAarna Guaedc tivec dvti Too Evéyupov A€roust.

This use of i7éAdaypa is only known to us from Gram- marians, as Bekk. Anecd, 423. 12: edé@acw of rH yuvatkt yapovpévyn tpoika diddvres aireiy mapa rod dvdpds domep évé- xupdv tt Tis mpotkds dvrdgvoy d viv drdddAaypa A€yerau.

CCLXXVI.

Tlavdoyeiov ot 81a Tod x Aérovtec Guaptdvouver dia rap To} K XpN Aéretv mavdoKeiov Kai mavdoKetc kai rravdo-

KeUTPLA.

There can be no question that Attic writers invariably spelt this and similar words with kappa, zavddxos, tepoddxos, £evoddKos, dopvddKn, dwpodoxs, etc., but, even if the Oecono- micus was written by Xenophon, it is still possible that £evodoxla in g. 10 came from the author’s hand. Awpoddxos and its derivatives retained the kappa even in late writers.

CCLXXVII.

THv péeipa Aérousi tivec Kai THY KOpiv’ GU de GpoeviKdc

Tov Kdpty Aére Kal TOV MOEipa, wc ol apyaiot.

‘Feminina positione quemquam usum esse ad hunc usque diem tam inauditum fuit ut ne in lexicis quidem ejus generis mentio facta sit.’ Lobeck, who discovered several instances of the missing gender in late authors.

CCLXXVIII.

Méxdov wH Aére Std TOD K, GAAG dia TOU y.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 363

‘Vocabulum hoc adeo omni auctoritate destitutum est, ut in summa copia et varietate Graecorum monimentorum, praeter illud Anacreonteum (Fr. 88) a grammaticis in lucem evocatum, ne unum quidem exemplum proferre possim, 7 pev véov He madadv. Lobeck. The article has little textual authority.

CCLXXIX.

Kard kotAiac roteiv of ruptvactiKol A€rouctv’ émd0ev dé AaBdvtec @aciv, GdHAOV. of rap madatoi bmdpetv THY

raoTépa Aérovow.

‘Yndyew is used in medical writers both transitively with yaotépa or xowAlav and intransitively in a similar sense, as tndyew rhv xowAtny in Aretaeus, Cur. M. Ac. 1. to, and kowAla imdyoura in Galen, Comm. 4. ad Hippocr. De Rat. Vict. in Morb. Ac. p. 396. 27. The expression reprehended

does not occur at all in written Greek.

CCLX XX.

*Eqtdpkouc: toito did tod 1 Aére.

‘Unicum simile novi Hesychii : "Equopxjoavres, wevodpevol, fortasse ex Doricis monimentis ductum.’ Lobeck.

CCLXXXI.

, , a c UJ c n Yie@oc, uuepdc, beAoc, Guaptavovaiy oi dia Too € AérovTec. > ’ , ‘ ' Gddkiov rap. Kai Kopivva—

Tov bdALVOV Traida OHoetc.

This article is not found in any of the manuscripts, in the editions of Callierges or Vascosan, or in Phavorinus; but

364 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

the first Laurentian manuscript and the first editor include tedos in the next article. Much of this part of the book is undeniably spurious.

CCLXXXII.

“O mvedoc 1d Tod €, Kai pwueddc PHTEoV.

‘$ieOos, quod etiam Moeris p. 418 Atticis abjudicat, apud Antigonum Carum et fortasse apud plures recentiorum occurrit; namque ad hanc partem non satis attentus fui; neque puepds nunc dicere possum 70d xeirav. “Yados, non Bedos, dicendum esse, uno ore tradunt Phrynichus App. Soph. p. 68, Aelius Dionysius, Photius, alii. Neque Theo- phrasti auctoritas tanta videri debet ut grammaticorum sententiae, Aristophanis et Platonis testimonio communitae, idcirco abrogemus.... Ad postrema quod attinet, wéados Hemsterhusius ex Hesychio, peuvadwpevos Hoeschelius ex Ps. 65, idem 7d ptedov e Greg. Naz. Apol. p. 26, profert.’

Lobeck. COISX XX:

Oi yéAtkec Gwabec: of rap dSdKimor OHAVKAC ai YSALKEC

pasiv.

Moeris, 404, xoAddas of mp@rou ’Arrixol, xdAukas of péoor ‘ OndvuwGs, xXoArtkas EPOds, Tobs xdAtKas, dpoeviKGs “EAgves : Phrynichus, App. Soph. 72. 5, xéAtkes of wodAol dpoevikds, of & dpxato. 6nAvKGs. The quotation in Moeris comes from Aristophanes, Pax 717—

Boas S& KaTéber xdALKas EPOds Kal Kpéa.

Ammonius, p. 142, wrongly tries to distinguish between xodddes and xdduces. Xodddes Kal xddixes diahéper’ xoAdbes pey yap Ta &vtepa—

xvvTo xapal xoAdbes* Il. 4. 526.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 365

xeAukes 5& ai TG Body Kordla, ’Aproropdyns BaBvdrwvlous— }} Bowaplwy tis dméxrewe Cedyos xoAlkwv emOupar.

On the other hand, the statement of Moeris is supported by the lexicography of the words. XodAddes, Hom. Il. 4. 526, 21. 181, Hymn. Merc. 123, and with two lambdas, Pherecrates, ap. Bachmann, Anecd. 1. 418; yéAuxes af, Ar. Ran. 576, Babyl. cited, Pax 717; Fr. ap. Poll. 6. 56; Phere- crates, ap. Athen. 6. 268 E; Eubulus, ap. Athen. 7. 330 C; Anaxandrides, ap. Athen. 4. 131.

CCLXXXIV.

Xovdpok@vetov’ Guaeec TO cbvOETOV TOdTO Kal GAASKOTOV.

This article is not in the manuscripts or the edition of Callierges. If it is really genuine, then yovdpoxdveror, the reading of Nuiiez, ought to be retained, whatever its meaning may be. Suppose it to signify the cone-shaped vessel through which the groats are shot into the mill, then such a compound of xévdpos and xévos would merit the remark of Phrynichus. Xovdpoxomeiovy, on the contrary, the conjecture of Pauw, is a perfectly legitimate form mentioned by Pollux 3. 78, and supported by dpyvpoxozeiov, quoted by the same writer (7. 103) from Phrynichus (Com.), by Harpocration from Antiphon, and from Andocides by the Schol. ap: Arist. Vesp, 1007.

CCLXXXV.

*Extevac uh, GAN dvt abtot SaytAdc Aére.

Adjective, adverb, and substantive, éxrevjs, éxrevGs, and éxrévera all occur with frequency in late writers, but are unknown in Attic Greek. Even in Aeschylus—

366 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

kal pov Td pev mpaxOévra mpds Tods exrevels plrovs mikpds jKoveay adraveylous, Suppl. 983.

the word has been. justly called in question, and by Her- mann altered to éyyeveis. It is true that Phrynichus may be said to find fault only with the signification ‘ profuse,’ but the evidence is also against its being Attic in that of ‘earnest.’ Of the Comic poets Machon first used the term.—

Anon O dx adrijs exrevds dyaTépevos. Athen, 13. 579 E.

CCLXXXVI.

Tlp@tawc *AptototeAnc kal Xptoummoc Aéret. éott d€

diepOapuevov Mdvu ToUvoua: Aére ody TIPatov.

Phrynichus is right in absolutely denying these forms to Attic. Moeris, p. 298, and Thom., p. 764, allow them when they denote quality, not number. As a matter of fact, they do not exist at all before Aristotle’s time. In Ar. Lys. 316 there is a variant tpdérws, but evidently a correction to restore the metre, which halts in the best manuscripts, the Ravenna presenting mpérov, others mpéros. Enger has replaced the original apérior—

Thy Aaprdd hppévnv Stws mpétior euol mpocolcess.

CCLXXXVIL

Tlapadrikuy ‘Inmiav kat “lova twa ourrpapéa paciv eipH- , « m sy a ' > -~ < TT 4 Kéval, Huetc O€ TOTO TIAPAKATABHKHVY EPOULEV, OC TIAdtay

kai OouKvdidue kat Anpocdévuc.

The “Iwy tis cvyypadeds is evidently Herodotus, who has

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 367

the word in 6. 73, wapa0jxnv abrods maparidevta és Tods €xOlorovs, and 9. 45, mapabynxny tyiv érea tdde TiOepar. The authority for wapaxaraOjxn and mapaxararideuc, however, is so overwhelming—Plato, Thucydides, Lysias, Aeschines, Isocrates, and others—that the note of Photius, [apa@jxnv TlAdrwv Svypaxta, even if credited, may be disregarded. Certainly, the use of wapari@eyar for mapaxarariOeuar in Xen. Rep. Ath, 2. 16, tiv odotay rais vijcos maparlOevra, is to be considered an anticipation of the Common dialect. It is in place in Herodotus, as 6. 86, rod rapabeyévov Ta xphyara of aides, and in Polybius, as 33. 12. 3, pdcxovres ovdderi mpojoecOa Ta xpyyara ... TARY ait@e TO Tapadeuerp, but not in an Attic writer.

CCLKXXXVIII.

*AtapaBarov mapattoo Aérew, GAN drrapaitHTov. . *,

In this case, as in so many others, the diction of late “prose meets that of Attic poetry—Aeschylus has tapdBaros in the sense of zapairnros in a lyric passage of the Supplices— Avéds od rapBarés éotiw peyddra ppyv danépartos, but the word is as alien to prose as dpi or anéparTos, its companions in the poet.

CCLXXXIX.

Avyviav: avti tobrou Avyviov Aére, Oc H KaOpwdia.

Tovdt Adyw, ob & ob cvvieis’ KdtraBos TO Auxvlov earl: mpdcexe Tov vodv' oa pév Antiphanes, ap. Ath. 15. 666 F. It is a shortened form of Avxvelov, already considered on p. 132 supra. ‘‘H Avyvéa praeter scriptores sacros, Philonem

368 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS.

p. 425 B, et Josephum, etiam Lucianus, Asin. C. 40 (608), Galenus de Comp. Med. p. locc. I. 2, 326. D, Artemidorus 1. 74. 103, Hero Spiritualia, p. 212.’ Lobeck.

CCAC.

*Arwrév: todtTo tTotvoua TatTOUGIv Ol TaAaLol én TOD

tiva 6d6v Hroupévov. oftw Kai Oovkudiduc KéypHTat. vey

de c ‘ ‘ , er > ‘ a ‘ € Ol TrEpt TO dtKAOTH PLA PHTOpec afrodpouc KQAOUGL TOUC -

dyeTodc Tay bddTwyv,

The late meaning is cited from Herodian, 7. 12, éxxdyrar mdvtas Tovs elopéovtas els TO otpardmedov aywyovs Udaros: Geopon. 2. 7, évAlvois 8& dywyots Kadapdv rd tdwp eis Ta gpéara ovvayew : Galen, de Us. Part. 16. 1.673 A; Procopius, and others.

CCXCI.

Kptperar pedre did tot B Aéretw Kai KpuBeobat, GAAG

did TIT KptrTTeTaL Kai KpUTTTEDOa Paet.

CEXGH.

Kapfivat Kai éxapHv @aol, kai etvar ToUTou mpoc TO kel- pasdat diapopav. To ev rap éni mpoBdtav Ti6éact, Kel-

pacbat d€ Emi dvepa@roy.

The distinction is just. Verbs which have a reference to the care or embellishment of the person have naturally ©

what is called the direct middle, that is, a voice purely reflexive. In other cases the reflexive meaning is conveyed by the active voice and a reflexive pronoun.

When Veitch says, ‘Neither of the aorists passive seem

-

. oo fF

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 369

to be of Attic usage,’ he can only mean that by accident neither occurs in our texts. If occasion had demanded, éxdpnv, xapfvat would certainly have been used as a matter of course.

Lobeck quotes violations of the Attic rule, Plutarch, V. Lys. 1, rév *Apyelov emt méver xapévrwy: Julian Antic. Anth. Pal. 11. 369—

TO oe xp Spemdvoror kal ob Wadlderot Kapivat,

CCXCIII.

KoyAtdptov" rodro Aistpov “Apistopdvue 6 Kwp@dorotoc Aéret, Kal ot Sé obTw Aére

Though this article is absent from the extant manuscripts and the edition of Callierges, and is not in Phavorinus, yet it is possibly by Phrynichus, as in App. Soph. p. 51, the same caution appears again, Avorploy' 1d t7d rév Toh\AGy kaAovpevov KoxAtdpiov. The late word is used by Galen, de Medic. Simpl. 11. 1, 8, 23, de Pond. et Mens. vol. 13, p. 976 seqq., by Dioscorides, and in the Geoponica, 7. 13, p. 491.

CCXCIV..

AcEapevi pact MAdtwya éni tc KoAUuBr Opac eipHKEevat. érd b€ 08 Quur GAAG deEauévH TH Tévw eimev wc Tol- ovupévi. ypr ody Kai Hude KoAUUBHOpG Aérety.

The Grammarian is here in error. Not only did Hero- dotus employ the despised synonym of xoAvyB7Opa in 3. 9, and 6, 119, but Plato also in Crit. 117 A, rats 5 87 xpijvats, Ti TOO Woxpod Kalrij Tob Oepyod vduaros, TAHOos pev UpOovov exovoaus, Hdovi 88 Kal dperh tOv tddrwy pds Exatépov Thy Xpijow Oavpactod repuxdros, éxpGvTo TepiaTHiaavtes olKodopioets kal dévipwr purevoeis mperovoas tdact, deLapevas Te ad Tas wey

Bb

370 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

imaiOplovs, ras b& Xeyuepwwds Tots Oepyots Aovrpois brooréyous mepuridévres, xwpls pev Bacrdsxds, xwpls 8 iirikds, err be yovaély GdrdAas Kal érépas trois kal Tots GAdouws drovylois, 7d mpoopopoy Ths Koopjoews ExdoTous AmovéewovTes.

CCACY.

Xizdv dtrocoBHTéov Gti TOLHTLKGy, avTi SE TOO yOLdv Epod- Mev yecivov, TPOC TO TOALTIKOV GTOTOpvEevovTEC TOV Adroy,

© 402 , a@c Kai “Aptotopavue.

There is no means of ascertaining which form Phrynichus preferred, as the apparatus criticus will show. The adjective occurs twice in Aristophanes (Ran. 987 and Vesp. 282), but in metres too irregular to control the form, some editors preferring the tribrach, others the dactyl, although in both places the manuscripts exhibit only x@ecwdv. Neither form is found elsewhere in Attic Greek, although the repudiated x@.¢ds is very common in Homer, and is found in Herodotus. The reason why the adjective appears so seldom in Attic is that the premier dialect preferred instead to use the adverb with the article. Here a difficult question suggests itself: Which was the recog- nised form, the monosyllabic x6és, or the disyllabic éy6és? Grammarians contradict each other, and the inquirer is thrown back upon his trusty guides, Attic Comedy and common sense. The verdict of metre is conclusive. The monosyllable is encountered in the following lines— xs ody Kredy 6 kydeuor jyiv épeir ev dpa,

Vesp. 242. Kapé y 4 aépvyn xOes eloedOdvta Tis peony plas, : Id. 500, tabr’ dpa ratra KAeévupoy abrar tov plac bes lodoa, Nub. 353.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

és "Opoirdxov xO%s tdv tpixGv Karéoraca, Lys. 725. x9és re Kal mpgnv komeior TO KaxloT@ Kdppart, Ran. 725. otk ndnobd pe

ppdcarvrd cor xbés; Eccl, 552.

@ Brewlinw dyewor 7) xOes mparroper, Plut. 344.

molov xpdvov raddvraé’, 8s map’ euol xOes Hv. Id, 1046.

Much more numerous are the examples of é0és—

ex bes bE y Hytiy deimvov od« Hv Eorépas,

Nub. 175. eyOes be pera tadr expOapels ovK of bro, Pax 72, ppoddor yap exdés elow epxiopevor, Id. 197. ovk éorw jyiv’ exOes elowxlopeda, Id. 260. A. GAN obk exdters ot y exOés; B. GAAa rhyepor, Lys. 745. atpayyoupia ydp* exdes épayov Kdpdapa, Thesm. 616. éxdés & exovr’ elddy o eyd tpiBdror, Plut. 882,

ex des pera tad emwov huépay tplryy, Antiphanes, Zonar. Lex. 2. 1745.

exes imémwes, elra vuvi kpatadGs,

371

Alexis, Athen. 2. 34 D.

ex és MeAavér@ rodvredods Alyvrriov,

Anaxandrides, Athen, 12. 553 D.

ramiddoupy hyiv eorly As exOes meiv,

Crobylus, Athen. 8. 365 A.

80” exes dpods els rd mop dnocBécas,

Euphron, Athen. 9. 379 E.

ex des xexivdbvevkas’ ovdels etx€é cot, Id, Athen. 9. 377 D.

Bb

372 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

The word is found only once in Tragedy—

ov ydp tt viv ye KaxOes GAN del Tore

Gj tatra. Soph. Ant. 456. ’ExOés, therefore, was the regular Attic form, the old Ionic x6és being naturally retained in phrases like x@és re kal mp%nv, and occasionally, as in Nub. 353, and Vesp. 242, to help the metre. After a word ending in a vowel éxés yielded to its older rival even in prose, as éxetvos also seems sometimes to have done. Editors may please themselves as to using the apostrophe or not, mp@nv re Kal *xOés, or mpénv Te kat x0és, but to a seeing eye the principal fact is placed beyond dispute by the evidence given.

CCXCVI.

Baopoc iakdv dic TOO 6, did TOO o dtTiKdv, Bacpdc.

So Moeris 97, Baopods ’ArrixGs, Babjds “EAAnvikds.

CCXCVII.

Tlupia: toto tdtTovew oi TOAAoi émi THe év TH Bada- vel TrvéAov, Kai éyer wéev TO Etvuov Grd Tod TUpodcbat, od uriv TO akpipec Kal SdKyov. TMuéAove dp ot &pyaior Kadoc-

* étv, GAN od Tupiac.

The rejected word does not appear at all in Attic Greek. It is, however, classical, though not in the sense of wéedos. | Herodotus has it of a vapour-bath, 4. 75, of Sxv@at Tijs Kav- vdBwos rd onepya éredy A4Bwor, droddvover iad rods mlAovs, Kal @reira eémiBdddovor TO omépua emt rods diadavéas AlOovs TO mupl: rd be Ovuarar emBadrdAsuevoy Kal drplda mapéxerat tocatrny dare “EAAnviKy) ovdeula dy pv mupin amoxparncere’ of b& SkVOar dydpevor TH Tupin optovrat.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 373

It is used for m¥eAos by Moschion as quoted by Athen- aeus in 5. 207 F, jp 8% cal Badaveiov tplkAwov, muplas xadKas éxov tpeis, kal Aourfipa, wévTe petpyntdas dexduevov: and by Nicarchus in Anth, Pal. 11. 243, of Badaveis yap «is rére tdocovra. THY Tuplav Kabedciv. Both Moschion and Nicar- chus’ probably wrote in the same century as Phrynichus.

CCXCVIIL

“ImracOat TapaiTHTéoy, et Kal Gmak rou etH Keipevov A

dic. méTecOat O€ Aére.

%

The Attic verb corresponding to the English ‘fly’ de- rives its tenses from one or other of the three stems, irra, mer, and ora. The reduplicated imra, which belongs to , the same group as tora, rie, and ie, supplied the future and its moods—

tarnpt lornpe rlOnpe inut

mTycopart oTnow Onow How, From ver came the present mérowat, the imperfect émerd- pyv, and the syncopated aorist émréuny, while wora furnished the perfect texérnpar. No Attic writer uses trrnur or trra- pat, éntny or éentdyny, ToTGua, erordpyynv, or erornOnv, but the future werijrouar is found by the side of mrfcoua. In Homer and the Tragic poets are encountered forms from extn and énrdyuny, as mralnv, mriva, mrds, mTdcOaL, mTdEvos, and from rorépau forms like wora@ra: and éxorndnv, but in Attic prose and Comedy they were unknown. In the Common dialect any form from any of the three stems passed muster, and even new tenses were manufactured which could be referred neither to inra, mer, or mora. Such were érerdoOnv and aénraya, which in Attic belong not

1 For the middle, see infra, p. 399.

374 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

to méroua, but to merdvvy. By others moréya. was lengthened to twréya1, and used as a regular verb.

It is therefore not surprising if Attic texts have suffered at the hands of transcribers. The principal risk naturally fell to the aorist éxrdéyyv, so apt to be confounded with the un-Attic érrdynv. Thus in Ar. Av. 788—

éxarduevos dy otros jplornoey eAO@v olkade

xdr dy éumdnodels ep’ hyas addis ad xaréxrero— the Ravenna preserves the true forms, but other manu- scripts have inconsistently éxardwevos and xarézraro, or still worse, éxzerdyevos and xarénrero. The Ravenna is equally invaluable in Av. 48, where it confirms the conjectures of Dawes and Brunck—

el rov roratrny cide méAW f ’énTETO— against the vulgate— el mov tovatrny olde TéAW f Térrarat.

In Av. 90 dnénrero, 278 eicémrero, 789, 792 Karénrero, 791, 795 dvénrero, 1173 eloénrero, the Ravenna retains the original spelling when most other manuscripts replace’ omicron by alpha. But in 1206 dyamrduevos, and 1613 - mpoontdevos, even the Ravenna slips, although it supports the true form of the participle in 1384 dvamréuevos, and in 1624 KaramTépevos. As in the case of 7jpéynv, the subjunctive and optative, &popa and épolunv, might as far as form goes belong to the present tense; so the subjunctive mréua: may be a mood of either éarduny or énrdunv, but in Attic it certainly be- longs to the latter. The longer form of the future is met with in two lines of Aristophanes— Snows TmeTHoEL ps evOd Tod Ads AaBdr, Pax 77.

ovk dmomernoe: Oarrov els "EAvpvior, Id. 1126.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 375

but the shorter has good authority— olyot Kaxodalywv, otpoddos arnp ylyverar

exatyoerat, Tod, 70d *ott jou TO Slxrvop ; Vesp. 208.

The perfect seaérnwar rests upon prose instances, and upon Aristophanes— tabr dp dxovoao avtay To pbeyy oxy pov mendérnTau’ Nub, 319. dventepGo0a. Kal memoricOa Tas ppévas. Av. 1445. This verb admirably illustrates the refined eclecticism of the Attic dialect, and the record of its corruption tells only too plainly how the intellectual refinement from which it sprang decayed and passed away.

CCXCIX.

NiiotHc BapBapov, Td 8 &pyatov vAoTic dtd Tod t. ’

The form may well have been used by the Parody-writer

Matron, Athen. 4. 134 F— wiotns, GAAotplov «& eldms Seutv0cvvVdmv—

but there is only the questionable authority of Gram- marians to support its occurrence in Simonides. Bekk. Anecd. 1402.

It is cited from late writers, as Apollon. Hist. Mir. c. 51, bre vyotys bripxev-

GCC.

Kate yetpdv deivdde dveAArviotov, kai r¢ Eri yetpav Le ‘ 4 Ma ' ‘< an s , dé" MeoTH rdp H Ka@pmbdia rol Kata xetpdc.

The edition of Nufiez, and the margin of the first

fan.

376 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Laurentian manuscript, are the only warrants for this article, but it is correct as a statement of usage. Athenaeus 9. 408 E, aAclov 8% xphows Kara xeupds tdwp clwbe A€yew, Gs Etsodis év XpvoG Téver, cal "Apeuplas Spevddvy, ’AAxaids re év ‘lepG Tay. Tldcioroy & éort rodro. Piddddwos be év Atyn xara xeipdv elpnxer otrws—

kal 3% dedermvyjKacw at yuvaikes GAN adaipeiy

. Spa orl Hin Tas tpanélas, eira Tapaxopicat,

éreita Kata xeipov éxdorn Kal pdpov tt dodvar.

Mévavidpos “Tdpta—

of 5& Kara xeipdv AaBdvTes, TEpisévover plAraror.

CCCI.

Pdrouat BapBapev. Aé€re obv Edouat Kai KaTédouat.

tobto rap “Attikéy.

CCCII.

Bpwoouat, Kakdc 6 Papwpivoc. ot rap Attikol avr

attod edouat ypadvrat kat kaTédouat.

The former of these articles has little better footing than

.300, and in the edition of Nufiez the latter, which comes

from a later position in the manuscripts, is augmented by the sentence, dkpirov ody Kal dndBAnrov Tav arTiKOv hover Td Bpdécopa pha.

The marvellous rule by which middle inflexions were necessarily attached to the future of a verb like éo0/ was mentioned on article 45, and I shall here carefully and fully redeem the promise there made.

An important instance of a very common manuscript etror is to be found in the lines of Aristophanes in which

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 377

Trugaeus asks the son of Cleonymus to sing him a stave that will not suggest war and arms—

doov mplv elovévar te’ od yap ed otd Ore

od Tpdypar doe oddpovos yap « marpds. All the manuscripts read does for doe, but Dawes was right beyond question in replacing the active by the middle future. Not only in Attic, but throughout Greek literature till a late period, the middle dooua: was the only future of the verb ddw. But in debased Greek the active dow was the more usual form’, and it is no wonder that a copyist should insert its second person singular in Aristo- phanes when it had the same metrical value as the classical doe, and was suggested by the fact of the following word beginning with a sigma. It is true that doovow is actually read in Plato, Legg. 666 D, olay 8% doovow oi avdpes horny; but the expression is unintelligible till we restore jjcovoiv, the word which Plato wrote, and which he was fond of using in this connexion: Legg. 890 D, nmacav poviv téevra: Lege. 934 D, moddAjv awviv tévres: Theaet. 194 A, Lewpiva dwvnv play icicay: Legg. 812 D, ddda pédn tGv xopddy tevoGv: Phil. 51 D, ras év ru xabapov ieioas péAos: Phaedr. 259 D, at fdou cadAlorny horijv.

The same lesson is taught by the consideration of the future forms of didKo. The active is supported by the manuscripts in— xpvood bidEers optxvOnv Kal kvpuov. Arist. Eq. 969. ov maédw Tndt Siders ; Tovwmadw tpéxers ov ye. Thesm, 1224.

ovk anodiders cavrdy amd Tijs olklas. Nub. 1296.

1 «Babr. F. 12. 18; late prose, Himer. Or. 1.6; Menand. Rhet. 617; Nicol. Rhet. 11,14; Aeneae Epist. 18, rpoo- Ael. H. A.6.1, Dor. gow, Theocr. 1.145. ‘’Aciow, Callim. Apol. 30; Dian. 186, Del. 1; Anth. (Mnas.) 7. 192; Q. Sm. 3.646; Opp. Cyn. 1. 80, 3. 83.’ Veitch.

378 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Xen. Cyr. 6. 3. 13, dudéers 62 : id. An. 1. 4. 8, bidéw: Dem. 989. 11, didéere. The middle is read in Ar. Eq. 368—

didfopal oe derdlas:

Thuc. 7. 85, du£oyévous, Plat. Prot. 810 C, duotuny, Theaet. 168 A, dudfovra, Clit. 407 A, dudfouau, Xen. Cyr. 1. 3. 14, d1dEe, 4. I. 19, diwEducba, 4. 3. 18, didEopa.

These facts distinctly prove that in Attic Greek didn had invariably a future middle. In our texts it is occasionally active, but the texts were altered by the copyists of an age in which Dionysius of Halicarnassus could use d.éfoua: in a passive sense. Excepting dé in Xen. Cyr. 6. 3. 13, and 8éfere in Demosthenes, the active is confined to the second person singular, which, except in one letter and that a finial one, is identical with the middle. Add to this, that in three cases out of the five the following word began with the same letter sigma. It is well known that this is no unfrequent source of error, as in Eur. Or. 383—

ixérns GpvAdous ordpmaros e€datav Alras—

. the manuscripts have the absurd reading dpvAAov. In Thesm. 1224 the active is due simply to erroneous divi- sion of the words, didfe ’s rotumadw being, as Cobet — shows, what Aristophanes really wrote. The dere of Demosthenes must be altered to diééece, and perhaps Cobet is right in restoring diégoyar in Xen. Cyr. 6. 3. 13; but Xenophon is too uncertain a writer to take any account of, and whether he wrote d.dgw or did6€ou01 does not affect Attic usage in the least degree.

The history of these two futures, droua: and dudopar,

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 379

teaches the valuable lesson that manuscripts are of no authority in establishing the true form of a future when it has survived only in the second person singular.

In other cases in which two forms were nearly alike, the copyists have blundered by using the one for the other. In Arist. Plut. 932, the Informer addresses his witness, calling upon him to bear testimony to the conduct of Cari6n—

épas & moet; tadr’ eyo paprtpoyar— but the manuscripts read ove’s. Budaeus was the first to make the necessary correction, and Brunck and others have confirmed it. When the middle ¢vAdgéer is unquestionably demanded in Arist. Pax 176—

kel py prddéer, xoptdow tov kdvOapov—

the copyists have nothing to offer but the meaningless active pvAdéers.

In Arist. Av. 1568, on approaching Nephelococcugia, ’ Poseidon turns to his fellow-ambassador Triballus, and tries to get him to arrange his dress more gracefully—

obros th bpis; ém dpiorép’ otras duméxer;

od petaPadre Ooludrioy GS emt deFid. the middle is required, and yet the manuscripts read pera- Baxets. :

The verb 7Avd(owar is not rare, but it is never found in the active voice except in Arist. Lys. 380, #Ad¢ers, where no manuscript has the true’reading jAid¢er.

Another type of manuscript blunder is presented by optatives like peOelunv and pebelnv becoming interchanged as in Ran, 830—

ovk av peOelunv Tod Opdvov, pi) vovdéres, and Soph. El, 1306—

danpetoiny TH tapdvrt balyor.

380 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Now in both these cases the manuscripts present the wrong voice; in the line of Aristophanes peefnv, in So- phocles tnperofunv. Dawes corrected the former and Elmsley the latter*’

The same verb peO(nus affords an excellent example of the other kind of manuscript error already shown in du€éere for didfecGc. In the lines—

Koxkv, peOecOe" Kal TOAY ye KaTwTépo, Arist. Ran. 1384. peOerbe, pedecbe Kal 7d TOBE y ad péreL, : Id. 1393. the manuscripts read peOcire in all three cases. The active voice may thus be used intransitively, but the second person plural imperative active has its penultimate syllable short, wédere. The way in which the blunder arose is shown by 1, 1380— Kal py weOjocOov, mpiv dv éy® opov koKktow. The Ravenna has the true reading peOjo0ov, but other manuscripts have only pede?oOov, a form half-way to pe- Oeirov, as dudéere sprang from didéecde. Take another type still from the same play. In 1. 1235— Spas, mpootwer adOis ad thy ArjxvOov. GAN’ Byd0? ert kal viv anddov mdon réxvy, Ajppet yap dBorod wdvy Kadjnv te Kayadhv— _many good manuscripts have dmédos, ‘give back,’ instead of the genuine middle dazddov, ‘sell,’ required by the sense.

The facts just enumerated have a peculiarly apt appli- cation to the class of Greek verbs now under discussion, which have a future tense, middle in form, but in no other respect differing from the other tenses which use_the inflexions of the active voice. The verbs of this group employ the middle form consistently throughout the moods of the future, but the active in all other tenses. So thoroughly

1 Another instance is rapaoratyny for mapacrainy in Soph. O. C. 491-

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 381

had they become active in all but the inflexional ending, that expressions such as odk dmodiéfer cavrdv (Arist. Nub. 1296) did not appear strange to an Attic ear.

This external peculiarity corresponds to a very marked peculiarity of meaning. The verbs which reject the active endings of the future in favour of the middle endings, at the same time that they retain the active inflexions in their other tenses, are all words expressing the exercise of the senses or denoting some functional state or process. In fact, within the limits of this class are embraced most verbs which express the action of what Shakespeare calls in one place ‘the mortal instruments,’ and in another ‘the corporal agents.’

The reason for this anomaly in form it is useless to dis- cuss, as it is impossible to discover. If the meaning was originally felt to be most fitly expressed by the middle voice, as undoubtedly it was, what was there in the future tense to make it acquire this signification when the others rejected it? It is possible to collect isolated instances of verbs of this class using other tenses besides the future in the middle voice. Thus, in a beautiful passage of the Aavatdes, Aeschylus? puts rixrowa: into the mouth of Aphrodité—

épa pev ayvos otpayds tpdca xOdva,

Epws be yalay hapBdver yduov rvxeiv"

6uBpos 8 dm ebvdevtos ovpavod Tmecov

éxvoe yaiav’ 4 be tlkrerat Bporois

pijwy te Bookas kal Blov Anpitprov®

devdpSris Bpa 8 ex vori€oytos ydpov

Tédeids éotu Tay 8 eyo rapatrios. And a good many examples of AapBdvoya might be found to keep Ajyoua in countenance. It is even possible that the passage quoted by Athenaeus (10. 426 F) from the ‘Gods’ of Hermippus has come down to us as he wrote

+ Quoted by Athenaeus, 13. 600 B.

382 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

it, although wivoya: and dupéuar are found nowhere else in the sense of their actives, tivo and du~o— exe” dtav Tmivepcd 7 Supducda, edx oyeba,

especially when Suidas (s. v.) affirms that Cratinus used Bad((ov in the sense of Bdéi€et. It is difficult to understand that BadiGoua: should be distasteful to an Athenian ear when fadiodua: was not only not displeasing but even demanded. But it is also difficult to see why rtpavrlt, I lisp, should be active when WeddAlCoua, 7 stammer, is middle. As a matter of fact, neither rpavAfCowar nor WerdrAlCo would have offended an Athenian of the best age, and that the middle of the one verb and the active of the other have the best authority is merely due to accident”, But, notwithstanding, the future in each case was in Attic middle. Here the active WeAdi6 and rpavdAié would un- doubtedly never have been used by a writer of Attic, but WedAtoduar and rpavdAvoduar were the only forms pos- sible. It is to elucidating this marvellous caprice of Attic Greek that the present inquiry is directed, and the critical remarks with which it was opened will be often referred to in restoring to Attic books the genuine future middle forms which copyists in their ignorance of so eccentric a rule have repeatedly marred.

An interesting point of this inquiry is that a very large ‘ proportion of the verbs which -by signification belong to this class, are deponents to begin with, and accordingly do not attract so much attention as their strikingly irregular fellows, which are deponents only in the future tense. | These deponents, however, merit a place by the side of |

1 BddiCer kat Badifov dv7t rod Badife. Kparivos. Other instances are dAaAd- Copevn, Soph. Fr. 489 (ch.); ynptoua, Aesch. P. V. 78, etc.; émwAodrdgaro, Aesch. Agam. 1236; «Aatiopat, éxAavodpnr, freq.; diner, Aesch. Cho, 289; Hom. ,

2 rpavai{w occurs Arist. Vesp. 44, Nub. 862, 1381; tpavAi¢oua: in Archippus ap. Plutarch, Alc. cap. 1 ; eAAt{w, Aristotle, etc. ; PeAAMCopar, Plat. Gorg. 485 C.

’

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 383

the others, if for no other reason than that the juxta- position may put some future inquirer on the track of the true elucidation of the marvellous phenomenon which is here to be established, not explained.

All verbs, then, which refer primarily to a physical pro- cess, and do not merely state the fact that such and such an action is going on, are either deponent throughout or deponents in the future tense. In other words, if the primary reference of a verb is to any physical action, functional or organic, that verb has the inflexions of the middle voice, either in all its tenses or in one, the future.

It will be advantageous to subdivide the great class of verbs to which this rule applies, and a large subordinate group at once suggests itself, composed of verbs which denote the exertion of the vocal organs in man or other animals.

Poetical and un-Attic words are printed in spaced type.

DEPONENTS. BAnxGpa, _ bleat. Optopat, howl. BpvxGpat, roar. WedAlCoua, stammer. yoOpar, wail. pivipowa, hum. kvuCopat, whimper. Kwtpowar, wail, puKOpat, bellow. pbéyyoua, speak.

DEPONENTS IN THE FUTURE TENSE.

dda, sing, ") doopat.

Bod, shout, Bojoopa. ynpve, speak out, ynptvcopa. Koto, wail, K@Kvoopar. AdoKa, scream, Aakhoopat. KkedadG, sound, keAadjoopa. ddardlw, raise the war-cry, dAaAdgfoua. ypto, grunt, ypbEouar.

olpolo, groan, olpdéopar.

384 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

HAvrddo, scream, ddoAdEouat. drorta, lament, érorbéopar. KékAayya, scream, kexAdy£opat. Kexpaya, cry out, Kexpafouar.

That the tendency of language represented by these forms was active at a very early date is known to every reader of Homer, and is also proved by the existence of the deponents. Moreover, the fact that though yoé, and not yoépuat, was the present form used by Homer, yet the future -employed by him was yorjcoyua, shows how soon the future tense was especially associated with the middle inflexions. — Still, in Ionic there are many indications of a laxity in usage with regard to the middle future. Accordingly, if the relationship between Tragedy and Ionic be remembered, it is not surprising that Aeschylus should use coxidoew even in senarii (Agam. 1313), but the testimony of Aristophanes distinctly proves that in this direction also there was a strong tendency towards uniformity at work in Attic. It is the law of parsimony under another aspect.

ovx admire; xwxtoecOe Tas tplyas paKpd. \ Ar. Lys. 1222.

If Athenaeus (8, 396 C) had not happened to preserve

two lines from the ‘ Palaestra ’’ of Aleaeus—

63 yap airds éotw* eb te ypv§ouar

Gv cor Aéyw TA€oy Te yaraOnvod prds— the verb ypv(m would have been dependent upon the law of uniformity for the true form of its future, for in Arist. Eq. 294—

diadopyjow o° el te ypt&e— the manuscripts read ypvéeis.

On the other hand, ofydé£oua: is more than usually secure, as it occurs in Aristophanes alone some ten times—

&s ceuvds 6 xardpatos’ odk olpdgerar ; Ran, 178.

Ae ee eee

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 385

ta deiv’ pack’ exeivos. B. os olud§era, Ran. 279. GAN ox oldy te. B. vip Al? olpdéeo@ dpa. Nub. 217. So oipdfer, Plut. 111, Av. 1207; oludééerar, Thesm. 248, Ran. 706 ; oludéerbe, Pax 466; oipmwéduevos, Vesp. 1033, Pax 756. In Plut. 111 some manuscripts have oiyeégées, but as in Av. 1207 the true form has been preserved probably by being mistaken for the third person. In Plutus 876— elteiy & memavovpynxas. B. oluadédpa ot, the Ravenna has oiyé& apa, but most other manuscripts oipwC apa.

A fragment of Eupolis, quoted by Zonaras (Lex. p. 605), shows how apt copyists were to replace the middle by the active 1— : tis obfeyelpas wv eorlv; oludéer paxpd éruy ye avlotno’ epdimvor.

The true reading is of course dviorns. The verbs xpd€m and xAd@m have as futures xexpdfouar

‘and xkexAdyouat, as coming from xéxpaya and kékAayya,

which in Attic bear a present signification. Perhaps this fact has something to do with the old way of regarding such perfects as perfects middle. ovdémore’ Kexpdfouar ydp, Ran, 264. tpimddotov Kexpdgopnat cov, Eq. 285. karakekpaéouat oe Kpdcwv- Eq. 287. Wa pi) KexAdyyw 61a Kevijs GAws eyo’ éay 8& pn, TO Aoumdy od KeAdyEoua.. Arist. Vesp, 929-30. el py) TeTOphow Tadra Kal AaKkhoopat’ ® movnpol, ph cwwnar’ el d& px, AaKkHhoeTar Pax 381, 384.

1 In Eur. Alc, 635, rév8’ drommte vexpdv, not a few codices read dmommges vexpiy.

Cec

386 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Besides the verbs already mentioned there are many others, the futures of which do not happen to occur in those portions of the works of Attic writers which have been preserved. But the case is so strong in favour of a future middle in verbs of this class, that it may be con- fidently assigned them even in cases in which dialectic or late Greek supplies a future in the active. For by the side of the Attic futures deponent of fod, yeAé, ddw, and the rest, Bojow, yeAdow, dow, etc., are met with in late authors. The group of verbs denoting the exercise of the vocal organs will therefore be enlarged by the following—

ovplrra, whisper, ovpléopat. olla, * hiss: olfoua. carro, trumpet, cadnl€opat. puvopl(w, whine, _ pauveptouar. minnlCa, cheep, munmlEouar. Kéxptya, squeak, kekpl€op.at. Térpiya, chirp, retplEouar. aida, wail, ald€opau TTT, cry bravo, munmd goa. orTevaco, groan, orevdéouar. Baio, yelp, > Bavfoua. (ava)BopBopi(o, grumble, (ava)BopBopbEopat. iGo, yell, wéoua. KoKKU Co, cry like a cuckoo, xoxxtoua. NM, sob, hiccup, by opar. pico, moan, pbEoua.. poco, snarl, poyopat. rovboptw, babble, rovOopvouat. row, hoot, Krad Somat. Kpo lo, croak, Kpdgouat. . BopBe, hum, BopBhoopat. po.ga, hiss, por(noopa. Kax ae, laugh aloud, Kaxdoopmat.

Kpavydc@, screech, Kpavy dood.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 387

KkeAaptla, babble, keAaptoopat monnt lw, whistle, TON TUTOMAL KixAlla, giggle, KixALodpat. tpavria, lisp, TpavrLodpat. xpeuetiCo, neigh, XpeveTLodpar. Wibuplo, whisper, Widuprodpar.

This rule has considerable critical interest, as in several cases various readings occur or emendations have been made which violate its precepts. Thus, in Aeschines go. 30 (3. 260), the position of ay before otece, the usual one in Attic, has, as in many other cases, induced the scribes to alter an aorist infinitive into a future, and omit the particle. Oepiotoxdéa b& Kal tovs év MapadGu redrevtyjcavtas Kal Tods éy TlAaratais cat abrovs tovs tdpous tovs tév mpoydvwy ovK av otecbe orevdéar ef 6 pera TG BapBdpwy sporoydy Tots “EA- Anew dvtinpdtrew orepavwOyjoerar; The other reading, od oleoOe orevdgew, is certainly to be rejected. The only form possible to a writer of Attic was orevdéouar. But in Tragedy! the active inflexion would not have been impos- sible even in the Senarii, as ék8déw occurs in Aesch. Agam. 498—

GAN 7) TO xalpew paddrov exBdéer éywr, and, accordingly; critics may please themselves in altering oreva¢ere of the manuscripts in Eur. H. F. 243, and ald¢ere in line 1054 of the same play, to orevdéere and aidgere respectively.

Accident has made ovpirrw an important word. Its future, though not occurring in Attic, is in Lucian ovpifoua. Now, though himself an Atticist, Lucian wrote at a time when most of the verbs of this class no longer followed the Attic usage. There is, therefore, no doubt that cvpigoua

? Thus although Veitch is wrong in making the aorist subjunctive layhow a future in Eur. Phoen. 1295, 1523, and diow future in Ion 1446, yet laxfow is almost certainly future in Eur. Tro, 516 (ch.), and ém@avgw occurs in Eur, I, T. 1127 (ch.).

Ccz

388 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

was the acknowledged Attic form. Similiar evidence is afforded by Hesychius in the gloss, cedaptoera’ pera povijs hxjoe. It is the only occasion on which the future of cedapt~o is found, and the lexicographer had some passage in view when he explained the term.

Care must be taken accurately to draw the line between this class of verbs and the other, which is represented by words like A¢yw and AaAé, in which the physical act does not form the principal part of the signification. Otherwise there would be some danger of giving pAnvape, chatter, a future pAnvadjooua, or tatayG, clash, a future rarayjoopat. This whole class, Ayp6, PAvapG, HOAG, AaAG, croup w, KTUTG, etc., have really no reference to any physical process, and accordingly follow the ordinary laws of inflexion. And, although ddrogvpopa, dd¢poyar, crmptdAouar may owe their deponent form to having originally had a physical reference, their meaning has been so much modified that they can no longer be classed with verbs like wuxépar and Kivpopat.

In c.w76 and ovy6 are encountered the negations of the whole class, and both verbs follow their more numerous opposites in employing middle inflexions to express future meaning—

oLwTO TLoTHTOpaL ays olynoropar.

The next class is a much smaller one, as the modifica- cations possible in the action of the organs of sight are very few in number.

DEPONENTS. dépkopat, ~ look. * OeGpan, gaze at. / OKETTOPAL, spy.

abydCopat, see distinctly.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 389

DEPONENTS IN THE- FUTURE TENSE.

[6p6], see, orouar. Bréro, see, Bréopat.

But if, they are few in number, verbs of this class are in more cases than the others peculiarly significant. How naturally the middle inflexions were applied to such verbs is demonstrated by the use in all poetry from Homer downwards of the middle dpépa: and clddunv, while the survival of diouar, and its use as the future of 6p, shows that this tendency was especially active in reference to future time. This latter fact is also signally manifested in the case of cxomé. Although oxo7é has almost driven oxéntowa: from the field in the present and imperfect tenses, yet not one instance of cxomjow could be discovered in good Greek, oxéyoua being invariably employed.

Of other verbs}, Aevoow from its formation is denied a future tense, and, as a matter of fact, no part of the future _ of 40p7 has survived. If it had it would doubtless have been middle, as cxapdapirro, blink, which of the rest is the nearest approach to a negative which the language supplies, would have formed cxapdaptfoua.

The third of the types of manuscript errors detailed in the beginning of this discussion is well exemplified in Demosth. 799. 17: “Ev & eimay er ratoac0ar BovrAopa’ eure aitixa 8% pdda éx Tod bixacrnplov, Oewpjoovor Se tas ot mepieoTynKores Kat Lévor kal modtra Kal kar dvdpa els €xacrov Tov TapidvtTa BArdpovtar Kal Puvotoyvaporvycover tovs amoyrn- gicapévovs’ th ody épetre & dvdpes AOnvaior ef mpouevor Tovs vopovs ebire ; molois mpordrois 7) tlow dpOadpois pds Exac- tov Tovrwy dvriBrAdpecbe; Here Bekker and Dindorf actually shut their eyes and read dvriBddpere, although

' érreto, dmurretw, nanralyw, cxomad{w, hardly merit attention. The future of none of them occurs in Greek except d:orrevowy, in Il. 10. 451. 2 GOpjow, in Nub, 731, is aorist subjunctive.

39° THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

Bréovra precedes, and there is absolutely no possibility of the preposition dyri- regulating the voice of the verb. The middle has as good manuscript authority as the active, and the scribe would have altered BAépovra: also if the change could have been as easily made. The passage also affords, in Oewpyoovor, an example of a verb of sight, which, like Aéyw and Aadé, had no special reference to the physical fact. It is a derived verb, and originally meant fo act as a spectator (Oewpés).

Verbs of hearing, like verbs of seeing, are few in number, . and for the same reason, namely, the want of capacity for modification in the organ the exertion of which they ex- press. In fact there are only two verbs which affect the enquiry, dkpo@ya: and dxovo, for ruv@dvoyat does not strictly belong to this class, and xAvw and atm form no future while éraxovoTs is, like Qewp@, a derived verb, formed from éra- kovorns, a listener.

In Hyperides, Fun. Orat. col. 13. 3, the active dxov- odvrwy is unquestionably an error for dxovdyrwy: ee 3 aperelas Evexev 7) Toradrn pedérn ylyverar, tls dv Adyos apedj- wee paAXov Tas TGV axovoedvTwr Woyxas TOO THY apeThY eyKoptd- ¢ovros, The innumerable well-authenticated instances of the future middle, to say nothing of the cogent rule under discussion, give authority sufficient to alter this one pas- . Sage even without the sensible though metaphysical remark of Cobet: ‘Nulla unquam fuit oratio neque erit, quae pro- desse possit animis eorum qui eam sint audituri, id est quae prosit etiam privsquam audita sit.’

The verbs denoting the action of the senses of smell and

touch will not occupy the attention long. Of the former _

there are only two, and both deponents—

dogpatvouat dogppyocopar 6opyGpat éopnoopat,

as the general verb ale@avoya, which can replace most verbs

ii

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 391

of this great class, is itself deponent. The verbs of touch pre- sent a singular difficulty. The place of émroua is assured. It is the word, which in obedience to the law of parsimony in the development of the Attic dialect, was selected to express the process which had been before expressed by the three verbs, &mropat, Ovyydvw1, and yatw?. Accord- ingly, there are no Attic instances of the future of either Watw or Oyydvw, and in Tragedy either form might prob- ably have been used. The middle @/foua. occurs in Eur. Hipp. 1086—

kAalwy tis atrav Gp euod ye Oierar,

and doubtless Elmsley was right in substituting poodle for mpooO(£ers in Eur. Heracl. 647—

el b& TGvde mpocbige xepi dvoiy yepdvTow ov KadGs dywviei,

but little more reliance can be placed upon the usage of Tragedians than upon the readings of manuscripts. Cer- tainly, there is one undoubted * instance of the active future of wata—

xGpev’ ths tudv aera; KkAralwv dpa

Watoe Oedv yap otvex’ immxod 7 dyAov kre. Eur. Andr. 759.

+ Hippocrates, 5. 184; 6.90, 300; 8. 88, 350, etc.; Aesch. Sept. 44, 258, Agam. 663 ; Soph. O. C. 329, Phil. 761, 1398, etc.; Eur. Bacch. 1317, Hec. 605, etc. In Antiphanes, Athen. 15. 667 A, O/yp is a useless conjecture for réyp, and in Pherecrates, Athen. 6. 263 B, @yyavovcdy tds ptaAas, evidently in a domestic phrase which has preserved the word, (Xen. Cyr. 1. 3. 5; 5. 1. 16, see p. 169).

2 Hat. 2. 90, 93; 3. 30; Hippocr. 2. 411; 6. 640; 7. 556; 8. 356, etc.; Aesch. Pers, 202, Cho, 182, Supp. 925; Soph. O. R. 1467, O. C. 1639, Trach. 565, etc., Eur. very frequently. Antiphon, in 123. 2, and Xenophon, in Mem. 1. 4, 12, are co-partners in sinning against Attic usage.

* Dictionaries occasionally quote as futures what are really aorists subjunc- tive Soph, O. C. 1131, like Eur, Phoen. 1693—

mpoodyayé viv pe pntpds. ds atow older. In Soph. O. C, 863—

& peyp dvadés, F od yap Yates epod, , the Laurentian has the present, others the future. So in Aesch. Cho, 181, yave might well be read for yatoe, and in Eur. Med, 1320 Yavous changed to yavoet, but either form may be read in Tragedy.

392 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

But the whole verb is really as un-Attic as the Ionic and Tragic éxapé1, which, like watvw itself and Oyydvw, gave place to &zroua, the only word which concerns the pre- sent inquiry.

The next group, consisting of verbs which express the action of the throat, mouth, or lips, is a significantly large one—

DEPONENTS. ArxpGpat, lick. pacGpat, chew. oKopowoyat, yawn. XaocpGpar, “yawn. Aaddrropar, gorge. XPeUTTOMAL, clear the throat. épémropat, feed upon (Epic). TATEOMAL, eat (Epic).

_ It is worth remarking that, as in the first group, a very large proportion of these deponents are verbs contracted from ao.

DEPONENTS IN THE FUTURE TENSE.

ddxve, bite, bn€opat. alvo, drink, Trlopat. AdtTe, lap with the tongue, Adwopar. popa, gulp down, popjoopat. Tp@yo, . gnaw, Tpdgopat. xdoKw, yawn, xXavodpat. gd, écblw, eat, dopa.

‘It is true that in Arist. Ach. 278— aden elphuns pophaer tpdBrtor,

1 Plato, Crat. 404 D, uses the word for a philological purpose. Hippocr. 621. 25, has the middle aorist émapfop, and Hesychius quotes both active and middle, Aesch. P. V. 849 has the active, which shows the irregularity of Greek till a strong formative and regulative force arose, like that which made the Attic dialect.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 393 and in Eq. 360— TOV Tpaypatwv stim povos Tov Cwpov expopycer

the manuscripts read podyoers and éxpopyjces, but in Vesp. 814—

abrod pévor yap Thy paxhv popiropat the true form has been perforce preserved, and the middle must be restored, not only in Ach. aus and Eq. 360, but also in Pax 716—

dcov podjoe: Cwpov Huepov TpLdr, where the same blunder has been made'. The middle future of Admrw is put beyond doubt by a line of Aristophanes—

Tov Capov abtis mpoomeray exdAdyerat, Pax 885.

but in Nub. 811, there occurs dmoAdweis before a vowel—

ob 8 dvdpds éxremdnypévov cal pavepGs émnpyévov yvovs amoddwes 6 te mAciloTov dbvaca..

The chorus are congratulating Socrates on the conquest he has made of Strepsiades. ‘But you, while the man is overwhelmed and elated beyond question, knowing your time, will... him as much as you can.’ The meaning re- quired is, ‘will make as much out of him as you can;’ and that is easily obtained by reading aroddWeis, “you will skin,’ a reading found in the Scholiast®, and in all early editions, and approved by Bentley. Bentley himself pro- posed doddweis, ‘quod ipsum est quod Schol. hic suggerit amokentoes, aut melius dmoriAe?s evelles. "Oddmrew enim

1 In addition to the instances already given on p. 379, may be added the following. In Nub. 824 a good MS. has actually d:ddgy (i.e. -er) for 5dgers. In id. 1035, Tov dvbp’ bwepBadrei nal dprnoes, some MSS. have bmepBareis.

? The words of the Scholiast are, dmoddets’ dmodemices, édy 3, ws Tots moddois, dmoddies, éxmet. Grd Tov Kuvav % perapopda 4} boa Admrovra tive, Karactpépet Bt eis Td droxepdaveis H dpapraces, dmocndceas.

394 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS.

est riddew, vellere. Hesych. "Oddmrew' demlCew, riddeww, KoAdmTew.

These suggestions were made without any reference to the form of dmoAdweis. It was its meaning only that made the word difficult. If that difficulty is surmounted—the difficulty of making ‘ you will lap up’ mean ‘you will fleece’ —and if doAdweis is retained, it does not follow that the active future was Attic, as it is put in the mouth of the chorus.

To these verbs must be added many more of which no future has survived in Attic books.

Bptko, grind the teeth, Apvfoua. Kvva, kiss, KUvnoopar. Aelxo, lick, AefEouar. Bioow, cough, — - Pngoua. TTUWs spit, TTUCOPAL KaTTO, gulp down, Kdopat.

xara |Bpox Olu, gulp down, kara |Spox Orobpat. xvato, nibble, xvatoouat. voyarlo, munch, vayadvodpa.. — epuyydve, disgorge, EpevEouar. mTdapvupat, sneeze, TTApPOOpat. norlG, spit violently, mvrioduar

The only instance of a future to xvvéw is in Eur, Cycl. 172— cir’ éy® od Kuvioropar ToLOvoE TOLA, and there most editors prefer the variant évyjcoua. Tpoo- Kuvjow occurs, it is true, but the preposition has so altered the meaning that a future middle is not only not demanded - but would have been plainly out of place. The Ionic of Hippocrates supplies both mrécovat and dropyfoua, and if the middle inflexions occur in a writer who in such cases often preferred the active, they were certainly the only ones recognized in Attic Greek. As a matter of fact,

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 395

épevéou.at is really the future of épedyouar and mrapotpwa: pre- supposes a present mralpw; but épetyowar is Ionic and poetical, and mrafpw does not occur till late, srdpyupa being used even in Hippocrates, who employs zrap6 for future. For épevyoua: Attic writers used épvyydvw', but the future was beyond question still derived from the rejected present, a fact curiously confirmed by the following series—

apaptaye ayaptihoopat Tjpaprov épuyydva epedéouar 7pvyov Ouyydva OtEopar €Ouyov Kiyxdvo KIXNTOMAL . &xixov Aayxdve AjEopar éAax ov Aap Bava Ajwopau é\aBov pavOdve pabjcopa éuabov TvyX ave TeVEopat érvxov pbdve pOjoopar EpOnv.

In fact all verbs which form their present by inserting the syllable avy before the person-endings, employ middle in- flexions to express future meaning, except aifédve, AavOdve, and é6gAtoxdvw, of which all three are separated by meaning and one by formation from the rest of the group. A future middle would have been quite incongruous with the signifi- cation of avédvw and davOdvw, while é6gdt-cx-dv-w has an additional element of formation in its present. Accordingly, there is good reason for supplying a future middle to BAac- tdvw and éd1cOdvw, though in these verbs that tense has accidentally not survived.

Braordve Braorhoopa éBdaorov

dAdo Odve bALcOjoopar dtc Gov. Compare the deponents—

alo Odvoya aicOjoopa. noOdopnr.

muvodvopyat TEvTOPAL émvddpunv

1 See p. 138.

396 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS,

Moreover to assign due weight to the series it should be remembered that a strong aorist active is an extraordinarily rare tense in the Greek language, although from the fre- quency with which any of the verbs possessing it occur,

it is comparatively familiar to every student.

The English word gargle has two equivalents in Greek. Plato uses the term dvaxoyyvArd@w, and Hippocrates dva- yapyapt(», The latter word is onomatopoetic, and occurs also in the middle, so that if recognized in Attic its future would certainly have the inflexions of the middle. The other word comes from koyxvAxoy, ‘a little seal,’ and primarily means ‘to open a seal,’ as in Arist. Vesp. 589. It is, therefore strongly metaphorical in its secondary sense, and being a derived word probably retained the active forms throughout. .

To this group may conveniently be added the deponent Bpmdpar, suort with passion. Its synonym pvyéigw occurs twice in Aeschylus, the active in a fragment (D. 337), and the middle compounded with dvd in P. V. 743, so that the future pvxOioduar can in no case be wrong. With these may also be classed péyxa, snore.

peyxo peyfopar,

Another very large group is composed of verbs which denote bodily activity generally, the action of the muscles, whether voluntary or involuntary. To take those which express voluntary activity first, there are the following :—

DEPONENTS. GAGpat, wander. GAopat, leap. avappixGpar, scramble. iAverGuar, wriggle. 6pxodpar, dance. otxopat, am gone. BpevOtouar, swagger. ep oat, go.

épiyvGpa, strain. bpéyop.ct, stretch.

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 397

DEPONENTS IN THE FUTURE TENSE.

BadiGo, walk, Badiodpat. Xopa, proceed, XopHropar, -Batve, go, -Bijoopat. BrScka, come, podobpat. anavto, meet, drayricopat. béw, run, Oedoopat. (tpéxa), run, dpapodpat. pedtyo, flee, pedvEouat. dmodidpdoKe, run away, dmodpdcopuat. oTrovdd ew, make haste, orovddcopuat, didKo, pursue, did £opan. 7756, leap, Tndyropat. OpdcKw, leap, Oopodpmat. vew, swim, vetoopuat. VIX®; swim, vngopar. KUTTO, stoop, Kbyrouau. Kopaco go revelling, K@PATOMAL Tall, play, Taloropat. pbdve, get before, ponoopa. And the negations of these— alntw, fall, TETOUMAL. Kdpvo, am weary, Kapoopar.

The future of ywp6 was occasionally active, although chiefly in early writers and in the compound éyxwpé, which by composition had acquired a sense far removed from the simple, In fact there is only one instance (Thuc. 1. 92) of the future active in the simple verb. It is impossible to de- cide with confidence as to the future of za76, for although azo- narnodpevor is certainly found in Aristophanes(Plut. 1184)—

mAnv anonarnodpuevol ye TAciv 7). pdpror,

the peculiar meaning of that compound has to be taken into account. Xenophon is never of any authority in

398 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

settling points of Attic usage, and consequently zepimarij- covres in Conv. 9. 7 must be disregarded, and the testimony of Comedy is vitiated by the circumstance that only the second person singular is encountered in its verse—

Bovliy warjoes kal orparnyovs KAacTdcets,

Ar, Eq. 166. Antiphanes, in Athen. 9. 409 D—

kal rére mepimarynoes Kamoviver kata tpdTov.

In Fr. Com. 2. 868, évarorarjoes is a reckless conjecture, though soberly quoted by Veitch, and ovprepumarjaets quoted from Menander by Diogenes Laert. 6. 93—

oUPLTEpLTATHO ELS yap tpiBwv exovo’ éepol adomep Kpdrntt ro Kuvixe mol? 4 yuri,

is not only subject to the same objection as the others but has no authority in a writer so late as Menander. Doubt- less dmotmarnoova was invariably used, and though zarjoo, mepimdtnow were, like xwpjow, recognized forms, yet warj- couat and repitarjocouat were most commonly used.

The future of ximrw does not occur except in late Greek, but compounded with ava is met with in Aristophanes,—

huiv ye mapa OdAarrav iv dvaxtWerat, Av. 146.

and in Plato (Euthyd. 302 A), where Bekker and Stallbaum read dvaxtou there is a variant, dvaxtworo, which must be preferred. *Ap’ dv hyoto ratra od elvar & oor ebeln Kal amo- ddc0at Kal So0dvar Kal Odoa Sr Bovdro1w Oedv; & 8 ay ph ottws éxn od od; Kayo, nin yap bru e€ adrdv Kaddy tt dva- kbyoro TO TOv épwrnudrwy cal Gua Bovdduevos bri taxtor’ dxodoa. Tlavd perv odv, pny, ofrws exe. The late form ktww would suggest to copyists an alteration which the ré following made only too easy.

An active future of ¢@dvw is found in ‘Tonic and read in two places of Xenophon. The position of 6jcowar in

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 399

Attic Greek is too well assured to be shaken by a writer so capriciously irregular, but even in those two cases the active p0do0m is not beyond question. In Cyr. 7. I. 19, vov yap «i pOdcouer Tods ToAeulovs Kataxaydytes oddels Tpuav ano0aveirar, a manuscript D, which has many good qualities, reads ijv pOdcwper, and in the other instance (Cyr. 5. 4. 38) it would not be reckless to alter P@dces to pOjoe: BotvdrAopa ydp ror, épyn, Kal thy pytépa ayew per euavrod. Nat pa Al’, &bn, pOdoets pévror. There is, however, little room for doubt that the active form should be retained, as one of the Ionicisms or un-Attic words which are to be found in every page, almost in every line of that prolific writer.

It is worthy of remark, that mrjooua is not actually the future of the deponent 7éropa, but itself a deponent tense of an active verb not in use, Its legitimate present is txrnu, as is shown by the series—

tarps TTHTOMAL tornpe OT HT OPAL oTncw Inps Hoopat How.

The limits of this group include the two verbs péw and mdéw, which strictly hardly belong to it; and with these may be classified the poetical deponent vavrfAdopat.

TrEW, sail, TACTOMAL.

pew, flow, pedoopuar. They belong to the same well-marked series as véw, szuzm, and 6éw, run, and are all derived from digammated stems—

60, run, Oedoopar, OeF. véw, swim, vevooudt, veF, Théw, sail, TAcropual, meF, TVEW, blow, — Tveboopat, mveF, peo, flow, pevoopa, peF. xXéo, pour, xeF.

Probably zvéw should be classed with 0é, véw, mrAéw, and

400 THE NEW PHRYNICAHUS.

péw, and not with words like rixrw, as it primarily refers to the motion of a natural force—the wind, as péw of water, and not to the breathing of man. It is a curious fact that xé, the only member of this group which is transitive and does not involve motion in its subject, employs its present, xé, both in a present and a future sense, and that even in the middle voice yevooua: is not used, but xéopat.

There are several other verbs which properly belong to this class, but the future of which has not been preserved. In Attic Greek they were unquestionably deponents in the future tense—

KoAvpBG, dike, KoAupBycopat KuB.ore, tumble, KuBioTn copa. Aaxtio, kick, Aakriodpat. vet, nod, : vevoowar. bxAdGw, crouch, éxAdoopat. TTHTTw, cower, aT omar. oKipTo, bound, OKIPTHOOMAL. owrd, go to and fro, ouwrnoopuat.

It is true that goirdow occurs in Sappho and Callimachus, and q¢oirjow in late Greek, but the authority of Thomas Magister, combined with the incontestible law of Attic which has now been distinctly established, puts go:rjcopar beyond dispute. The words of Thomas Magister (p. 106), anoporjooua KédALov 7) aropoirjoe, are, like the testimony of Hesychius as to the future of kxeAapt(m, a valuable confirmation of the legitimacy of the present method of reconstructing verbs accidentally incomplete by a judicious use of the principle of seriation.

Xrefyw is one of those words which were in use in Attica at a time when the language still retained in a great degree -the features of Ionic Greek, and consequently is found in Tragedy as in Ionic, but by the law of parsimony it was rejected in mature Attic. Even its future does not happen

a

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 401

to occur, and may be disregarded. The same is true of épmw (see p. 50), and accordingly the active ending of epépyw in a chorus of Aeschylus (Eum. 500) is of no moment in regard to the question of Attic usage.

Less definite in signification, but still belonging to the same natural class, are those verbs which it was decided to treat separately, namely those expressing involuntary action of the muscles or functional movement.

DEPONENTS. KvloKopat, conceive. yAtxowat, yearn. Almropat, yearn.

DEPONENTS IN THE FUTURE TENSE.

eu, vomit, euodpar. ovpa, make water, ovpioopat. TikTw, bear, Té€opar. xélo, ease oneself, Xerodpat. Aackdlo, relieve oneself, Narkdoopat. OnrAd@, suckle, OndrAdoopat. TVEw, breathe, TVEVT OPAL.

As mentioned above it is questionable whether zvéw properly belongs to this class. However, the middle endings of its future are undisputed, and the only exception is one which proves the rule. Demosthenes is credited with cvp- mvevodvtwy in 284. 17, tiv EAdrevay KatéhaBey os odd’ dv et TL yévoiro ert cvpmvevodvtwy av jpdv Kal Tov OnBalwv, but the future participle with dv is as absurd in Attic syntax as would be the future indicative, infinitive, or optative with a, and the aorist cvpmvevodvtwy must be restored as satisfying the demands both of syntax and accidence.

Another syntactical rule constantly violated by tran- scribers is exemplified in the case of @nAd(w. Attic usage does not allow the subjunctive mood to be used after dws

Dd

402 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

or Srws pj in object clauses, but it repeatedly happens that the future indicative, which in these cases is the normal sequel to dws, is altered into the aorist subjunctive even when the aorist is not from the same voice as the future. A singularly apt example occurs in Lucian, Cron. 11 (394), mapackevacopevor Stas Oowor Kal edwxyjcwvra. Now verbs like edwxotya. are invariably passive, with the so-called future middle—

EOTLOU.AL éoTidoopat elotidOnv OowGpar Oownoopar eOownOnv evox odpat eVox NT OLaL evox non,

and edwxjoovra: and Odcover.! should be restored as Cobet insists on grounds both of syntax and accidence.

Similarly in Plato (Rep. 460 D), adrév rotrav eémpedn- covTat STws pétpLov xpdvoy OnrAdcorra; the reading OnAdowvrar must be rejected, and the deponent future 0nAdcopa: assured to the active present @nAd¢m. No attention is to be paid to the active évefeuo, quoted by Veitch from Fr. Com. 2. 868, a passage it has already been necessary to characterise as desperately corrupt and plainly mangled by Providence to give critics the opportunity of working their wicked will on what was left.

A Fragment of Cephisodorus preserved by Athenaeus (15. 689 F)— ;

® Aakkémpwxte, Baxxapw Tots cots tool

éy® mplapyar; Aatkdcoy’ dpa’ Baxxapw ; establishes the future of Aaixkdgm, and at the same time affords to the moralist a saddening proof of the use to which it was put. In Arist. Eq. 167—

does, prdrdgées, ev mputavelm Aarkdorer

1 In a similar construction the same verb has been equally unfortunate in _ Arist. Nub, 258— onep pe Tov ’AOdpyavd’ Srws pi Ovcere, where every manuscript, the Rav, and Ven. among the rest, reads @vanre, in open violation of the metre,

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 403

the Ven. manuscript has not seized the opportunity of reading Aaikdoeis, and in Stratto (Athen. 9. 383 A)—

‘anyos mdpeoti;’ myos; odxl Aatkdoet ;

the true form was safely concealed in Aexas ef till Coray made sense by restoring Aatkdoet.

In regard to rixrw, critics have been too bold in sub- stituting réouat for ré€w in every passage of Aristophanes in which the active forms are found. In the Tragic dialect both are legitimate, rém occurring by the side of réfoua, in much the same way as ore/xw, and Balvw survived in Tragedy when épxowa: or efue had usurped their place in Prose. Consequently Aristophanes employs réfw in a passage (Thesm. 466 ff.) which he distinctly intended to suggest reminiscences of Tragedy, as in the form mepunpyero for mepijew, the metaphor émuCeiv rhv xodAjy (see p. 17), and

the parody— Kat’ Etpimldn Ovpotpcda

ovdey Tradodca peiCov 7) dedpdxaper,

which is only slightly altered from the Telephus of Euri-

pides— eita 6H Ovpodtpeda maddvres ovdev paddov 7) dedpaxdres.

Cobet has a humorously serious defence of Hirschig’s con- jecture, rixrew1, but in this case, as in that of mepufpxero (I. 504), he has been reduced to conjecture, because his point of view was misplaced (see p. 108 supra).

In Lys. 744, however, when réfoa. is demanded reé- fouar is found,

A. ti taira Anpeis; B. atrixa pddra réfopat,

4 Sibylla ita loquebatur in oraculis et Dii immortales et heroes; mulierculae Atticae réfoyat solebant dicere, Rectissime igitur Hirschigius ri«rey emenda- vit, quod et Graecum est et rei, quae agitur, unice convenit. Non parituram sese sed parere clamat, ut virum sine mora extrudat foras.’ Cobet.

Dd2

404 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

whereas in a pseudo-oracle in Eq. 1037, the active is again intentionally used,

got. yun, Te€er 5& A€ovd’ tepais ev ’AOHjvats.

The middle xAavcoopat is the only form of the future of kralo found in Attic Comedy and Tragedy, with the exception of xAavooipar (see p. 91 extr.) in Aristophanic hexameters (Pax 1081). Demosthenes uses xAaujow or kAajow, an instance of that tendency towards bringing all verbs to uniformity which doxjow in Aristophanes proves to have begun*at an early date, and which, in some cases like keképonka and oéAynuat, was calculated to enrich the language. But there is no doubt that xAatvcova: ought to be considered the better Attic.

The middle daxptoyar occurs in Aesch. Sept. 814—

toadra xalpew kal daxpvecOa mapa,

where the present is certainly demanded, though there is a variant daxptocecOa. In either case it makes sufficient evidence for a deponent future. But in Eur, El. 658— vat’ kai daxptoe y abloy eudv ToKwv

the active is equally well supported, and neither Comedy nor Prose supplies examples to settle the difficulty. Either form may be safely employed, but in Attic of the best age daxpvocouzat was probably preferred. The same result is obtained with regard to wo#6. There is no authority better than Xenophon’s for the active woOijow, but robécopar occurs in authors of irreproachable purity. It must be placed as a future deponent by the side of the entire de- ponent yAdyopat.

Neither «v6 nor édfvw (with its tenses formed from éduv6) have a future extant in Attic, but in Hippocrates both Kujow and kvijoowar occur. The Attics: no doubt used xuj- copa. and divjcopar, but as the futures of derived verbs,

dvoToKjow and evroKjow.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 405

A form of no ordinary import has been preserved by Hesychius in Bpvdcowat. It affords the necessary authority

- to supply deponent futures to a group of verbs which be-

long to the series under discussion, but of which by a singular fatality no future form has been preserved. The verb Bpvadw signifies Zo teem, and is a good representative of its class, xitré, odpiyd, dpy6, ohvd6, cHiw, idpd, dod- paivo, doratpw, ol36, omdexG. As having primarily no physical reference, émi@vyu6 on the contrary has its future active, émOvpjow.

All verbs connected with drinking, and answering to our words soak, etc., are passive, like Bpéxouar and éLowodua, except pcOdoxouat, which is deponent, and a member of this series.

The verb dyPdicxw, as the negative of rikrw, must go with these, and have confidently restored to it the deponent future which it undoubtedly possessed in Attic Greek.

DEPONENT.

peOdoKopuat, am drunk.

DEPONENTS IN THE FUTURE TENSE.

KAdw, weep, kAatoopat. daxpvto, weep, daxptoouar. Kua, conceive, KU oopat. odive, travail, Odwhoopar. 7006, yearn, Todécouat. Bpvdga, teem, Bpvdoopar KiTTO, yearn, KUTTHOOpAL. opptyo, -am lusty, oppyyjoopat. « opvda, am lusty, opvdyoopat épyS, _ys, amrampant, épyjooua. ola, “2 => swell, oldjoopat. ‘domalpa, pant, aomapotpmat. acOpatva, pant, acOpavotpa

—

406 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. cht Ca, throb, opt Eopar omAeKd, coeo, — omdexdoopuat. ipa, sweat, dpdcopat. apBrAlokw, - miscarry, apBrAdocopat,

Of far more general signification than any of the groups already classified is the last in the large series which in the preceding pages has been subjected to analysis. The verbs now to be enumerated express some one or other of the more general facts relating to the physical side of the human organism.

eiul, am,” Evomat. (Bé), live, Bidcopa. ynpacKw, become old, - yupacopar. -OvicKe, die, -Oavodpat. Pbive, waste away, - pblooua. TATXo, suffer, Tetoopat. tide, endure, TAHT Opal.

The future of ynpdoxw has in good Attic active inflex- ions as well as middle, and it is likely that by the side of nBjow we should also place 7Byoopa. Moreover, it is natural to connect ynpdoopa and #Pyjcowa: with the older formations, 7Bdoxw and ynpdoxw, while 7Bjow and ynpdow are considered the futures of the modern 786 and ynp6.

ynp® ynptow pa — §Bijow ynpdoKo yepdooua HBdoKo® nBjropar

To these must be added Adacrdve, already referred to as one of the series which in the present tense extend their stem with the syllable av. Its future does not exist even in Ionic, for in Herodotus (3. 62) dvaBAdorn is now read in place of dvaBAaorjce. Of course its fellow, adgjoopua, is really passive.

It is probably from a community of meaning with Aap-

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 407

Bave, hayxdve, kiyxdvo, trvyxdve, verbs of the same series, that aptdtw, khéntm, and wAcovextG use either active or middle person-endings to express future meaning. The middle predominates in the case of dpmd(w, the active in that of kAéntw. In fact the evidence for the Atticicity of dpmdcw is by no means convincing. It is found in Euripides and Xenophon, both poor authorities ; the former from writing in what was really an artificial dialect, the latter from the general character of his style. ov Tay aréxvwv dir dvaprdces ddpuous ; Eur. Ion 1303. ovvaptdcovet Kal KaracKdwover viv. I. A. 535. Xen. Hipp. 4. 17, dpwdcovras. In the first of these three places dvaprdcets is practically of no more authority than évaprdcet, and Xenophon has épracdyevor in another passage (Cyr.7.2.9). The verdict of Aristophanes is very decided, for although in Nub. 490—

dye vuv Stas étav tt TpOBdAAW coL codov Tept TOV peTespwv eVOEws tpapTdcel,

even the Ravenna reads tpaprdcers, other lines plainly prove that the middle must be substituted.

eLaprdcopal vou trois dvuéi révrepa.

Eq. 708. GAN aprdcopar opGv abrd’ keira 8 ey péow. Pax 1118,

apracdmevos TA xphyar’ adrod. Av. 1460. €ercas otros; ov Evvaprdce: péony; : Lys. 437. TOV eodhepdvtay apmdcoua. Ta ourla. Eccl. 866.

dvlota? as dpracdpevos tov icxddwv. Plut. 801.

4c8 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

It is true that in Arist. Eccl. 667 xdéwer is only a cor- rection of Brunck for kdkéyrar—

A. 008 ad xdénrys oddels Eorar; B. aGs yap KAéWer perov atte ;

but xAéyat is so intolerable, both as regards form and con- struction, that the correction is certainly necessary. IlAco- vexté must be added with confidence to this class. It certainly is active in Plato, Rep. 349 C, mAcovexrijoes: Thuc. 4. 62, mreovexthoew : but in Plato, Lach. 192 E, ofov ef tus kaptepet dvadlcxwv dpytpiov poviyws eldas Ort dvaddoas mA€ov exrijoeral, TodTov Gvdpetov Kadolns dv; the future exact is quite out of place, and wAcovexrjoeras must be preferred. It is also very doubtful if Plato refined so much as to use KéxTnpal, KexTnoopat only after vowels, éxrnwar and terns always after consonants. Pal

It is natural to consider xavcoua. as springing from the same feeling of language as dpmdcopat, kA€éyrowat, and mAcov-. extjocouat. Really, all four futures. have much of a true middle force, and in Aristophanes (Plut. 1053)—

éav yap abrhy els pdvos omwOnp AGBn

of SS > , , woTEep TAAaLaY ELPETL@VHV KAVOETAL

the force of the middle voice may well be transferred to English. Wakefield denied the possibility of xavooua: here (Silv. Crit. 3. p. 74), and found fault with Ad8y as ‘nec (I. neque) elegans nec (I. neque) usitatum,’ but his method of emending the lines is weak in the extreme—

edv yap adrhy els povos omwO%p Badn donep madraid y elpecidvn Kxavoerat. The Greeks did not use ye merely to avoid the loss of a final vowel by elision, and kavoopai, like AdBn, is ‘not only defensible but elegant. A few more Greek verbs have the peculiarity of employ- ing the inflexions of the middle voice in their future tense,

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 409

but to bind them together there is no general principle like that which runs through the preceding series.

Tuyvécxm may be placed by the side of the early for- mations, duapravw and pavddye —

dpaprdave GpapTnaopar pavOdve padjncopat yiyvdoKo yrdropat,,

and ¢povtiotar may, on the analogy of these, be readily left unaltered in Euripides (I. T. 343)—

Ta 8 evOdd tuels ofa ppovtiovpcda.

It may be that in the three verbs, de/dm (?), Oavudcw, and droAatw, as certainly was the case in rAd@, the physical side of the state expressed by them was primarily uppermost, but, however that may be, d¢fcouai, Oavudoowa, and dmo- Aatvcowat have no active rivals in Attic Greek. In late writers defow, Oavpdow, and dmoAatow took their place, and have accordingly repeatedly crept into the texts of the Classical age. Thus in Plato, Charmides 172 B, one manu- script (Par. E.) reads dmodatoouev for drodavodpyeba, the reading supported by all the others, and in our only manu- script of Hyperides drodavcouev is read (Orat. Fun. col. II. 142), but must be corrected to dmoAavodyeOa as in id. col. 13. 3, dxovrdvrwy has already been replaced by dxovdv- twv. Errors like @avpdces or Oavpdons for Oavpdoe: in Eur. Alc. 157—

& 8 év ddpos pace Oavpdoer KrAdov

by this time hardly need remark, and other instances of the active have all been corrected by the best editors and with the sanction of manuscripts.

It is difficult to give a reason for the deponent future of ouvupt, swear, but émopknooua by the side of émopkijocw may well be explained as due to analogy with it.

Although there is no example of «elkdcowa:, the form

410 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

ameixdcopar and dyrevxdcoua. demonstrate its existence, as the prepositions which are prefixed to these compounds can in no way have influenced their form. The three verbs indicate the indisputable adaptability of a middle meaning » to the future tense.

Before this inquiry is brought to a conclusion, a small compact group of verbs possessing the peculiarity under discussion deserves serious attention. Probably all of them had also an active future, but in no case would it be wrong to assign a middle future to an active verb denoting praise or blame.

AwBGpat and Avpatvoua, péupopat and galtapat, are en- tirely deponents, while Aovdopd or Aodoptwar are used in- differently, although, as might be expected, the active is in the future tense of extraordinary rarity. All verbs corresponding to our scoff, flout, jeer, belong to this class, and while there is no unquestioned instance of the active of oxéatw or TwOd¢w, yet both verbs occur so rarely in the future tense that the analogy of i8p.6 by the side of dBpi- odpat, as well as of Aowop6 by the side of Ao:dopodpar, must be regarded as indicating that neither form of the future would be displeasing to Attic ears.

IlafG» has been considered in another class ; émiyAwrrd- po, abuse, jest, xaprevtigouar and dnpodpar, jest, are de- ponents throughout, and énnped(w, banter, oxpariw, insult, and xAevdw, scoff, do not happen to occur in the future tense. If it is easy to suggest spomnAakveiras taxa for mpo- anAaxiet téxa in Plat. Gorg. 527 A, yet Thucydides in mpommaax.v (6. 54) supplies an indisputable instance of the active. Koddw, like AotdopG, oscillates between the middle and the active voice, and in Thucydides d:xa.é has at one time an active, at another a_ middle future.

*Enawéow and éraiwéooua, eyxopidtm and éyxopidoopat, are about equally well supported, and strongly confirm the view taken of the others.

—"

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 411

These three classes, consisting of verbs altogether de- ponent, verbs either active or deponent, and verbs which though otherwise active are occasionally middle in the future tense, may be thus presented :—

pepopat, blame. | Xaprevtigoua, jest. popopa, blame. dnpodpat, jest. airiGpat, blame. Avpalvowar, outrage. émyAw@TTGpat, abuse. AwBGpuat, outrage. Aowdopsa, Aowdopodpat, insult. KoAdw, KoAdCopar punish. TKOTTO, jeer, oKOWw Or cKeYouat. Twdaco, flout, TwOdow or THOdcopat. bBpiCw, insult, bBp.o or bBprodpar. errnpeda, - banter, ernpedow or érnpedoowa. xAevacw, scoff, xAevdow or xAevdoopua. TpommAakiGw, abuse, TpoTNAAKLG OF TpoTNAAaKLOdpaL. oxyartco, insult, TKaALG OF oKIadLoBpaL. bixad, punish, dikatdow or dikardcoopar. erraivd, praise, éraiwéow or emaivéoopuat.

eyKapiaca, panegyrise, éyxwpidow or éykapidoopar.

The relationship between future tense and middle mean- ing, which is so clearly proved by the numerous ex- amples considered above, must originally have arisen from some refined sense of language. It was helped by analogy at the later period which is called classical; but even at that early date had begun to decay, as is indicated by such forms as éorjéw and reOvnéw by the side of orjoopa and davodpa. These verbs belong to a group in which the idiosyncrasy of meaning is not very clearly marked, and though the analogy of xexpdfoua, and xexAdyéoua gave the forms birth, the analogy of @ayodpa: and orijooua proved incapable of assigning to them the middle form. They ac-

‘quired it in late Greek, and in that way middle forms have

crept into the texts even of Classical authors, but only in

412 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

the case of the easily altered second person singular. The authority for the active is conclusive.

A. os tebvigwov to6. vei: B. dyfopdp tas eyo. Arist. Ach, 325.

ov pay atmol y éx Oedv reOviEoper. Aesch. Agam, 1279.

dé 8 éarigw map’ adrdv’ adtrd yap jor ylyverat. Arist. Lys. 634. Accordingly the following passages must be all altered, as has already been done by good editors— eloer a, xepviBwv yap éorige médas. Eur. I. A. 675. A. ol os TeOvn&e. B. pydapds, ® Adpuaxe. Arist. Ach. 590.

pdrnv euol KexAavoerar, od 8 eyxavov reOryer. Nub. 1436.

obk goTw brws odxl TeOvnger, Kav KTE.

Vesp. 654. In two of these places the Ravenna manuscript, our best authority, not only blunders in the termination, but even in the body of the word, giving reO@vjoe. for reOvjfes. No faith can be put in such authorities, no reliance at a pinch.

CCCHiI.

“Huike@aadatov pH Aére, GAAG Hyikpavoy,

Either Phrynichus has fallen into error, or he did not write jjulxpavov. The Attic word is jjulxpaipa1, as is seen from Aristophanes—

ovKovy KatayéAaotos bir oes Thy Hplkpatpay thy érépay Wirjy exov; Thesm. 227.

1 Schol. in Hom. Il. =. 3— of ’"Arrixot 7d THs Kepadys Hucov Aplxpapay A€yovet.

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS, 413

and from other passages quoted by Athenaeus as in 9. 368 E— KwAR, TO TAEUpdr, Hulkpatp’ dprorepa— Ameipsias. and 9. 384 D— clo7jOev jytkparipa taxepa d€Adakos. : Crobylus.

CCCIV.

*Evdpetoc: moAd mapa toic ZtwiKoic KUKAEITaL TobvoUG,

uk dv dpyaiov.

Plutarch (Mor. 116 F) or his copyists have substituted this late formation for évdfkwv in two lines which Plutarch assigns to Aeschylus, but Stobaeus (Flor. 108. 43) with greater probability to Euripides—

dvdpGv Tad eoriy eviikwy Te Kal copav

Kav rolot Sevvois py TeOvpGobat Oeois.

The word is common in late writers.

CCCV.

Faotpokvupiav mH Aére, GAAG KVHLLHV.

‘Neque yaortpoxvynpla, neque dvrexvjy.ov oratorium est. Haec sunt scholae vocabula, quae sermo vulgaris forte ar- repta volvit, sed nemo cultior in rerum civilium exposi- tione ad popularem sensum accommodata immiscet. Ve- rum putidae in verborum delectu subtilitatis exemplum praebuit Nicetas Ann. 4. 5. 78 D, yaorpoxynpidas (leg. yaotpoxvnplas) cal xeipas, Kal doa Tod céparos doTdédn dua- OpvBels jv. Artis medicae scriptoribus ista non solum per- missa, etiam necessaria sunt.’ Lobeck.

4i4 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

CCCVI.

_ O€pua obtwc 6 Mevavdpoc dia Tod a, GAN odtTE OouKvdiduc,

ote H dpyaia Kapadia, obte TAdta@y, GépuH dé.

This article, like the last, may well be spurious, as neither has much textual authority. The statement is also made by Zonaras (Lex. 1030), by the Etymologicum Magnum (206. 57) and by Suidas, sub voc. Bov8dév. The word occurred in the Tewpyds—

BovBav émjpOn TO yépovte O€pya Te

eréAaBer abrov. As a matter of fact, too much has been made of this form. The grammarians have followed their usual practice of using one another’s writings in a way which in literature proper would be called plagiarism, and have given an undue em- phasis to what was originally an erroneous dictum. ©é€pyyn, as has been said already, is a very peculiar formation, and stands upon quite a different footing from réAwa (réAum), evOvva, and mptpva (xptyrn). There is no reason in the world why @épya, a substantive legitimately formed from 6épouat, should not be regarded as distinct from @épyn con- nected with Oepuds. The verb O¢poua: is a primitive passive (not middle), of which no active exists in Classical Greek, and which was itself an excellent though rare Attic word—

és TO Badaveioy Tpéxe’

émeit exel Kopudpatos Eotnxas Oépov. Ar, Plut. 953.

Plato, Phileb. 46 C, éxdéray ris ravdvria da md0n mdoxn,

pryGv more Oépyrat kal Oeppawdpuevos eviore Whynra. In Menander, therefore, 6¢pya is to be considered as a neuter with genitive 0épyaros, and the remarks of the grammarians are to be attributed to the fact that the line of Menander

=

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 415

happened to recall the strikingly memorable account of the symptoms which first marked the victims of the Great Plague, Thuc. 2. 49, add’ eLalpyns tyrels dvtas mpGrov pey Tis Kehadis Oéppat loyvpat kal trav dpOadpav épvOjuara Kal prdywois éhdpBave kre. It is doubtless for the same absurd reason that Timaeus (139) altered @épya in Plato’s Theaet. 178 C to Oépya. Plato, like Menander, wrote 6épya, and Aristophanes also used the neuter substantive. Pollux 4. 116 Oépya Kal rip Apiotopdyns épn—

6 8 av Oépya kat

Top KE,

CCCVII.

TedeAnKévar “AdeEavdpewtikov tovvoua. 16 d@eTéov *AdeEavdpedaiv Kai Airurttiowe abré, Auiv dé fuTéov HOEAH-

Kéval.

The Attic verb was é0éAw, with perfect 70¢éAnxa, whereas in the Common dialect it was 6é\ with perfect re@éAnxa.! The word has suffered grievously from the want of pliability in Tragic trimeter verse, and from the careless habits of transcribers. Homer, Hesiod, Theognis, and Pindar knew no form but the trisyllabic. The tragic senarius, however, admitted of its present only under limited conditions, and the form @éAw was necessarily used, especially as BovAopar”

} ©HOéAnka, Aeschin. 2, 139; Xen. Cyr. 5. 2.9; Dem. 47. 5; pip. j0cAquer, Xen. Hell. 6. 5. 21.’ ‘re@éAnua, Mosch. wad. yu. P. 14. 19; Sext. Emp. 682 (Bekk.); Orig. Ref. Haeres.’ 4. 15 (Miller); plp. ére@edqnecav, Dio Cass. 44. 26.’ Veitch.

2 “Bobdopat ist bei Homer und in den Hymnen zwar bei weitem seltner als €0éAw, aber doch den eben giiltig, Dann aber verswindet es fast aus der Dichter- sprache: Hesiod (Op. 647), Simonides Ceus (fr. 92. 3. epigr.), Pindar (fr. 83), die Batrachom. (72) haben ganz vereinzelt stehende Beispiele. Aeschylus hat es ebenfalls sehr selten (Pers, 215; Prom. 867, 929) und, wie auch Sophokles, nicht in Chorliedern. Sonst aber haben die jiingeren Dramatiker es

416 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

was for some reason or other eschewed by the early tragedians. “HéeAov and 70éAnoca, however, were much more convenient for an Iambic line than €@eAov and eOeAnoa, forms probably unknown to Classical Greek, although the tragic subjunctive and other moods, deAjow, Oedjoaypt, @eAnoor etc., naturally suggest them.

Aristophanes always uses @0éA, except in the phrases jv eds O€An, ef Oeds O€do1, in which the attrition of constant use is manifest. Thus é0¢\w is demanded by the metre in Eq. 791, Pax 852, Av. 581, Plut. 512, 524, etc., while 0éAw occurs in one or other of the phrases mentioned above, in Plut. 347, 1188, Pax 939, 1187, Ran. 533, Eq. 713. In Thesm. 908 0éAw is from Eur. Hel. 562, and in 1. 412 of the same play éAe: is used for tragic effect, the next line being taken from the Phoenix of Euripides.

In prose the trisyllabic form must be restored, except after a vowel, and in the phrases just mentioned, and in similar expressions like 0¢o6 0€dovTos.

CCCVIII.

YvAdAoc BapBapov, H dé yUAAG déKxiwov St Kai dpyatov.

‘Feminina positio inde ab Aristophane et Xenophontis Symp. 6. 8 (adcovs WidAns médas eu0d améxers) omnibus viguit aetatibus . . . Masculinum genus, quod Moeris p.

oft, namentlich Euripides. Verbindet man hiermit das die ‘ltesten Attischen Prosaiker, besonders Thucydides, BovAopat en grosser Fiille, dagegen nur spar- sam é0éAw (@€Aw ganz selten) haben, so kommen wir wohl auf die rechte Spur. Es muss in BovAopa: eben so sehr etwas gelegen haben, was es von der hohen Poesie fern hielt, wie en é@éAw, was es ihr besonders lieb machte. War der un- terschied zunichst der zwischen Poesie und Prosa, so war es naturlich schwer einen begrifflichen unterschied zu finden, der, wenigstens fiir die Zeit zwischen Homer und den jiingeren Tragikern vielleicht gar nicht vorhander war. Letztere, wenn sie des Wort zu gleichem richten mit @@éAw aufnahmen, hiengen wohl darin von den neueren Philosophen ab. u. s. w.” Tycho Mommsen, dv und Merd bei Euripides, p. 2.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 417

418 in numerum communium aggregat, in versione Alexan- drina 1 Reg. 24. 14, Anon. Antiqq. Constantinopol. 2. p. 26 A, 37 A, et ap. Aristot. H. A. 4. 10, 537. %6, Dioscorid. 4. 70, et Galenum de Administr. Anat. 6. 1. 130, multo saepius legitima forma utentem.’ Lobeck.

CCCIX.

EvcyHuwyv todto pév ot duadeic Emi Tod TAoUciou Kai év GEtmpatt évtoc TdatTovsiv’ ot ¥ dpyaior éni tod Kadod Kai

GULMETPOV,

The rejected signification seems confined to Christian writers. Thus, in Mark 15. 43, eboxyjuwv Bovdevtis corre- sponds to mAovo.os in Matth. 27. 57. The word bears the same meaning in Luke, Acts 13. 50, yuvaixas ras edoxjpovas.

CCCX.

> ' « ee ' > > , « ’ Enirokxoc 8 ruvn ddokipac eitev Avtipavic 6 kmpwddc,

déov émtitee eineiv.

The word reprehended is met with in Hippocrates, 1201 H, 7 kodpos énlroxos eodca Tod eumpoobev xpdvov: Aristot. H. A. 6. 18, 573. *2, cal otrm yiwdoxovow oti éntroxa elolv of moéves etc., the word recommended, in Hdt. 1. 108, rijv Ovya- répa éntrexa éodoay: id. 111, } yuri) énlre€ Eotoa racay ijpépny: Hipp. 603.4, etc. There is no means of deciding between the words. The force of ézi has been explained above, p. 208.

CCCXI.

*Erxdéetoc’ obtac “Yrepeiduc drreppipéverc, d€0v doKiud-

TeEpov Xprioaobat TH GEeTOc H eloToiHToc H bMdBAHTOC.

Ee

418 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS.

Antiatt. Bekk. 96. 30, also refers the word to Hyperides, but says nothing of the meaning: "Eyxd@eros' “Yrepeldns xara AtroxAéovs. If correctly cited this is the only instance in Attic Greek, as neither the letters of Demosthenes nor the Axiochus are genuine, Plat. Ax. 368 E, of 8& zepl Onpayévny cal Kaddrlkevov rh torepala mpoédpovs éyxabérous (suborned) épévres: Epist. Demosth. 1483. 1, tn dv0pdrwv éyxabérwy diaBdnOevres. In late Greek it is not uncommon, as Polyb. 13. 5. 1, Joseph. B. J. 2. 2. 5, Luke 20. 20.

‘ Adoptatos Oerovs vocari, tountods et eloroujrovs, ignorat nemo; illud praetermittunt, rév O¢uevov vocari bérnvy apud Photium: ©érns, 6 elowouodpuevos Oerovs twas. hoc ultimum vereor ne germanam lectionem specie non dissimilem ex- pulerit vfas; tali abundantia Oerdy vidv morjjoa: dicitur, Suid. s. vidwat, Oerdv vidv movetoOar Hdt. 6. 57.’ Lobeck.

CCCXII.

*Evdupevia: &uaddc, déov ditTac Aéretv, @c EdtroAtc KoAaét,

OKEUH TA KATO THY Oikiav Kal érmuTAa.

This article has little authority, being absent from Laurentian A and the editions of Vascosan and Callierges, and from Phavorinus.

The derivation and orthography of évduyevia are both uncertain, some preferring to spell it with an omicron, others with an upsilon, while it is connected severally with éydov, dduos, and évduya. Even Pollux rejects the term, 10, 12, Thy 8& ToLatrny KaracKevyy évdopevtay of odo} Kadodow" éyd dt obk éxaivG rotvoua. .. Kdddov bt Thy évdopevlay Tay- ktnolay 7) mapmnolay dvopdoa, as év “ExkAnovagotvoas ’Apio- Topdyns’ Tpayikdrepoy yap 1 TayKAnpla, Ta S& oKedn Kal oxevdpia pldrov toils Kwpmbdois kadeivy xte. The passage of Eupolis is cited in an earlier paragraph (10. 10) but ina

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 419

corrupt state, adra 5& Ta oKxetn xadoir dy emma, tyovy 7) Koup?) KThols, TA emiTOARS dvTa TOY KTnUdTwv. 6 yoov Etmods éy tots Kédagiv mpoeurov—

dxove 52) oxe’n Ta Kata THY olklay emyaye TapamAnowor,

Tecovyeypamtar Tois Ta emuTAa.

CCCXIII.

*Euruptouéc: obtwc “Yrepeiduc FweAnpévenc, dé0v

EuTpHopoc Aéretv,

Pollux, 9. 156, "Ev pévro. r@ “Yrepeldov trep Avkddpovos etpov yeypappevov ‘7) vewplwy mpodoctay 7) dpyelwy éumupiopov 3) xaradnww adxpas, kal otrw yéypantar év mreloor PBiBdtlors. Both words occur only in late writers.

CCCXIV.

“Hutkakoyv, oby oftwc GAN HuUdyOHpov det.

This article if by Phrynichus is certainly unworthy of him. The adjectives are equally good—

jylkaxos—

Téms pev ody GAN HusxaxGs éBookdynv.

Ar, Thesm. 449.

Cp. Pollux, 6. 162, jylkaxov 5 Edxdeldns A€yer Kai DopoxAjs, *Apiotopdvns 8& kal jyixdkws: Antiatticista, 98. 13, julxaxor. "Anreéis Alxpador@. 7ypoypdx Onpos— Plato, Rep. 1. 352 C, dpunoav 8% em ra addixa ddixla

TpupoxOnpor dvres. Ee2

420 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

COCAN.

"Eueddov trotficat, éueAdov G€ivat, duapTHuaTa Tay éoyd- Twv eltic obTrw ouvyTdTTel, TeTHpHTaL rap H TH éveoTdrt GUVTATTOMEVOV Fi T@ MEAAOVTL, Olov E“eAAOV TroLElV, EuEAAOV

‘ ‘ 4 ‘ > a , © , cal Trotricetv, Ta d€ oUVTEALKA OVdSEva TpdTOV Gpudcer TH

EueAAOv.

CCCAYVI.

“Eueddov rpdyor éoydtwc BdapBapoc A cuvTatic attH dopistm rap ypdve Td EuedAAov ob ouvtdtTousiv oi *AGH- vaiot, GAA’ Hiro. évectHti, olov émeAAov rpd@etv, H MeAdovTt,

olov éueAAov payer.

In the manuscripts and the edition of Nufiez the second of these articles comes much later, while the two are neces- sarily in juxtaposition in Callierges.

It may be too subtle to regard the scholarly addition of Ocivat, the poetical equivalent of wovjjoa, not only as an in- dication that the former of the two edicts certainly originated with Phrynichus, but also as intended to make the rule apply to poetry as well as prose. As it is, the edicts themselves are disputed, while some scholars would make them absolute by the ridiculous device of asserting that the remarks refer only to the imperfect of péAAw.. The following analysis of the usage of Attic poetry will demonstrate the justice of the general rule laid down by Phrynichus. It need. hardly be added that only those passages are recorded in which péAAw has the signification of ‘intend’ or ‘am going to.’

To begin with Comedy, the present infinitive follows pé\Aw in the following passages :—

a, ee ae

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 421

pedAwv trép Aaxedapoviwy dvdpav déyew. Ar, Ach. 482. dmact pédAdeus els Aéyewv TavdyTia. Id. 493. «i mrwxds dv emer’ év “AOnvators dEyeww

pé\AwW TeEpt THs TéAEwS. Id. 498.

otros tl dpaceis; TO TTlAw péAdets euety ; Id. 588,

aveotw, jdovav 0 bcwv péddELs ArooTepetoOat. Nub. 1072.

Ta péddovr’ && A€yer Oar, Vesp. 1011 (Chor.).

pds kal yadas pedAAes A€yew ev Avdpdow ;

Id. 1185.

G, G, rl pédAets Spav; B. ayew radvrnv AaBov. Id. 1379.

Sr’ 00d’ ewedrAes eyyus elvar tév Oedr. Pax 196,

GAN elu’ kal yap ebrévar yodunv ei pedXeu. ; Id. 232. Aovodpeva Tpe pédAAw yap EoTLav ydpous. Ay, 132. kayo mintw péAdrw te Body, 6 & aréBruce Ooipdridy pov. Id. 498. éotiay 8% pédAdopev + evovs. Lys, 1058 (Chor.). . ob det pv’ dxovew; B. ovx & ¥ dv péddAns dpav. Thesm, 7. . pédder yap 6 kaddemns "Aydbav mpdpos Nuérepos, B. pov Bwweicbat ; . dpudxovs TiWévar Spduaros dpyds. Id. 50.

podder dixdCew obre Bovdis 26? pa, Id. 79. Kav Oeopopdpow péddovor rept pov Tipepov

exxanoiacew em ddێ0po. Id. 83.

422

1 The following lines are too uncertain to be used in settling this —— — Ar, ap. Hesychius s. dpopp—

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

A. arap rl péddes Spay pw’; B. dmogupeiv rdde.

Ar, Thesm. 215.

iy arra BovdetourOe Kal pedAdoure Spar. Id. 587.

un 890 ixeredwo mAjv y bray pedo "Eepeiv. Ran. 11.

pérdreis avayew elmep y exeider bei o dyew. Id. 77.

rl mor’ dpa Spay péddovow GAN AmAO TpdT. Eccl. 231.

pérror BadlCew 7) Ovpat? éExdorore. Id. 271.

pa Al’ Grd’ amopépew aira péAdw TH wOAEL- Id. 758.

& pidar yuvaixes elmep pédAAopev TO Xphya Spar. * Id. 1164.

el rodro Spay péAAovres emirAabolueba. Pl. 466.

péAAw otparnydv xewporoveiy *Aydpptov'.

Id. ap. Plut. de rep. gerend. 801 B. GAN ei péddeis ed Kavdpelos ogcev donep piotraxa cavtdr.

Strattis, in Etym. Mag. 803. 47.

[Idrep’ Srav pédAdw A€yeww cou THY xUTpav, xbTpav A€yeo 5 Antiphanes, ap. Athen. to. 449 B.

ovoctriov pédAeis voondreveww ; Scov

axpoxor’ apew — uv — pbyxn, 7ddas. Anaxilas, ap. Athen. 3. 95 A.

péddovra Sevmvicew yap avdpa Oerraddv. Alexis, ap. Athen. 4. 137 C.

ped 88 wéurew rods eis dpopyhy :

Pherecrates, ap. Athen. 9. 396 C—

ob yadaOnvor dp’ tv Ovew péddes:

Plato, ap. Athen. 15. 667 B—

pw) oKAnpav Exe tiv xeipa pédAdAwv KorraBiCey.

a

i

SO ne se ee ———

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. \ 423

To complete the list may be added the Boeotian’s patois in

Ar. Ach. 947—

perArAw yé Tor Oeplddev.

The future infinitive is in Comedy much more rare, oc-

curring only in the following places :— oe be

yvouny épeiy péddovta Treph

MiAnotwy cal Kepdaveiy

Tddaprov. Ar, Eq. 931. peAwv épdrjnoew ph tapdvTav paptipwr. Nub. 777. aicxpov moveiv, 6 te Tis aidods peAAer Tdyadw dvamAjnoew. Id. 995. hevyers; epedAov o Gpa kiwjoew eyo. Id, 1301.

péAAets avareloew os Slkatoy Kal Kaddv. Id. 1340.

ov EvAAHWerO Srdcoior Slkar Thres pwéAdAovow eoeoOar. Vesp. 400.

GN’ & weph ris mdons wéAhov Baorrelas dvtiroyjoew. Id. 546.

péAdoveay 75n AeoBreiv rovs Evutdras. Id. 1346.

Kata xeipds twp epérw raxd tis. B. deumvjoew péddopev

x H rh; Av. 464.

elmep peAdopev

dvayxdcoew Tovs dvdpas elpnyny ayeww. Lys. 120,

péddovot p’ at yuvaixes dmodeiv ripyepov. Thesm. 181,

In one passage the governed verb may be regarded either as present or future—

dvev dSpupdkrov ri Slknv péddes Kadelv. Vesp. 830.

424 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Against these forty-eight examples of the present or future—thirty-five of the present, twelve of the future, and one doubtful—there are only three, or more correctly only two, instances of the aorist, to set; for the Laconic in Lys. 117—

éy b& Kal xa morTd Tatyerov dvw

Zico, dpos ai peddrousl y eipdvav idir, may be set against the Boeotian in Ach. 947. These two instances are, Av. 366—

elmé pou Th peAAer @ TavTwv KaKiota Onplov amodécat Tabdvres ovdev dvdpe kal diacmdcar ;

and Ach. 1159 (Chor.) -- KdTa péA- Aovtos AaBeiv adrod Kiwv

aptacaca pedvyot.

They are unquestioned violations of the rule, and do not admit of reasonable emendation. It would be easy to change dmoAéoat and d:aondoa into dmodécew and d.acndceww, but the cure would be almost worse than the disease, as the Attic future of dadéAAvpi is d0AG, not amodkéow. In Comedy, therefore, of the Attic period, the exceptions to the rule of Phrynichus are four per cent. of the instances.

As to tragedy, full statistics of the usage of Euripides are not yet in my hands, but the following notes on Aeschylus and Sophocles may be of service. Aeschylus prefers the future after wéAAw, that tense occurring four times, P. V. 638, 835, Cho. 859, 867, and the present only once, Suppl. 1058, while reAciv in Agam. 974 may be either present or future—

pero b€ Tor col TOvmep dv wédAdns Tedeiy.

This writer also supplies an undoubted example of the aorist in P. V. 625—

pyro. pe Kptwns Tod? Step pelrAw Tradeiv.

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 425

In Sophocles, on the other hand, the future and the present are evenly balanced, the former occurring nine times, El. 359, 379, 538, Aj. 925, 1027, 1287, Ant. 458, Phil. 483, 1084, and the latter nine, El. 305, 1486, Aj. 443, O. R. 678, 1385, O. C. 1773, Tr. 79, 756, Phil. 409. There is one possible instance of the aorist. The manuscripts present Kraveiy in KTaveiy EuehAov Tarépa Tov eudv’ 6 b€ Oavar, O. R. 967.

but it is quite possible that Sophocles wrote xreveiv. If xtaveiv is right, it will be observed that the percentage of aorists is much the same as in Comedy. So small a per- centage of exceptions may easily be due to negligent and ungrammatical writing.

CCCXVII.

Kpavracudc mapakeiévou tod Kekparydc eiteiv épei

Tic GUae@c Kpauraoudc.

There is little evidence, but as far as it goes it is in favour of xexpayyds, that form occurring in Eur. I. A. 1357, and xéxpaypa in Ar. Pax 637, whereas there is no instance of kpavyacpudés in a pre-Macedonian writer, although Anti- atticista, 101, has the note, Kpavyacpos dvti rod kpavyy* Aldu- hos "AmoBdry. The fact that xpavyd{w was hardly an Attic word cannot decide this point, as many substantives re- mained in use after the verbs which gave them birth had been replaced by more useful synonyms. That kpavyd(w was really an old formation, although principally used in late Greek, is proved by the old lines quoted by Plato, Rep. 10, 607 B, 7) Aaképuta mpds Seomdray Kiwy Kpavydfovca KTe,

426 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS.

CCCXVIII.

Kopvdardéc’ Evgovaou toi kmpmbdoroid dpdua émirpd- petat obtwc: od dé Toic mepi "Aptctopdvuy metWduevoc KOpudov Aére TO wHov.

This, like the preceding article and the following, has little authority but that of Nufiez.

The words of Thomas are worth quoting, if only to show that xopvdadAds must at one time have been used on Attic soil ; (p. 549) Képvdos cat xopvdadds xal kopvdadls 76 otpovOloy 7 éxov én Tijs Kepadss aveotnkdra mrépa Gorep Adhov. ore de 7d pev Képvdos ’Arrixdy' TlAovrdpxos év r@ mept ddodecx las, (p. 507 E) xépu80s dro: merépevos. 1d 58 Kxopvdadds Kowdr ei kal EvBovdos xpirau’ €or. b& Kal Kopvdadds dfwos ’AOnvyot, 7d be Kopvdadrls mountiKdy @s Oedxpiros; (7. 23) "EmrupBidror xopudadides.

The Attic form occurs in Ar. Av. 302, 472, 476, 1295; Plato, Euthyd. 291 B; Anaxandrides, ap. Ath. 4. 131 (1. 64), and in late writers, as Theocr. 7. 741. Of xopv- dadds Lobeck says, ‘rejectitiae formae nullus antiquior auctor proferri potest Aristotele, qui in Histor. Anim. saepis- sime xdpvdos, semel xopvdadds (9. 25) usurpavit. Sed si -aliquot ab hoc gradus descendimus, larga exemplorum sylva insurgit, Aelian, H. An. 4. 5. 6. 46, Galen, vol. 4, ‘p. 158, vol. 13, p. 943; Dioscor. 2. 59, Aesop. Fab. 46.’

CCCXIX.

Kaypter tosatTH KaKkodaimovia mepi Tivac éoti TAC Bap- Bapiac dor’, érreidH “AdeEtc KéypHTat TH KOMuveLv HMEAH~ pévac éoydTac, aipetobat Kat abtovc oUrw Aéretv, déov We

ot dpiotot Tdv dpyaiwv KaTauvey.

The passage of Alexis has not been preserved, but there is no reason why he should not have employed such a syn-

ee EE —

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS., 427

copated form in the lyric, anapaestic, or hexameter metres, or in representing dialectical pronunciation. Thus, Aris- tophanes puts auSare into the mouth of a Boeotian in Ach. 732, and dumrduevos of a Laconian in Lys. 106. Similarly, dumdéAXere occurs naturally in the parody of the choruses of Aeschylus in Ran. 1358 (cp. duadddovrt, Lys. 1310). In Tragedy these forms were in place even in the senarii, as ovk és éuBodds, Eur. Heracl. 270; du8drns, Bacch. 1107.

In this respect as in others Xenophon approximates to the usage of the Common dialect, employing au8drns in De Re Eq. 3.12; 5.7; Mem. 3. 3. 2, and perhaps at Hell. 5. 3.1, avapBaros in Cyr. 4. 5. 46, and duBodas yf in id. 7. 5. 12.

The form xayptiw seems most frequent in the sacred writers, as Esai. 29, xapptoer rovs dp0adpots; Luke, Acts 28, 27, éxdupvoay rors dpOadpots.

CCCXX.

Kepadotoneiv’ drrdppimte todvona Kai Oedppactov

KeXpHévov avt@: Aére d€ KapaTopely.

This appears a mere matter of opinion. Euripides (?) uses xaparopeiv in Rhes. 586— IIdpw poddvre xpi) xaparopueiy Elder, and Theophrastus, xepadoroueiv; Antiatticista, 104. 31; Kedadoropeiv’ Ocddpacros wept. Evdayovlas. There is not much basis for choice, as either word is a legitimate for- mation.

CCCXXI.

Adkaivav uév ruvaika €peic, Adkawwav dé tHy yopav obtda- uac, GAAG Aakavucty, et kai Edpimiduc mapaddrwc,—

@c 4 Adkatva tav Ppurdv peiov mdAtc },

1 Androm, 194. So id, 151, 209, Tro. 1110, Hel. 1473, etc.

428 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS,

Such adjectival use of substantives has been discussed already on p. 21. It is common in Tragedy and in Ionic prose, but is practically unknown in genuine Attic. The exceptions enumerated by Lobeck are not to the point, as both Adxawa ktov1, or oxtdag?, and Adxaiva*, a sort of cup, are mere remnants of old usage, or to be regarded in the same way as an English expression like Swedes for Swedish turnips. Accordingly when Xenophon, in Hellen. 7. 1. 29, writes els tiv Adxawav, he is not writing Attic, but approximating to the Adxawa xépy of Herodotus or the Tragedians.

CCCXXII.

Méy ov tobto mpdEw: Tic dvdoyotto obtw cuvTaTTovTéc > > n , ‘ \ s e s ’ < Tivoc év &pyi Adrou TO péev obv; Of rap doKiwor bToTdo- 2 ‘ \ 2 D ‘ s ‘ A ‘ ‘ couswv, €f@® Mév OUV A€fovTEec, TA KAAG Mev OUV Kal Ta

ev ovv mpdruata,

‘Satis exemplorum nobis praebent scriptores sacri, a pevody et pevodvye saepe periodos exorsi, ne quis admoni- tionem illam inutilem fuisse credat. Lobeck.

CCCXXIII.

Muapia &dédKivov, TO é-pLapdc dpyaiov,

Phrynichus is in error, the substantive being used by Demosthenes, 845. 23, mept pev ody rijs aloxpoxepdlas ris rovrov Kal puaplas torepdv jor dSoxed dreEeAOeiv, by Isaeus, 51. 32, «ls Todro tBpews kal piaplas adixero, and in the early

1 Soph. Aj. 8; Xen. Cyr. to. 1, 4. ? Plat. Parm. 128 C.

8 Athenaeus 11. 484 F, Adwawar kvdtxov ef5os otrws Aeydpevov }) awd Tod Kepdpou, ds 7a ’Arrixd oxedn, } dad ToD oxXHpaTOs émxwpidcavros éxel, Gomep al Onpikr«a A€yovrar. *Apioropdavns, Aarradedar

. SuBapindas 7 ebwxias wat Xiov éx Aaxaway.

a a ee ey

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 429

sense of ‘bloodguiltiness, by Antiphon 118. 2; 119.3; 124. 2. It is also found in Xen. Hell. 7. 3. 6.

Thomas blindly follows Phrynichus, p. 615, psapds, od puapla 8 GAAA BdeAvpla, and so Antiatt. p. 108.

CCCXXIV.

Popo ur Aére, GAAG papoin did THc Ol, Wc VOOIH, MLAOIH’ A ) ) »fP

Ta pap TAc MpwTHe ovuriac Kai TpitHc THY TeEpicTMpUEevery c , > ‘ ny ‘4 ~ d , , e ' A PHMOATOV EVKTLKA OLA THC OL tpOorrou AefeTat, OloV TEAOLH

Ta dé TAc deuTépac did TOU w, OlOV VIKGH, PEACH.

CCCX XV.

Ado Kai di8@He* Tobrou TO evKTLKOV Ovdeic Tdv ’ATTI- K@v ele dtd TOO w, GAAG bid THc ot dipedrrov. TEKMHPLOL dé “Ounpoc édv pev btroTakTiK@c ypATat dia ToS w AErov—

ei d€ Kev ab ToL d@H Kdd0c GpEecbat ott dé, édv d€ cot dH 6 Zevc, et S€ EdKTIKaC, OFTac— coi dé Geol Téca doiev, Soa @pesi oHiat pevowdc €0abpaca ody "AdeEdvdpou rod Zupov copiotod daH Kai

d1daH Aérovtoc Emi Tod edKTiKOd,

The second of these articles is in the manuscripts separated from the first by the articles numbered in this edition 326 and 327. Their juxtaposition will enable me to discuss with more conciseness the true forms of the optative mood in Attic Greek. It will be my aim to establish by the authority of Attic Comedy the true forms of the optative mood in those cases in which a longer and a shorter form occur side by side in our prose texts of Attic writers. It

430 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS.

may be observed, that the possibility in prose of a form like redot by the side of reAofn, or yeA@ by the side of yed@n, does not seem to have presented itself to Phryni- chus, and it will be demonstrated that such corruptions have still more no place in Classical writing.

If it can be proved by the impartial laws of metre that in Comedy only one set of forms was in each case used, a strong argument is obtained for considering as spurious the unsupported prose inflexions. The argument becomes still stronger when by the ignorance or negligence of scribes the defaulting forms have in some manuscripts been foisted into verse, to the detriment of the metre, or, by causing the expulsion of some other word, to the detriment of the sense.

Moreover, it is easy to prove that Aristophanes never scrupled to use two forms when he might do so without violating Attic usage. Up to the Archonship of Euclides (B.C. 402) the longer forms of the dative plural of the first and second declensions, appear constantly in inscriptions, and were certainly used in the intercourse of daily life. - In the Comic poets they occur side by side with the shorter, and were for the sake of convenience never rejected, al- though in prose they are found only in some of the more elevated passages of Plato.

6 Zets pe tadr’ edpacev avOpdrois pOovdr. Ar. Plut. 87. et rl y @ort Aapmpov Kal Kadov } xdprev dvOpdrrovcr, bid oe ylyvera. Id. 145.

Similarly, the Comic poet, no less than the Epic poet or the tragedian, employs indifferently both the lighter and heavier forms of the first person plural, middle or passive.

of yap Bdێmovres Tots Tupdois Hyovpeba. Plut. 15.

—ee

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 431

GANG tov y’ >Aydbpprov movnpov nyovpecOa’ viv b& ypapuevar. Eccl. 185.

A. GAN ds tdxtor aby dpucd’. B. edxépec0a 57. Pax 973: He uses as he requires the two forms of the third person plural optative, middle, or passive, namely the longer in -olaro1, and the shorter in -ouvTo.

at tpixldes et yevola® Exarov rovBadod. Eq. 662.

Ww ai Ores ylyvowro tH vovpnvig. Nub. 1191.

mporepov diadAdrows Exdvres, ef SF pur. Id. 1194.

brws tdxioTta Ta mpuTavel” bpedolaro. Id. 1199.

The Attic dialect recognised éornxdés and éornxévar as legitimate forms by the side of the syncopated éords and éordva:, and accordingly the usage is reflected in Comedy—

éreit xed xopupatos éEotnkas O€pov. Plut. 953 *.

1 Besides the instances quoted in the text we find, Pax 209, alo@dvoaro: Ar. 1147, €pyacataro: Lys. 42, id. Fr. Com. 2.1106 (Aristoph.), ipeAofaro. Homer probably never uses -o.w7o, as the hiatus in Il. 1. 344—

Samws of apd ynvat oda paxéowro “Axatot

makes paxeolar’ almost a certain emendation. Other instances are, Il. 2. 340, yevolato: 418, AaColaro : 282, émppacatato : 492, pvncataé’: Il. 11. 467, Bidaro: Od. 1. 157, mevOolaro: 9. 554, GmoAoiaro. In Aeschylus we have, Pers. 360, 451, txow(olaro: 369, pevgolad’: Supp. 695 (ch.), Oeiar’: 754, éx@aipolaro: Cho. 484, «ri{olaé’: Sept. 552, ddofaro. In Sophocles, Aj. 842, ddolaro: O.R. 1274, dpotad’ ywaoolaro: O.C. 44, degataro: 602, meppaiad’: g21, mvOolaro: 945, defoiar’: El. 211 (ch.), dwovaiaro. In Euripides, Hel. 159, évri8wpyoataro: H. F. 547, éeticalaro: 1. T. 1341, olxotaro.

? Pax 375, Ran. 613, reOvneivac: Ran. 1012, reOvdva: Ran. 67, reOvqxédros: Av. 1075, TeOvnxérov: Ran. 171, 1476, reOvnxdra : 1175, reOvnxdor: but Av. 476, tebvews: Nub. 782, 838; Ran. 1028, 1140, reOve@ros. Soin Antiphon, 112. 3, teOvnkért, followed in id, 5 by re9ve@ros, may perhaps be right.

432 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

adda Bupoivny exwv dermvobvtos éEoTrws AToToBEl Tods pijropas. Eq. 60. Both the uncontracted and the contracted forms of com- parative adjectives in -wy were good Attic, as inscriptions prove, and both are found in Aristophanes—

iw orparnyot mAcloves 7) BeArloves. Ach. 1078.

A. kal tv Oeardv érdrepor mAclous oKdTeEl. B. kal 61) oxo7d. Nub. 1097. airés 8 éavt@ maperiOer Ta pelCova. Eq. 1223. ordpwoov olay és Ta pelCw mpdyyara. Nub. I11o. The same is true of many other forms, such as és and eis!, olowar and ota, oounv and oynv*, éavrév and abrév®, dépw and delpw*, and if this principle is established that

1s is the older form, and is the only one found in inscriptions till close upon the Archonship of Euclides, after which time «is supersedes és almost entirely, Aristophanes avoided és before a vowel, a fact curiously supported by his invariably using «few, never ow. The tragedians employed és when the

metre required it, and so Arist. Thesm, 1122— meceiy és edviv Kal yapndwoy A€xos. ;

“sln

Pax, 140— ti 8& iy és bypdv mévriov méon Bdbos;

are lines from Euripides. For elision, whether before a vowel or a consonant, * és was used in Comedy. Ar. Ran. 186— y's Svou mAoKds h’o KepBepious: Thesm. 1224— Tye Siwfer; ’s Tovpmarw rpéxes at ye. Thucydides always used és. 2 otouat, Nub. 1342; Eq. 414; Vesp. 515. ofvat, Nub. 1112, 1113, and more than twenty times elsewhere. géunv, Nub, 1473; Vesp. 791, 1138; Eccl. 168; Gunv, Plut. 834. ] 3 gaurdv, Nub. 407, 585, 980; Eq. 513; Pax 546: abrdév, Pax 735, 1184: éavrod, Vesp. 692, 1026, 1534, etc.: abrod, Vesp. 76; Av. 1444: éavrods, Vesp. 1517; Lys. 577: éavrg, Pl. 589; Eq. 544, 1223, etc.: abr@, Vesp. 130, 804; :

i

Pl. 1165. * 5épm occurs Ran. 619, but deipw Nub, 442 (anapaest); Vesp. 1286 (dme- depounv); Av. 365 (troch.)

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 433

Aristophanes and the other Comic poets, representing as they did the cultured voice of Athens, readily availed themselves of double forms when such existed, it is not too much to consider the occurrence of only one form in Comic verse as distinct evidence that no other form was in use.

The inflexions which will be placed beyond question by a careful application of this rule are the second and third persons singular of the weak aorist indicative active, and the singular and plural forms of the active optative present of contracted verbs, as well as the corresponding inflexions of the Attic contracted future.

In the texts of prose writers two forms of the second and third persons singular weak aorist optative active are encountered side by side, often in the same paragraph and sometimes in the same line—for the second person a shorter form in -ais and a longer in -evas, for the third a shorter in -a. and a longer in -eve(v). Thus in Dem. 13. 26, 7d pev ody emitipav tows phoa tis av padiov Kal mavtos elvat xre.: and just below, 15. 9, kal pjoeve Tis ay pH oKoTOy axpiBGs «re. In Lys. 122. 25 (12. 26) Bekker (in addend.), Cobet, and Scheibe all read efr’, @ oxerAidrate TdvTwr, dvré- Aeyes pev Iva odcevas, cvveAduBaves dé Wa amoxrelvais. That gjoa was in Attic impossible, and dzoxrelvats an impro- bable form, will be proved by the following evidence.

As to third person, the evidence of Aristophanes alone is quite conclusive—

el mdAw dvaBdéwerev e€ dpxfs; 5 be. Plut, 866. dvaBadrdrouern delEeve Tov opytovov. 3 é Eccl. 91. fmep diadAdéevey Has ay pdvy. Lys. 1104. i) wip andtpomoy 7) budkevev yar7j. Eccl. 792. Ff

434 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. dpdcere TODO’. B. Srov; 7d Tod Eavds kaddv. Lys. git. tov Baciréws dpOarpdy. B. exxdwer€ ye. : Ach. 92, Svao pévrav, et tis exmddvere oe. Plut. 1062. airy yap eumpyoecev dy Td vedptov. Ach, 918. tls ths texovons Oarroy emimépperev dy; Eccl. 235. 56 Zebs o€ y emrphpeer. B. emirphpovor ydp. ; Id. 776. mb0oir’ dy emutpipere. B. viv & od rodro dpa. ‘ Plut. 120. : xiv €vvaTodpavar Seip emixerpjoere por. Ran. 81, dwas dy eoméuperey és Td vewspiov. Ach, 921. bre od8 dy els Oboeey avOpdrwv eri. J Plut. 137. _ doris Kadé€oere Kdpdomev Tv Kapddmnv. Nub. 1251. xovdels yé pw? dv meloecey dvOpdmwov Td pr) odK. Ran. 68. moyova Tmepidnocetey eorabevpévais. Eccl. 127. am&s ovv tis dy odoee ToLadTnY TOLD ; , Ran. 1458. yy) Tous Oeods eywye py POdoee pe. Plut. 685. tls ay ppdoee mod ’or. Xpeytdros por capes ; Id, 1171. tls dv dpdoee tod ’otw % Avovotpdrn ; : Lys. 1086. tl dra Totr’ ay ohedjoedy o ; B. & TH; Nub. 753.

The Lacedaemonian Lampito’s words in Lys. 171, 7@ xd tis dpreloeiey ad wh wAaddiAY; May be mentioned along

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 435

- with these instances from the senarii, but Plut. 136, where Dindorf reads—

mavoe: av, el Bovdotro tadO’; B. dri rh 67;

must be reserved for further discussion. Besides these twenty-two instances in iambic trimeters we have in other regular metres, iambic, trochaic, and anapaestic, the fol- lowing :—Pax 568, dradadferev: Plut. 510, BAdpee: Thesm. 842, davicerev: Plut. 510, dravémevev: Plut. 592, eforAéoerev : Ach. 639, xadéoeve: Nub. 969, xduyerev: Ran. 923, Anpr- gee: Plut. 506, moptrevey: Eccl. 647, pidjoevey: and in choric measures—Ach. 1151, Thesm. 1051, éfoAécevev: Pax 1035, émawéoecev: Ach. 1171, éwdéevev: Thesm. 328, laxjoccev: Ach, 1166, wardgeve. Against these numerous examples of the longer ending there are no instances of the shorter to bring.

The evidence drawn from other Comic writers is equally convincing. The references are to the pages of Meineke’s volumes of the ‘ Fragmenta Comicorum.’

pa a ’ , -~ \7 s a7O0 TOU TOTOV TAVUCELE, TOV Alay méTov, ’ 2,122,

ei ph Kopn dedoee TO oTais 7Oeos. 561. m@s av Kxopuloeé pol tis ; 786. GAN “HyéAoxos ottds pe pnvicecev dv. 874. tls av hpdoee Tod 7ort 7d Arovdcror ; 1001, : In 2. 947, a fragment of Aristophanes, occurs émvy7)- geve in what seems to be a pseudo-oracle (cp. p. 44), and from other metres are derived, 2. 673, maiceve: 981, zopi- oevev: 1051, ovvaprdceey. There is in fact not a single instance of the shorter ending which till now holds the place of honour in all grammars, All examples of it Ff2

436 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

occurring in prose ought once and for all to be altered to the longer. The evidence is simply overwhelming, and proves to certainty that optative forms ending in -a: were quite unknown to the Athenians. They do not occur once in Sophocles or Euripides, and in Aeschylus they occur only four times, and in all cases in the chorus—

4 > > cal pntote Aow.os avdpav TOvde TOAW KEevdoal 459 2 pd emxwplois mrépacw aiparioa medov yas. Re Supp. 662 (bis). 6 péyas Zeds amade€ar

yapov Alyumroyerh pou Id. 1052.

pnde modca Kdévis pédav alua modirav. dV épyav rowas avtidpdvovs aras

aptadtoar modews Eum. 982.

1 In Supp. 624, Zebs & émupdva rédos, the form is simply a useless con- jecture of Dindorf’s for émucpdéver, and in Ag. 170 (ch.) Aééaz is only conjectural. The longer form is found in Aesch. P. V. 202, dpfeev: 396, wdpipeev: 503, ghoeev: 1049 (ch.), cvyx@oeev: 1051 (ch.), Aipece: Sept. 739 (ch.), Aodoeer: Supp. 281, Opépee: 487, éxOnpereyv: Agam. 38, Adferev: 366 (ch.), oxnpeer: 552, A€feey: 884, xarappiverer: 1328, { rpéperev: 1376, papfeev: Cho. 344 (ch.), xoploeev: 854, KAépecev. In Sophocles we find O. R. 502 (ch.), mapapelpecer : 1302, papruphocev: O. C. 391, mpdgerey: 1657, ppdcee: Ant. 666, orqoee: Aj. 1149, xaragBéoee: 1176, dwoondcee: El. 572, exOvoee: 1103, ppdoeev: Tr. 355, O€Agecev: 388, Agfecev: 433, mépoecev: 458, dAyivetev: 657 (ch.), dvicese: 729, Aéfetev: 906, Watoeer: 908, BAdpeev: 933, epdperey: 935, Eptevev: O55 (ch.), droutocev; Phil. 281, dpxéceey : 463, Heraorhaeev : 695 (ch.) daroxkat ceev : 698 (ch.), narevvaceev: 711, dvicee: 1062, vetyerey. In Euripides, Or. 508, dmoxrelveey ; 783, olxricee: Phoen. 152, ddéceev: 517, Spacey: 948, éxawoesev : 104 (ch.), dpaviccey: Med. 9£, dpdoee: 760 (ch.), reAdoee: 1389 (ch.), dAéoete: Hipp. 684, éxrpapaer: 985, diamrdgeev: 1253, wAnoee: 1387 (ch.), xoimoee: I, A. 802, pdoee: 1597, wAngeev: 1.T. 577, ppdoeev: 590, néppece: 627, meptoretAccev: 740, dyyetdeey: Rhes. 217, méupeev: 235 (ch.), - néyapere: Tro. 478, Kopmaceev: 719, vuenoee: 928, xpiveev: 1014, Spdceev: 1161, dpOdceev: 1189, ypdpeev: Cycl. 146, mAnoae: 535, Yatoee: Bacch. 1072, dvaxaiticee: 1259, kadécerev: Heracl. 179, xpiveey: 537, Aéfee: 538, Spdceev: Hel. 40, xovpioee: 175 (ch.), méppece: 436, Suaryyércte: 522 (ch.), Yavoerev: 699, dpkéveey: 1045, orynoeer : Ion. 372, Spdceev: 529, onuhverer: 787, owavryoeev: 1127, dedone: H, F. 186, émavéoeev: 719, dvacrhoee: 929, Béeev ; 1217, epUyeev, Eighty-nine instances in all from the three Tragedians,

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 437

Accordingly, Dobree’s arrangement of the initial words of a fragment of the Tarentini of Alexis (quoted by Athenaeus in 11. 463) is certainly wrong—

ovde cfs dv edtAdyws hyiv pOovicar vody exwv, ot Tay méAas ovdev’ ddixoduev ovdév' Gp’ odk ofo0 Stu xTe.

All we can affirm is that ovddefs and edAdyws, without av, were in the first line, and that the second went on—

heiy pOovnce vody exwy xre.

Critics have had the same advantage of a broken line in a fragment of the Second Thesmophoriazusae of Aris- tophanes, and have used it with equal skill. One thing is certain, that Aristophanes did not write—

odd’ dv A€ywv AE€Ear? Tus.

Antiphanes is credited with éyxéa: in a passage quoted by Athenaeus (14. 641)— A. Olvov Odovv mivos dv; B. ef tis eyxéar. A. mpos dpuydddas d& mas exes; B. elpnvixds. padakas opddpa, bv’ ds pédute mpoomat lew Bla. A. pedtankta 8 «lf cou mpoopepor; B. tpdyouus Kat gov b& karanivoys dy. A, Gddov de? twds;

but xfvois, mpoopéepor, tpdyouwt, and xatartvoyu, all suggest the true reading éyyéou.

The passage of the Plutus which was reserved above for further discussion reads in the manuscripts as follows—

ovcovy 68’ éotly atrios, Kab padlws mabvoeev, ef BovdoiTo, Tadr’ ay; B. Ore té 84;

1 Naber’s correction for obdév 45. obdév’

2 The Anga: of Fritsche is out of the question. The form of expression occurs again in the Ion of Eubulus (Athen. 4- 169) in the same connexion—the end of a long enumeration—

TpiBra be nal Bardna ia Kkakkdpia Kai Aowdiia Kat natavia muewa Tappéea Kovd dv Neyov AEgarpt.

438 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

and it must be retained in that shape in whatever way ére ri 84; is translated. Dindorf, in his conjecture, raver’ dv, ei xte,, which Meineke has adopted, has fallen into an error which other emendators besides him have committed. Although nearly 150 instances of the optative forms in -eev have already been registered, it will be observed that in no single instance is the final syllable elided. The temptation to a writer of verse to elide the final epsilon _ before dv must have been very strong indeed, and that it was never done proves convincingly that Attic usage was absolutely opposed to such elision. Accordingly the metrical fault of the line—

lows dv exavetoeev’ bray 8 dvi tv0ds— Eur. Or. 700.

must not be corrected by docking the éxmvetcevev!, but ©

either by reading jv 8 avn with Nauck, or 6re 8’ avy with Kirchhoff. ;

Thus, by the incontrovertible testimony of Attic verse, the true ending of the third person singular of the weak aorist optative active is proved to be -eve before a con- sonant and -eev before a vowel. The two cases of diver- gence from this law, as occurring in lyrical passages of the earliest of the three Tragedians, and as opposed by more than one hundred and fifty examples, may be regarded as corrupt, or, at all events, are to be treated as antiquated and anomalous.

1 As most of the instances of the optative ending--a: are due to the ingenuity of critics, so a long list of exceptions to the rule against eliding the final syllable of -eey may be drawn up from the emendations of scholars, In Aesch. Choeph. 854, «Aéper’ dv is read by Heath and Monk. In Agam. 1376,

Schutz, without warrant, altered aypovfjs dpxtiarar’ dy | papgeev to mnpovas

apxtararov papge’ dv. In Eur. Hipp. 469, for cad@s dxpiBdoeay Valcke- naer wrote xavay dxpiBwoe’ dy, and our rule also invalidates Schneidewin’s yw} Texodca Koprdce’ of’ dv more in Tro. 478, and Porson’s mpdge’ dv &« GeGv Kax@s in Andr, 1283. Meineke’s attempt, in his ‘Curae Criticae,’ p. 55, to arrange a fragment of the Comic poet Archippus, quoted by Plutarch, Alcib. 1, is vitiated by the same fault, ddfe: for ddgerev, and that he should adopt Cobet’s ppdce:’ Srov in Ar. Plut, 1171 and leave ppdoeé mov in Lys. 1016, is as careless as it is incorrect,

‘Re

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 439

In regard to the second person singular no such absolute rule can be formulated, but the Attic usage is nevertheless distinctly indicated. Aristophanes supplies the following evidence—

el mddw dvaBreyreias Somep kal mpd Tod.

Plut. 95. Srws av airnv adaviceras cite por.

Nub. 760. W abrov éxnéeuyyeras. B. ddA ovx eoracer.

Vesp. 175. w@s dv kahéceas evtvyav *Apvria ;

Nub, 689. mOs dv od pot AEEevas Gye xpy €yeww;

Eq. 15. povos yap av hé€evas aélws eyod.

Thesm. 187.

m@s dir ay advrovs Evyxadécetas; B. padlas. Av. 201.

dvipa mrepdoeias 0}; B. amavtes tots Adyots. Id. 1438.

ei tia méAwW hpdoeas Hyiv evepor. Id. 121,

Tovs gous hpdceias, el Seotunv, olor ov. Ran. 110,

Besides these from the senarii, there are found in other metres three additional instances. In iambic tetrameter catalectic—

aor ei ov Bpynoao kal Bréyeras dotpaxlvsa—

. . . Eq. 855. in anapaestic dimeters— GAN 10. xalpwv kal mpdgevas Eq. 498.

and in a chorus, Thesm. 368, xupdéceias. Against these thirteen unquestioned instances of the longer ending there are four equally well-established of the shorter,

440 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

two in the senarii, and two in anapaestic tetrameter catalectic—

81a SaxrvAlov pev ody Que y Av dueAKtoats. Plut. 1036,

ap’ apedjoas dv tu tov cavrod ¢pidror ; Id. 1134.

el pev xalpers apvds havi, madds poviy ehejoas. Vesp. 572. ovk dy dixdoas. ov yap ody viv pot viKay TOAAG deddKyoa. Id. 726. Now it has been proved (p. 51) that un-Attic forms are of frequent occurrence in anapaestic verse, and accordingly é\ejoais and d:xdoas must not be regarded as satisfactory evidence for the shorter ending. Besides édejoats may well be a stately antiquated form used for effect if we consider the preceding line— donep Ocdv dvt Bort we tp€uwv tis edOdvns amoddoa, Of the two instances from the senarii, dveAxdoats forms part of a proverbial phrase, and édedjoais is put into the mouth of Hermes. Four other passages demand discussion. In Pax 405, where the manuscripts give—

10. 8h Kdreun* tows yap ay meloas eye,

Hirschig, followed by Meineke, now reads dvameiceis, but

‘even if the text is right it would not support Attic usage, as a few lines before, Hermes, who speaks the line in question, utters the para-tragoedic words—

GAN, @ per’, tnd Tod Avds dyadduvOjoopuar, el ph Teropjow tadra Kal AaKyHoomat.

Long ago, the omission of ay in one manuscript of Nub. 776— bmws amoorpéyais dv dvridixGv dixny,

led Brunck to conjecture—

bnws dv dmoorpeeras dvTibixdv dikyr,

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 441

but Meineke’s conjecture of dzoorpéav dv is so manifest an improvement to the sense as to be almost convincing. For the manuscript reading of Vesp. 819—

Ojpdov et mws exxouloas Td Tod AdKov

the same scholar substitutes— Onpgov ovTw *Eexdpicas TO Tod Av«Kov,

and Brunck proposed to omit rd as tautological— Onpdov el Tas exkouloeras Tod Avxov,

The only remaining instance need not detain us long. Totro cavri Kxpeéats, in Lys. 506, is a proverbial expression, and loses by Meineke’s change of the optative xpéfais to the indicative ’xpwéas. According to Suidas the proverb was derived from inauspicious birds, dz’ dpvéwv rév dbvcowvicrwr, as the similar one in Plut. 369—

ov pev od 6 Kpad ers’ os euod Te KexAoddros, Qnreis peradaBetv,

refers to rods pdryy Opvdobyras ws ai Kopdvat,

There are no instances of the second person in the frag- ments of the other Comic poets of a good age, but the evidence derived from Tragic verse in support of the longer form is curiously even stronger that that from Comedy, In the three tragedians there are over twenty lines which require the dissyllabic inflexion!, but only two lines of Euripides in which the monosyllabic ending is necessary.

If the testimony thus presented by verse is candidly accepted, it will be seen that although the ending -ais was not so carefully avoided as that of the third person -a, yet

* Aesch. Supp, 925, Yavoeas: Eum. 645, Avoeras: Soph. Ant. 244, eixdoeas : Aj. 1322, kopndceas: 1137, kAé~aas; El. 348, éxdeifeas; 801, mpdfeas: Tr. 700, Bréyeas: Phil. 1222, ¢pdoeas. Eur. Med. 761 (ch.), mpdtevas: 1135, réppeias: Hipp. 345, Aéferas: 472, mpdfecas: Andr, 462, mpdgeas: I. A. 464, yipeas: I. T. 505, ppdoaas: 513, ppdoeas: 1024, xpipeas: Hell. 1039, wel- ces: El; 620, pnviceas. The shorter form does not occur in Aeschylus or

Sophocles, for Aégars in Ag. 97, is merely a conjecture for Aéfao’. In Euripides occur, Med, 325, metoas: I. T, 1184, oHous.

442 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

it savoured of antiquity, and ought, when it occurs in Attic, to be regarded as an anomaly allowable only in verse, and in the case of Comedy probably always either an intentional aberration from ordinary usage, or due to the introduction of a crystallized expression, proverbial or otherwise.

In regard to the third person plural, the true form cannot be decided by the dictates of verse, for -avev has the same metrical value as -edy. But if the form in -ee(v) was for the singular the only one in use, there can be no doubt that -evay was the genuine plural ending. The manuscript authority is consistently in its favour, and when that fails it must be restored in our texts.

The next point to be considered is of almost equal im- portance. Contracted verbs are by far the most numerous class in Greek, and, in number at all events, equal those of all other classes taken together. It is accordingly of some moment to establish the true endings of so frequently occurring a mood as-the present optative active. The following facts will be demonstrated. All verbs in -é or -dw contracting to -6 have their present optative singular ending in -olnv, -oins, -oln, and all verbs in -aw contracting to -6 have the corresponding forms in -¢n», -gns, -¢n. In the dual and plural, on the contrary, Attic requires the shorter forms, namely, -oirov, -ofrny, -oiwev, _ -oire, -otev for verbs in -dw and -éw, and -@rov, -grnv, -Guer, -Gte, -Gev for verbs in -dw. Thus the optative of rnpé (-éo) had from Athenian lips the forms :—

Tnpolny Tnpoiwev Tnpotns Tnpotrov Tnpoire

Tnpotn Tnpolrny Tnpoter,

while 8nAG ( -6w) was inflected as follows—

Snrolnv dnAoipev bnAolns dnAotroy bnAoire bnAoly dnAolrny dnAoilev,

vigt:

SW Spey

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS, 443

and 8p6 (-dw) in a similar way—

dpanv dpOyev dpgns dpgrov dpare dpyn dpgrnv . dpgev.

The instances of Singular forms are in Aristophanes — peculiarly numerous, and quite sufficient to put their true inflexions beyond question—

Wa ph otparetoir GAG Buvoin peévov.

Ach, 1052. iva pH Bown xnplo BeBvopevor.

Thesm. 506. evdarpovoins!, Thrépo 8 aye dpove.

Ach, 446. evdapovolns, domep 7) pntnp Tore.

Id. 457. Ojcw mpvtavet 7 pnKére Cdnv eyo.

Nub. 1255.

ei Evvdoxoln Totow dAdots dpvéo.s. Av. 197.

donep kdtontpoy, KdGta Thpolny exwv. Nub. 752. Besides these, derived from iambic trimeters, there are three in iambic tetrameter catalectic verse, one in trochaic tetrameter, six in anapaestic systems, and four from other metres—

ov tabtov ® Tay éotiy, odd dv Swxpdrer doxoln. Nub. 1432. jon pecoln, pyar adv Bde deddex’ eter. Ran. 924. alaOavopevos cov mavta tpavadtCovtos % Ti voolns, Nub, 1381.

énl rh ydp pw exeidev ayes; B. tv’ dxodovdolns epol. Av. 340.

* So all the MSS., but Meineke adopts eb oo yévorro from Athenaeus 5. 186, who quotes the line as from Eur. ‘Telephus.’ The Scholiast in loco has Karas éxoun Tyrépy kre.

444 - THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

kat Bacavicew mds odxl mddau xopdv alrofn Kad éavrdv.

Eq. 513.

énl rv oxyntpwr exdOnr dpris petéxov 8 TL dwpodoxoln. Av. 510,

6 8 ap etornxe: tov Avoixpdtn typdv & TL dwpodoxoln. Id. 513.

obre réxunv dy tov dvOpdétwy obr’ dy codtay pederoen. Plut. 511.

tls dv ody etn; Cytei? ipeis, os Tav dv éywye Tovotny. Vesp. 348.

‘ \ , / ,

mept THY Kepadjv; pn vey (env.

Lys. 531.

Vesp. 278, dvriBodoin: id. 276, BovBwvdn: Thesm, 681, dpdn: Nub. 1387, xeCnrigny.

Now, opposed to these twenty-one unquestioned examples of the dissyllabic ending, stands a solitary instance of the monosyllabic—

x s a . XOUT@ EV av €U TOLOLS ¥ iy > €l GOL TUKVOTYS éveor

2 n , c r / €v TO TPOT, WS Acyels, Eq. 1131.

which Meineke formerly altered to «& zo.olns ef wuxvdrns, but he now prefers xotrw ev dp’ <b moveis’ } vor muxvdrns. No conjecture is required, for a single instance of a form that was certainly possible in Tragedy occurring in Comedy out of the regular metres does not enfranchise that form as genuine Attic, or diminish the validity of our argument against it. Wecklein’s emendation, however, deserves re- mark. He considers xotrw as a corruption for kal rodro, and ay subsequently added to restore the syllable so lost, the original line being— kal rodro pey ed Troveis}.

1 It is strange that Veitch should have missed this solitary good instance in

his favour as completely as he has missed the point of the general question,

The following note to xAaiw, in his ‘Greek Verbs Irregular and Defective,’ proves how little can be said for the shorter forms. ‘ “Recte Cobetus,” says

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 445

There are some corruptions of the text of Aristophanes which throw so much light upon the question how our prose texts so frequently present such optatives with mono- syllabic singular endings, that they cannot well be passed over without remark. In Av. 204, Pisthetaerus, discussing with Epops the best means of summoning the birds to a conference, asks him the question—

ms dir adv abrods vyxadécesas ;

to which Epops replies— padlws.

devpl yap éoBas adrixa pdr és thy Adxpny,

éxeir’ dvayelpas thy uv dnddva,

Kadodpev adrovs* of 8 vey Tod pOéyparos

edvtep enaxotowor Oedoovtar dpdpy. Even in a good manuscript like the Vatican xadoty’ av!

Franke, “ Tragicis vogoty: et Soxotu et similia concessit, non concessit Comicis et Scriptoribus Atticis.” Aristophanes uses, to be sure, Bog, Thesm. 506; dvaBigny, Ran. 178; dpq@n, Thesm. 681; and Biotin, Ach. 1052; vooins, Nub. 1381; alroin, Eq. 513; dxodovboins, Av. 340; but Ado, 341; drédOorpe, Ach. 403; mAéor, Pax 699; déo1, Lys. 1132; dmo-Soiny, Nub. 118, 755, etc.; but émi-5oru, Ach, 1156, etc., etc. Prose, doxoin, Thuc. 6. 34; 8. 54, but doxo?, 2. 79, 100; 3. 16; éyxepotp’ dv, Pl: Tim. 48; xoopot, Lach. 196; voor, Enuthyd. 287 ; xarnyopoin, Menex. 244 (Bekk., Stallb.), but xaryyopot, Gorg. 251; <yTolnv, Epist. 318 ; (nrots, Prot. 327, etc., etc.’ The note proves nothing at all, and no one would once think of advocating a form like «Agr, which Veitch takes the trouble to deny. For #Adw never contracts or could con- tract to xA@, and is consequently removed from our rule. His other examples are equally erroneous. dméA@orpi does not come from a contracted verb, nor does mAéw contract to mA&, or 5éw (lack) to 8H. dmodoiny and dvaBiginy (leg. dvaBiolnv) belong at worst to a different category from contracted verbs, and we hope that the juxtaposition of dwodoiny and émidojs does not prove that Veitch derives énidorms in Ach. 1156 from émdidwju, a hope which his careful hyphening makes dangerously small.

* Of course such a form as xadoiy’ dv copyists were constantly meeting in Tragedy, though even there it is the rarer of the two, as the following statistics prove. The longer forms are found — First person: Soph. O. C. 764, adyoiny: Ant. 668, Oapsoinv: El. 1306, imnperoiny: Eur. Hec. 1166, xvoiny : Or. 778, dp¢nv : 1147, (amv: Med. 565, edSacpovolny: Hipp. 1117 (ch.), avvev- tuxoinv: Alc. 354, dmavrdoinv, Supp. 454, (env: Heracl. 996, ovvooiny : Hel. 770, dd-yoiny : 1010, dbioinv.—13 instances. Second person: Aesch. Agam. 1049, dmeBoins: Cho, 1063 (ch.), ebruxoins: Soph. O. R. 1478, ebruyxolns: O. C. 362, warouoins: Ant. 70, dpyns: Aj. 526, aivoins: El. 1090 (ch.), ¢dns:

446 THE NEW PHRYNICAUS.

is found, though the correct plural form remains in the Ravenna and others. The source of the error was the inability of a copyist to reconcile the plural caAodyuey with the preceding éofds and dvayelpas. Such ignorance, both of syntax and accidence, produced many similar errors. Thus, in Vesp. 1404, the last word of the amusing lines—

Alowrov amd delrvov BadiGovl éamépas Opaceia xal peb¥on tis tAdKTEL KUwv.

> n > > 4 4 Kameur éxeivos elmev, @ Ktov, Ktor, el vy A’? dytl rhs Kans yAdrrns robey mupovs mplato cwdpoveiy dv pot doxeis,

is altered in some manuscripts to doxots, in others to doxijs, both errors arising from ignorance of a well-known rule of Attic syntax. According to that rule, d0x6, voule, ee nyobpat, mpoodoxe, and similar verbs, may be followed by a

infinitive and dv. Thus, Demosthenes begins his second Olynthiac with the words, ’Emt moAAGv pey dy tis ldeiy @ dvdpes "AOnvator doxet pow THv Tapa TOY OeGv yryvoyérny TH model, ovx Hxiota 5° ev tois apodor. mpdyyact. There too doxot is not left unrepresented in the manuscripts. In Plato, Lys. 206 A, we have an instance of the corrupt form

Eur. Phoen. 1086, ebda:povoins: Med. 688, evrvxoins: Hipp. 105, eb8a:povoins : Alc. 713, ens: 1037, evdarpovoins; 1153, evruxoins: I. T. 750, dducoins: Hel. 619, popoins: El. 231, evSarpovoins.—16 instances. Third person : Aesch. Supp.

. 1064 (ch.), dwoorepoin: Agam, 349, Kpatoin: Soph. O. R. 829, dp8oin: O. C. 1435, evodoin: El. 258, 8pgn: Trach. 902,-dvrqin: Phil. 444, éy: Eur. Andr. 237, fuvaxoln: I. A. 63, d&raPoln.—g instances. The shorter endings occur— First person: Aesch. P. V. 978, vocoiy’ dv: Soph. O. C. 507, xwpoty’ dv: Ant. 552, wpedoipw eyw; Aj. 537, wpedoipi ce: Phil. 895, Spey’ éyw: 1044, Soxorp’ dy: Eur. Or, 1517, edopxoty éyu: Hipp. 336, ovyGp’ av: Hel. 157, dpedotpi ce, —g instances. Second person: Soph. El. 1491, xwpois: Phil. 674, xwpois: Eur. Andr, 679, &peAots.—3 instances. Third person : Soph. O.C. 1769 (ch.) dmapxot: Eur. Or. 514, «vpot: Supp. 608, afpo?: 897, dvaruxor: El. 1077, ebruxor: bvorvxor in Aesch. Agam. 1328 is only a conjecture of Blomfield’s.—s instances, In all, there are in Tragedy 37 instances of the longer forms against 17 of the shorter; in Comedy 21 of the longer against one of the shorter, that one being not in the regular metres. tpevaot, which Curtius, ‘Das Verbum,’ 2. 110, quotes as, an optative form from Ar. Pax 1076, is certainly a subjunctive, and in the succeeding line a humorous epicism.

THE NEW PHRYNICHAUS. 447

replacing the true even in the best manuscripts. The true reading undoubtedly is wotds tis ody dy cot doxet Onpevrijs eivat; After changes of this kind were once made, and forms like doxot recognized as legitimate, the ulcer went on spreading, and copyists considered one form as good as another, until even undoubted forms in -fyv, like the op- tative of verbs in -y., were sometimes corrupted. In this way ézididoiw dy and émdidot dy are variants for the true émdtdoltnv dv in Plat. Legg. 913 B. The fact that all the best manuscripts support émdid02 dv in this passage indicates how untrustworthy all manuscript authority is, whenever two similar sounds come together, or when one letter or one set of letters is followed by another not readily to be distinguished from it. Accordingly, it will be observed that in very many of the prose instances of the shorter form in the third person singular, the word succeeding the optative begins with H, N, IJ, or K, as Plato, Phaedr. 276 B, sow? ep ofs: id. 275 C, dyvowt mdrov: Rep. 394, emixixerpot mohhGv: Conv. 196 C, av cwppovol cat: Thuc. 4. 105, mpoo- Xwpot kat.

It is still more interesting to trace the genuine ending in the more considerable corruptions of the texts. Cases like the substitution of trnperoluny for danperofny in Soph. El. 1306, need not detain us long, but there is a very interesting and typical case in Plato’s Phaedo, 87 B. There e mis amtoroln ait@ has been altered in every manuscript to ¢% tis dmotav air, though the optative is so necessary that amictoln is one of the few emendations which Stallbaum makes. The same transcriber’s error disfigures a passage of Lysias, where there is a sentence without a finite verb. Lys. 916. 6 (33. 9), tls yap odk dv evopdv év TG mpds GAARAovS Toru peyddovs adrods yeyeynuévovs; Reisk conjectured évtpénoito dpdv, but Cobet is beyond question right in reading évop@n, i.e. QUH for QN.

In Antiphon, 112, 31. (1. 10) Wa ph dvaycaduevor &

448 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

eyo érepwTd jut} Aéyovev, the manuscripts give émepwrd py} which Reisk altered to ézepwr@y. Of course the true reading is émepwronv, i.e. QHHN for QIMH. Plato, Gorg. 510 D, supplies us with another type, «i dpa tis évvojoeey éy tabrn TH wéAeL TGv véwy, Tiva dv tpdrov eyo péya dvvatynv cal pndels pe ddixoln, atrn, os Couxer, att@ 6dds tor kTe. Most manuscripts have dé.Kko? 7 afrn, one dévxot adr}, and only one the genuine décxoln, atrn. This separation of the final letter from the rest of the word is likewise exemplified in Xen. Cyrop. 5. 3. 52, Képos 8 eizav Sri ext rH 680 dr0- pevoly. Along with émduevor and émipévor the manuscripts also present us with émyevor 67. The Attic future optative ending -ofn is concealed in the o 69 of a copyist who, ignorant of the genuine ending, severed its last letter from the optative and made a new word out of the tag.

The results arrived at up to this point of the discussion are these. While the shorter endings were in the singular not altogether avoided by the antiquated dialect of Tragedy, the longer were the only forms used in Comedy and prose, and even in Tragedy were decidedly preferred. The manu- scripts of prose writers are on this question quite untrust- worthy, and must be consistently corrected.

The future optative is a rare tense in Greek, being used only in two constructions, namely, either as representing

in indirect discourse a future indicative of direct discourse,

‘or with 87s or 8rws py after verbs of striving, etc., and with po} or Saws pi after verbs of fearing. Moreover in both these cases the future indicative is much more common. Accordingly, it is not surprising that there is in use only a single instance of the optative of a contracted future—

éreir’ euol ta dely exnmeldno enn

ei pH pavotny wav rd Evvtvxdv dos.

Soph. Aj. 312.

But the parallelism between contracted presents and con- tracted futures is so complete in every respect that there

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 449

can be no doubt as to the Attic inflexions of the latter. The passage of Xenophon (Cyrop. 5. 3. 52) quoted above is by itself valuable confirmatory evidence. Consequently the futures of oré\Aw and Bi8d(w, namely, oreAG and fiBa, must have had for singular optative forms the following :—

otedolny BiBonv otedolns BiBons oreholn BiBen,

and in the same way all similar verbs must have made the mood in question.

Further, the perfect active used these same endings for the singular of its optative mood in those comparatively rare cases in which the analytic form of the perfect parti- ciple and ev was not preferred. Whenever the unresolved mood appears in verse it has the endings -olnv, -oins, -oln. The only instance in Tragedy is Soph. O. R. 840—

éy® biddgw 0° iv yap ebpeb déywr

got Tair, éywy dv éxmepevyolny Ta0os. In Aristoph. Ach. 940, wemo@olny is found. -Athenaeus (7. 305 B) quotes from Cratinus the line—

tplyAn 8 «i pev edndoxoln? rév0ov tivds dvdpds.

In Xenophon, Cyrop. 2. 4. 17, mpoeAndvdolns is found. The scholiast to Hom. II. 14. 241 quotes merayolnv from Eupolis, which Ahrens (Dial. Dor. 330) ingeniously supposes to have been spoken by a Lacedaemonian in the Ef\wres of that comic poet.

From Plat. Parm. 140 A, ef ri mémovOe xwpis rod év elvrar Td év, Trelw dv elvar rexdvOor 7} &v, we see how zetovoln was lost. Evenin the line from Cratinus the 7 had got separated from the éd¢éijxo. till Porson attached it. In Lys. 166. 39 (23. 4), @pArjKoe Tapa xre., the old confusion of II with H

1 The shortening of the penultimate syllable is worth remarking, but con- sidering the frequency with which o is short in mod, roLodTos, etc., this presents. no difficulty.

Gg

45° THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

comes in, as in Plat. Legg. 679 B, xaOeornjxou xatacraréor, that of K with H.

But if the forms in -np, -ns, -n are the true Attic optative endings for contracted presents and futures, they are cer- tainly un-Attic_in all tenses of uncontracted verbs except the perfect. Not a single instance occurs either in Attic prose or verse}, and forms like rpépou, Gudprow, and AdBow, which are occasionally quoted as confirming their existence, are themselves liable to grave question. For rpépow our only authority is the Grammarian George Choeroboscus?”, who was also. the first to recognize the existence of the extraordinary perfect rérvga. Quoting, as from Euripides, the line—

&dpwv ay etnv el tpépow ra trav zédas,

he adds the absurd remark, xara cvyxomijy rod n and Tod tpepolnv. Tpedolny does not exist, and, if it did, it could not become rpépou either xara ovyxomyy or kata GAAo Tt. AS Euripides wrote it, the line must have run—

ddpwv ay etnv extpépov ta TOv Tédas.

The testimony of Suidas, 1. p. 144, is almost as worth- less as that of Choeroboscus. His words are, “Apdprow elpnke TO Gudproy Kparivos Aparério.—

Tlodards tyas <ivar pdoKxwr, @ elpaxes, ov dv dudprow ;

kal dAws otvnOes adtois (Attixots?) td Tovodre. No one can be asked to believe in the existence of such forms on evidence so weak. If they never occur in the books which

1 In Plat. Epist: 339 D, d:aBadoiny is the true optative of a contracted future and not aorist, though even in this case the corrupt S:aBadotm is found.

2 One learns to distrust a man whose name is chiefly associated with introducing rare and late forms into Classical texts. Thus it is Choeroboscus — who, in Eur. Hec. 374, reads—

; pirdrAas EBadrov, of 8 éxAnpodcay rupar, when all MSS. give 5% mAnpodo.v. The change of tense presents no difficulty, » as it is extraordinarily frequent in Eur. (cp. Hec. 21 ff. and 1143-35), and forms like éAnpotcay never occur till post-Macedonian times, when we actually encounter eixoaar, €oxooar, 7AOocar, etc,

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 451

we possess they are not worth unearthing from the crude and fanciful compilations of grammarians. Still a modern scholar now and again lays himself open to the Athenian taunt, olvov mapdvtos, df0s npdoOn meiv. Dindorf has in- troduced réyvow into Aesch. Supp. 807, and AdBow into a passage of the Erechtheus of Euripides, quoted by the orator Lycurgus in his speech xara Aewxpdrovs, 160. 28 (102), and Nauck, in Eurip. Orest, 504, substituted dow x7Alov for EOouyw HAtov.

So much for the optative inflexions of the singular. In the plural it will be necessary to take a wider range and to discuss the optative forms, not only of contracted pre- sents and futures, but also of the aorists passive and of verbs in -y. But principally from the fact that in the Greek drama more than two persons seldom take part in the dialogue at the same time, the evidence to be derived from verse is limited to comparatively few forms.

Dawes, a scholar of great nerve and refinement, observed, long since, in his Miscellanea Critica (ed. Kidd, p. 453), the bearing of the testimony of verse on this question. In Arist. Ran. 1450—

ei TGy TodiTaY olow viv TMoTEdomeD

Totros amioTioauer, ofs 8 od xpapycba

tovrowt xpnoaluerO’, tows cwbeipev av some manuscripts read owe(njev dv with tows, others cwOeln- pev dv without tows, and others again cwOGyev. The copy- ists were evidently at a loss to understand the Attic cw6eier, and, in replacing it by the late form familiar to themselves, injured either the metre or the syntax. When such things happen in verse, the laws of which might keep transcribers to the point, it is not difficult to understand how the texts of prose writers became disfigured by forms which could be foisted into metre only by a scribe of some ingenuity.

In remarking upon cwciyev dv Dawes says, ‘ Ut evitetur deinceps soloecismus, legendum statuo tows cwOeciper dy Gga2

452 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

(a reading since found in two manuscripts). Librarius, opinor, qui ista grammaticorum insomnia rudbelnrov, rupbeth- THY, TupOelnwer, TvpOelnre, tupOelnoay, imberbis didicerat, vera, quam ignorabat, scriptura offensus in ejus locum al- terum istud suffecit ; nescius interim primo terminationes optativas, elnrov, evjrny, etc. alyrov, etc. ofntov, etc. scrip- toribus vere Graecis ignotas fuisse ; ac deinde voculam ay cum forma subjunctiva, nisi cum certis itidem comitibus nusquam construi.’

The testimony of Comedy is meagre in the extreme, consisting only of the following forms :—

For contracted verbs—

otvowTo & dvdpes KamOvpotev omdeKodv.

Ar. Lys. 152. tl dy oby rovotpev? ;

B. olkicate plav modu. Av. 172.

twa rapyvpiov cGy Tapéxommen Kal pi) ToAEoITE bv adre. Lys. 488.

el vavpaxotey dr’ éxovres d€(bas. Ran, 1440.

molay tw’ ody dior’ dv otkolrny? wédw ; Av. 127.

el te didoiey Tas Aevxordras, of 8 lxOves olkad’ idvres. Fr. Com. 2. 361 (Teleclides). For aorists passive—

tobro.ot xpyoatuerd’, tows owleipen adv. Ran. 145°.

dp av & mpds rév Gedy tyels AmaddAaxOeiré pov; Vesp. 484.

mécov dliws b47 ; B. ei d:ampicdeiev dixa.

Pax 1262.

1 Cobet reads 7i- ody mompev ; but ti occurs before a short syllable again in Plut. 1161, «at ri ér’ épe’s; and Nub. 21, ri dpeiaw;

2 The MSS. have oixoir’ dv, which Cobet has emended. The copyists not unfrequently altered dual forms to plural. However, either reading serves our BERPore-

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 453

And for verbs in -y.—

tovTwv xdpi dvramodolrny. Thesm. 1230.

cal tives dy elev;

B. apdra piv Savvuplov. Fr. Com, 2.1008 (Aristoph.). Tragedy supplies us with a few more— TGAN edrvxoiwev mpds OeGv ’OAvpmTIKGr. Aesch. Supp. 1014. ov yap dv Kakds ovd 8 exovtes (Oper, ei repTolueba. Soph. O. C. 799. tl djra Todd émeyyeAGev dy xdra; Id. Aj. 969. rl dr’ av qyets dpGuev, el od y ev Adyos ; Id. Phil. 1393. et w éxhoBotev paridow Avcojpacw.

Eur. Or, 270. évds yap ei AaBolucl edrvxoiwer av,

Ib. 1172. Oavdrovs 7 éOnxav &s dmavtdoiey xOovds.

Tb. 1641. GAN as, TO pev peyorov, olkotyey KadGs.

Id. Med. 559. evdaysovoiroy GAN éxet* ra 8 evOdde.

Tb. 1073, mappnola Odddovres olxotey wdAwv.

Id, Hipp. 422. GAN ebroxolrny, rin 8 ev jpépa yapuel;

Id, I. A. 716. kal room &u ebruxotre Kal vixnddpov.

Ib. 1557. 70 Aowndy edrvXoipey GAAHAwY péra.

Id. I, T. 842.

év ddyous pluvew aravras. B. pi) ovvavtgey pdvy. Ib, 1209. el 8 edruxolev Tpdes, oddev Fv Bde. Id, Tro, 1007.

454

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

dro voootey EVppaxor KaracKoTav.

Id. Hel. 1607. > “ « >s , lal evdaovoiper, @S TA mpdabe dvaTLy7). Id, Ion 1457. evdaipovoir ay otppaxov KexTnpévol. Id. Bacch. 1343.

evdaipovoire, Kal yévoil’ piv dowr. - Id, Heracl. 582. ¢ m > cal > tal huiv & av elev, el xparoiper, edpeveis ; Id. El. 632.

Aorists passive—

Verbs in -yi—

paxpol madawol 7 ay perpndeter xpdvor.

Soph, O. R. 561. @s 8% oxdrov AaBdvres exowOeiper dv ; Eur, I, T. 1025. otyor, diepOdppecba’ TGs cwOeiper av ; _ Ib. 1028. adaveis dy dvres odx dv tyrndeiper dv. ; Id. Tro, 1244. év @ duepyacdeir’ Gv, GAN’ eyo mod. Id. Heracl. 174. mdoxov t’ Exapvov' dis 88 AvTNOciper dv. Id, Hel. 771. pl eory eAams 7 pdvy cwOeiper dv. Ib. 815. GAd’ odd py vads eorw 7h ocwbciper av. Ib, 1047.

énripes elev ayyéAwy TeTVopévor. Aesch. Supp. 185.

rotr@ uev obras eiruxeiv boiler Oeol.

Id, Sept. 421. ov Trav Eddvres adOis GvOadroiev av.

Id. Agam. 340. apiora dotev' Kel map’ “EAAnver Tivés.

Id. Eum, 31. of mdvres ed Evveiey eloaet Deol.

Soph. O. R. 275.

tueis y dpior’ eldeir’ av obmxspior. Tb. 1046.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 455

Oeiév yw? Adwovoy tics Ths dpas er.

Id. O, C. 865. maddvres dv Evyyvoisev huaprynkdres.

Id, Ant. 926. mod dar’ av elev of E€vor; dldacké pe.

Id. El. 1450. doiév mor’ adbrois dvtimow’ euod madciv.

Id. Phil. 316. Wy” ai Moxjvar yvotev ) Srdprn & Gre.

Ib. 325. col mdvres elev of vevavoroAnkdres.

Ib. 550. jpeis dv elev Oarépe Kkexpnpevor.

Eur. Hipp. 349. & mpécBv, Oeot cor doiev ed Kal rotor cois.

Id. Andr. 750. as ovre yalas Spr av éxBaivev AdOpa.

Id. H. F. 82.

hpiv 8 av elev ei xparoipev cdpeveis. Id, El. 632.

ov yap dv fupBaipev GdrAws 7 ?ml Trois elpnuevors. Id. Phoen. 590. And in lyrical passages dofev, Aesch. Supp. 418, and é:do%ev, id. 703, dvrididotey, Eum. 983. Now, against these fifty or sixty forms there are only two of the longer endings to bring, namely— obk otf "Odvoced" ray 5€ cor dpgynuer dv. Eur. Cycl. 132. ovK o18* GAnOn & el déyers halypev av. Id. Ion 943. but if the transcribers’ errors in the case of oweciyev in Ar. Ran. 1450 are considered, Dawes was certainly right in reading ovvip@pev dv in the former of these lines, and Dindorf in altering datnpev to cvpdaiper in the latter. In both cases the compound verb is demanded by the context. The form dé:xolnuev, read by some in Eur. Hel. 1010, is merely a variant for déixolny vw, and cannot for one moment

456 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

stand against evidence so overwhelming, especially when the following dzodécw is considered— & & dudl rivBo Od dvediCes rarpl, jytv 88 adrds pd0os' ddixolny vw dv el pn arodécw cal yap dy xeivos Bdétwv, arédswxey dv cor tHvd exew, tatrn be oé,

“One word as to the absurdity d:d¢y. In Eur. Andr. 225 some manuscripts read évdgny for évdolnv ; in Xen. Cyr. 3. I. 35, d¢ns for d0fns; in Plato, Gorg. 481 A, dd for 86. In Lysias, 105. 5, all manuscripts read 80y, though a few lines further down peradoln has been preserved. All these are of course wrong, and have been replaced by the forms

in -o. by all editors who know their business. The same

error sometimes affects the optative of the aorists éyvwr, éddwv, and éBlwov. Thus, in Aesch. Supp. 215, ovyyvdn occurs instead of ovyyvotn, and in Dem. 736 there is good authority for adgnv, while the optative Buolny, Brolns, Broly is always misspelt in the same utterly ridiculous way, dva- Aigny for dvaB.olnv, appearing in Ar. Ran. 177, Bign for Buolm, in Plato, Phaed. 87 D, Gorg. 512 E, Tim. 89 C, Legg. 730 C.

CCCXXVI.

*Eproddérue ob Keirat, TO dé Eprodoreiv Mapa Tit TAY

VEWTEPWV KOUMSAY, Oic Kal abroic od TELGTEOV.

This is an instructive article. The word épyodoreiv oc- curs in un-Attic Inscriptions, as Inscr. Aphrodis. ap. Boeckh, vol. 2. n. 2826. 5. Antiatticista, p. 94. 5, cites it from Apollodorus, to whom Phrynichus also probably re- fers here, and the substantive épyoddrns is encountered in

Xenophon (Cyr. 8. 2. 5). The inference is plain. Xeno-

phon picked épyodérns up abroad, and épyodoreiv in Apollo-

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 457

dorus is an early indication of the fusion of Greek dialects to which the Macedonian conquests gave rise.

CCCXXVII.

"Evréyvwc: mdvu airi@vrat Td dvoua Kai pact TexviKac deiv Aéretv, GAA Kai Avsiav, eipHKéTa evTeyvdc, mapat-

* tobvTat.

The adjective is of good authority in this sense, Plato, Legg. 10. 903 C, and there is no reason for finding fault with the adverb.

CCCXXVIIL.

» ‘ a > 1 ‘ ‘ >? © > , 2 Ararov: Kai todro et mév THy meToyHy elyev 6 ardrac év Aérw dv tivt fiv, Aextéov odv drare, Kal rap A peToyH > ’ < » > , Grara@v, @c dvede, dvedav.

See supra p. 215 ff.

CCCXXIX.

*AvaiseHTevouat, TO Mev Gvoua avaiseHToc doKtudrTepov, TO dé pHua ovKEeTL, Aére OUV, OVK aicPdvopat.

The equivalent proposed by Phrynichus would not mean the same thing as dvaioOynredoua, although dvalcOnrds els would. There is nothing outlandish in the rejected word, it only does not occur. Demosthenes, however, employed dvaicOnreiv in 302. 3, ememelopny 8 tmep euavrod, ruxov pev avaicOnrér, byws 8 erenelopnv.

458 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

CCCXXX.

AdQekacToTHC, GAAOKOTOV. TO MeV OUV aveeKaoTOC KdA- Atotov Gvoua, TO S€ Tapa ToOOTO TeTIOLHUEVOY aLOEKaGTOTHC KiBOHAOV. :

The first instance, even of the adjective, is after the Attic period ; Arist. Eth. Nic. 4. 7. 4, where av0éxaoros is said to be the mean between dAa(év and etpwy. There is no ex- ample of the substantive. The formation even of the adjective is peculiar. A similar compound might have been formed if the Sophoclean dvr’ émiorjpn had ever coalesced—

iva tov dvipa mavr’ émiothyns Tr€éwv. Ant. 721.

rovrwr exw yap mdvr’ emoripny eyd. Trach. 338.

CCCXXXI.

Tov maida tov a&koAoveodvtTa wer adtod. Avuoiac év TH kat Avtokpdtouc oft TH ouvTdéet ypritat éxpfiv b¢ obtwe > a ‘ > a > nn ' na A ’ J eiteiv, Tov GkoAoveot vTa adT. Ti dv ovv main Tic Guap- teiv tov Avoiavy ¥ vobetetv Katvod oyriuatoc ypricw; GAN > ‘ ‘ 3 UJ , i .3 td 4 > érrei EevikH A otvOectc, MdvTH TapaiTHTéa, PHTéov S€ aKo-

Aovbeiv adTd.

The apparatus criticus will show on how slight authority this article is assigned to Phrynichus. At all events it is erroneous. However remarkable and inexplicable the con-

struction with perd must appear to any one who has once ©

learned to appreciate the unequalled precision of Attic modes: of expression, certainly its existence cannot be challenged. Plato, Lach. 187 E, wera rod aarpds dxoAov- 6év: Menex. 249 D, dxodrovde: per euod: Isocr. 299 C, rots

a! Spy a ee

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 459

pev odpace per’ exelywy dxodovdeiv jvayKd(ovro, tais 8& «b- volais pel? Hav foav: 168 C, ofs érdrav tis d13G TAclw plo- Oov, per’ exelvov ed’ tas axodovdjcovew: 91. E, amavras Tods mpdrepov ped adtGy emt rovs GAdovs axodovdodvras: Lys. 193. 18, ra vn ra per’ adrod dxodovdjcavra: Xenophon has ody, An. 7. 5. 3, Tots otparnyots dwpod of ody euol 7- cokovOnoav. The speech of Lysias referred to in the article has not come down to us, but the same words are cited by Antiatticista, p. 82. 21.

In the Suvay. AcE. xpno. 308. 3 there is an excellent note on this point: ’AxoAovdeiv per’ adtod: otrw ovvtdccovew of *Arrixol dvti Tod dxoAovbeiv airG. Kal yap Avolas otrw ké- xpnrar kal TlAdrwv? adda cal ’Apioropdyns év TlAotr@ Enov, onal, per’ euod, marddpiov’ Kal Mévavdpos—

vikn pe” pov edperis Emour del: kav TH [lapaxaradyxn—

; cvvaxorovde: ie? por, gyoly. CCCX XXII.

Biwtikdv: dHdric A AgELc. Aére ov ypHotmov év TH Blo

‘Biorixds primum offenditur apud Aristot. H. A. 10. 16, hoc est in ea parte libri, quae plurima continet affectata et inusitate posita, non illa vulgari significatione, sed pro Bioyy- xavos s. edBloros; tum saepissime apud Philonem, Dio- dorum, Polybium, et Plutarchum. Vulgatissimum est xpetat Piwrixal, Philo de V. M. 3. 677 A; Diod. 2. 29, Artemid. 1. 31, quas elegantius Strabo, 4. 14. 35, tds Tod Blov xpelas dixit.’ Lobeck.

CCCX XXIII.

Bovvoc’ 6eveia A pavei tric Attic’ kai rap abtdc 6

460 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

XpHoduevoc TH dvouaTi, ouveic Eévac KeypHuévoc, oHGi- veTat Wc doapac biadrerouevoc. elmdvtoc rep tivoc— Bouvoy émi TavTH KaTOAGBaV ave Tid. 6 mpoodtadrerduevoc, od cuveic tO Eévov tod dvdpmaToc, pHol— tic €60° 6 Bouvéc; fva capac cov pavedve. év b€ TH Zupakoucia TotHoer Kab@piAHTaL. GAN ob TIPOs- ierat 6 *A@Hvaioc try GAAodaTHy didAeEw. Srrov rap €vertiwiktoc Kal dypavtoc BovAeTat pévetv tHe GAAHC “EAAG- doc, AioAgwv Aérw Kai A@ptéwy Kai *lavev, TobT@v uev Kal ourrev@v OvTwv, GYOAK fF dv GddKimov pLEOBapBapov mpoG~ etTo aviv: 6 8 otv KeypHuévoc TH Bovvdc dvéuaTt Pirti= Mav éotiv, eic TAV TAc véac Kawdiac.

It is strange that this article, one of the most carefully written of the whole book, is not found at all in the manuscripts, in the edition of Callierges, or in Phavorinus. A fact like this proves the impossibility of settling the text of Phrynichus with even approximate accuracy.

Eustathius, on Il. 11. 710, has preserved a valuable tes- timony: Atdros Arovtavos dyer Ste Diyuwov emioxomret 7d évopa as BdpBapov. The additional words, repo. 5é, bre Bovviv év Né0q &s obynbes riOnow, GAdore BF os Eevixdv emt- oxéntet, may possibly rest upon a misunderstanding of the passage referred to by Phrynichus, although in that case there should be another dAAore before os odvnbes. Herodotus, in 4. 199, states that a portion of the territory of Cyrene

went by the name of fovvol, and they say that the term is still used in that district. The name of the favoured re-—

gion, which produced the ocfdgiov and éxds Kupnvaixds, would naturally become known at an early date in the wealthy commercial city of Syracuse, and Bovvds may have been naturalised there sooner than in other places, espe- cially as the people of Cyrene were, like the Syracusans,

‘es =) oo

ee ee oP ee ey) ey

THE NEW PHRYNICAUS. 461

of Dorian race. Its presence in the Common dialect may, however, be most easily accounted for by the proximity of Alexandria to Cyrene.

The word must have been at least intelligible to the Athenians or Aeschylus would not have ventured to em- ploy Podvs as an adjective in Supp. 117, 129. 176. He had himself become familiarised with the noun in his Sicilian sojourn.

CCCXXXIV.

Movévaevor oft tivéc Td MoAUvovTa TapdtTeww Aéroust.

,om i > / 2 ‘ KGL E€OTL ducxepec. QTTOpptTTTE OUV KAI TovTO.

There is a povOvAedw or dvOvAedw in Greek, but it is not used in this sense. The edition of Nufiez is the only authority for this article, and perhaps it has not preserved the original hand. Probably cdrrew should replace rapdr- TEL.

Athenaeus, 2. 49 F, quotes from Alexis—

omdqv dnrdv peuovOodevpévor, but évdvAedw is much more common.

vépkny pev odv, Ss hacw, dvOvdrevpévnv

énray 8dnv. Alexis, ap. Ath. 7, 314 D,

GXAG Tas pev TevOldas Ta Trepty? adtrdv ovvreuav oreartiov puxpov tapapiéas, mepitdcas Hdvopacw AemToiot xAwpois, ovOvAEvCA. ; Id. ap. id. 326 D. dorelov EpO} Tevdis dvOvdrcvpévn. Sotades, ap. Ath. 7. 293 Bi

pera tadra yaotploy tis @vOvdevpévov. Athenio, ap. Ath. 14. 661 B,

462 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

mapatlOn. ddooxeph dpyv és pécoy obpnruxtoy, avOvdevpevov. Diphilus, ap. Ath. 383 F. maxds @vOvAevpévos otéatt Sixehik@. Id. ap. Plut. Vit. Nic. 1. Perhaps, even in the first passage, Dobree was right in restoring dvOvAcevpéevov—

édpaxas 70n TéTOT eoKevacpevov vvotpov 7} omdqv dnrov dvOvdevpévov.

If connected at all with év6os, the Homeric synonym of xémpos, it is certainly not formed directly from it (see p. 128). The meaning is evidently ‘¢o stuff’ Is Phrynichus (if it was he who wrote the article) finding fault with some signification different from this, or is 7d woddvoyra rapdarrew corrupt, and the initial mu alone reprehended ?

CCCXXXV.

Boagitov SAirot Tivee A€pouct TAV *ATTIK@y, GAAG TOUTOU

dokiudTepov TO BdAtTOv dvev Tod SeuTEpou B.

The tribrach is the only form known in Attic poetry—

éy mao Bodrlros* efra veri rod d€er; Ar. Ach. 1026,

kaywy Bre dh *yvwy Trois Bodlrows Hrrnuévos. Eq. 658.

vh tov TlocedG, Kal Bodtrwoy Oarepov. Ran. 295.

any more than in the line of Cratinus— odk GAAG BdAtTA xAwpA KeoTeTHY TaTEiv*

into which the Schol. on Ar. Lys. 575 introduces BdABira.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 463

~COOMER EVE

Forruouoc kai rorrizew: taita ddokiua peév ovK éotiv, *lakd 8€. Paxvaidnv rap oida KeypHuévov abt tov Mudsi- tov, dvdpa Tadatdv opddpa—

kal Téde Pwxvaidéw" ypri Tot Tov ératpov éraipe ppovtizety doo av meptrorrizwot moAirat. GAA TobTO pév “lwo dpelcew, Hueic S€ Tovepuopov Kai Tovepbzetv Aér@pev, ti vd Aia obv TH 0, Toveopucpdyv Kai TovOopveelv.

The rejected words are found chiefly in the Septuagint and the New Testament: John 7. 12; Luke, Acts 6. 1; 1 Peter 4.10; Matt. 22. 11, etc. Antiatticista, however, quotes the substantive from the New Comedy, p. 87, Toyyvopos dvtl rod rovOopvopod ’Avagavdplins Nnpei.

CCCXXXVII.

Abvi dv ev tobro UmotaKtiKov A, édv Sbvauar, édv duvH, dpedc Aérerar éav Sé OpiotiKac 10H Tic, SbvH n na > © na na ' ‘ ‘ La Ud Toto mpaEat, ody bridc dv TiWein yp rap A€érew dbva-

6a. TOOTO MpaEat.

It is impossible that dévaca: should ever contract to dvvp, although é¢vq would be a natural and legitimate form. The latter, however, is not mentioned by Phrynichus, who here contents himself with giving the more frequent dvvaca. There is, however, no question that dvvaca. and dvva were both in use in Attic Greek, just as éaloraca: and éniora, éxloraco and énlorw, avicraco and dvictw, jrictaco and imlorm were employed indifferently. It is a singular fact that if alpha was the former of the two vowels between

464 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

which a sigma came, the rule by which such an intervocal sigma was dropped and contraction took place at once ceased to be absolute. Thus, BiBdow and BiB6, Bidoopwar and fidpa, coddoouat and xodGyat were equally pure Attic, although forms like dmodéom for amodG, dudcopuat for dpodpar were quite unknown. This fact explains the existence of two sets of forms for the second person singular of the present and imperfect indicative, and the present imperative of de- ponent verbs, and middle or passive voices in -aya. This class of verbs is small, being made up in the Attic dialect of dvvaya, éurimrapar, eualapapat, kpéuayar, the aoristic émpid- pny, erlorapa, and the simple foraua: with its compounds, for neither pdpvaya: nor oxidvayar was in use among Athen- ians. The testimony of verse with regard to these words is as follows :—

Avvaca, Ar. Ach. 291 (chor.), Nub. 811 (chor.), Plut. 574; Soph. Aj. 1164 (chor.).

dvva, Soph. Phil. 849 (chor.).

ndvve, Philippides, ap. Ath. 15. 700 E.

’Enloracar, Ar. Eq. 689 (chor.); Aesch. P. V. 374, 982, Supp. 917; Soph. El. 629, Trach. 484, Ant. 402; Eur. Med. 400, 406, 537, Alc. 62, H. F. 346; Alexis, ap. Ath. 7. 322 D, id. ap. Ath. 9. 386 A.

éxlora, Aesch. Eum. 86, 581. éxloraco, Aesch. P. V. 840, 967; Soph. O. R. 848, Ant.

“305, Aj. 979, £080, 1370, 1379, O. C. 1584; Eur. Andr. 431, Ion 650.

éxlorw, Soph. Phil. 419, 567, 1240, 1325, O. R. 658, Trach. 182, 616, 1035.

qnloraco, El. 394, Aj. 1134.

qalorm, Eur. H. F. 344.

torw, Ar. Eccl. 737; Soph. Phil. 893, Aj. 775; Cratinus, Fr. Com. 2. 151.

dvloraco, Ar. Vesp. 286 (chor.), 998, Thesm. 236, 643, Lys. 929; Eur. Hec. 499.

aha

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 465

dviotw, Aesch. Eum. 133, 141. émplw, Ar. Vesp. 1431; Fr. Com. 2. 1030 (12). mpiw, Ar. Ach. 34. 35; Hegemon, ap. Ath. 3. 108 C,

These instances are all undisputed, but there is some question about the form of dvvaya to be read in one pas- sage of Aeschylus, two of Sophocles, and two of Euripides. In Aesch. Cho. 374 the Medicean manuscript exhibits the unintelligible line—

pelCova pavel? 6 dvvaoa ydp, which Hermann corrected to—

pelCova hovels’ dtivaca yap’ others prefer ddvva ydp.

As to Soph. O. R. 696, dvvai, the reading of the Lauren- tian, is nothing more nor less than dvva, and the line should be printed—

tavov 8 evmowmos, ei dbva, yevod.

The other three lines prove that the caution of Phrynichus, . presupposing as it does that in his time dvvn was regarded as an indicative second person singular, was not uncalled for— otrw Kar’ juap ov dvvq podciy Tore;

Soph. Phil. 798. dpds 8 odéy Huds €b, Kaxds Scov diva; Eur. Hee. 253. ov & ob A€yeis ye, SpGs dé pw’ els Boov dtva. Andr. 239. The manuscripts have only dvvy to offer.

The case of éxpidyny is difficult, as there is no instance of éxplaco or mplaco in Attic verse, as the imperative in Ar. Ach. 870 comes from the lips of a Boeotian—

GAN ef re Botrher aplaco ray eyd pépw, but kpéuapot, eualrpayo, and éurlmAauar are all in like straits, and the futures of many verbs are equally uncertain.

The above facts, however, warrant us in asserting that Hh

WY

466 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

the uncontracted forms of these three inflexions were far more numerous than the contracted. In verse indeed they are in the ratio of three to two, and if manuscripts are to be trusted they are still more numerous in prose.

The case is parallel to that of syncopated perfects active like dedermvyKévat, and dedermvdvar, reOveds and TeOvynkds, and of adjectives comparative like wAcloves and mActovs, pwelCova and pel(. Neither the contracted nor the full form would have been resented by an Athenian audience, but usage made prominent sometimes the one, sometimes the other, in a way often difficult to determine. For us it is sufficient to ascertain the general rule, and to disregard the niceties of detail as facts which no ingenuity can with certainty extort from a dead language, so delicately organized as Attic was, and so mutilated as it has been by time and unholy hands. :

In Homer three sets of forms occur, full like toraca, intermediate like forao, and contracted like éxpéyo.

CCCX XXVIII.

“Qprace kai 6pk@tHe 8 era obtw Kpativéc pxot.

MGAAov Sé dic TOG w Are H did TOC 1, OpKicev.

As a statement of usage this is meritorious, but dpxi¢e was naturally good Attic, even. if more rare than dpx6. The study of Greek would become absurd if prosecuted in such a slavish manner, The point at which every true scholar

‘must aim is to be able to identify himself with the Athe-

nians of the best age, and acquire, as far as may be, the same fine sense of language which they possessed. .

Demosthenes employs both words in one passage, 430. ai ff. od Td pev Whdioua tots dpxovtas dpxody rovs év Tats moeow, obror dé, ods Pidurmos aibrois mpooemeuyre, TovTOUS &pxioav ; It is of course open to anyone to say that dpxicay

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 467

is a corruption of dpxwcay, the aorist being selected for remark by Phrynichus as the most easily altered tense ; but there is no doubt about Dem. 235 fin. ok dv apxlCouev abrév, even if dpxtoa: médw adrév in 678. 5 is, like dpxicay, corrupt.

CCCXX XIX.

Etxepnarety GHdéc Tdvu. HdtoTa 8 av eltroic edrropetv

KEpUaTov.

On the other hand, Photius cites it from Eubulus: Ed- kepuareiy' EvBovdds tov Kéxpntat TO dvdpart.

CCCXL.

*Eviauoiaiov kai To0e .dmotdv €ott TH Atovusiaioy, Kipdx-

Aov. Aére ovV TEVTEGUAAGBwe éviatciov, @c Atovuctov.

In late writers the extended form occurs with some frequency, but to Attic it is of course unknown.

CCCXLI.

*EEGAAGEGI, TO Tépyor Kai mMaparareiv eic edppoctvHy, @vdatTovevov Xp obTw Aé€retv’ ov rap ypavrat of SdKiuor, Pidtmmiduc d€ Kai Mévavdpoc abt ypa@vrau.

There is a good note on this use of éfaAdrrw in Antiatt. Bekk. 96. 1: "Egadddfau @s ’Adckavipeis dvtl tod répwar Mévavdpos— dvOpwrov eEarrd€£oev 1° *EgadAdypara’ *Avagavdptins Oncei—

mrapbévo. malfover mpos éddpp’ e€adAdypara.

1 Cp, Suidas—EfadAdgar’ dvti rod répar. Meévaydpos— dyOpamov eéfadrradgopev wakdy tt ao dwcovTa, Hha2

468 ~ THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

Heraclitus, the late writer Ilep) daforwy, seems also to have used the verb in this sense, p. 70, otre ddpors eEaddAayfvar, and Parthenius the substantive, 24. 1, rodroy é£adAdypact moAXols braydpevos.

CCCXLII.

’Eveyupiuaia obdeic TaOv doKiuay eiTev (ei dé TOV FLeAH- ta > ‘ c ’ > , ’ uévarv, ot ppovtic ‘Immokaeidu), éveyupa dé.

As in Article 169, Phrynichus uses the proverb od ¢pov- tis ‘“ImmoxAefén to sum up his scholarly disregard of any accidental exception to a general rule, but Thomas ludicrously misconstrues his meaning (p. 309), 7d 5% évexupi- patov A€yew, &s ‘ImmoxAeldns, dddxior. It is but one proof out of many that, as an independent authority, Thomas is of little value. t ;

CCCXLITI.

"ExAelyac GdéKiuov, GAAG TO EKALTIOV.

This question has already been discussed on p. 217.

CCCXLIV.

XpHotdc Td HOH TAHOUVTIKHc MUAGTTOV. oi rap SdKimor

€ nA ‘ A ‘ ? EVLKWMC PAGL YPHGTOC TO H@0C.

By the side of this general rule may be set the other, that

when the adjective is in the plural, that is, when such and such _

a quality is predicated of more than one person, the plural of 700s is regularly used, as Isocr. 147 fin. rods yap woAAods Tois 7Oecw amoBalvew duolovs dvdyxn, év ofs ay Exacrou mat- devdGow : Plato, Rep. 7. 535 B, yevvatous re cab BAoovpods ra 70n- These rules apply, of course, only to 7@0s in the sense

a

a

es

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 469

of character, natural disposition, Latin indoles. Of 76n in the sense of manners, Latin mores, the use is unfettered.

In the case of tpézos no such distinction is made, Attic writers employing not only xpyords rdv tpdmov and xpnortol tods tpdmovs, but also xpyords tods tpdrovs and xpnorol rv TpoTrov.

CCCXLYV.

Ovpedc: tobe “Ounpoc emi Aigou TidHow dvTi BUpac Trv

, Dy € \ Cee \ Cl > ’ , Xpelav trapéyovroc, of S€ MoAAOi avTi tric domidoc TLWEAoLV, ovdévoc Tav doKinwy Kal d&pyaiwy ypHoapévov. ypH ovv

Gottida Aéretv.

Od. g. 240, of the door-stone of the Cyclops’ cave—

abrap emer’ ér€Onxe Ovpedy péyav thyoo’ delpas,

6Bpipor. So 313, 340. Dionysius, Arch. Rom. 4. 16, translates clypeus by domis, scutum by Ovpeds, and Polybius uses the latter word of the national shield of the Romans in 6. 23. 2; Io. 13. 2, but also of the Gauls in 2. 30. 3; cp. Athen. 6. 273 F, of “Pwpaio. mapa SavvirGv eyadov- Ovpeod xphoww, tapa d5& "IBjpwv yaicwv. There is no instance of the meaning of shield before Polybius, as in Callixenus, ap. Ath. 5. 196 F, the signification of the word is uncertain.

CCCXLVI.

Atovuseiov’ drraisevtov obtw A€érewv, dS€0v Bpaytvety THv Gt GUAAGBriv’ ot rap éKTeivovtec mapa THY Tav *ArTiKdv didAektov Aépouct. ypH obv *Aptstopdver d&KoAoUdodvTac

, 2 ‘ 5 ul '

Aérewv, év rap tH FHpa pHoi— A. tic dv ppdoete, m0 “ott TO Atovuctov ;

B. émov Ta popuoduKeia TIpooKpendvvuTat.

The edition of Nufiez is the only authority for this article,

470 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

and I have not scrupled to correct the unmeaning Atovtcvoy to Avovveciov. Suidas gives the general canon: ’A@jvatoy * drt “AmoAAd voy Bpaxéws, 7d tepdv. Tod *AmdAAwvOS. obTw Kal mapa Oovkvdidy dvayyworéov' kal Toceddviov rd rod Toce- ddvos, ds ’AOHvarov, Td ris "AOnvas, kal Atovicrov, kal Anyr- Tp.ov, kal mdvra Ta ToLadTa duwvipws Tois avdpwvupiKois’ TO bE Ilocewdavetoy dfAov bt. Awpréwy éoriv.

CCCXLVII.

Ody oiov oprizomat, KiBdHAOV éoydTwc. UdALoTAa GuapTa- vetat év TH Aedar, oby otov Kai pH olov Aerévtwv, Strep ov pdvoy TH GdoKimw GTdBAHTOV GAAG Kal TH Hy@ GHdéEc,

A€retwv S€ ypH, od dHTTOU, WH SHTTOV.

Nufiez, quoted apparently with approbation by Lobeck, errs in considering the phrase év rH jjpedam7 to refer to the native country of Phrynichus, Bithynia, or, in larger sense, Asia. Asin Herodian, 1. 11, it signifies the Roman Empire. There seems to be no example of this use of ody ofov in Greek literature. Even the Antiatticist, who evidently wrote with a copy of Phrynichus before him (if this article is by Phrynichus), does not venture directly to contradict him here, but suggests another equivalent for the rejected ex-

. pression : Odx ofov dpi Copa (lege épylouar), obx ofor aAloKe (sic) kal Td Spora, ov 5& TOAD améxw Tod dpiCecOar (lege dpyierOax).

CCCXLVIII.

Oikiac decmdbTHc AeKTéov, ody wc “AdcEtc, oiKOdeoTIOTHC.

Pollux, who is by no means a purist, agrees with Phry- nichus, 10. 21, GAA& piv To Kowdtarov Tout Kal paAdov Te-

1 i, e, od« "AOnvaior.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 471

OpvdAAnpévor tov oikoderndTny, Kal Thy olkodéoToWWay odK aTo0- déxouar pev Tovvopa. ws be exes eld€var pnvdm co. ote Kal Taira dudw ebpov év Ocavods ris TIvOaydpov yuvarkds emioroAjj tpos Tiysapérav ypadeton. 6 8 olkodeamdrns Eort kat’ Adeidos év Taparrivois.

CCCXLIX.

“Ovéntrotoby uH Aére, GAAG SoKip@c dvTtvocy.

Lobeck, however, cites from Demosthenes a form of words comparable with that reprehended here, ro1o0. 15, TH b€ TovTwy pytpt TlAayydn enAnolatev bvtwa syr07r ody Tpdmov. ob yap éudv todro déyew éorl, and in Aeschines, 23. 29, dcdnrorobr itself is exhibited by one manuscript, A«eyérw 6€ rapehOGv 6 codds Bdrados tnép adrod, wv elddpev ri Tor’ épet* “ dvdpes dixaoral, uocOdoard pe éraipeiy adits dpyvuplov doricinroroty”’ (oddey yap diapeper obrws elpficOa). For such exceptions Phrynichus would have had his favourite _ answer—od ¢povtis “Immoxdeldn, as he would have treated with even more contempt those from late writers.

CCCL.

TIpdcparov’ kai mepi tovTou moAAHV diaTpiBHv érrotHod- HV ETtokoTToUpevoc ei pdvov AéreTaL TPdoparoc veKpdc Kai 4 mpd 0 Gruc. “Ebpiskero d& ZopoKaric év TAA MH Tpdoarov. Mpdrua. e€vp pokAfic év TH’ Av-

dpouéda tieic of ro— undév popeisbe Mpos@drtouc émistoAdc.

In the line of Sophocles I have preferred oBeicde, the reading of Callierges, to the infinitive poBcic0a. of Nufiez. The meaning, of which it took Phrynichus so long to discover a solitary instance, is after all not uncommon even in prose, as Dem. 551. 13, Ta ddixijpara €wra ra Trodrwv ds

472 THE.NEW PHRYNICHUS.

tas Kal wWoxpda adixvetrar, tév 8 dAdAwv tov Exacros ... mpdooparos kpiverar: Lysias, 151. 5, éru tijs épyfs ovons mpoo- garov. Perhaps in both these passages, and certainly in the former, the metaphor is still crisp. Alexis applies the word to fish—

ob deuvdv éott, mpoopdrovs pev dv rbyxn

TWAGY Tis LyOds KTE.; Ap. Ath. 6. 225 F.

COCTA-

4 3

Tita éri vexpod rreéaouv ot viv, ot S€ apyator ody

~ ”

a > ‘ ’ col OUTOC, GAAA TTOUATA VEKPWV H OLKY.

In Attic literature 7réa, with the signification of ‘ carcase,’ seems to be confined to poetry, and in that of ‘ruins, does not happen to occur at all. The rule of Phrynichus is

absolute— ‘Edévyns arép lov ev aipari. ' Eur. Or. 1196.

’EreoxAéous mrdpa. Phoeniss. 1697.

TTépata vexpOv TpLccGr. Heracl. 1490.

In Aesch. Supp. 662—

pye emixwplois vu

mrépacw aipartoa méd0v yas, the lost word may be a genitive dependent upon mrépacw, and if it is a nominative, like épis or ordows, and the subject of aiuarioa, there is still no necessity to render mrépa, ‘carcase, but it may be translated ‘downfall,’ the plural being used as of many. In any case, a single exception in a lyrical passage is of little moment.

According to. Harpocration, the expression aréyara

édaév occurred in Lysias, but the lexicographer leaves the meaning doubtful: Mrdépara édady' Avolas ev TO xara

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 473

Nixfdov' A€you dy ijrou tov Kaprov Tov amomeTTMKdTa TGV puTdy i) adta Ta dévdpa Kara Tiva TéXNY TeTTMKOTA.

In late Greek aradya is frequently met with in the sense of ‘dead body,’ as Plut. Alexandr. ch. 33, of re rpoxot tév dppdtav diedavvorto, cvvelxovto, TTGpacww TEepuppevot TocoUTOLS, ot re trot xaradapBavdpevor Kat amoxpumTopevor TO TAHOE tév vexpov. In that of ‘ruins’ it is less frequent, but still found—Polyb. 16. 31. 8; Aristid. 1. 546, etc.

ECELII

Tlepistacic dvti roC cuupopd TiWéaciv of cTwIKO! @LAd- sopol, oi 8 apyaiot mepiotaciv Aérouct THv did Tiva Tdpa~ XOv Tapousiav mAHGouc, Kai A Tparw@dia Kai A Kapdia, padotc & dv THAeKAeiOou Aéfovtoc d&de—

tic fide KpaurH Kai dduev Tepictasic ;

This line of Teleclides is the only passage of Attic Greek ‘preserved in which meploracis has the meaning commended by Phrynichus, in fact the only passage in which the word occurs, although it is extraordinarily common in late Greek. The meaning, however, is natural and forcible, and is sup- ported by certain uses of the corresponding verbal adjective, Isocr. 135 E, dvtl pev rod rysioOar xarappornOnodpevos, dvti 8 rod weploraros tnd mdvtwy bv dperny civar meplBrenTos ind tTOv aitdy ent Kakla yevnoduevos: id. 288, rats Oav- patoroilas tais ovdey pev wpedrovoas, brd be Tdv dvonTwY MEploTaros ‘yiyVvopevois.

CCELITE

TlapeupoAn dewvdc Makedovikov’ kaitot évAv TH oTpato-

TédM YpHobat, TAEioTa Kai SoKiua dyTt.

‘

474 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

CCCLIV,

Lanpdv ot MOAAO! dvti Tob aicypdv, Oéwv puoiv 6 rpape yatikdc ebpHkévat Tapa Pepexpdret, AHpdv, Grravta rap a péper paptipia émi Tod TraAatod . Kal GeoHTOTOC ebpHTat

Keipeva.

‘Vitii a Phrynicho reprehensi exemplum apertissimum est in Compar. Philist. et Menand. p. 363—

canpas yuvaixas 6 TpdTos ebpdppovs Tovet mod ye diaheper ceuvdrns edpopdlas. Lobeck.

CCCLV.

Taopata emi TOv dviov dvdparddov, OlovV GOUaATA TA- ’

AeiTaL Ov ypayvTat ot &pyatot.

Pollux will show how this statement has to be taken, 3. 48, odpara 8 ands odk dv elrous, GAAG dota oduara. Thus limited the rule holds true of Attic, Dem. 480, 10, tpirxfva 8 alypddwra odpara debp’ tyaye: Aeschin. 14. 18, ofros 3’ ef ph dno. wenpaxévat, TA oSpara Ty oikeTOv eupavi, TapacxéoOo. It should be compared with that in article 351.

The late use may be exemplified by Polyb. 3. 17. 10,

kbpios yevopevos xpnpdtwr ToMAGr Kal coudrwv Kal KaTacKevns.

CUCLY.A.

Td mpdcmna Tapiv dupdtepa’ oi dui rdc dikac pritopec ° ld ' 2 s ‘ ‘ Se fal OUT® AEFOUGL TIAPATTALOVTEC. GAAG GL kKABAPOC Kat Apyatoc ey cf ‘ , ! 4 ’ N FY \ ‘ @V PHT@P KGL HOVOC META F EKELVOUC, TOUC AUP TOV Anyo-

ft / 2 , > a ee ee \ t OOEVHY Aero, ETTAaVGrwY eElc TO APyalov GyAUa Kat OdKIMOV

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 475

‘ ’ > ; ’ > ‘ ‘ > , THY pPHTOpiKtiv, 08 pdvoy adtde bvoxepaivwv odderrmmote éypHow TH dvéuatt, GAAG Kai Tobe GAAOUC éK@AUGAC ypH- cacbal, €EEAAHVizeov Kal GTTLKIZ@v TO BactAtKdv SiKaoTHptov ‘ , , > , > n A ' Kai diddoKaAoc KaOLGTaMEVOC OV NOVOV avTaV TaV AOP@v, olov ypH Aéretv, oxtiuatoc Kal BAéupatoc Kal pwvAc kal otdcewc. Toirapody ce THv perist@v dEwoavtec oi “Pa- maiwy Bastreic, dvédecav ta “EAANvav Gravta mpdrpata dtolkeiv, Taptdpucdpuevot PUAAKA EaUTOIC, AOrw MEV ETTLGTOAEa > ’ ol ‘ A c ’ ~ ’ > s ATIOMHVAVTEC, Ep dé Guveprov EAOMEVOL THC BaotAELaC, GAG a \ ’ ~ TOUTA MEV KAL QUOC. Td d€ mpdcwra, dc MpdKeitat, obK Epotuev, GAAG KaOG-

TIEp Ol TG@Aatol, Olov, KaAdV Exet TIPdGaTrov,

This article, though unquestionably genuine, has little extrinsic authority.

‘Hance vitiosam loquendi consuetudinem quodammodo ptaeparaverunt poeticae circumlocutiones. ’Aperas tpdcwropr, Eur. I. A. 1090, jovxlas mpdcwmov, Ar. Av. 1322, dehinc pro homine ipso, quatenus aliquam personam sustinet Aristot. Rhet. 2. 517, et Epicur. Stob. Ecl. 1. 218, et innumeris Polybii, Dionysii, aliorumque locis. éketva ra mpdcwna, zi, Longin. 14. 56. Ondvkdv mpédcwrov, Artem. 2. 36, et saepissime apud jurisconsultos Graecos.’ Lobeck.

CCCLVII.

ZrpHvidv. ToUTa éyprioavTo ol Thc véac Kapwdiac MotHTal,

g ob8 dy paveic tic ypricatto, Tapdv Aéretv Tpu@av.

The verb is first met with in the middle Comedy—

améXavoa TOAAGY Kal KadGv edecpdrwv miubv Te TMpoTdces Tpeis lows 7) TéTTapas éotpnviov mwas, KataBeBpwxos oiria

lows ehepdvrwy rerrdpwv. Antiphanes, ap. Ath, 3. 127 D.

476 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

XopracOnoopat.

vy Tov Atdvucor, dvdpes, 7j5n oTpNnvid. - Sophilus, ap. Ath. 3. 100 A. In neither of these passages is it a synonym of tpudé, but expresses the fighting-cock feeling of a man who has just risen from a hearty meal. =rpyv6 is from the same root as the Latin ‘strenuus ;’ and if the statement of Pollux may be trusted (2.112), that Callias used the compound orpynvdpavos, ‘loud-voiced,’ the root was known in Classical Greek at an early date.

CCCLVIII.

Zvarpoc od pHtéov- cbv Grptov ot apyaiot A€rouot.

Athenaeus (9. 401) gives the history of cvaypos. Sophocles

used it in the legitimate sense of ‘ boar-hunter ’—

ov 3, & ovaype, TInAwwrixdy tpédos but Antiphanes is the first writer cited as attaching to it the signification ‘wild boar’—

AaBov eravdgw ovaypov els rHv oixlay

Ths vuKxtos avrijs, Kal A€ovra, Kal AdKov. In Sicily it went by the name of dcxédwpos, and that was one of the Sicilian words which appeared in the works of 7 Aeschylus after his Sicilian sojourn: Atoyvdos yoty év Popklor, maperkaCwy Tov [lepoéa TO dyplw Todt ovl, dnotv—

giv & és dvtpov doxédwpos as.

Similar compounds, as absurd as ovaypos for cis dyptos, are instanced by Lobeck, atyaypos, Bdaypos, tmraypos, évaypostS on my and others a little more natural, dypidxoupos, dypidpriOes, and dypioxnvapia.

CCCLIX.

LZurrv@povAicat ob ypH Aéretv GAAG ourrvavat.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 477

‘Opoyrapoveiy is the only verb from an adjective in -yvéyov which has any authority: Thuc. 2. 97; Dem. 281. 21. Xenophon, as the first writer in the Common dialect, em- ployed airoyvwpoveiy, Hell. 7. 3. 6, and d:xoyvwpovetv, Mem. 2.6. 21,and might have employed peyadoyvmpoveiy, dp0oyrvw- poveiy, or any other such form. It is another proof of the spuriousness of the speech Kara ’Apioroyetrovos that ¢uoto- yvopoveiy occurs in its pages, Dem. 799. 21, kal xar’ dvdpa eis Exactoy tov mapidvta Bdreovtat, Kal hvovoyvwpovycovor

Tovs amownpioapevovs.

€CCLX.

Ltrouetpeicoat pH Aére. Ava 8 Epeic citov petpeiocsat.

In Attic Greek ovrouerpetv could bear only one meaning, viz. ‘to hold the office of ovrouérpys. Such a use as is seen in Polyb. 6. 39. 13 was quite impossible, o:rowerpodvra & ob pev meCot, tupGv ’AtriKod pedluvov dv0 pépn pddtoTa Tas.

CCCLXI.

ZrHObviov Spvidiov A€rouai tivec oty bridc, el rap ypH bToKopiotik@c A€éretv, Aére oTHOLdLOV" el 0 ovK éotw Or0- KOPLOTIKOV, TIdGEV EloeK@uace Kai ToUTO TO KaKOv TH Tv

“EAAHvaov povii;

Phrynichus, if the article is his, is no doubt right, but ornOid.ov does not happen to occur in Greek literature, whereas ornOvviov does—

movlyew Te TaXéwv apvlwv ornOdvia. Eubulus?, ap. Ath. 2. 65 C. Diminutives in -dvioy are a late formation. It is notorious that, as Greek aged, many words were altogether replaced by diminutives formed from them in more or less legitimate

ways. 1 Also attributed to Ephippus in Ath. 9. 370 C.

478 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

CCCLXII.

“Yrépdpuivc érrei brépoopoc kai bmépdpiwvc GEtovot tivec Aéretv. AerovTov 8 ef Kai of dpyator Kal oi ddKmor

A€rousty, ei O€ WH, EOVT@Y yaipety TO UMEpdpmuc,

There is no reason why one should not use trépdpiyvs. If Greek were to be studied on the principle which under- lies this article, it would be impossible to learn it, and the attempt to acquire any knowledge of the language would bring little profit to the student. The edition of Nufiez is almost the only authority for the remark.

CCCLXIII.

uradetcat kal puradevetivar emiokéyewc TMoAAHc deirat, ei érxpttéov tobvona totic doKimorc. ei Toivuy ebpotc, Be-

BALWGELC TO GUMPLoBHTOULEVOV.

The verb is used not only by Xenophon, but also by more trustworthy writers: Xen. Hell. 2. 3. 42, 2. 4. 14, 5. 4.19; Isocr. 179 B, Xlwv 8& rods ev mpdrovs TY ToALTeY epuyddevoav: Dem. 1018. 10, els ”Apevov méyov pe mpoceKa- Aécaro, ds duyadedowy ek Tijs TéAews: Aristophon, ap. Ath, 13. 563 B—

dedp airov epvyddevoay os pas Karo.

It does no credit to the styles in which it occurs, being a gross violation of the law of parsimony, but its existence in Attic is beyond question, This article is exhibited only by Nuiiez. '

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.. —«-479

CCCLXIV.

Ppovipevecdar uh A€re, Ppoveiv dé ta dvTa.

Callierges confuses this article with 367, neither 365 nor 366 appearing in his alphabetical arrangement: Ppovipede- obat pa Aye, GAAG XpHomor yevécOar.

The verb only occurs here.

CECLXYV,

Xun md0ev dvepiyOH TH TOv “EAAve@v pevl, GdHAov.

oi rap dpyator koryUAHv Aérovst Toe To.

The word is probably good enough. ‘In quaestionibus naturalibus usus ejus multiplex est neque inconcessus: Aelian, H. An. 14. 22, 15. 12: Artemid. 2. 14: Xenocr. de Aquat. 18. 31: Ionem, Philyllium, Apollodorum, Hicesium testatur Athenaeus, 3. 86 C. F., go. A. E., 93 A? Lobeck.

CCCLXVI.

*Emyetudgerc oavtdv Mévavdpoc eipxHKey ém Tob Aunetv, Kat “AdeEavdpeic opuoiac. metotéov d€ toic doxi- pote, Toic UA elddct Tobvoua.

In English we can say, ‘do not distress yourself, as well as ‘a ship in distress ;’ but perhaps the metaphor is the converse of the Greek one, and ‘ distress’ used of ships to be compared with Caesar’s employment of contumelia in describing the serviceable sea-going qualities of the Ar- morican navy, B. G. 3. 13, ‘naves totae factae ex robore ad quamvis vim et contumeliam (rough usage) perferen- dam.’ Be this as it may, of all the changes which the Greek language underwent after the Macedonian conquests,

480 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

few are more observable than the growing freedom in the use of metaphors. Metaphors, which to an Attic ear were out of place except in Tragedy, and even in Tragedy were often strangely condensed, assumed, in writers like Menander, an easy and natural expression, befitting the Comic sock. Anaxandrides will supply an example of the natural freshness which Comedy could bring to a faded Tragic metaphor. Euripides had said in El. 1076—

pdvny 8& racv ol8 eéyd o° ‘EdAnvidwr,

ei pev Ta Tpdwr edrvyxol, Kexappérvny,

el 8 jooov etn, cvvvepodoay dupara. In Anaxandrides, Ath. 1. 34 D, the metaphor has a modern

freedom of movement— éav Aovonobe viv

pdpavdy re ToAARY evtpdynte, Tatboere TO Bdpos, diacKedate TO Tpoocdy viv vedos él Tod Tpordmov.

By comparing Latin of the silver age with that of the Re- publican or Augustan times it will be seen that a similar change in the genius of the language has taken place, and that the enlargement of view which was produced by the consolidation of the Roman world-empire changed the Roman language from an ancient into a modern tongue.

The expression émixeders cavrdy is merely an everyday equivalent of many phrases of tragedy in which xed takes part, and which any lexicon will supply.

CCCLXVIT.

XpHotmedoar wh Aére, GAAG ypHotwov revécbat.

The veto is just. The addition of xpnoysedm to verbs in -etw (see art. 3) is even more uncalled for than vyadevo, and is not sanctioned by any good writer.

Ca a

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. ; 481.

CCCLXVIII.

"Esydtwc éyet eri Tod pwoy@Hpadc Eyer Kal oPadepwc Tar- Tousiv oi cp@akec, A d€ Tot éoxdTwc ypAaic, oicba, Eri Tod Gkpov napa Toic dpyatotc vomizerar, Eoydtwc MOVHpOCT,

ésydta@c ptrdcogoc. diarpantéov obv Kai TobTO.

The phrase écydrws éxew is rightly cancelled. It does not appear till late. Good writers avoid the adverb, even in the sense permitted by Phrynichus; no instance of which is known except in Xenophon, An. 2. 6. 1, éoxdrws gito7dAcuos. As we found him employing even the super- lative éoxardérara (see p. 144), his authority will not count against the absence of the adverb from Plato, and the’ Orators, and all Comedy except Menander. Photius, ’"Eoxdrws’ dxpws, Mévavipos ‘poBodpa 8 éoxdrws,’

CCCLXIX.

XpewdAutAcar A€ret 6 TroAUc, 6 dé "AtTiKOc Ta ypéa

dtadtcaceat.

Xpeodvrety and all similar compounds of ypéos, are late: » xpeodoreiv, xpeoKoTreiv, ypewederns, xpeworeiv, etc,

As late formations they naturally were spelt with omi- cron, not omega, except when the second part of the com- pound began with a vowel. The coalescing of o+o0 into w may be compared with that of «+o into w in mevtdpudos, mevtdpuyos, etc. Herodn. Epim. p. 207, ra mapa rod xpéos ovykelyeva 510 TOD 0 puKpod ypdovrat, péoor éxovta Td o juKpov olov xpeokomG, xpeodvTG, xpeodor@, xpeoxorla, xpeodvala, xpeo- docta, kal Ta Spora.

It is, however, possible that Phrynichus wrote ypewAvureiy, as a naif hit at would-be Atticists.

li

482, THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

CCCLXX.

Xpéwe: "Attikdc dv paivoro Kai émimeAric et did TOO w MerdAou ypéwe Aé€retc, ob pev ovv TH ceavToOd MOAULAbiG tov *Aptstopdvav dia Tob o édeikvvec TO ypéoc év Talc érépaic NepédAatc eindvtra—

drdp Ti ypéoc €Ba we peta tov TMasciav;

a ‘ ‘ > : > > “~ €oike d€ TapMdHKac eipHKevar dtoTep OU ypHOTéoV adTH,

The address to Cornelianus in this article is to be com- pared with that in article 203, as both show that the two scholars were in the habit of discussing together doubtful points of Atticism. The line of the Clouds has been already considered on p. 48.

On the authority of Phrynichus and Moeris (p. 403) xpéos ought probably to be regarded as due to a copyist’s error when encountered in Attic texts, as in Plato, Polit. 267 A, Legg. 12. 958 B, Isocr. 402 C, and Dem. 791. 2. In Demosthenes the best manuscripts generally exhibit the form in omega, as 900. 14; 988. 24 E019. 23; 1040.19; although in the last instance even Paris S has fallen to the level of the worst codices and presents xpéos. The genitive and dative must shift for themselves, as there is really no evidence as to the Attic form of either. In Dem. 1189. 25 the best manuscripts read xpéws as genitive, but the speech is spurious, and in Lys. 148. 31, xpéovs seems to be best supported. As for the dative it does not occur once. Similarly in the plural, only two forms are known, but, unlike those of the singular, they are undisputed, xpéa being used for the nominative, accusative, and vocative, - and xpedy for the genitive—

ov & oby Kdevde’ ra be xpea Tatr icf Sr. Ar. Nub. 39.

& vdv ddetrdw 81a o€, Tovrwy TOY xpEdr. Id. 117.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS, 483

~CCCLXXI.

Pirddroroc 6 Pid@yv Adrouc Kai orrovddgwv mepi Tatdeiav: oi dé viv émi TOO éurreipou TWEGoIV OUK dpOdc. Ta MévTOL EMtAoAdrHoa Kai MtAcAora Kai MavTa Ta PHUaTA Ta MWeETO-

Ay > ,

Xika GddKiua,

Whether intentionally or by mistake Callierges printed irdcopos for piAdAoyos, and placed Ta wévro. kre. under the letter T. The Paris manuscript omits the whole article.

CCCLXXII.

Tivi dtapéper téde kai TOde; Ov ypH ObTw A€relV KATA doTiKHy TT@otv, GAAG Ti biapepet, Kaba Kai AnuoobevHec

puoi’ ti SobAov A éAeUOepoy eivat dtagpépel;

This rule holds without exception in Attic, but apart from this one phrase the dative was quite legitimate. Plato, Euth. 4 E, ot3€ r@ av dsadépor EiOdppwr trav TodAGy dvOpé- mov: Rep. 5. 469 C, dm Kai mavti diadéper 7d peldeorOar, From Aristotle onwards the dative encroached upon the accusative in ri d.aéeper; as Arist. Part. An. 4. 8 fin., rive diaéper TA Gppeva Tav OndELdr ;

CCCLXXIII.

Tétevye tific, Tétevye Tod okorod mH Are, GAN dyt

abtod TH doKin@ yp@ teTUyHKe.

The instance of the trisyllabic form cited by Veitch from Dem. 21. 150 (563. 11) is only a variant foolishly preferred liz

484. THE NEW PHRYNICHUS., by Bekker to the genuine rerevyynxés. It occurs, however, unquestioned in Menander, Monostich. 44— dpxis Terevxas tobe radrns dévos, in Macho ap. Ath. 13. 581 (35)-—- abrov pev a€votvra pa Terevxévat,

and in late writers generally.

CCCLXXIV.

ZTpdBirov oi uév TOAAGI TO EdHduyL0v A€rouct Kai adTO 3 ‘ ’ © > > ” ‘ ’ n > ul » ‘ TO dévdpov. of & apyatot THY Biatov Tod avenou elAHGLV Kal GUGTPOPHY GTPOBLAOV KaAOGot Kai GTPOBLAHGaL TO GUGTpEWat. obtwc otv Kal finiv pHTéov, TO b€ €dHdiov mTV@v Kaprtoc, kai TO dévdpov Tituc. Kal rap mirvoc TO EkkeKOKIGMEVOV ETL kal vév KdKK@va A€fousty Ot TIOAAO! 6pedc, Kai rap ZoAwv év Toic Trotpaci obTw ypritat.

Kéxkwvac GAAoc, &tepoc dé cHoaua,

There are many variations in the different manuscripts and editions, Laurentian A cvotpoBijca 7d cvotpeyar, and B and Nufiez ovetpoBirfioa 16 orpéyar. Moreover for kat yap mirvos Td exxexoxiopévoy ére kre. all have xal ydp éore ‘girus TO éxKkeKoKiopevov ET KTE.

The same caution reappears in App. Soph. 63. 27, =rpd- Bidos* Thy Tod dvéuov cvoTpopHy, ovx os of viv Tov Kapmov Tov TuTbwv. T1\drov cat perapopixds xéxpntar emi dis «i0- apwbixiis, ToAdY exovons Tov Tdépaxov: cp. Galen, vol. 11. 158 D, Kéxxados tx airod (Hippocrates) AcAcypévos ody otrws, GAAa KGvos pGdAov tnd tév Taradv ‘EAAjvor dvopdcero, xabdrep tnd TGv vewrépwv larpdv cxédov ardvrwv otpdBiros : id. 13. 527 C, ods viv Gmavres “EAAnves dvopdgover orpoBirovs, To méAar 8& mapa Tots. *Arrikots éxadodvro KGvor. With the

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 485

replacement of xévos by the picturesque orpdBiAos may be compared that of dAyddes by xodvuBddes discussed in art. 94. The words from xai ydp to the end may well be a spurious addition made by some one who happened to have heard xéxxwv so used by the vulgar. The remark is awkwardly introduced, and contradicts 7d 5& ddéd.yov miTiwv xap7és. There is no reason for assigning to xé«kev in Solon’s iambics the meaning of orpéBiros, ‘the edible kernel of a pine-cone,’

CCCLXXV.

LurkaTaBaivety eic Tdc okewelc, curKaTaBaivelv eic dt- dackadiac pH eittHe, GAAG ourKadtévat Kai GurKaOAKev Eic TO

Taizeiv Fi €lc GAAO TL.

The use of the Latin descendere, almost in the sense of ‘condescend,’ is well-known. In Attic that meaning was represented by ovyxadcévai, either transitively with éuaurdy, éavréy, etc., or intransitively and in late Greek by ovyxara- Batvew. The original notion as suggested by ovyxaraBalvew els 515acKadlas was of course ‘to descend with one’s adver- sary on to the ground selected for a trial of strength.’ The following passages will illustrate the usage: Plato, Theaet. 168 B, éav ody uot melOn, od dvopevds od8% paxnti- KOs, GAN Trew TH diavolg cvykabtels Gs GAnOGs onde th ToTE déyoueyv: Rep. 8. 563 A, kal Sdrws of pev véow tpeoBurépous GretxdCovrat kat dvapwAAGvrat Kal év Adyous Kal év Epyors, of SF yépovres ovyKabiévres Tois véois edtpameAlas Te Kal yapievtic- pod éunlrrapvrat, piuotpevor tovs véovs. In his dictionary to Polybius, Schweighaeuser cites SvyxaraBatvew els wav, 3. 10. 1; 7.4.3: els rov tnt tGv ddr xivdvvor, 3. 89. 8; 5. 66. 7: els dAooxXepi Kploww, 3. 90. 5; 3. 108. 7: els ra TGv ToAEulwv Tpo- Tepypara, 4.11.9: els Tovs kara pepos drep Ths duadvoews Adyous,

486 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

5. 67. 3: els mavta Ta piddvOpwna, 5. 66. 2: cis pdpovs Kat ovrOnKas, 4. 45. 4.

‘CCCLXXVI.

Zkvipdc KATA SiAPGopay ot TOAAOL AérousL Tov FAicypov kai puikpomper trepi Ta Gvad@paTa, ol 0 apyator oKvirra KaAobciv dd ToC eHpidiou Tod éy Toic EVAoIc Tob KaTa

Bpayd avta KaTec@iovToc.

Moeris 387 implies that not only the form but the mean- of oxvipds was un-Attic, pedwrdol *Arrixds, oxvidol Kowdr. As a matter of fact the word occurs in Attic only in the proverb oxviy év x#pa; which Zenobius, 5. 35, thus ex- plains, émi rév raxéws perarnddvtwr 7 Tmapowsla elpnrar’ oxvi yap éott Onpld.ov ~vropayor, amd térov els Térov petaTNndov" pepyntar travrns Srpdrris.

CCCLXXVII.

Zrapvia ot pév Guadeic émi TV auld@v tdtToUoL, Ol

& dpyaiot éri tv oivHpady arreiov.

‘Praeter Hesychium: *Apls, crayvtov, Gloss. matula orap- vlov exponentes, et Lex. Rhet. Bekk. p. 217: "Ayvidas _ (apldas s. Attice dyldas) ra orapvia Anuoodéyns (c. Conon. 1257), nullum novimus hujus vitii consortem.’ Lobeck.

CCCLX XVIII.

Zusyodastac éoyadtwc dvattiKov. ypH dé cuupotTHTdae

A€retv.

Xenophon might perhaps have used oveyodaoris, as he actually anticipates the late application of cxoAd¢w in Symp. 4. 43, Swxpdres cxodd wv dinupevor.

—

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 487

CCCLXXIX.

Zrpwpatevre addKipov’ oTpOuaTddecLoc dpyatoy kai SdKtmov.

Aére ovv Kai dpoevikadc Kal oddeTépwe.

The name orpwpareds came to be applied to the orpw- parddecpos, the bag into which orpdépyara and otpwyareds were packed. In Attic orpwpareds means a ‘coverlet’ or ‘counterpane, in late Greek ‘a bag for orpépyara or blankets.’ This strange perversion of meaning is also noted by Pollux, 7. 19, in enumerating dyyeia, els & KaréOevro Tas écOfras. otpwpdrodecpa, raid’ of vewrepor oTpwpareis édeyov, év ols os Mey TO dvopa dyAol Ta oTpdpara drerlOevTo.

CCCLXXX.

EvypHoretv drrdéppuyov Aére dé Kiypdvat.

There seems to be no instance of this euphemism in Greek literature, ‘to be of service to,’ instead of ‘to lend to.’ Even in its ordinary meaning the verb is unknown to Classical Greek.

CCCLXXXI.

“Padrepov mH Aére GAAG Pdov ourKptTiKdv rap ourKpt-

a > » e a , , TLKOL OUK EGTLV, OLOV Et TLC AEfOL KPELGOOTEPOV.

As the correct drwy (see art. 186) gave rise to the absurdity @ro:s, so from the neuter comparative pdov sprang the nonsensical fdos, pdws, and pqdrepov.

CCCLX XXII.

“Puun Kai rodro ot wéev’Aduvatot émi thc dpuric éridecav,

488 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,

ot dé viv &uabetc Emi TOU GTevwrrod. doKeEl dé LoL Kai TodTO 4 > 2 ‘ ‘ La] re) ‘ MAaKEdOVIKOV ElvaL. GAAG GTEV@TIOV KOAELV XPH, PUMHV be

THv éputtiv. —

Instances of the Attic use are these: Thuc. 2. 76, } de doxds piyn euniarovea: Dem. 546 fin., rH poyn Tihs dpyis kal tis bBpews rod Mewdlov: Ar. Eccl. 4, tpoxg yap eradels Kepapixis ppns amo: Thuc. 7. 70, rH mev mpérn pdyn éem- méovtes expdrovv Tév Tetaypévorv vedv. The late meaning is well-known from the New Test., e.g. Luke, Acts 9. 11, dvacras ropevOnrs ent Thy poynv Tiv Kadovpéerny Evdciav. The former meaning strengthens the explanation of picerOat given on p. 11, while that of ‘street’ or ‘lane’ must have existed long before the Common dialect in many a corner of Greece, where fvecOa: also may have retained much of its early sense of draw. Cp. Lat. ducere murum, ducere sulcum.

CCCLXXXIII.

Apanakizety dddKiuov, &pyatoy S€ TO TAapaTiAAes#at

fe TriTTODSOGL.

Perhaps the Atticist goes too far here. A new art, even if it be of the toilet, often necessitates a new name, and it is conceivable that there was a measurable difference be- ‘ tween dpwraxiopds and zirrwcis, as there certainly was between dpwraxicpds and mapariApds, the latter being ap- plicable to any depilation, the other only to that in which some sort of paste was used. Galen, however, seems to

have considered dpwraxicpds and xlrrwois interchangeable —

terms, but he was a Jenner, not a Rimmel: vol. 12. 103, Boa dé Twa Tore elow TiITTwTA HdppaKa 7 dpwmax.oTa vonoess axovoas airrav Kal dpdmaxa Kal oor rA€yew e&€oTw Kabdrimep dy BovdnOfis; od yap GrrixlCew dibdoKew mpdKerral por Tods véous.

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 489

As a matter of fact murrotca: is as unknown to Attic as dpwraxtCev, but the compound xaramirroby is employed, both in its direct sense of cover with pitch, and metaphori- cally as the opposite of xaraxpvooiv.

CCCLX XXIV.

Zréuquda’ ot uev MOAAOl Ta TOV BoTpUwv exmeouaTa

‘auaeac: ot Y *AttiKol otéuquda édAaady,

Athenaeus makes the same statement, 2. 56, "A@nvator 8& rds Terpyspévas eAdas oreupvda exddovy, Bptrea 5& Ta bp’ piv oreuvda, Ta exmieopara Tijs otapvdAis.

CCCLXXXV.

TlevraetHpikoc Grav kai mevtaetHpic UH A€re, GAN Aqpatpav

TO @ TrevteTHpic Kal TrevTeTHPLKOC Grov.

The evidence, both of metre and Inscriptions, supports Phrynichus in this article, which, like many more, estab- lishes a particular point upon which a general rule may be fairly based. As false analogy with émraddxrvdos and dexa- ddxrvdos corrupted the corresponding compound of éxré from éxtwddxrvdos to dxraddkrvdos, so false analogy with the late énraérns and dexaérns produced the extraordinary forms mevraérns, mevraernpls, etc. It is true that in the only line of Comedy in which zevrérns occurs the metre allows of it being spelt as a quadrisyllable—

atra: pév elow mevréress' yedoat AaBdv. Ar. Ach. 188.

but the following lines, which establish the shorter forms of similar compounds of déxa and xévre, establish a fortiori

490 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

that spelling of the compounds of révre which Phrynichus commands— Somep pe dvexdpnoev ovoay énrériv. Ar. Thesm. 480. av & GANG racdl Tas dexéreis yedoar AaBdv. Ach, Igt. TS yropua yoty BéBAnKey Gs obo’ énrérys. Comic. Anon. ap. Eustathium, 1404. 61.

To the same effect is the testimony of stone records: ‘Tlévre in compositione servatur, non mutatur in wévra: vide v.c. I. 322, ubi est wevrémous, mevtemddacra. "OxTw- ddxrvdos, similia constanter, non déxraddxtudos, v. c. T. N. XIV. e. 104, 185, C. I. A. I. 321. 28. 322. Herwerden.

In prose texts the longer forms of compounds of wévre, éxra, and déxa, and the shorter of éxr# must unflinchingly be removed in favour of those which the genius of the Attic language or, in other words, common sense, the evidence of verse, and the record of stone monuments, prove to have been the.only forms. known to the Athen- ians. The general principle thus established, namely that in compounds of cardinal numerals the original form of the numeral is as far as possible retained, is further illus- trated in the two articles which follow next, which call for no remark.

CCCLXXXVI.

Tlevrdunvov, tevrdamHyy' peTdeec TO a €ic TO €, TeVTEUHVOV

Aéfev Kal TEVTETTHYU.

CCCLXXXVII,

‘E&dmnyu. kal €€aétHc’ Kai évreboev dpatpHcetc TO a, a ‘ 2 r ‘ a a ‘ +12 . éemuyv kai éfétHc Kai ExrAeupov. tobro rap kat tarpot

érravopeodvTat, ExrrAe@pov A€rovTec Kal OvK EEdTIAEOpov.

a

THE NEW. PHRYNICHUS, 491

In Laurentian A, the Paris manuscript, and in Callierges, these two articles appear condensed into one. It seems impossible to formulate a reasonable canon as to when é& or é« should be used in the compounds of é.

CCCLXXXVIII.

Tlepteotrdo@uv A€rousi Tivec emi Tod év doyoAia revecdat, , , ‘ A] ‘ a ‘ a TiWEvTEC TIaVU KIBOHAWC: TO Pap TeptoMdv kai MEptomacbat éni tod mapatpeiv kal Mapaipetcdat TdtToVcW ot dpyaiot. '

déov obv doyoAoc Hv Aéretv.

This markedly late use of tepiom@c8a. occurs in a well- known passage of St. Luke, 10. 40, 7 5 Mdp0a mepveanaro Tept TOAAHY Svakoviay.

CCCLXXXIX. Tlopvoxérroc’ obra» Mévavopoc, ot & dpyaior mOpyorply A€rousctv. CCCAXCG.

Misaproc: obtw Mévavopoc, oi 8 &pyator ’Aduvaior ém-

AHGMOVa KaAOLGIY, olc Kal TrELGTEOV.

CCCXCI.

Mesoropeiv: kai todto Mévavdpoc, oddév émiBadAdAwy ryauHe Toic évéuaciv, GAA TavTa pupev.

Though resting on the authority only of Nufiez’ edition there can be little question about the genuineness of this

492 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

article: ‘Inter reliqua composita edOvmopeiv, Bpabvmopety, pakpotopeiv, @kuTopeiv, etc. sunt quaedam satis antiqua, sed totum genus ab oratoribus atticis non admodum probatum videtur.’ Lobeck.

CCCXCII.

Topoc: Kai tobto Mévavdpoc trv KaAAIGTHY THV KOpLD~ didv TAv Eavtod, tov MisoruvHy, KaTEKHALOMGEV ElTTOY, TI

rap dH répdc éotiv od ouvinmt.

Lobeck thinks that the words of Menander were quoted, but Nufiez, who alone has preserved this remark, has failed to preserve the passage. Though the substantive first appears in Menander, the Homeric adjective yupds, ‘round,’ indicates as the source from which yipos entered the Common dialect one or other of the Greek dialects less prominent in litera- ture. Even the adjective, though freely used in late Greek, has for classical authority only one passage of Homer—

yopos ev Sporrww, pedavdxpoos, odvAoKapyvos. Od. 19. 246. The Latin ‘gyrus’ bears testimony to the prevalence of the substantive in post- Macedonian times.

CCCXCIII.

XisoHpov' ody 6p pa Tov ‘Hpaxdéa ti mdoyovatv oi J tov Mévavdpov mérav drovtec Kat atpovtec tmép to “EAAH- ‘ o ‘ ' 4 , ” o 4 » a“ vikov Grav. did ti d€ Bavudoac Exo; StL Ta Akpa Tadv “EAAtivav 6p® wavikdc epi tov K@p@doTrotov TOCTOV oTTOU- ddgovta—nmpwriotov peéev év Traideia LErioroy GEi@pa amdv- tov éyovTd ce Kai did TodTO é€k MpoKpiT@y GmopaveévTa

. ‘ a i 2 , > “A ” La ” UTTO TMV BAGLAEWY ETILGTOAEG GAUTMV, ETTELTA devTEpa TIM

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 493.

A€UTOMEVOV TOAU TAc GAc TapacKeuAc, é€eTagdpevov 8 év Toic “EAAnGt, BaAgov tov dd TpddAdewy, dc eic tobTo TIpoduLiac kai @avuatoc fiket Mevavdpov, dote Kai Anmoscbévouc Gueivey éryetpeiv dropaiverv YOv A€fovTa ecortopetv Kai ropoc Kai AH@aproc Kai GUcoHUOV Kai MopvoKdTOc Kal dya- viaoudc kai dyaviov kai dvopiroc Kai GAAG KIBSHAG dvapie- MHTG GuaeA, Ta abTa d€ coi Kai BadABw memovedTa Kai Tariavev tov Zuupvatov propa, dvdpa gHAwTHY Kai épactHy Thc otic év maideia MuAoKaAlac. dre obv ét@Mc AUoHC MoU THy é€v TH Totdde dvoyepeia THv tov dropiav. od dp Tepidyeseai ce Hrobuat Epriuwc dpdAdvta cov Ta TraLdiKa

Mévavipov.

This, the longest continuous piece of writing from the pen of Phrynichus, proves that in his time the writing of Greek was a lost art. Granted that Menander used words and constructions unknown to Attic, yet his Greek was his own, easy, graceful, and elegant, not like that of his critic,

-a cumbrous and clumsy imitation of good models, In short, the one is Greek and the other is not.

The late origin of ctconpov, dyoror, and dywriacpds is unquestioned, but Pollux, 4. 186, states that dvcpiyos was used by Aristophanes. Perhaps in the original article which discussed évcpryos, Phrynichus was able to show that Menander used the word incorrectly. As it is, there are no data to go upon. In Hdt. 5..10, and Aristot. H. An. 8. 25, 605%. 20 it bears the meaning, ‘ unable to bear cold.’

CCCXCIV.

Oikodourn od A€retat, dv? adtod Sé oiKodduHna.

The rejected word is for Attic, and indeed for all Classical

Pret.

Qe amor

494 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Greek, an impossible formation. The subjoined table will recall the normal family relationships of words like oixoddpos.

Oixoddpos eis

Ls 1 olkobopikds olkodopety ae

c 7 oikodounots olxodoula olkoddunpua.

CCCXCV.

Kat dvap- ToAéuwv 6 *lavikdc coptctuc Anmosbévouc 106 pHtopoc eikéva yadkHy év “AokAHmtod Tod év Tleprape TH Musia dvadeic, émérpayev énirpaypa todvde Anpoo- 6évH Tlataviéa Todéu@v kar dvap, ddokiardt@ TO Kat dévap ypHodwevoc. domep rap Kas bmap ov AéreTat, GAN brrap, obtwc ode Ka? Svap, GAN Fitot Gvap idady A EE éveipou dyewc, obtwc dpa périordv Eotw dvoudTav rydcic

Strou re 8H Kai Ta dKpa Tov “EAAHvev mraiovta oparat.

A similar mistake has already been considered on Art. 104.

CCCXCVI.

Merpidzewv' Todo of wéev Gpyatot érri Tob Ta ouMBaivovTa petpinc pépev TWéact, Mévavdpoc & emi Tod dobevelv Tapa

THY T@y doKiwev ypfot.

The Paris manuscript here differs from the others and from the editions, not only substituting ra cuudépovra yevvaiws for

rd cvpBatvovra perplws, but in a way unusual with it, append-_

ing a whole clause, ov 82 éni rod tooy eivar Kai pi) dmepBddrew pire TH GdaCovelg pare TH Tavewodoe. Late medical writers sometimes assign to petpid(m the sense of ‘am fairly well, as Aelian H. An. 9. 15, 6 perpidoar doxdv madw ebdnrerar els édvvnv, but the signification ‘am unwell’ is very rare indeed,

a oe

ae

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS, 495

e.g. as var. lect.in LXX. Nehem. 2.2. Lexicons supply no instances of a corresponding use of the adjective pérpios.

CCCXCVII.

Kaewec: Tdiédc tic Apedototoc rpaupatikdc Epacke doxt- Mov eivat Todvoua: Keypfhobat rap avrg PvAapyov' od Tod Mdptupoc adc olkoGev Enaropevou dc od OouKvdidou Fikouse AMéfovtoc KaGO del €ic DZIKEAIGV TIAELV GAN Ov Kabac"

Kai 70 KaeG SéKmov,

The reading as oixodey émayopévov is due to Scaliger, who saw that in the meaningless as gouxe tod érayopévov lay concealed a reference to the proverb otkoOev 6 pdprus, used of those who bear witness against themselves (éml rdv kal? éavtdv pdprupas pepdvtwy, Diogenian, 7. 29). ‘The authority of Gaius, says Phrynichus, ‘was of little value, and his voucher is no better.’ Kaédés (see art. 32) is now banished from the few passages of Attic into which it had crept with the help of late copyists, such as Aeschin. 16. 23, xai Tov cvvOnkGv dvdyvabt ta dvtlypapa Kal? ds tiv mpaow erouj- gato Tod} dyévos, where two manuscripts have xa@ds, one xaOOs: Xen. Cyrop. 1. 4. 22, kal loxvpay ri vyi rots modelos Katéxwv moter, where xatéxwv is represented in some codices as xa@s elyev. Editors, however, have wanted nerve to banish the absurdity from Herod. 9. 82, xeAcioar Tovs Te Gproxdrovs Kal Tovs dWoroods Kara TavTa Kabas Map- dovim Seizvov rapackevdfew. It is true that in citing the passage Athenaeus (4. 138 C) reproduces the error, -but ere his time xa@és had come into constant use, and the text used by him may well have been already corrupt. Stein suggests as «al, others xadd or simply kat.

496 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

CCCXCVIII.

KakkaBov' did Tob H KaKKaBHY Aére> TO rap dtd Tod o + Guavsec’ kai rap “Aptotopdavuc év AatdddAm ypHtar did

TOU H.

Athenaeus, 4. 169 C, quotes from the Aairadjs the words kdyew éxei0ev kaxxaBnv, and Brunck would for that reason substitute Aairadedou for AaddA here. In the same chapter he cites, without remark, one place of Antiphanes with kaxxéBnv and another with xdxxaBov, the metre in neither instance affording any help. In the absence of proof the gender must rest on the authoritative dictum of Phrynichus. Antiphanes certainly did not use both forms.

CCCXCIX.

Kuvuréc: todto totvona obtm TMwc peTayelpizovTat, ot

. ‘ ‘ , Z ‘ ’ 7 MEV TPOPLKOL TIOLHTAI TPpltovAdAaBoc A€fOuUGL KaL d@pizoust TO H €ic G peTaTévTec, Kuvaréc, of 8 "AeHvaiot TeTpAcLAAGBwC

‘ u e Te TPOpepovet Kai TO H PLAATTOUGLV, OloV KUVHTETHC.

From a comparison of xvvayés and xvrnyérns on the one hand, and of xopayéds and xopyyés on the other, it will be seen how the Athenians at first accepted, without modifi- cation, Doric forms relating to the arts of which the Dorians were the acknowledged masters, but subsequently brought these forms into harmony with the laws of their own language. Kvvayéds is the acknowledged form in Tragedy (Aesch. Ag. 695; Soph. El. 563; Eur. Phoen. 1106, 1169, I. T. 284, Hipp. 1397, Supp. 888 xvvayla, Hipp. 109 ; Soph. Aj. 37 LA), but in ordinary Attic of the same period xvvnyérns was employed—a word which by the

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 497

mixing of old and new in the Tragic dialect occurs frequently also in Euripides. But in Prose or Comedy xuvayds was impossible; it had been altogether replaced by xvuvnyérns, as xopayds by xopnyds.

This article well illustrates the fact that Phrynichus distinctly recognized that the diction of Tragedy, like that of all poetry, was emphatically a survival. .

CGCC,

Katapardc: mdeev, Mévavdpe, cucctpac tov tocotTav dvopndtav cuppetov aicytvetc THY mdTpLov @aviiv; tic rap oH TOV Tpd 600 TH KaTaparde KéypHrat; 6 uev rap Aptoto- gdvuc cttw pHoty—

éott rap KatTa@arde tic GAAoc H KAewvupoc ; éypfiv obv Kpativias mewduevov parade eineiv. towc 8 dv eltroic 6tt HkoAoveHoa Mupridw Aérovtt— “Qc 6 pév KAémtHe, 0 8 Gpraé, 6 & dvdmHpoc mopvoBockdc KaTaparac*

GAN obK éypriv tac dak eipHpévac AéEerc dprrdzetv’

For this article, which is undoubtedly by Phrynichus, Nufiez is alone responsible. The anti-Atticist (p. 105. 20) refers the defaulting term to the IlwAovpmevo. of Menander, and Pollux, in reprehending its use by Myrtilus, implies its occurrence in Aeschylus (Poll. 6. 40), mayndynpos 6 mapa ro Muptirm Karapayas ei cat Aloxvdos éxpjoaro. As for the Aristophanic xatwpayas (Av. 288) it has nothing to do with the question, the Scholiast rightly annotating kwpo- deicOar Tov KAeévvpov bri Kdtw vebwy erpwye. The vice of karapayas is well explained by Lobeck: ‘ Quaerenti igitur, cur Phrynichus gayas receperit, xarapayas excluserit, sic

Kk

498 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

respondebimus, haec verbalia, in quorum numero est dayas, propterea quod habitum quendam communem significant, natura sua cum praepositionibus componi non posse, itaque edacem quidem et voracem dici, sed neque comedacem neque devoracem. Verumtamen quia voracitatis notio in composito xarapayeiy proprie insignita est, poetae illi, xara- gayas (deglutator) significantius fore rati quam simplex payas, illam universalem rationem aut inscientes aut etiam praesenti animo et meditate reliquerunt.’

CCCCI.

KoAdkuvea’ HuapTHTaL H éoydTH GUAAGBH bid Tod 6a

Aerouévn, d€ov dia TOO TH, Wc’ AGHvatot.

COCG i:

Kartapepric’ émi rav mpdc appodicia dkoAdoTaV AErouciV

oi MOAAOI, OVdanadc ofTw@ TAY doKiwaV yYPOpLLEevev.

Even in its natural signification of declivis the adjective is hardly Attic, though it is Classical, being found in Herodotus and Xenophon: Hdt. 3. 63, cdr? dv b€ yévnra _ Karagepijs 6 jaws: Xen. de Ven. 10. 9, cay pev 3] TO Xwplov karapepés,. - . av d& Gwedov. In the secondary sense of procilivis it is certainly late.

CCCCIII.

Katadorriv of cvp@akec Aérovat THY Mpdc Tiva aida,

odK 6pedc.

The rejected meaning is very rare, being cited only from

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS, 499

Polybius, 23. 12. 10, xaraAdoyny movetobar tiv dpydovcar, xaddrep kal ‘Pwpator mowdvrat Tv Tapaytyvouevwv Tpds abrods

TpeoBevTar,

CCCCIV.

KoAduBtotric obk dpedc° méAw obdev Hac poAbvey Tt duaraverar 6 Mévavdpoc tov &prupapoiBov KOAAUBtoTHV Aé- rav' TO Mev rap voutoua KdAAUBoc SdKipov, TO Sé KOAAU-

Biotic TapacecHudopévoy.

Pollux (7. 170) cites xoAAvBiorys from Lysias: épyvpa- potBds, dpyvpaworBixy, apyvpoyvepor, Soxipactis, KoAAvBioTis, os Avolas év TG Tepl Tod xpvaod Tplrodos. Kal 6 viv KdAdAvBos addayn. No Attic writer, however, can have used xoAAv- Biorjs as equivalent to dpyvpayoiBds, for KoAAvBos, though Attic in the sense of ‘small coin,’ was in that of ‘exchange,’ as Pollux implies, unknown to Greek of a good age.

SCecy.

Ta (Sta mMpdtt@ Kai Td (dia MpadTTet of TOAAOL Aéroutv eikH, d€0v Ta éuautod npdttw Kal ta cavtot TIpatretc Aéretv dc of madatol A Td (dia Euavtod mpétrw Kal Ta Bra

sauTod mpattetc.

‘Hoc sensu ra téa mpdrrew veteres nunquam, recentiores raro dixisse invenio. Plurimum abest (1a tpdcowv 7} orparod taxOels tro; Eur. Iph. A. 1363, i.e. idfg, privatim, quo- modo etiam ra olxela mpdocew Thuc. 1. 141, opponitur T@ Ta xowd. Verum auctor Ep. I. ad Thess. 4.11, et Hesy- chius s.v. id:orpayety exemplum vitiosi usus prodiderunt.’ Lobeck.

Kk2

OO THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

“

CCECYE

*Axpatetesbar ddoKiua@ dvtt of re MOAAOL ypdvTat TobT@ TH

dvouati, kai Mévavdpoc. A€ére obv odk érkpatevecdat.

Judging from the books which remain to us, dxparevowau and éyxparevoua. are equally late, both appearing for the first time in Aristotle.

CCCCVII.

Aiyuad@tisefvat Tod oftac dddkiov dc wHdé Mévav- dpov abt ypHoaobat. dSiadtwv obv A€re aiyudAwWTOV fe- véceat. ,

Thomas rightly characterises the whole verb as dddxwov: (p. 23) alxpadrorl(w kal mdvres of dd rovrov xpdvor dddKysor.

CCCCVIII.

*Avrikpv* toto Tomikov Kai émtetK@c TrowTiKdv Gvev Tot o Aerouevov. Gbev oi ei Too GvTikpuc TLWEvTeC GUApTdvoU- - Ow. e€l MévTOL Tic TpodeiH THY TpdGEectv TH GvTiKpd Kal €ITIOL KATAVTIKPY Gpedc épel.

- “Apvrixpus, like ed0ds (see p. 222), may, even in Attic be — regarded as an ézippynua romxdy in certain constructions, as Thuc. 2. 4, olduevo. wAas ras Ovpas Tod olkjuaros eivat Kal dyrixpus (right through) dfodor és rd éw. Ar. Lys. 1070— GAG xwpeiv dvtixpus (straight) Bonep olkad els éavtdr,

but no Attic writer ever employed dvrixpus for xaravtixpd

THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 501

in the sense of ‘right opposite,’ or dvrixp’d for dvrixpus in the sense of ‘straight,’ ‘right through.’ In Homer, however, dvrixpt bears the meaning of the Attic dvrixpvs (Il. 4. 481 ; 16, 285; Od. 10. 162, etc.) ; and Xenophon, in this case also, sins against his native tongue, Cyr. 7. I. 30, 6 8& ’ABpadd- Tas dvrikpv 6.’ adréy els thy Tav Aiyutrioy pddayya euBadret. As from «i6% and «d6ds, so from dvrixpt and dyrtikpvs, is to be learned the striking lesson that no refinement in form or meaning was too subtle for the Athenian mind as long as the masculine instincts of the language were not violated.

CCCCIX.

*Avurrddetoc épeic év TH HW TO rap év TH € GudptHua. Kal

rdp drrodHcaceat Aéretat Kal oty Urodécaceat.

‘Idem decernitur ac non varie sed prope conjunctis sententiis a Phrynicho App. p. 17. Gramm. Bekk. p. 412, Moeride, p. 29: Thoma, p. 76, et Suida, non addita ea ratione, quae hoc loco, dubium an ab ipso Phrynicho, subponitur. ’Avumdédnros apud Atticos persaepe legitur, avu- aééeros numquam, quin genuina forma aut in Codd. appareat, aut ex alio quodam recessu emergat.’ Lobeck.

CCCCX.

Eépuua yp Aéretv Sia Tod H, ovy etpeua.

Lobeck’s notes will supply materials for the history of this corruption, as also the converse one of efpyous and dijots for etpeots and déors, etc. The fact of both is now a commonplace of grammarians, and no one would question the late origin of forms like e¥peya on the one hand, or etpnois on the other (see Art. 224).

502 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.

Cocexs

*AtHpTicuévoyv, GnHpTiKa, Kai Ta did TOUT@Y GTavTA GdAOLKG.

dtroteréAectat dé Kai droTeTeAeoMévov YpH Aé€retv.

The rejected verb is Ionic and late: Hippocr.Epidem. 2. p.180 B, anapriCovons rijs éxrayjvov : de Morb. 4.11. p.608 A, annptiaperns ths wepiddov: Polyb. 31. 20. 10, réAda mpds Tov mAoby anaprieiv. In Aesch. Sept. 374— orovd)) 6& Kal Tots odk araprice mdda

most editors doubt dzapri¢e.. As far as form goes there is no reason why Aeschylus should not have employed it, but it certainly does not bear its ordinary meaning.

Tédoc thc Ppuviyou éxAorfic “AtTiKav pHudtov

Kal dévoudtav.

APPENDIX A.

Suck the revival of learning there has been no lack of editions of Phrynichus. The first issued from the press of Zacharias Callierges, a Cretan who had settled in Rome. It bears date July 1,1517. ‘H rod Bpuvixov airy ekhoy) év “Pouy mapa Zayapia rH Kaddépyn civ Oca dyio érumbbn xiLoorg mevrakooieate uC’ Mnvds "lovAiov mpary, Agovros 8€ Ka’ Tod peyiorov dpxtepéws “Popny dciws xe kai edtvxas nvoxoivros. It has the title Bpuviyou éxdoyi) Arrixdy pnydrov kal dvoydrey, and the articles are arranged alphabetically (jris wap’ nuay évraiOa, kata orotxeioy efe- 7é6n), It is generally met with bound up with an edition of Thomas Magister published four months previously (March 4, 1517). A few years later Callierges published the great dictionary of Phavorinus* which contained the Ecloga of Phrynichus, — Magnum et perutile dictionarium, quod quidem Varinus Phavorinus, Nucerinus Episcopus, ex multis variisque auctoribus in ordinem alphabeti collegit. Romae per Zachariam Calliergi, 1523, fol. There followed an edition by Franciscus Asulanus, forming part of a Lexicon containing Thomas Magister, Moschopulus, and Ammonius, and published by Aldus at Venice in 1524. Next came the edition of Vascosan, the great Paris printer,—Owpa rod paylorpov dvopdrwv drrikav ékdoyal, Bpuvixou éxdoy? arrikav pyudtev kal dvoudrwy, Mavovi\os Tov pooxorovAov arriKay dvopd- Tav ekhoy) ard tis texvodoylas tis Tov Didogtpdrov elkévav Kal BiBdiov TOY ToLnTaV—

Tlavra kata ddpaBnrov. Tats madaca kat dvopacia tdy apxdvrewy ék rod Aiduavod, *OpBikiov tay mepi Td orpdrevpa Tdgewr.

The date of this edition was Nov. 1532,—Lutetiae apud Michaelem Vascosanum mense Novembri, MDXXXI.

None of these editions differed much from one another, but towards the close of the century there was published in Spain an edition

1 Phavorinus or Favorinus (Varinus or Guarino), born at Favora, near Camerino, in 1460, was a disciple of Lascaris and Politian, and himself the preceptor of Leo X. He was also director of the Library of the Medici at Florence, and became bishop of Nocera.

504 APPENDIX A.

which seems to have been based upon a manuscript differing very widely from those used by Callierges, Phavorinus, and Vascosan. The editor was Pedro Juan Nufiez, a prolific writer, and the author of an interesting little Greek Grammar’, which differs marvellously little from those now used in schools. . He employed only one manuscript, and professes to have followed it faithfully. In that manuscript the Ecloga was divided into three books, the beginning of the second book being headed rod atdrod émropn, and of the third dpyi rod rpirov, but of these the third book contains only a few articles, and these mostly repeated from the other two. The edition bears date Barcin- one, A.D. iii, Kal. Ian. Anni Salutis MDLXXXVI., and is dedicated to Andreas Schottus of Antwerp.

Subsequent editions were little more than reprints of this, with more notes added ; one edition by Hoeschel appearing in the seventeenth century, a second by Pauw in the eighteenth, and Lobeck’s well- known work in the nineteenth. The title-page of Hoeschel’s edition is as follows: ‘Phrynichi Epitomae Dictionum Atticarum Libri iii, sive Ecloga, a Petro Io, Nunnesio Valentino integritati restituta, Latine conversa, ejusdemque et Davidis Hoeschelii Aug. Notis, in quis et aliorum auctorum loca partim emendantur, partim illustrantur, aucta, Augustae Vindelicorum typis Michaelis Mangeri, cum S. Caes. Majest. privilegio mpcI.’ After the text, with a Latin rendering, follow the Notes of Nufiez, then the Notes of Hoeschel, then certain Notes of Scaliger with a fresh title-page: ‘Ad Phrynichum et ejus interpretem viri illustris Notae, a Davide Hoeschelio Augustano editae.’ Appended is a letter of Scaliger?.

Pauw’s edition is entitled ‘Phrynichi Eclogae nominum et ver- borum Atticorum, cum versione Latina Petri Ioannis Nunnesii et ejusdem ac Davidis Hoeschelii Notis ut et Notis losephi Scaligeri in Phrynichum et Nunnesii notas; Curante Ioanne Cornelio de Pauw, qui notas quoque suas addidit. Trajecti ad Rhenum apud Ioannem Evelt. MDCCXXxIX,’ while the title-page of Lobeck’s edition runs on

. the same lines, ‘ Phrynichi Eclogae Nominum et Verborum Atticorum

1 Institutiones Grammaticae Linguae Graecae, auctore Petro Johanne Nun- nesio Valentino. Barcinone, cum licentia ex typographia viduae Huberti Gotardi, anno 1590. ;

2 6 beiva

Davidi Hoeschelio, Notas tuas in Phrynichum (jam incipiebam legere, quum haec scriberem) valde laudo: diligentiam admiror. Quid dicam praeterea? Multum disco. Doctissimus et accuratissimus est Hispanus ille, qui illustravit. Sed ad quaedam libenter re- sponderem, quod alius-temporis et operae est. Nimis certo fidit Phrynicho, quem anno praeterito inter legendum deprehendi in multis falli. Id quoque a Thoma Magistro animadyersum et laetatus sum, et admiratus, Sed de his alias,

APPENDIX A. Bos

cum Notis P. I, Nunnesii, D. Hoeschelii, I. Scaligeri et Cornelii de Pauw partim integris partim contractis edidit, explicuit Chr. August. Lobeck, Accedunt Fragmentum Herodiani et notae praefationes Nunnesii et Pauwii et Parerga de Vocabulorum terminatione et compo- sitione, de aoristis verborum authypotactorum, etc. Lipsiae MDCCCXX.’

The manuscript used by Nujiez contained many articles unquestion- ably by Phrynichus which are wanting in the other editions and in the manuscripts now known, but the absurd name given by it to the Second Part of the Ecloga, and the existence of a Third Part of so poor a quality, as well as the paltry character of not a few of the articles which are found only in it, make it very probable that much of its apparent completeness is really interpolation.

Before considering this question it will be well to give an account of the manuscripts known to me.

Two of these are in the Mediceo-Laurentian Library at Florence, and a beautiful transcript of the more important of them, with a full collation of the other, was with great kindness procured for me by the present sub-praefect of the Bibliotheca Laurentiana. The press-mark of the one is Pluteus vi. 22, and in the following pages it will be designated Laurentian A, or simply A, while the press-mark of the other is Pluteus lvii. 24, and it will be referred to as Laurentian B, or simply as Bt,

Laurentian A bears date 1491. The scribe’s name is given, and he wrote it at Venice. Mereypadyoav kal ra mapdvra ris Bpuvixou ékdoyijs - bia xerpds end "Ilwdvvov mpecBuréepov ‘Pdaov Kpyros ro yéevos, xtkuooT@ Te- Tpakog.ocT@ evernxoaTa mpaT@ ‘lovviov mparyn, Oveverias.

Laurentian B, though in many respects much inferior to A, still contains in the second part of the Ecloga many articles which are absent from all other authorities except the edition of Nufiez.

The third manuscript, referred to as P, is at Paris, and a collation of it is printed in Bachmann’s ‘Anecdota Graeca’ (Leipsic, 1828). It is headed, ’Ex ray rod Spvvixov, and occupies twelve folios of a codex thus described by Bachmann: ‘Codex est bombycinus, forma quadrata, totus ab eadem manu non ineleganter scriptus, haud raro tamen praesertim in locis ex aliis scriptoribus efferendis lacunosus. Erat olim in Bibliotheca Petri Danielis Huetii, Episcopi, videtur esse saec, xv.~ It is without very many of the articles usually attributed to Phrynichus, but is of value as implying an original differing in many respects from the other manuscripts and editions. It is only in P that the true reading of Article-201 has been preserved, and it is no mean praise to bestow upon any manuscript that it confirms a con- jecture of a scholar like Scaliger.

There is also a third manuscript in the Laurentian Library, with press-

mark Pluteus lyii. 34, which contains selections from the Ecloga. A transcript of it is printed as Appendix B,

506 APPENDIX A.

On the other hand, A shows a general correspondence with the earlier editions of Callierges, Phavorinus, and Vascosan, but many of its readings prove conclusively that it was not used by any of them, not even by Phavorinus, who was at one time the praefect of the Library in which it now lies.

The text of B has many affinities to that given to the world by Nufiez, and both manuscripts may have sprung from the same : original. It has even a sort of Third Part, only of greater length than that of Nufiez, After the article on alyyadozicOjva are found the following sentences ; ¢ypiyopa xp, kal eypiyyopev. GAN’ ovk Hyprydpet kal ypnyopS: Stara 9 xapis dixacrnpiov Kpiots Kat Suautyris* Kal diarro ent rovtou' dikn dé 9 év tr Sixacrypie, kal Sicaorns’ Karaypnottkas S€ Kat xopis dixaornpiou radia héyerar: mopm 7) mpdmepyis’ éyerat kal 7 mews mapa Qovuxvdidy" EvAwy vavmnynoipev Twoumnv: Katampolerar ddvatperos ypdpera: dvtikpd romKxdy Kal moutixdy’ ypaperar b€ pera HS mpobérews katavrikpv: dvumddutos pera Tov t (Sic) pets Kal Umodnoacba: evpnpa ovx eUpepa: damnpricpevoy’ amiprika’ kal Ta amo ToUTwY dmayta GdoLka’ dro- reré\eora S€ Kal dmoretehecpevoy xpi) Aeyew: Kearawdéoraroy ov ypa- erat. Moreover, in a later and less skilled hand are appended,— dvarorxeiv jul) eye, GANG Staroryeiv. Evurrpov ju) héye GAAA Hrvorpov" Se kal dpyaiov. karampoiterat ovk dpbas Statpovor, Séov Karampoiferar aduaipe- tos’ Eevretoat dddxipor.

As a matter of fact the text of Phrynichus has been terribly tam- pered with, and although I believe most of the articles in the First Part came from the hand of the Grammarian much in the shape in which they appear in the present edition, it would be rash in the ex- treme to make the same assertion with regard to the Second Part. Nuiiez may be said hardly to have described the manuscript on which he based his edition, but without that manuscript, corrupt as it cer- tainly was, several of the most important articles would have been lost to us. Until more manuscripts are unearthed an authoritative text of Phrynichus is out of the question,

The reasons for regarding the manuscript of Nufiez as interpolated are as follows. It abounds in what are unquestionable marks of the interpolator’s hand, feeble and meaningless additions like déx:poy yap and dddxiuov yap. To many of the articles are appended sentences couched in unworthy Greek, and plainly at variance with the state- ment which precedes them. The so-called ‘Third Part’ is an attempt, and an unsuccessful attempt, to increase the work by another chapter, — and suggests only too readily a similar origin for many of the articles in the Second. Part, if not in the First.

Moreover, if the Ecloga as at present known to us contains much that Phrynichus never wrote, it probably also is without a good deal that came from his pen. Thus Stephen of Byzantium, who wrote an ‘Ethnica,’ probably about 500 A.D., mentions a dictum of Phrynichus

APPENDIX A. 507

which is now read neither in the Ecloga nor in the ‘Sophisticus Ap- paratus:’ 1 d¢ Oeds ’A@nvaia éyerar povoyevOs. éyerat S€ Kai emi yovarkds os GAXot ev Toddol. Pirijpov S€ odrws ev Hrepvyig—

vort & drav AdBy tes els Tijv oikiav tas ‘Immovikas tacde kai Navovorpdras kat Navowikas, ras ’A@nvaias eye.

Aidvpos 8€ hnow bri AOnvaias héyovow avti rod ’Arrikas, 6 b€ Spuvixos dvarrixdy gyow elva rv poviy kai Ouvpdter mas 6 Bepexparns artixk@taros dy xpira. (Ed. Meineke, p. 33.)

Finally, it has become with me almost a conviction that the Ecloga was originally written in two parts published at different times, and that the Second Part was written by Phrynichus as supplementary to the First—his earlier work. In this way may be explained such articles as that numbered 203 in this edition. The Grammarian seized the opportunity afforded him by his Supplement to modify or confirm statements made by him in the Ecloga itself. A striking argument in favour of this view is supplied by the following fact. Between the Epistle to Cornelianus and the first article the manu- script used by Nufiez contained the words doris dpyaiws Kal Soxipws Bede SiadéyecOa, ra8’ ad’rg vdaxréa, and at the end of the First Book ratra dvAarrépevds tis BeAtiov kat Soxipmratos ein dv. The latter sentence also appears in the same place in A. There is no similar colophon at the end of the Second Book, or in the case of Nufiez at

‘the end of the Third, nothing but the conventional rédos rijs Spuviyou exdoyijs.

The following are the more important variations of reading in the different manuscripts and editions. They will demonstrate how pre- carious a thing a text of Phrynichus must be. The manuscripts are designated by single letters, the editions by two :—Laurentian MS. 1. =A. Laurentian MS. 2.=B. Paris MS.=P. Callierges=Ca, Phavo- rinus=Ph. Vascosan=Va. Nufiez=Nu.

Epistle,om. B.P. @avyd{w] Oavyatav MSS. Edd. ofds re] ofos A. Ca. Va. droremraxéres] dmomhamOevres Ca. Va. karaed- youres] karamepevydres Nu. ra Soxiperaral ra Soxtpaorepa A. Ca.

3. om. P. ixereia] ixeceia B. 4, Néye] S€ A, Ca. Va. 5. 6ray] om. A, Ca. Va. Ph. 6. péxpe dé kal aype Xéye] om. Ca. Va. A€ye] om. A. 7, om. P. “Amivat, tpocivat, efivat, karivat] ‘Eni- vat, xativat, mpociva, e&ivar Ca. Va. dmeévat, e£cévar A€yerv] ameva, efcévar, kariévar héyew Ca, Va.- add. kal ra Aowrd Spoiws Nu, B. 8. P. om. 9. wnSapds] pydapod Nu. kal karémtvoaadroi] om. P. add. \éye B, Nu. 10. om. P. 12. éwt rod péAXovros] om. Tov Nu. rod éveornkdros kal rod] rod éveataros kai B, Nu. fxw apri] ko kai dpre B, Nu. 13. emt ly@vos)- add. Aéyerae B, Nu. 14. Ta TOD Phparos] wavra yap ra phyara A, vulg. ed8dxcpa] ddxipa B.

508 APPENDIX A.

add. dptvopa. 1d d€ dvopa addxtpov B, Nu. Corripuit P, duvvay odx eimois GAAd Sia pyyaros, auvvopa, auivacOat, duvvoop 15. om. P. xp} A€yerv] xp yap éyew B, Nu. oe] oo A, B, vulg. dwadddr- tovrat| dma\AdxOovra Ph. 16. om. P. 17. om. P. épréypave] *Adhéeypavac A. kal radra 81a rod n] dia Tod y Kal radTa Aeyera B, Nu. kal raira dia rod n Aéyera Ca. 18. mpodeopiay] A, B, Ca. Va. Ph. mpobecopia vulg, 19. dei yap] déov dv B. 20. dd\Aokédras] A, B, Ca. Ph. dddoxorepws vulg. expiv] xpqv B. 22. d1a rod érépov X kdktorov] dia Tov érépov éori Kdxiora B, idem literula X addita Nu. 80 évds X kdkiorov Va. aveiddewy] Nu. dveddciv A, Va. dvevheiv B, 23. épeire] éepeis B, vulg. 24. om. Ca. #rermrat] eidemra A. eidymrat Ph. kar@puxrat] kal-Kxardpuxra vulg. rv hoviy| ryv mpatnv conj. Lobeck. dAnAermrat] ddpdurra B. 26. dpoerdéorv] dpoedéow Va. . duoroedéow Nu. Articulum corripuit P. dwedevoopat ovk elrrois GAN’ drexpu. 27. emeeevedpevos 6 DaBapives hyat, cv be emeEcdv cal eméferpi] P. emegehevodpevos GddKipor? od 88 érekidv" kal yap éme&eipe Néyerar GAN ovK ereEehevoouat B. odros] ovros jv Nu. Va. xp yap] xpy pev Va. 28. 8¢ évost] om. A, Ca. adxKatcxoy, tpoxaukdr] A, B, ddxauxdv, as tpoxauxdy Ca, ddxauxdy, rpoxaukdy kal dpxauxdy Nu. 29. pndapads] py étrys al. 30. ei dé ev 7G v] el dé ek rov vB. ev b€ rH v A, Ca. 32. dwémadat kal] om. kal B, al. dvoxepaive] A, B, Ca. duoyxépave al. 33. €@Oev] om. Ca. Va. 34. ywopis rod vy] om. Nu. 35. kal rodro] om, cai B, Nu. Tov v, dros] Tod v héyewv BYptos ws BpOptos Nu. row v dypwos eye ds dpOpios. 38. Aéyorres dpapravovarr] Aéyovow dpapravovres B, Nu. 39. moramés Sé éoruy ef elmots moramds| 7d moramis Sé, Cort ToTards Nu. 1d woramds 8€ eorw ei elrots, roramés B. Spvvixos; emcerkys| Spivixos; ppdvipos, emerkns al. 40. Avxvodxor éye] om. eye B, Nu. 43, épeis rd] epeis Oniuxds 76 B, Nu. 0d kata rd dppevikdr| om. B. 44. xpadBBaros] addit B prapdv yap. 46. hapvyé] da- pv&é B. 47. dvatdifer Oat] avdadiferda. MSS. Edd. 48. om. P. 49. 0m. P. rot cofiarot om. B. rovvoza om. B. vidos] vidos A,B, Ph. év rots €] €v rois mévre Ca. Ph. = rodro dé kai SiddEevos ad fin.] om. B. 50. om. P. revragerv] orovddfew B, sed in margine revratev. Seiv Aéyecv] Aéyery om. A. 51. mapéxet] mapexor B. ct kal pdprupa mapéxot tis Om. P. 52. om. P. 54. domdnyé€] dordné B. déyeras ovx] Aeye GAN ody A, Ca. 56. Aéyouvar] om. A, Ca. kopdotoy ov] Kopdo.oy mapadoyoy B, Nu. 58. om. P, bis scribit B diversis autem locis, alio recte ut editur, alio cum spurio additamento ~ H@\Xov pev ody “EXAnves 7d raxtov, Oarrov dé *ArriKol. 59. Séd«cpor] Soxiparepo A, Ca. 60. om. P. 61. @avpdoerey av] Phrynicho reddidi. 6avpdcar 8’ dv Nu. Oavpdoerar 8 ty B. Oavpdoa av A, Ca. Ph. 64. A€yovoty apaprdavorres] éyovres duapravovaw B, Nu. héyouow A. ris ev vdp@] ths évydpov Nu. Lo. 65.0m P. ray apxaiwy pavepas| havepas trav apxaiwy A, Ca, Ph. 66. map’ avdrois

APPENDIX A, 509

obK ott] ovk tort map’ avrois B, Nu. 68. om. P. mpoBackdavior pera ris mpd] mpooBackdnoy pera tis mpds MSS. Edd. Hoeschelius correxit. addit ddéxijnov yap B, Nu. 69. om. P. voidroy cai Boi- 8.0v] BolStov Kat Boidiov Nu. vovdsov cal Bovdrov] Bovdiov Kat Bovdiov Nu. 70. om. P. Sracpodvres Xéyovow] om. B. 71. yodr] ody B. cis rv rdrpcov deddeKrov, ddu7 A€yor] om. Ca. 73. dxeorijs Ney. of wad. odk Aa.] om. Va. fore pev ArjcacOat] Hmioacba kore pev A, Va. Ph. imodnxas] ovvOjxas Va. 76. Verba certo spuria addunt B, Va. Nu. viz. haec, pimore b€ Kal os of moddol Aéyovow xpavrat of dpyaio kal emt rod Ti yaorépa rintev. 77. d1a rod p AE ye] Sta rod y Aeye A. Sia rod y Ph. 78. P.om. kat pi] adda py B. Nu. 79. P.om. 1d ypudcfeev] rd -ypvdAdifew A. kal doxnpdvos] om. Ca. ypvdriferv kal ypudropds] ypuddifew kat ypvddopds A. 84. jjpépa, pi] jyépa, apy) yuri, wy B, Nu. jpépa eal dpyds yur) ad fin.] om. P. 85. duaprdvoyres| dpaprdvovow B, Edd. ofov] om. B. 86. kai els év] cis €v B, Va. Nu. 87. om. A, P, Ca; in B articulo praeeunti adjungitur mapa ’Emydppe kre. nisi yeveoOo pro yevéoOa. Ne in Nunnesii quidem exemplo yevnOjvar apparet, sed ab Oudendorpio ad Thom. p. 189 conjectaneum addebatur. 88. om. A,P. od8év add’] od« ado B. 89. dyptov] om. A. 6 daddp- ayos| 6 domdpayos A. domdpayos B. atov] airs A, Nu. aire B. varatot 8 | év draow A,B, Nu. vn Ba] avn8a B. pddpor] pdrdov A, Nu. gdoiov B. dypotot] aypios A, B, Nu. karadreydpeval katahedeypeva B. 7d é€v] om, A, B, Nu. 15a. Ca. Va. advair] ‘dxavOat B, Nu. Articulus hunc in modum apud P legitur, déppeva’ ai trav Aaxdvev ava, kai eEoppevifew 1d ék Bracrdvew kal e€avOciv. éye ody Oppeva Kat pi) domapdyous. 91. Eye] A€yerar kal Nu. A€yera B. 93. om, P. 96. undémore xpyjon] phmote eimns A, Ca. Va. 97. otk dyndéxact] ov Karayndxaot A, Ca. 98. om. P. ékxeivor es] éxeivot, od be eis A, Ca, Va. uddrrov] dvuddrrov xpioda B, Nu. 101. om. P. 104. rod mavrés] efaiyns B, Nu. eiwov] om. A, Ca, Va. 106. In A solum est kAnpovopeiy roide. Sic quoque Ca. et Va. qui tamen od réde adjungunt. 107. eirev] om. A, Ca. Va. 109. rd rpoo Sox] tov rpoodox. B, Nu. roy érionpor] rd émionpoy Ca. 110. rnOnv] sic B. ridnv A. rirOnv Ca. Nu. Va. rnns] sic A, B. 111. od8¢ yap] ov8¢ A, Ca. kat xdddcov kal kpetooov] om. A, Ca. 112, povdpOadpor] povdpparoy Nu. 113. mpiac@ac] mpiapa A, B,. Ca. 114. om. P. as viv] as of viv Ca. 116. om. P. dAda pi] kal pw) AS 120. 0m. P. 9-121. om. P. 122. om. P. dvev] xwpis Ca. Nu. Ph. 130. ei kat] ody Ph. od épeis] om. Ph. 132. dvioraro] éevioraro Nu. cujus exemplari literae initiales semper defuisse videntur. 133. é¢nrnrat] egirntov A. Ca. Va. déyerv] eyerOu A. emi Svc@dias] om. B, Nu. émi rijs Svowdids Ca. Va. héve] ef xp eye B, Nu. 134. addit B post GepraroKAjy verba haec, cuvaipecis yap cvvatpéoewy odk éorw. 136, ScepOopds] POopds.

510 APPENDIX A.

A, Ca. A€yovo.y] om. B, Nu. 138. om. P. dpxaiws] dpxaiov Nu. 139. om. P. 140. om. P. py] ddda py A, Ca. Va. Ph. 142. éridecay] éridow Nu. éq’ od} B. ap’ ob A, Ca. &vo Nu. kal pi Oupérnv] py Aéye be OvpeAdnv B, Nu. 143, tyduv] tydyy Nu. 144. om. P. dpapricet] duaprncas MSS. Edd. kat ra dporal om. A, Ca. Ph. 145. om. P.. airavAns] aiOatdns A. mvOavdAns B. 146. om. P. xatampoigerat] xarampoitera A, B, Ca. 147. jpap- roy] fuapre Nu. fpapraa A, B. AodAravds] AoAAopds A, Ca. Va. Ph. Hoc verbum et cetera om. B. Ex P desunt cuncta praeter aif vijes Epeis, odx al vais. addorkoy yap. Tas vias odk épeis, GAG Tas vais. 148.0m.P. pagavida] papida Nu. 149, kav] khadav MSS. Edd. 150. dda] om. B, Nu. 152. xabapo B. xpeirrom Nu. xp odv T@ kabapa@. TO yap THY] xp@ ody TH yap THY A. xp@ ovv TO Ti Ca, Va. 153. dyyeiov] dyyciov ds tues B, Nu. 155. om. P. déyew om. A. 157. kvvidtov A€ye] adjungit od kvvdpiov B cetera omit- tens. 158. Aéyetv] om. B, Nu. Aéye post S€ adjecto. 159. in angustum contraxit B, éddd.cay ok ededieray. 160. obdecis] ovdels dnotpémov B. «i kal Xp....- déeyeer om. B. of yap.... ovdeis] ovdcls yap of dpxain B. In P desunt cuncta praeter otdeis déxipor, ovxt dé ovdeis. 161, Adyvos] Adyvos abi B, Nu. 162. da rod o 6 "lov, Aayds] bia S€ Tod o Aayods 6 "lov B. 81a 8€ Tod o Aayds 6” lov Nu. Addunt Nu. et B rd Aaya@ds ovK Eorw. 163. «i kai dua rHy .+++Tpvgdn] om. B,P. Tpidy] rpvpy Nu. rpvdav Ca. Va. zpv- geiv A. 166, 50 aida] pi aida A, Va. 169. 4 per] ef pev Va. Ca. 170. as Apioroparns xre.] om. B. 171. 0d pa] ob pay MSS. Edd. Gpeirat] rovr petra B. 172. pecoddxrvda pnSapas cimois GANa Tra péoa trav Saxridoy P. 174, padns] A, P. padnv B, Nu. 175. In angustum contraxerunt B et P, viz. weysoravas ov xpi) Neyer GAA péya Suvapévous B. peyroraves addxipov’ od dé péya Suvapevovs deye P. 176. om. P. 177. 7d rowodrov om. B. 178. post pixnras addunt ra pavirdapia A, Ca. 179. Pessime A, Ca. etrpogos py déye piymote as *AOnvaior, pndé oixoyery, GAN’ oixdrpiBa pymore kre. 180. om. P. 182. dpxaios paivy| dpxaios Arrixds paivoto A. vooadptoy] veor- odkoyv Ca. Va. doodcov A. Brevissime B, veotrés xai vedrrioy *Ar- Tikol ypadouct. 183. ypuoods héye om, Nu. 184. cai éxrpopa] om, A. radra gedye] roiro pedyov A, todro hevkriv Ca. addxia B. xaidpBrAwpaom. A, Ca. dpuBrioxer] du8tooxne A, Ca. 185. dueiv 8 Zore pév....é€mtrapdrrera] om. B. emi yap py r] tidera S€ ent pdyns yevixns B. 186. ds tives TOv ypappartikay] om. B. 187. ro yap peipag xre.] ofoy 4 yur) Stay ody cimwow 6 petpak én yuvatkds déyouvat 7d S€ petpdxiov emi dprenxay A. Brevissime Ca, peipakes kai peipag emi yuvaikds Néyovor, rd Sé pecpdkcov emt dpoenkar. 188. om. P. kaxds] xadkds A, B, Nu. of i8s@rac] 6 idworns B. idtorns Nu. ot d¢ dvaBaddopar PaGi] dvaSdd\d\opa dyoly A, B, Nu. 189. od kad@s ad extr.] om. B. Breviter P, cradepis émi rod dvOpa-

APPENDIX A, 511

mov ovdapas éyerat GAN euBpdijs. 190. rdrrerat] tdrrovow A, Ca. Gdnpovica) abvpjoa Nu. 191. om. P, 193, "ley dy] "lover MSS. 194. om. P. rodtroA\€yovary €xovres] xpapevor €xovow DB, Nu. 1° . dpromémos] dpromddys A. 199. om. P. 201. Bad- avrok\éntns] P. Badavrioxkdémrns] P. 202. Bacihiooa ovdeis eimey GAG Baaidis “ENAnuixdy 7} Bacideva mointixdy P. 203. Brevissime B, Baciucoay pt A€ye GAAG Bacidecay Baordidba, dmrodarGets] ém- aves Nu. dropipaciy] dropynpovetpact Ca, 204, os APnvaios] om. P. 205. om. P. 206. om. A, B, Ca. AX’ npeis od kre.] hpets Se yeAdrordy apev ov trois druk pyndeior mpowéxovres GAA Tois mod- Naktis Kexpipévars P. 209. om. P. 212. dpOdrepov] dpOadrepa A. yeddoet] yeAdoes MSS. Edd. 213, 0m.P. 214, om. P.. Ké- Xpnvrat] xpavra Nu. prpare] mpdypars A, Ca. 215. om. A, P. Ca. Ph. 216. @eparaivys]| bepamawvidos A, _Adjungit B ofs dkohovOnréov post vedudos. 219. auaprdvet] ovy apaprave. MSS. Edd, 221. om. A, Ca. Va. 223. om. P. modAdkts edpov keipevor....oida] om. B, Anpoodérns pévror kre.] om. B. 225. om. P. 227. ob Sdxipov] evddxipoy A, B, Ca. Va. 228. rd pev.... Tod o.] om. A, Ca. Va, 230. om. P. @s 6 Kpartivos om. B. -trav #} et *Oéheis.... TiOe1] om. B. rider] reO7s Nu. 232. om. B,P. éx- pijto év ovyypappace Kre,] expyoaro ev emypdupace mrept ths Snpodous coppoatyys Ca. emiypapopeve] emupepopevm A, 233. Stumméivor] orunréivov A, B, Ca. Ph. orimevor] orimtwoyv A,B, Ca. Ph. Huic articulo adjungit A rdde puAurrdpevds tis BeATiov Kai Soxia@repos ein av, ‘eadem Nu. nisi quod pro dokipwrepos legat Soxipmraros. Sequitur in Nu. rod avrod éemiroun, in A rod avrov tuna Sevrepov od dpxn. — 235. Brevissime B et P, evayyeAiCopai oe py Aéye GAAG SorikH B. eday- ycdigopa: airtatixy cvvrdccovow,, of melous Sé Sorikp. ypdperar b€ kal evayyeh@, ob 70 Sevrepov evayyeheis P. 236, ra mAnOuvreKa] doa and tourer P. 237. aliter P, dvwOév ce pidos eipi, add’ od dvéxaber epeis* To yap dvexaev xarémecev én rémov AapBavovow *AOnvaio, ei bé trd ‘Hpoddrov pyae: tis kali el xpdvov hapBaveoOa, adnO7 pev Pyce. ov piv 7d tnd “Hpodérou ara€§ eipjoda rd Séxpov tis Kpicews ad’t@ mupéxerat, ov yap lovixkav...,’Artixov] om. B, Nu. 238. om. P. kat Oavpafw.... addKipor dv] om. B. 239. om. A, B, Ca. 240, Braxckdv] BXaxtov MSS. Edd. 241. SBcte mavrws....tOéaci rd éxov eivac] om. B, adnotantur vero in margine alia manu. Arrti- culus hic in P sic legitur, 16 éxav elva: of madawi émi dmayopeioews ridéaow, Exo elvar jul) ToLoys i) moLjow, Kal éxdvres bvTEs pu) MononTE Ff) romooper’ bat Sé emt karapdoéws rOeacw olov Exdv eivae eroinga, dyaptd- vouow. péytota dpaptdvovety] otro b¢ padiota duapravovaw Nu. obra bé péeyota dpaptravovow B, 242, aliter B et P, viz. épOpav kai bpOpevecOa of madacoi roy mpd HArlov Kapov ev & Avxvov Tis xpHrau’ ol be vov To yAvkavyés 6 Kal Ew asi. 243. dmrdviov| dmravetov A, Ca. Ph. dntdmovy acugreAddpuevov B. Breviter P, payerpos Sdxovr, payetpeiay b€

512 APPENDIX A.

ov, GAN’ dmramoy bia Tod t. 244, of yap dpedeis.... mpoarievar| om. P. 245. kal 6 re Sudxptors] om. B. Nu. Aliter brevissime P, avykpivew révde rHde od xpr A€yety GAAd mapaPddrew Kat dvrekeraCewv. 246. kai eye péev puddrreaOackre.] mapa pev Gd Tov Sokipwv ovx edpov" iyyotpat O€ Kal Govkvdidyy ev rH n pera Tod ApOpov elpynxévar Kar’ éxeivo Tod Katpod, kal ey pév puddrrecOar mapas ovrw xphoOa’ «i & drt Govkvdidys eipnxe Oappoin tis xpjoba, xpncbe pev ody dé ro dpOp» B, Nu. Breviter P, car’ éxeivo rod Katpod Couxvdidys ev TH n €lpnKe pera Tod apOpov adN’ ov xepis dpbpov. ores obv kal abros épeis. 247. om. P. 248. wddev kal radra.... ppovridos ad&tov' ddd] om. B. idem P nisi quod d\Ad retineat, verbo dddxipa post evorajs posito. euBpideral emei- xcea A, Ca. Ph. éuBpideca, emeikea B. 249. om. B, P. Ca. Ph. Brevissime et in margine A, mad\w pera rod v. 250. om. P. emt morv O€....dvayeypaperat] om. B. 251. breviter B P, yevwy- para émi Kapr&v pi Néye GAAA Kaprods Enpods 7 bypows B. -yerwqpara ent kaprév tives ddokipws tiOéact od dé Kaprods Enpovs Kai bypods éye P. 254. om. P. xpi) ody dmjvrnce NEyetv Kal curynyrynce] ouvivrnce de kal admnvrnce eye B. 255. adjungunt verba 6re arrixdy kal Séxtpov B, Nu. 256. avéjnoes] imepagénoes B, Nu. onpaivopeda] onpat- vonev Nu. Brevissime P, dvvyitew kal efovuxitew rabriv. riBerar bé émt rod axpiBodoyeiaba, 7d S€ amovuxifew 1d Tas adfjoes Tay dvixov adape. 257. kal ra vara doxipes dy éyouro] om. A, Ca. kal ra vara Sdéxipov B. Breviter P, 6 vdros adoxipws dpoevixds, ovderépas dé 7o va@tov kal Ta vara. 258. Brevissime A, B, Ca. P. Bpéxet emt (avri Ca.) rod vet €v rim kop@dia A, Ca. Bpéxer emt rod ver od rdv doxi- pov mavy B. Bpeéxew emi rod tev twes ribdacw ev kopedig, éorr dé addxipoyv P. 259. om. P. 260. 1) A€ye] add. adda Karddecpos Nu. Aliter P, émidecpos dpoevkas pi) eye GANA Karddeopos, Kat émi- Seopov odderépws Kal erideopa of dpyxaior. 261. reOépevor] rarrd- pevoy P. 262. préws] préos Nu. mArexdpeva] A, P. Aeydpeva Nu. ywopeva Ca. Breviter B, dovds od Aéyerar GAAG gdews, kal Ta amd rovrov preéiva. 264. duabeis dé of Aé€yorres civ Kre.| héyovar oly TG t Kal o @s Takaoris Kal GOrnrns B. dpyabes rd héyew waratoris, maaorns yap 6 a0Anrns P. 265. emt dé rod xre.] eyyecoy 8¢ emt rod év TH yn apiorov, kat AnpooOérns eyyevov réxov noi P. 267. om. A, Ca. Ph. 268. om. A, P, Ca. Ph. Aliter P, ia kai da, of dmdas dpapravorres, of Sé Sumd@s, youd, od dé vedpdy héye. 270. om, A. ddorip dddKipov, ov dé rpvyourov héye P. 271. omit A, Ca. ramvpos] mamepos Nu. madzupoy ovk épeis adda BiBov, Alyvrtiov yap Td rarupoy P, 272, om. P. 273. Brevius B et P, Nirpov alodtxas, aOnvaios bé bia rou A. B. —virpoy aiodixoy, of Sé ’AOnvaios Aitpoy P. 274, dveyuds 6 eEddergos, eEddeAdos be od P. 275. om. P. 276. mavdoxeiov ov« épeis GAXa 81d Tod x, ravDoxeioy Kat ravSoKebrpia Kal mavSoxeds P. 277. tov Képiy A€ye Kre.| auddrepoy P, 278. om. A. udxdos ypade B. 279. drdev d€.... a5nXov] om. A, B, Ca. Va. Ph. 281. om. A,

APPENDIX A. ; 513

B, P, Ca, &c. 282. muedos, pveAos, ehos* Guaprdvovow of px) did Tod € Aéyorres, GANA Sia TOU a. ~—sTVEAOS bia TOD € Kal ptedos pytéov A, om. B, ¥. 283. om. A. ai xddtkes Onuxas ypade B. 284. om. A, B, P, Ca. 285, d\n’ avr’ xre.] adhd Sayndds B. 287. om. P. Brevius A,B. rapaxara@nxny Kai un mapadnxny eye A. mapabnkny wy, mapakara- Onxny dé B. 290. Brevius P, dywydr of madatot ent rod jyoupevou dddv twa, of Se viv én ray dxerar. 291. om. P. kpimrerat kat kpvmrec Oat Pabt, py Sea rod B. B. 292. ri@éact] riBedor Kai emi ariwou Koupas B. avOparerv] 6 dei puddrrev adj. B. Non male P, xapjvat kat éxdpn emt drisov xoupas, emi dé évripou Koupas, kelpacOa. 293. om. A, P, Ca. 294.0m.P. 295.0m.P. dmocoBnréor] dmoBdynréov Nu. xOeorvdr] xOaév A, Ca. Va. Brevissime B, yOc¢ov mourixdy” od S¢ yOerkov ypdde. 296. 0m. B. 297. 0m, P. 298. 0m.P. 299. 0m. P. 300, om. A, P, Ca. Va. Ph. 301. om. Ca. Va. Ph. 302. om. B. 303. om. P. 304. om. P. 305. om. A, P, Ca. Va. Ph. 306. om. A, P; Ca. Va. Ph. 307. Brevissime B, P. reeAnxévat par) elrors, nOeAnkéva Sé B. reOednxéevar AdeLavSpewrixdy, 7d dé "Arrixdy 7OeAnkéeva P. 308. om, P. 7 dé Wudda kre] Sdxipov dé 7 WeAda B. 309, om. P. 310. Brevius B, P, ox émiroxos GAN’ éemireE yurn P. — éxiroxos yur} addkipor, émireE Se abi B. 311. om. P. 312. om. A, Ca. Va. Ph, evdupevia pu) déye, oxevn b€ Kara Thy oikiay Kat émumda B, 313. om. P. éumupiopds pi) A€ye GAN eumpnopds B. 314. jurpdxOnpor] HueAnnevoy A, Ca. Va. Ph. 315. €ueAXov Oeivar] om. P. et res ott cuvrdrret] om. P. 316. om. P. 317. om, A, Ca. Va. Ph. 318. om. A, Ca. Ph. 319. Brevissime xatapvew ov kappvev A, Ca. Va. kapptew eoxdras dddxipov, karapvev ydp B. 320. kal Ocdppacrov Kexpnpév. aire] om. B, 321. ef kal kre] om. B, 322, om, A, P, Ca. 323. 7d d€ prapds dpyaior] prapds 6B. 326. om.P. 327. ddda kal Avoiay xre.] om. A, B, Ca. Va. 328. om. B, P. 329. om. P. 330. ro S¢ rapa rotro kre.] om. B. 331. om. A, P, Ca. Va. ri dv ody pac kre.] om. B. 332. om. A, P, Ca. Va. Ph. 333, 334. Nunnesii codex unicus hos articulos con- servavit. 335. om. A,Ca. Va. Ph. 336. om, A, Ca. Va. Ph. Bre- vissime B, yoyyuopos kal yoyyiew, tadra lakd, od 8€ rovOpvopdy Kai rovOpulw eye i} vn Sia kre, 338, ottTw... B1ad Tod t.] Om. B. 339. om. P. 341. om, A, P, Ca. Va. Ph. cdummidys dé cal xre,] om. B. 342. om. A, Ca. Va. Ph. Brevissime B, éveyupipaia pu) Aéye evéxupa 8é- 343. om. A, Ca. Va. Ph. 344. of yap Sdx. kre] xpnords 8€ 7d #O0s kal ob ra 4@n B. 345, addit P audacia inepta, kal rij peydAnv mérpav Suvéoos Oupedy Kadei. Ovpedy ovk épeis, GAN’ domida. 346. hunc. arti- culum Nunnesii codex unicus servavit. 347. om. A, B, Ca. Va. Ph. ovx oloy kai pi) olov KiBSndov, ofov, ody otov dpyifopat' ob Syrou roivuy épeis Kat pr) Syrrov. 348, as “AXeEcs] om. B. 349, év8nmorody] A, ovdnroroiy P. éyrivody] odrivody B. obtwocoiy P. 350.0m.P. Bre- vissime B, mpéaqaros vexpds kal mpaypa. 352. dytt rod cupgopal Ll

514 APPENDIX A.

} ovpdpopa A,Ca. Va. 353. om. P. 354. om,A,Ca. Brevissime B, campay oi moddol avi tod alaxpav, od S€ emi Tod ceonréros. 355. om. A, P, Ca. Va. Ph. 356. om. A, P, Ca. dda od kadapds ad fin.] ov b€ Kaddv exer mpdaaror épeis. 357. om. A, Ca. Va. Ph. Brevis- sime B, orpynviav’ avtl rovrou déye rpupar. 360. om. A, Ca. Va. Ph. 361. om. A, Ca. Va. Ph. ornOidcov broxopiorixds 2) Nye GANA orHOos B. ornbimoy dpudiov Aéyovar, od dé arnOidiov ci imoxopiotiKHs BovrAn héyew, ei & ov, orndos P. 362. om. A, P, Ca. Va. Ph. imépcodos pnréov ob piv b€ imépdpiyvs B. €avrev] emendavit Scaligerus, ékévrev in Nu. codice apparente. 363. Nunnesius solus servavit. 364. ppovetv O¢ ra Oyral dAda ra dvra hpoveiy B. 365. om. A, Ca. Va. Ph. 366. om. A, B, P, Ca. 368. €xeu kai ohadepds radtrrovory om. B. 7 dé Tov éaxdras kre.] od dé emi rod dkpov ride exxdrws Tovnpds, eaxaTos gpiridcopos. 369. modus, 6 dé drrikds] moAds Aews, GAN’ of ddéyor Kal ’Arrixol Nu. of moAXol, od dé B. 370. Brevissime B, xpés ar- Tikas Out Tod w peyddouv héye. Erépacs] Sevrépas Ca., om. Nu. 371. om. P. of d€ viv.. .dp0as om. B. 372. cada cai Anpoobévns ad extr. om. A, Ca. Va. Aé€ye ody ri dsagheper] om. Ph. 373. xp@] xpn- oréov A, Ca. Va. Brevissime B, rérevye tips pry Néye, GANA TerdxnKer 374. orpoBiAjoa To cvoTrpéeWat] cvorpoBica rb cvoerpeya A. ovo- TpoBirjoa ro orpepa B, Nu. avorpoBijoa rd cvorpépa Ca, otras .++pntéov] om. B. xapmés] xaprév MSS. edd. wirvs] rir MSS. edd. érivivxre.Jom.B. kalyapSdédov«re.]om. A. 375. oke- ets] bes Ca. ocuvyKxaraBaivery eis ds8ackadias] om. P. 376. xara d:apOopayr] om. B. 379. om. P. A€ye ody kre.] Aéyerat obv Kal émt trav tpiav dvopareav A, Ca. Va. 380. om. P. 381. om. P. 382. Soxei dé por xre.] om. B. — Breviter P, puyny’ od rhv orevardy Guabas kara Maxeddvas adda tiv éppiy’Arrixds. 386, 387. in unum redegerunt A, Ca. 386. om. P. 387. rodro yap kal larpot kre.] om.A. Breviter P, eémnxv kat é£érns* otr@ yap of larpoi A¢youow eEme- Opov kat EEdwdeOpor, 388. yevéo Oar] om. Nu. 391. om. omnes codd. et edd. praeter Nunnesium. 392. Brevissime B, yipos ov ypaperat. om.al.praeter Nu. .393. ctconpoy od xp@ B. om.al. praeter Nu. 395. Brevius B et P. xar dvap ov ypdderat, ds ovde rd Kad’ Umap, add’ Fro dvap iddy i) e& dveipov dews B. od xpi) kar’ dvap Eye, &onep ovdé xa trap" Gdn frou Gvap dav i) €& dveipov sews ovrw Kal imap P. 396. mapa... xpyowv] ddoxinzws B. 397. aliter B, rd Kalas ov ypdderat’ add 7d KaOd" Kal Govxvdidys* KaOd dei eis Sex. wr. Kat 7d Kaba Sdxipor. 398. om. A. pi) kdxkaBov adda KaxkdByy dia rod n B. 399. Breviter omnes praeter Nu. kuynyés otras of rpaytkol moural dopt- Kas rpiovdddBas* of & ’Arrixol Kuynyérns héyovor B. xuvnyérns of "Arrikol, GAN od Kuvnyds, TpayiKov yap rodro P.. Kxuvyyérns eye TerparvAAdBos ‘A, Ca.Va.Ph. 400. Nunnesius servavit. 401. om. A, B, Ca. Va. 402. wodXo/] wadaoi A, Ca. Va. Ph. Breviter B, mpds adppodicra axd- Aagros, ov Katapepns, 403, om. A, B, P, Ca. Va. Ph. 404. otx

APPENDIX A. 515

6p0as emi rot dpyvpapotBod Nu. Stamaverar] dvanavera Nu. ra- paceonpacpévoy] inepte Nu. addxpov. Brevius B, xohAvBioris ob ypaderar’ Kd\AvBos 8€ voptopa Sdxipor. 405. 4} ra (dca épavrod kre.} om. A, Ca. Va. 406. om. Ca. Va. Aliter A, adéyev as of madatoi* éyxparetvecr Oat kal pt) dxpateverOa. Brevissime B, ov« éyxpareverat ypd- era. 407. nde] ovdé Ca. kat py Nu. MHuic articulo adjungit A, rédos Tis Ppuvixou ékdoyhs arrikGv pyudtwv Kal dvoydrwv, sed Nunnesii codex rédos rod Sevrépov, dpx}) Tod y., vide p. 504 supra. Articulos, quos in tertio libro edidit Nu., illos adjeci qui non in alio loco jam nobis obviam ierunt. 411. In Nu. codice accessit dewov ydp* éxros ef pay mobev todro els baBwpivoy #AOev, dOev oddeis older. apxaior pév yap ovTws ob A€yovew, éxeivos 8. wAry ein Eis" ipeis ody ws of dpxaiot, GAda pH os DaBwpivos.

L1la

APPENDIX B.

Cod. Med. Laurent. Plut. lvii. Cod. 34.

"Ard Tay Tov dpowixov (sic).

’Emirokos 7) yuri od Soxipws elev avrupdyns 6 Keopuxds' Sov éenireE H yurn.—epmuptopos otras imepeidns nuednuévas’ S€ov eumpnopos héyerv.— nuikakov ovx oUtws* GAN’ HutdxOnpov Pabt.—keadoropeiy amdppimre Tov~ voua kat Oedppacroy Kexpnpévov adr@’ Aéye b€ Kaparopeiv.dxaway pev yovaika épeis* Adkaway dé tiv xopav ovdapas" adda Aakovixny’ ef Kal evpt- mldns mapaddyws dynoiv.uapia ov Séxiov* rd dé papds, dpxatov.—epyo- Sdrns ov keira’ rd 8€ épyodoreiv mapa Tux TOY vewrépwov Kop@dar’ ols ov muatéov (SiC).—évréxvas mavu airi@vtat totvopa’ Kal acl trexvikas det Aéyetv” GANG kal Avoiav elpykdra evréxvos Tapatrodvrat,—yapyan pi) Eye GAA yapoin Sid Tis or” ds vooin pidroin’ rd (sic) yap tis mporns cvtvylas kal tpitns ray meptaT@péevay pynpdrov edKrika Sid rhs o SupOdyyou Aéyerar” olov redoin. Ta dé THs Sevrépas id THs G olovy wK@nv’ yehonvy’ yedons* yeron. didans* d:dans d:8en rodro 7rd edxrixdy, ovdels TOY arrixay Sia Tis @ eimev" GNAG Sia THs % SipOdyyou" rexunpiot S€ Gunpos” eav pev yap wro-

TaKTiKas xpirat, da Tov @ éyer’ ci OE kev aie San Kidos dpécOar’ €or yap

e ee es n ° ~ Nes ay 5 o ie 8 A imoraxrixdy’ ei & edxrixds otras’ col dé Geol réca Soiev, dca pect ofow eOaipacay yody adeEdvSpov rod cipov codicrod boy Kal ddan Aéyovros.— A ce RS P : \ tn sak, dvacOnrevopar’ rd pév dvaicOnros Gvopa, Soxipararov’ Td dé pia, ovKert héye ody odk alaOdvopat.—avbekacrérns, ddddkorov" Td pev yap adOéxacros kd\\oroy dvoua’ 76 Sé mapa rovro temoinpevoy 7 avdekacrérns KiBdnhov.— rov maida roy dkoovOodvra per’ avrod Avaias ev TO kara avToKpdrny ovTw tH ouvrager xpira’ éxpiv S€ ovras eimeiv' roy dxohovboivra arg’ ti your

dy rs gain. dpapreiv rov Avotav, }) voOevew Kany oxnwaTos xpiow adr”

éret Eévn wdvrn 7) civOcois mapairTa. pyréoy 5’ dxodovbeiv attg.—Biwri- kdy andis 9 A€kts* Aye SE xpHomov ev rH Bio.—yoyyropds Kal yoyyifew, tavta Odxiywa pev ovk tori taxa dé" yeis dé tovOpvopdy Kal rovOpige héyoper’ # ody 7G 6 rovOopila Kat rovOopvopdy.—divy’ edy pévtor 7d bro- raxrikoy 7) av Stvapa edy Ovvy, dpOds éyerar. dy Sé dptorixds riO7 tis div rodro mpaka, ody byds av, riHeln xpi) yap Aéyetv ov Sivacat Toro

ea

APPENDIX B. 517

mpagat.—apkice Kal dpKarns €yo’ otra Kpativos dyno paddov de did rod @ eye’ ) Oia Tod T Spxicer.—edéero* emdéero’ taxa tadra’ 4 dé arrixy ouvy dea cvvapet’ emdetro edeiro.—eEadddEat 76 rpéwvar kal mapayayeiv® els & edippocivny, xpi) puvddrrecOa ovr déyewv.—Oupeds Todro Sunpos ért Aidov riOnow" dvtt Ovpas rhv xpelav mapéxovros’ emt ths damidos dé of moAXol riOeacw ovtwis Tav apxatwy Kat Soxiney xpyoapever’ xpy ov dorida héyey.—évdnrorody pr eye’ GAA Soxivos dyrwvody.—rTdpa ent vexpovd tiWéacw of viv’ of dé dpxaiot, ody ovr@s* GANG mrdpa vexpor 7 olkov.—mrepioracis dvi rod cuppopa’ of crwikol xparvra pirdcopar’ of bé apxaior wepicracw déyovor tip bia Twa Tdpaxov Tapovoiay mAnOovs* pdbos & dv, rmexdcidov Aéyovros Sie rus (Sic) #5 (Sic) kpavyn’ Kal Sdpwr zepi- oracts.—rapepBory Sevas paxedovixdy’ kairo. éviy TS orpatorédo xphoOat mretore@ té Kal Soxive dvtt.—orroperpeio Oat jut) Néye’ Stadvav dé epeis ciroy perpcicOa.—pporvipevterOar pr A€ye" Hpoveiy dé ra dvra.—ypynotpedoat py héeye’ GAA xpHotpov yevécbar.—éeoxdrws exew et Tod poxOnpas exeww Kar oparepas tarrovew of cippakes* 7 Se rod eoydras xpijows, oicba Gre emi Tov dkpov mapa Tois apxaios vopiferar* érxdtws movnpas (sic) piidcoos* Stayparréov otv Kat rodro.—xpeodurijoat héyer 6 odds eds" GAN’ of dALyor kal drrtkoi, Ta xpéa Stavaacbar.—irordyos 6 pidav Adyous* kal grovdd- (av mept madeiav® of Sé viv, él rod eumipov riOéacr Tovvopa, odk dpbas* TO pévror eprhoddynoa kal pidoAoy kal wavra pnyata kal Ta peToyiKd, evddkiya.—rtin. Stapéper rdde Kal rdde, od xpy otra Aéyew Kara Sorckhy mraow adda ri dtahéper’ Kaba kai Snpooerns gnot ri Soddov # éhedOepov eivar Staéper’ A€ye oor ti Siahéper.—rérevye tipis’ térevye TOD oKdrov po) Aéyys’ mouptixdv ydp* GN dvr’ adrod rH Soxipw xpO rerixnkev.—orpd- Bitov of pev roddoi, 7d Cddtpov éyouct Kal adrd 7d Sévdpor. of Sé dpxaior, Thy Biaiav rod dvépou etAnow kal avotpopyy, orpdBirov daci* Kal cverpo-~ Birjoa 7d cvoTpéyar" ovtas ody Kal jpiy pyréov' rd dé edddipoy, miri@v kapnay Kal rd dévdpoy, mirvy.—avyKaraBaivew eis Tas okéypers* ocvykata- Baivey eis di8ackxadiav ph eirys’ GAA ovyKabsévar’ Kai ovyKabijKev eis Td maifew* 7) G\N6 T1.—ovaxXoAaoTds eoxdrws dvdrrikov’ od S€ cuphournrds Aéye.—fadrepov pn’ paov dé* ovykpitiKoy yap ovyxpirixod od« fat. olov et tis héyer Kpecoodrepov.—pipny kal rodro of pév dOnvaion, em ris Sppijs éri~ Oecav’ oi S€ viv dyads emi rod otevwrod® Soxei S€ por Kal rodro pake- Sovdy elvat. G\a orevardy Kadeiv xpy’ poun 8 Ty Sppyy—revrdpnvov" mevramnxy’ perdbes To a els €* Tmevtéunvov" héywv Kal revrémnxv.—repte= ordoOny héyouc tives ert Tov ev doxonig yevecOa’ Terres mavu KiBdros* Td yap mepiorray kal repiomacbat, él rod mapatpeiv Kal mapatpeicbar tdr- rovow oi apxaio* Séov obv doxonos fv héyety.—rropvokdros. ovrw pévavdpos* oi dpxaior aOnvaior, mopyérpi A€éyovaty.—olkoSopn, od héyerau’ dvr’ adbrod 6é, oikoddpunpa heyerat.—xar’ bvap ob héyerat’ ddoKipadtaroy yap Somep yap kad’ trap od Néyerat’ GAN rap, obras oid Kar’ dvap* GAN’ Frou Svap av, e& dvelpov dews.—xuynyds* roiTo Tovvoua, ovr mas perayerpi- Govrat of pév rpayiKoi momral, rpiovAddBas, Kal Swpitovar rd 7 els G pera riOevres* Kvayds' of & dOnvaio, retpacvAAdBas, Kuvnyérns éyovres.—

518 APPENDIX B.

kodxvvOa, tydprntar 4 eoxdrn ovAdaf) bid rhs Oa Neyouevy’ Séov did ris T* KookivTn, &s dOnvaiot.—xkataepis emt tav mpos adpodicia dxo~ Adorav héyovew of roddoi* odSapds ovT@ Tov SoKipoy xpopévov. — Ta iSia mpdrro’ Kal rd idia mparre (Sic) Aéyouow of moddol elkp* Seoy ra éuavrod mpdrre* Kal. ra cavrod mpdrre Aéyewv’ os of madaoi.—idtov éuavrov. tov cavrod’ idiov éavrod.—éyxpareverOar jy eye’ GANA Eye od éyxpareverat’ ovtw Kal elpnvaios’ bs kal rd éykpareverOa eoxaros BdpBapov kadei.—alypararicOjvar cuvOéras ov Néyerar’ Stadehupévas de eye, alypddrwrov yeverOar.—dvurddyros épeis bia Tov f* 7d yap ev TO E dpdprnpa’ Kat yap trodicaca déyerar’ ody tmodecacOa.—etpnpa xp} héyew Sid Tod 7. ody eUpeya.—annprnuéevoy amnptyka’ Kal Ta dd TovToV dmavra wddowka* arroreréhecOat 8€ Kal dmorereheopevoy xpi) Neyer. Gpetvov yap.

INDEX I.

The words printed in black type occur in the Ecloga itself; the others are Sound in the Introductions and Commentary.

A.

dyayov, an un-Attic imperative, 457. dya0és, comparative and superlative of, 176. ayyos, 23. aye, aorists of, 217, 218. dyhoxa, un-Attic, 202. dyAata, 165. dyviva for carayviva, 6. dyopaCev, 214. byopacba, 14. dyopevew and compounds, 326 ff. dypevev, 165. dyxépaxa, 165. dyxuora, 21. dyxréppov, 165. ayxod, 21. aywyés, 368. dyoviferOa, 193. _ dbans, 165. Gdeuv, future of, 377. deiSev, Tragic for dda, 5. deipey, Tragic for alpay, 5. deArT0s, 26. *Adava, Tragic for ’A@nva, 112. *AOnva, forms of the name, 112. *AOnvaa, 112. *A@nvaia, forms of the name, 112. d8poifew, orthography of, 160. aiyumds, 19. alei, old Attic and Tragic for dei, 112. alerés, old Attic and Tragic for derdés, 112. aiSados, gender of, 197. aidoy, meaning of, 197, 198. aid poxoreiv, 69 -alvew, verbs in, have no perfect active, 96 ; aorists of, 76 ff. alveiv, for émawveiy, 5. aivés, 26. -alpe.y, verbs in, aorists of, 76 ff. diccew, Tragic for docer, 5. aisxivn, 74. airsac0a, 193. aixpadwrifer Oar, 500.

aixpddwros, 13.

aixpn, use of in Ionic and Tragedy, 13. dxetoOar, 175, 176.

dkeorns, 175, 176.

dis, old word, 25.

dxphv =ér, un-Attic, 203. dxodracraivew, aorist of, 78. dxoXouGetv, construction of, 458. drove, perfect of, 96.

dkparpvys, of water, 113. axparevecPar, meaning of, 500. dxparos, comparative of, 224.

axrn, old Ionic word, 11.

ddaivey, 78.

GAyvveyr, old and poetical word, 42. ad-ybvecOa, in Xenophon, 165. aAeiv, 240; perfects of, 96, 98. Grcipey, perfects of, 95, 96. dAéxew, in Xenophon, 165. Gdextpudy, 307.

Gextopis, 307.

ahéctwp, 307.

GAegnrnp, in Xenophon, 165. dAégew, in Xenophon, 165.

&ANGev, un-Attic, go, 240.

GAnAeka, GAjAcpuat, 96, 98.

dAifey, in Xenophon, 165. *AXxaukés, or AAxaucés? IIT.

dAxnn, history of, 25, note 2. GAxipos, in Xenophon, 165; un-Attic,

50. GAACOpoos, 16, note. GApdbes €XGar, 199. dAvey, 40. drpdvey =ecbpioney, 254. dpagevpévos, 14. dyavpody, in Xenophon, 165. GpBAloKerv, 288. GpBrwOpisrov, 288. dpeiBew, history of, 187, note. dpeiBecOa, 187. dpewértepov, 209. dpepmros, 20, GpirAdAGoGa, 191-193. dpod, ay, 272. durexounv, 83-86,

520 INDEX 1.

dprecxounv, 83-86, dunéxeoOau, augmenting of, 83-86. dwuva, un-Attic, 74. dpuvecOa, 74.

dudvyvoeiv, augment of, 83, 84. duqribégios, 14.

duplrodos, old Ionic word, 22. dudioBynreiv, augment of, 83, 84. dpopos, 20.

-av, verbs in, 153 ff. dvayapyapifey, 396. dvayopevev, 328,

dvabécOa, 292.

dvatSeverGar, 140, avarbifLer@ar, 140, avaroOnrever Oat, 457. dvandev, 7.

dvaxetov, 358.

dvaketoOar, 294.

dvakddev, 7.

dvaxAwrpov, 207. dvakoyxuacew, 396. dvaXicxeay, augment of, 82. avaAnis, 25, note 2; 166. dvatimrewv, 293.

dvaréA ety, 204.

dvariPévar, 292.

dvarouyetv, 249.

dvaxatifey, 180,

avbdvev, 29.

dvSpayé0npa, 319, Pista 89, 90.

dvetheiv, late form, 89. dvexdpny, 83 ff. ; dvécaQev, 21, 338.

avecxdépnv, 83-86.

dvéxeoOar, augment of, 83-86. dvetliés, 361.

dvéqrya, active in meaning, 246. dvévat, signification of, 79. avipav, 106.

dyirnos, 26,

dvicraco, dvicrw, 463. dvonras, 221.

dvovyvivat, augment of, 83. avTay, 6.

&vrecPat, 3.49.

dyridcey, 21.

dv7iBadAewv, 295.

dvriBodeiv, augment of, 83, 84. dvridixetv, augment of, 83, 84. dvrixpv, dvrixpus, distinguished, 500, dvToyla, 326 ff.

dvtioda0a, 5.

avrippyots, 326 ff. dvuTdSeros, KOI.

dvoryévat, 29.

dvoryewv, 358.

dvabev, 338.

GEat, 348, 217, 218,

drrapeiBecOa, 166. dnavaivecOa, aorist of, 78. dmavrTay, 21.

dmdvrecOm, 349. dmapdBatos, 367.

dnapri, 7.

dmaprifeyv, 502. "Anarovpia, 19.

dmék, 120,

dmexeibev, 120.

drrepixew, 166.

dné, in composition, 75. dmodexThp, in Xenophon, 165. dmobidpdoneyv, 218, 335- dnobpiva, 335.

arobaveiy, 38,

drowa, 26.

dmoxonn, 158. atroxprOfjvar, 186, drroxpivecOa, 186. droAayxavey, 7. drodaveww, future of, 409. drroxpiOncopat, 188. dmodoyetaOat, IgI. arévirtpov, 280. anévorguy, 120.

drémadat, 117. dmomépayKa, 97. dropeicOa, 191. drockvbiveayv, 180. drordccecOat, 75, dméripos, 14.

droev, not dobev, 60, dpaiés, in Xenophon, 166. apacoay, 6

apyés, inflexion of, 185. dpdis, 25.

“Apetos Taryos, 12 note. dpéckev, 29.

apyyeyv, 166.

dpOpuos, 14.

dpioreds, 30.

dpydfev, 14.

dppyoornp, 58, 59. dpvetcOa, 190, 192. dpotv, perfects of, 96, 100. dpoupa, old Ionic and poetical word,

14.

sedtav, future of, 407.

dprt, limits of its use, 70.

dptiws, coined by Sophocles, 71.

aproké7os, 303.

Gprotrorés, 303.

dprométos, 303. :

dpvewv, perfect passive of, 100,

apxaikés, or Gpyatiucds? IIT,

apxAOev, 21, 176,

-as, substantives in, used in Ionic as adjectives, 21. :

doBodos, 197. ,

INDEX I.

dgedyaivey, aorist of, 78.

-acla, substantives in, 198.

-dovov, diminutives in, 148.

doraipey, 30, .

dondpayos, 196.

dorpaquarhp, 58.

datupédxros, 166.

dopapayos, 196,

drnpéAnros, in Xenophon, 166.

drpexns, 26.

Gr putos, 14.

arrayas, 199.

ai-, verbs beginning in, augment of, 245.

avday, 29.

atPadifer Par, 140.

aiPixacros, atlexagrétys, 458.

avGévrns, 201.

abravAns, 253.

avropuoneiv, 42.

abrépodos, 42.

abrétpodos, 285.

adedapny, 215.

aghAg, 157.

dpOoryyos, 26.

dguévar, augment of, 81,

a&dtepotv, 279.

a&doppt, 304.

a&dpovitpov, 361,

aoumvifev, 305.

dy ewds, 166.

dxdécopat, 195.

dxos, 166.

dxpu, 64.

-4@, verbs in, denoting bodily, &c, states, 152 ff. .

-tiw, verbs in, perfects passive of, 101.

B, ten future of, 382. ps, 372. BaknAos, 339.

BadavriokAémrys, 305. BadavroxAénrys, 305. BadBiSes, meaning of the term, 146,

BeAdvn, 174. BedrovormaAns, 174, 175. Bijou, in Xenophon, 30; replaced in Attic by BiBaca., id. eoOar, 144.

521

BrBroypados, 158. Biprow. 300.

Biorh, 166.

Buworpos, 20.

Biwtinds, 459.

Biwrds, 20.

Brands, 340.

BA4E, 330.

Bdacrdvey, future of, 395, 406. BonGea, 25.

Botkor, orthography of,.159. BorBrrov, 462.

Bodedv, 253.

Bodtrov, 462. BovrAcoOar, 189. Bovvés, history of, 459. Bpdbrov, 149.

Bpéxetv, 352. BpvacecOa, 405, Beahos, 246.

Bpdoec Par, 376. Bados, 127.

)

yapérns, in Xenophon, 166,

yayyaAilev, 180,

yopyaAilev, 180,

yaotpifev, 178.

yoorpokvnpia, 413.

yavpovc8a, in Xenophon, 167.

yewdpevot, of, in Xenophon, 167,

yeAdousos, 307,

yeAotos, 307,

yeveOAra, 184.

yevéora, 184.

yevnPfivat, 194.

yevnP7jropar, 194.

yerwvhpara, late use of, 348.

yevecOa, 29.

77, compounds of, 356.

Yijivos, 181.

~y«ea, a collocation of letters avoided in Attic, 96.

yAworaols, 308.

yAwoodkopov, 181.

yAartra, 308.

yAwrroKopetov, 181,

y@pa, 19.

ywopiopa, 19.

ywoornp, in Xenophon, 165.

yoyyubew, 463.

YoyYvAn, 182.

yoyyvAls, 182.

yoyyvepes, 463.

yor’, 19.

yovo3, 19.

youvaros, &c., Tragic for -yévaros, &c., 5.

yenyopeiv, 200.

ni 182.

522

yevAAtfew, 182. ypuceav, future of, 384. ‘Ypupéa, 309.

YPUTN, 309-

yoda, 167.

Yipes, 492.

yy, I9.

datjpov, 167.

Sawivat, 29.

daxpiev, future of, 404.

daravaoOa, aorist of, 191.

Samedoy, in Xenophon, 167.

dayiAns, in Xenophon, 167.

5é61a, inflexions of, 269 ff.

dé50rxa, inflexions of, 269 ff.

dé, uncontracted, 299.

detv (dind), anomalous contraction of, 301.

dermviferv, in Xenophon, 167.

deipev, 5épev, both good Attic, 432.

decpy, 25.

deioGan, aorist of, 189.

Betapevd, 369.

depot and deopud, distinguished, 353.

deonéavvos, in Xenophon, 167.

Sever, 61.

Snporevev, 61.

dnpuodeGa, reason for middle inflexions of, 193.

6:4 in compounds influences the in- flexions of the verb, 193.

diaray, augment of, 83, 86; meaning of, 189.

diatpeiv, 330 ff.

Sidkprots, 344.

Siadéyeo@ai, reason for middle in- flexions of, Ig1.

d:axoveiv, augment of, 83, 86.

diavocicOa, reason for middle inflex- ions of, 191-193.

SiappHoyv, 329.

* Siarouxetv, 249.

Stadépewv, construction of, 483.

SrapOelpev, 145.

SSoacw, 315.

55évat, inflexions of, 220, 315, 316.

S&iSotoww, 315.

dueipnea, 330 ff.

duererphvaro, 77.

SrépOopa, 246.

dippnea and delpyea, confused, 330 ff.

d:iévar, signification of, 79.

dixaoAoyelaGa, reason for middle in- flexions of, 193.

Sixpavov, 310.

Suxpodv, 310.

5idpOaors, 320.

Avéckopot, 310.

INDEX I.

bd dumdoifev, orthography of, 160. Supfiy, 132. . SufjcOa, 382. Si@eew, future of, 377. - Svwpid, 78. Siapvé, inflexions of, 309. Soxeiv, 29. dorqp, in Xenophon, 165. dovmety, in Xenophon, 167. Spapnpya, 19. : dpay, aorist and perfect passive of, 101. Spédpos, 19. SpérrecOa, in Xenophon, 168. Spwmaxivear, 488. Sveiv, 289. Sivacat, Siva, Sivy, 463. duvacba, with neuter adjectives, 189 ; and pers, sing. pres. ind, of, 463. Bvo, inflexions of, 289, 290. Svoiv, not used with the plural, 289, ‘ 290. : Suen: in Xenophon, 168. Suct, 289.

Sucwmeiofat, 278. Sucenla, 278. bapa, 25. Swpdrvov, 321. Swpnyua, 168. Swpodoneiv, 362.

E

-éds, acc, pl. of substantives in evs,

234. éBovancdpny, 189, note. eyyatos, 357. éyyetos, 350. éyyeday, 66. éyyvay, augment of, 82. éyyus, comparative of, 356. éyelpev, perfects of, 96, 97. éykd0eros, 417. éyxomm, 158. éynomuacev, augment of, 82. eypnryopévat, 200. éyxeiv, meaning of, 66. eyxpiumretv, 14. éedlecav, 269. €éeSicav, 269. eoOar, 376. edjdoxa, bjdeouat, 96. édopa, not éSovpa, 92. edpdcOnv, or e5paOnv? rol. éduvnodpny, 189 note. : €duKa, 220. -éewv, verbs in, contraction of, 296 ff. ECeoOa: for nabélecPar, 6. é{wpar, not €fwopar, 99. é0avoy, 39. eOeXew or Oédew ? 415.

INDEX IT,

edovi, 59.

eeXobatos, 60.

€0nka, 220.

ei-, verbs beginning in, augmentation of, 245.

elxaCev, future of, 409, 410.

etka, orthography of, 89, 90.

elu, always future in meaning, 103, I11; infinitive of, 65.

elua, 19.

etna, Sion; 219.

elroy, 326 ff.

eipnxa, 326 ff.

eis, with adverbs, 117 ff.; replaces és, 432.

-es, late form of acc. pl. of sub- stantives in evs, 234.

eladyay, 119.

eiadnag, 118.

elodprt, 119.

elcadOis, 118.

ciodxpt, 119.

eloparny, 119.

éladre, 117.

eitev, 204.

é«, with adverbs, 117 ff.; Ionic and poetical compounds of, 7.

éxaOquny, 81.

ExdOCov, 81.

€xavov, 217.

€xas, old Attic, 28.

éxet and éxeive, confused, 114.

éxeibev, 116.

éxeivos, only form known to Attic, 4.

€«(eiy, metaphorical use of, 17.

&xOeGoOa, 7.

ExOeua, 319.

éxObev, 7

€«marydos, in Xenophon, 168. Exnaydobpevos, 14.

&« a, 117.

éxreidev, 7.

Exmépvot, 119.

éxmpotipay, 7.

éxonuaivey, 7. éxorédheoOat, 7.

éxow ley, 7.

523°

éxravov, 217.

éxrevs, 365.

éxripay, 7.

éxrore, 116,

éxrpiBew, metaphorical use of, 17, 18.

éctpopa, 288.

éxtpHoa, 288.

expoBeicOa, 7.

ékdv etvat, rules for the use of in Attic Greek, 340 ff.

€AAXvLov, 250,

édaia, old Attic and Tragic for éAda, 112. :

édaxov, Euripidean word, 43.

édaotpeiv, 14.

éradvew, perfects of, 96, 100.

éréyxeuv, perfects of, 96. :

érawa, never aorist of Airey, 217.

éAevoopua, Attic except in Indicative, 103, Ilo.

‘EAAds, as adjective, 21.

éudoriga, survival of in Attic, 16.

éuodov, un-Attic, 41.

éuratCev, meaning of, 68.

éumdjoOa, survival of in Attic, 63.

éuroAay, augment of, 82.

éumroaAn, 168.

éumpémeay, 15.

epmpyopes, 419.

éumrvew, meaning of, 66.

éprrupiopés, un-Attic, 419.

év, force of in composition, 66; in- tensive, 67; év xp@, Attic phrase, 132.

évayxos, 79.

évddrcoOau, 67.

évayrioic0a, 188; augmentation of,

I,

eTOS, 412. Ps 206. évoupevia, un-Attic, 418. éveyyus, 120. éverAnuny, survival of in Attic, 63. évep0e, old Attic word, 27. €vepo, old Attic word, 27. évéprepot, Ionic and old Attic, 27. évérega, 219. évexuptpata, évéxupa, 468. évfAara, 267. evOjKn, 304. évOupetoOa, Igt. éviavotatos, évratioros, 467, évopav, meaning of, 67. évoupetv, meaning of, 66. évoxaAciv, augment of, 83-85. évrevrAavody, corrupt for évrevrAcodv,

128.

évréxves, 457. évrpayew, meaning of, 67. évuBplev, meaning of, 68.

524 INDEX I.

évuotpov, orthography of, 250, €, compounds of, 490. €d5eAdos, un-Attic, 361. éfarreiv, 7.

éfaxovev, 7.

éEakAdooewv, meaning of, 467. éfadana(ev, in Xenophon, 168, éEapBAtoxery, 288.

€dpBropa, 288,

efavayecOat, 7.

etavaykacey, 7.

tavéxecbat, 7.

éfamadAdocedbar, 7. éfaToAAuvat, 7.

efamopOeipev, 7.

éfeiAAev, orthography of, 89, 90. éfeAcuvdepooropely, 7.

efaripacev, 7.

éEemumoA 7s, 205.

efenloracba, 7.

ebepya Ceca =dmroxreivew, 16 note. éfért, 119.

éfeplecOat, 7.

éénuepody, 7.

*nphgaro, impossible form in Attic,

216,

€SrdlecOar, 284.

eovuytfew, 350.

eEumvifev, 305.

-cos, adjectives in, 287, 288.

éraxpiCew, formation of, 127.

emapporepiCer, 127.

éxavopOovv, augment of, 86, 87.

éraobh, 315.

erapyyev, 168.

érraplorepos, 324.

éravpécOat, survival of in Attic, 30.

érapay, old word, 392.

éreioOnv, 217.

émevrev, late form, 204.

éméAyoa, influence of the éni, 216.

éni, in composition, producing a causative meaning, 216,

éml képpns, 257.

émvyhwrraabat, 193.

émbayirevecOa, 168.

émbég.os, 324.

éniSecpos, gender of, 353.

émidnv, 121.

éntSotos, 208.

ém(eiv, metaphorical use of, 17.

émedCev, orthography of, 275.

émOdunv, 217.

émOov, 217.

émunptooev apyipoy s, xpnpaTa Tit,

329. éarixAwrpov, 207. émaA€yev, 327. énidoyos, 327. émopxeiv, future of, 409.

émumodijs, 205. émmpéow, 120, énionpos, 208. énictaca, éniora, énicraco, émioTo, 463. émlotacis, 345. émrarthp, 165. émréAXew, 204, 205. éntrek, 417. érrndevey, augment of, 80. éntrokos, un-Attic, 417. émrodn, meaning of, 205. émtpomdfev, 158. enubnpifeav, 216, 217. éxpidpny, 210, 214. trplaco, énpiw, 463. Tod, 315. épyodoretv, épyodorns, 456. épdev, old Attic word, 29; survival of in certain Attic proverbs, 49. épeiv, 326 ff. épeinery, in Xenophon, 168. épeima, old Attic word, 15. épetryeoOar, 138. €prew, survival of in Attic, 50. epphony, 326. épvyyavewv, 138. épucew, 168, épxouat, Attic only in Indic., 103. és, date of change to eis, 432. -evav, 3 pers. pl. plupf. act, 229 ff. éoanaf, 118. éoatis, 118. éoavrixa, 118, éoéwerra, 118, éaOns, 19. éodiav, perfects of, 96. €or’ Sar, 339- éorngew, 411. éoriay, 29. éoriac0a, 188. éoxdtws, 481. éoxathratos, 144. &repdp0adpos, 209. eb-, verbs beginning in, augmentation

of, 245. evayyeAetv, Atticicity of, 335. evayyeAifeoGat, construction of, 334. EvBotda, orthography of, 160. etew, O1. : -evew, perfects passive of verbs in,

101; origin of verbs in, 61; de- ~

ponents in, 141. evetpos, 224. evépuos, 224. evepos, 224. evfwpos, 223; comparative of, 224. ebOnpootvn, 168. ’ e006 and ev6us, distinguished, 222. evOuva, 74.

INDEX I.

evdxatpety, late use of, 205.

evxeppareiv, 467.

evdxorreiv, late use of, 69.

eivace, 169.

€bvoukds, 221.

evvous, adverb of, 221.

etvws, 221.

evfvpuBanros, 20.

et , un-Attic, 215.

etpepa, etpypa, 501.

-evs, nom. and acc, pl. of substantives in, 234 note,

evordbeva, 347.

etorabis, 347.

evatpBoros, 20.

evoxnpor, signification of, 417.

evppdvn, old Attic word, 13.

eixapioretv, meaning of, 69.

etxdpirros, meaning of, 69.

etxpyoretv, late use of, 487.

-evw, origin of verb-termination, 61.

evoxetobat, 188,

épéorios, 15.

épevga,un-Attic as aor. of pevyayr, 217.

Ens, 225.

€pyoda, 225 ff.

épOaca, 217.

éptopkos, 363.

épiordvat, meaning of, 345.

époBnodpny, 189 note.

€pyxa, existence of in Attic, 220, 221.

_ €xeev, aorist, 300.

éxés, orthography of, 370 ff.

€xpaivey, in Xenophon, 169.

éxpijv or xphv ? 81.

€ovyncdpny, 50, 210.

€ws, form of in Xenophon, 164.

Z.

(a, Tragic for d:a-, 5.

(¢iv, metaphorical use of, 17, gevy~Ay, 19.

Giv, 133.

¢6n, Ionic and Tragic for (wn, 5. Giyor, 19.

avn, 19.

(wvviva, perf. pass, of, 99. fopés, 223.

Sworhp, 12, 19.

H.

Hj, true Attic form: of first pers, sing. impf. ind. of ey, 242 ff.

poe(v), 236.

noeper, 238,

797, 236.

525

noéno0a, not dns, the true Attic 2 pers. sing. of 787,226 ff.» -nojcopa, futures in; 189 note. 490s, rules for the use of, 468, av, in Xenophon, 169. Ka, 220. qeev, 3 sing. past of €ouma, 231, nAtBaros, in Xenophon, 169, HpEpHoOs, 125. HpeEpwos, 125. Hpepios, 125. apy, 240, 241. zum, optatives in, 63. fpixaxos, 419. TyprxepdAarov, 412. Hulupapa, 412. jytkpavov, 412. pipsxOnpos, 419. Hos, old Attic and poetical word, 28. npmexdouny, 83-86. hpTecxépnv, 83-86. jv or #, the latter the best Attic form, 242, 243. hveyxa and iveyxov, supplement one another in Attic, 220. qveaxdpny, 83-86. jverxouny, 83-86. jvixa, uses of in Attic, 122 ff. jvuerpov, orthography of, 250. 4a, early Attic aor. of dyw, 349. Arh t, old word, 47, 175. Aryrhs, old word, 175, 176. hriaraco, hmiotw, 463. -np, substantival termination; 47, 58 ; used by Xenophon for =#s, 59. npencdpnv, impossible form in Attic, 216,

hpwés, 125.

pws, Attic inflexions of, 248,

s, un-Attic for jc0a, 225. -ns, substantival termination, 57 ff, Ao8a, 225 ff. jaGas, a very doubtful form, 228. ropa; futuresin, corrupted, 194, 195. Rpevpévos, 81, joie, 81. gas, in Xenophon, 164.

e.

-9a, in second person sing., 226 ff. Od4dneww, in Xenophon, 169. OapBeiv, 29.

Gaveiy, old Attic and poetical, 39. Oavpdey, 29. ~

OenAaros, 15.

GeidCev, 275.

Oeivew, survival of in Attic; 10, dérav, un-Attic, 415, 416,

-Oev, adverbs in, 177.

526 INDEX I.

Qed0uTOS, 249.

Oeompéros, 15.

Ocpanawva, history of the word, 22.

Ocparevery, 61.

OepaneuTnp, in Xenophon, 165.

Oeparav, history of the word, 22.

Oeppacia, un-Attic, 198:

Oépya, 3rd declension, not Ist, 414.

Oéppn, 198, 414.

Ocpporys, 198.

Gcoricev, 29.

Oyyew, in Xenophon, 169.

Ondracear, future of, 401.

-Ojvat, aorists in, 186 ff.

-Oncoua, futures in, 189 note.

Oyyavev, in Xenophon, 169; un- Attic, 391.

Oowvay, 29.

OprSaxlvy, 207.

OptSa£, 207.

OpwoKkey, 29.

Ovela, 251.

Ounxois, 196.

OupéAn, meaning of the term, 250,

Ovpova0a, 29.

Owxetv, 15.

I.

-taivey, aorist of verbs in. 77.

ty&us, history of the word, 251.

idioroyeiabat, 193.

ros, late use of, 499.

iBrotcbar, 284.

iets, true Attic form of, 2 pers. sing. pres. ind. of tu, 316, 317.

tepd0uros, 249.

iévat, Attic forms of, 65.

iévau, 2nd pers, sing. pres. ind., 316; aorist of, 220.

-ifev, verbs in, their meaning often dependent upon context, 178.

-i¢ec@at, deponents in, 141.

ths, un-Attic, 316, 317.

Waryevhs, 15.

i@vs, 223.

tkeota, history of the word, 61.

ixereta, 61.

ixerevev, 61.

txvetcOar = ddixvetcba, 6.

*TAcds, used as an adjective, 21.

tAdrev, orthography of, 89, 90.

iAvs, meaning of the term, 147.

indriov, meaning of, 22.

immeds, 19.

innérns =inneds, in Tragedy and Xeno- phon, 19, 170; as adjective, 21.

trracbat, 373.

tordv, 252.

loxvaivesy, aorist of, 78.

kK.

xabapés, of water, 113.

Kabedodpar, 336.

xadéteobat, 336.

wabeoOfivat, 336.

kabeoOycopar, 336.

Kadquny, 81.

“#40n00a, 336; augmentation of, 81. sense, distinguished from #é6:¢e,

ie iacion 9.

nadicer, capes of, 81; uses of in Attic, 336.

naduBpitey, meaning of, 66.

Kaes, a late word, 495.

raiew, old Attic and Trag. for xdéeyv, 112; future of, 408.

waive, un-Attic, 170.

kaKayyedeiv, 335.

kakkaBy. KdacKcaBos, 496.

kakoSatpovay and KakoSaipovetv, dis- tinguished, 152.

kaxodaipov, meaning of, 152.

xadivdeayv, orthography of, go.

kadAvypadeiv, 203.

kadAudrepov, 209.

kadxaivey, aorist of, 78.

Kappuewv, 426.

kdpyew = xadends pepe, 16 note.

kaveiv, un-Attic, 217.

kaparopeiy, 427.

kapivat and xefpacda, distinguished, 368.

xapra, history of the word, 8.

Kagtyynros, 15.

xara, force of in composition with verbs, 66; Kat’ éxetvo Katpod, 345 ; kara KotAlas trovetv, 363; KaTd xetpos, 375.

kararyehay, 66.

katakevreiv, 296.

kataAoyy, meaning ‘of, 498.

karanpoitera:, orthography of, 160; meaning of the term, 254.

Katamrvely, 66.

KardoKomos, 25.

wkatavTdé0, 121.

karapayas, un-Attic, 497.

Karapoveveay, 15.

katacxdlev, 296.

karadepys, meaning of, 498.

kataxeiv, 66.

xaréGavoy, un-Attic, 39.

xatetAAev, orthography of, 89, go.

karepyaCecbau =droxreiveyv, 16 note.

karOaveiv, un-Attic, 39.

Karémtns, 25.

KaropOovv, 319.

‘nnd Ce ——-

a ye a

INDEX I.

karép9apa, 319, 320.

karépOwats, 320.

xaroupeiv, 66,

KEYXpEwV, 253.

eivos, Ionic, 4.

xeipey, aorists of, 368.

kexpaypés, 423.

xedevew, perf. pass. of, Ir.

KéxAnpa, 102.

kexdAovpm, not KexdrAovopat, 99.

Képropos, 1 5.

Kehadawdéeoraros, 339.

kepadoropeiv, 427.

KkuedAnoxey, un-Attic, 48.

kAadevev, 255

kddew, better than «\alev, 112; fu- ture of, 404.

kh@v, 255. :

#Aavaodpa, un-Attic, 91, 92.

wdénrev, future of, 407, 408.

khéntns, 20.

Kdnbwv, 15.

«Ane, aorist and perf. pass. of, 102.

kAnpovopeiv, construction of, 206,

xAn Cer, in Xenophon, 170.

tegh acc. sing. of substantives in, 246,

KAnThp, 58.

«dtBavos, orthography of, 267.

xAwmede, poetical word in Xenophon, 170.

nha, old Attic and poetical, 19. kvédadoy, 256.

kvnpN, 413.

“viv, contraction of, 133, 134.

xowvwyv, in Xenophon, 170.

KOLT@V, 321.

KéAakes, 214.

KéAAaBor, 280.

KoAXomTres, 280,

kodAuBtorns, K6\AvBos, late use of,

499. KoékuvOa, kohoKivrn, 498. xodovew, perf, pass. of, 99. wodupBddes, un-Attic, 199. kohupBnOpa, 369. koulley, 191, Kéus, 25. Kérrretv Oipav, 266. Kopaovov, un-Attic, 148. kopetv, Attic for calpev, 156, 157. képypa, Attic for cdpov, 156. képtov, 148. xépis, gender of, 362. koptokn, 148. wopés, 311. kopudadés, 426. Képubos, 426. Kopudatétatos, 143. Kouptas, 132.

527

aotiet, un-Attic, 311. KoxAtdptov, 369.

pn tak an-Attic, 137, 138. xpadaivey, aorist of, 78. Kpacripta, 267.

eparnp, 58.

Kpavyacpds, 423. Kpeoaétepov, 209.

xplBavos, orthography of, 267. Kpodoat Oupav, 266. kpvPpeoOar, un-Attic, 368, eraveiy, 217.

Kd5os, 25.

xvdpés, in Xenophon, 170. Kv«Awres, not all one-eyed, 210. kuvayds, 496.

kuvdptov, 268.

kuvnyéerns, 496.

kuvidiov, 268.

xbnrew, future of, 398. Koduverov, 151.

AaBpés, 26. Adyvys, 272. Aayvos, orthography of, 272. Aayéds, Aayas, 272. AakaCey, future of, 402. -Aaivey, aorist of verbs in, 77. Adxatva, limitations of usage of, 427. Aaxeiv, un-Attic aorist, 43. Aadeiy, future of, 388. Aaprds, 131. Aapmrnp, 131. Adpupos, meaning of, 352. Adoxew, un-Attic verb, 43; aorists of, 219. Adoravpos, meaning of, 282. Ad@upa, in Xenophon, 170. Adxos, in Xenophon, 171. Aéye, future of, 388. AenAareiv, in Xenophon, 171. Aekdprov, 265. Aemré-yews, 357. Aéxptos, in Xenophon, 171. Aewpyés, in Xenophon, 171. AnPapyos, late use of, 491. Ants, 171. AtBavos, ABavwrés, 273. Avldprov, 268. Aidrov, 268. Ads, gender of, 274. Auraivey, aorist of, 78. AlacecOa, 25 note 8, Alrpov, orthography of, 369. Aopéds, orthography of, 196. Aural, 25. | Abrpou agpés, 361.

distinguished,

528

Abyvos, meaning of, 284.

Aoiwopeiobat, 191 ff.

AodAdavds, 65.

Aovewv, Attic inflexions of, 274 ff.

AovecOa, &c., late forms of Acde#at, &c., 90.

AvpaivedOa, 193.

Avyavrip, in Xenophon, 165, 171.

Auxveiov, meaning ‘of, 132.

Avyved, meaning of, 367.

Auxvodxos, meaning of, 367.

AwBacGa, reason for middle inflexions of, 193, 410. ;

M,

payeipetov, 341.

-paive, verbs in, aorists of, 76.

paddy, in Attic confined to the phrase id padns, 282.

Hadxiew, orthography of, 155, 156.

pdappy, 208.

papptov, 208.

pappddpetros, 359.

paorevew, in Xenophon, r71,

paoriga, survival of in Attic, Io.

pAxeoOat, reason for middle inflexions of, 193.

péya, used adverbially, 28; péya dv- vacba, 283.

peyroraves, un-Attic term, 283, °

peducos, 240.

peOvoticds, 240.

pepdktov, peipaxtokos, petpaxvAAvov, pe(pag, differentiated, 291.

péAAety, construction of, 420 ff.

HépeGat, reason for middle inflexions of, 193. .

pev ody, 428,

peceyyunOfvar, 202.

peonuBpia, peonuBpiéds, 125, 126.

péons vurrds, 126,

pecdiwbfjvat, 202.

peodyaa, orthography of, 358.

peroddcrvAa, 281.

pécov vuxrav, 126,

pecovierioy, un-Attic, 126,

peroropety, late use of, 491,

peoovons vuxres, 126.

HeTadis, 21.

peraxepiCecOat, 190.

perémobev, 120.

perpiaCev, meaning of, 494,

péxpt, orthography of, 64; péxpt av with moo of verb, 65.

pnbde els, 271,

pndels, 271.

pyecoros, 171.

pyview, old Attic word, 29; ortho- graphy of, 155.

INDEX I.

pnptev, in Xenophon, 171, pyr pdbev, 177. A piapia, prapds, 428. pepvjoKxecOat, aorist of, 190. pynornp, in Xenophon, 165. podeiv, history of, 41.

eve, 461. povoxatreiv, 69.

s

p6x80s, in Xenophon, 171.

poxAos, orthography of, 362.

puedés, orthography of, 364.

porns, 284.

peernp, 58.

Huvn, 74.

pucapés, 15.

puodrreoba, in Xenophon, 172. popaeba, reason for middle inflexions of, 193.

N,

v épednvotixdy, in pluperfect act., 231, 232..

vazrv, only Attic form, 349.

vapés, history of word, 114.

vats, Attic inflexions of, 254.

vavrns, 20,

vavTiddeoGat, 20, note I ; vavridos, ib,

veicOa, in Xenophon, 172.

veoyvés, in Xenophon, 172...

veopnvia, 225-

véos, 20,

een eetr veotriov, orthography of, 287.

vépde, 27.

vevev, OL.

veticopat, not vevgodpat, 92. veppds, 359.

veworTi, 70,

_vij Td Gem, limitations to use of, 281,

yndey, late form of v@v, 90... viv, Attic inflexions of, 133 ff. . vnpés, of water, 113.

, un-Attic, 375. . vntitds, not vngtucds, 135. vippa, 280, ‘ vitpov, 361. vie, orthography of, 90. voyos, ‘ dwelling-place,’ 16 note, voogés, vooctov, 287. — voopifey, in Xenophon, 172. voupnvia, 225. voods kal ppéves, 9, vurrephowos, vuxrepds, distinguished,

125. v@tov, vOTos, 351.

INDEX I.

=F

fev (to polish), always contracts in Attic, 301.

fevrevec@a:, anomalous formation of, 62.

fevoddxos, 362.

énpés, 20.

fvAdpov, EvAHgiov, Evdd poy, 151.

fupBdrdrccOa: yvwpny, retention of ftv for ody in this phrase, 24 note 2.

évv, date of change to avy, 24 note 2.

ftveyyus, 119.

fuvés=xowds, 5.

Evorpa, 358.

Oo.

’O5yq, orthography of, 160, 164. ddo0dr, 16 note.

of and o@, confused, 114.

oi-, augment of verbs beginning in,

244. -olaro, as optative ending, 431. oléas, doubtful form, 227.

oi¢upés, orthography of, 160. oixabe for otxot, 115 ff.

olxorhp, 58.

olkoyevys, 285.

oixodeomérns, 470.

oixoboph, un-Attic, 493. oixéctos, 285.

olkétpup, 285. :

olpat, otoua, both good Attic, 432. oipeCav, future of, 384, 385.

ols, orthography of, 1; 5 olgas, a doubtful form, 227, 228. oigrés, orthography of, 160. éxr&, compounds of, 490.

6dBos, 25; in Xenophon, 172. éAAvva, perfects of, 96. érooptparos, 286,

Bpatpos, 15.

opnrd, 15-

éprivat, perfects of, 95 ff. épévous, adverb of, 221.

6pogak, 126.

évap, late usage of, 494. évOvAcvev, 461.

évuxifev, 350.

éndav, 22.

émnvira, 122, 123.

SmuoGev, orthography of, 60. éro, Srov, confused, 114. émrdvov, meaning of, 341. émrhp, in Xenophon, 165. énwpivés, 125. StropoTmAns, 286, ° Strwpadvys, 286.

529 bpyaivey, aorist of, 78.

opyee, 24. 1a, history of the word, 24. apbocrdBios, 312. : ép0ovpevos =successful, 320. dpOpwés, SpOptos, 124. 8p%pos, meaning of, 341.

bpitpa, 20.

Spxifew and dpKotv, 466. cpaaoes, 188-

ppeva, meaning of, 196.

Spnitectar, eae 2

épiacew, perfects of, 95, 96. éadnnoroby, un-Attic, 471.

écpn, Bp gd of, 160, 164. ovSels, obfels, 271.

-ovv, perfects passive of verbs in, 101. ovs, inflexions of, 291.

otx olov, 470.

Sdpin, dppis, 20.

éxnpa, Sxos, 20.

6x0os, 25; in Xenophon, 172. bxAciv = evoxAciy, 5.

OYipos, divds, dyios, 124.

ql.

mayxv, 21,

mavdtoKn, meaning of, 312.

matewv, Attic forms of, 258 ff.

maiCew, future of, 91, 313; aorist of,

313. takatorhs, 356. TadaoriKés, wakatorpikés, 314. maAapvaios, in Xenophon, 172. tmakacrh, orthography of, 356. mad, wadw, 347. madre, 29. mddos, meaning of, 13. mravSoxetov, tavboxetov, 362. navri oéve, 10. mavrore, 183. mravwAeOpos, a Tragic word, 18 note. manraivey, aorist of, 78.

trdarupos, 360. mapapéAncot, TrapaBddvov, 312. trapdderypa, 62.

mrapadykn, mapaxarabhkn, 366, TapaKkom7y, Le

TapaKopeiv, 156.

mapdouros, history of the term, 214. napar.0éo@a1, meaning of, 312. mapavTdébev, 120.

mapeyyus, 120.

Tapeket, 120.

trapepBodn, late use of, 473. mapevOyixn, 304. mapnis, 20.

mapoweiy, augment of, 83, 85. mapowpis, meaning of, 265.

M m

552

mardétat, only tense of tardaceav used in Attic, 257.

nareiv, future of, 397, 398.

marpa, marpis, 18, 19.

Tew, 132.

meipay, aorists of, Ig1, 192.

medacev, 29. :

rédas, 28.

TleAapyés, 195.

mévre, compounds of, 489.

meraivew, aorist of, 78.

menao0a, in Xenophon, 173.

aretrolOyots, 355.

metroTioOa, 373 ff.

mémpnyat, not wémpyopar, 102.

méerwv, 323.

aép, limitations to use of, 21.

mepaovoba, 188.

mepietAAerv, 89, 90.

meptémey, in Xenophon, 173.

mepteooevoev, corrupt form, 79.

mepixomh, 158.

mepiomaca., meaning of, 491.

amepiocevew, augment of, 79.

meploracis, meaning of, 473.

meporepewy, survival of in Attic, 253.

Tlepots, adjectival, 21.

aréreoOar, Attic forms of, 373 ff.

méTpivos, TET pwdns, 20.

mevoopua, not Tevootpat, 93.

may, 29.

anAtkos, meaning of, 127.

anés, gender of, 126.

amvika, meaning of, 122.

metoOat, late form of méa@ar, gr.

mOeciv, 217.

aivecOa =nivew (?), 382.

modpat, late form of mépat, gt.

miovvos, un-Attic, 21.

mAdgCecOat, thavacOa, 21.

mdeovexreiv, future of, 408.

mAevoopat, Not mAEvdodpAL, 93.

mAnyas bidéva, rAnyHv SBéva, 258 ff.

amAnooewv, limitations to its use in Attic, 258 ff.

TOKLOV, 324.

mveiv, future of, 401.

mvevooua, not mvevoovpa, 92.

amviyos, 185.

modavimrnp, 58.

aodatrés, meaning of, 128-130,

mobeiv, future of, 404.

mot, 7ov, confused, 114.

Town, 25, 26.

moveiy, parts of, 191.

mopevea, parts of, 189.

mopOués, 12 note; mopOyuds, mépos, 20.

aropvoKéTros, 491.

mopouvew, in Xenophon, 173.

INDEX I.

moramés, orthography and meaning, 128-130.

norac@a, Attic usage of, 189.

mpayparevecba, parts of, I9t.

mpakropes, 58.

mptacda, Attic usage of, 210-214.

mplaco, mpiw, 48, 212 note.

Mpoah@s, 317.

mpoBackdviov, 159.

mpodwpdriov, 321.

mpoeipnucva, TA, 334.

Tponyopevpeva, Th, 334.

mpodecpia, 78.

ATpoKOLTav, 321.

mpokoTnh, MpoKoTretv, 158.

mpovocio@a, parts of, 190.

mpévous, 26.

mpémada, 119.

mporaporev, 120.

mpomépvoty, 119.

mpomnAaifew, derivation of, 127; future of, 410.

mpooeiAAe, orthography of, 89, 90.

mpooért, 119.

mpéagaros, of water, 113; of things generally, 471.

mpooparas, 70.

mpbowna, late use of, 474.

mpirpos, mpoivds, mp@os, 124, 125.

mpatws, un-Attic, 366.

mrécOa, 373 ff.

TTHOTELY, 21.

nrvew, future of, 394.

nrTOpa, wrdos, compounds of, 319.

mrGpa, limitations to use of in Attic, 472. >

mTwooev, 21,

arbedos, 364, 372.

arupla, 372.

moAnow, an un-Attic form, 48 note 2,

’

=

-palvery, aorists of verbs in, 76 ff.

pag, gender and orthography of, 148, 149. ‘ padrepos, 487.

panifeyv, 264.

pamopa, 257, 264.

padavis, pddavos, 221.

padts, 174.

petOpov, 20; in Xenophon, 173. fedpa, 20. ,

AnOjcopa, 326.

fot&:ov, orthography of, 159.

ftec@a, metaphorical use of, 11. prtpy, late use of, 487. : purrs, 238. :

porrev, meaning of, 239.

INDEX I.

purhp, 58. pug, gender and orthography of, 148.

=.

¢, rules for, in perfect passive, 97-101.

odkkos, oUKos, 323.

oadnileyv, cakmucrhs, 279.

campos, meaning of, 474.

adpov, capotv, un-Attic, 156.

cagpnvitey, in Xenophon, 174.

aapnvas, 21.

caxupavTns, 323.

gawrepos, in Xenophon, 174.

cele, 29.

cédas, 16 note.

cécwpa, not céawopa, 99.

onde, in Xenophon, 174.

oOévey, oOévos, survival of in Attic, 10,

avddpeos, 49.

olkvov, 323.

ouxatverPat, 307.

ation, orthography of, 359.

otvam, an un-Attic form, 349.

ovroperpetobat, late use of, 477.

okards, 324.

oktprous, 137.

oxAnpokarety, 69.

oxvidés, oxviip, form and meaning of,

86.

4 oxoneiy, future of, 389.

. okopakifeyv, 127. okoptifecOar, 295. oxrrev, future of, 193. oop, inflexions of, 354. opiyyo, opipa, opfy, 321; opuiy,

133. opnrpls, 322. opnxew, un Attic, 321. omds, othos, 87. orodds, un-Attic, 25. oralepis, meaning of, 293. orapvia, meaning of, 486. orarés, 312. oreixew, old Attic and poetical word, 29, 400,

oréupvda, meaning of, 489. ornPid.ov, ornPiviov, 477. orBabokorreiv, 69. otheyyls, 358. orparapxns, 16. orpaTnaareiv, 15. otpyvdy, 475. o7popidos, meaning of, 484. orpoyyidos, 182, 183. oTpwpatevs, meaning of, 487. orvyetv, un-Attic, 40. orumméivos, otumeiov, &C., 325. ovaypos, 476.

|

53%

ovyyvepovely, 476.

ovyxataBaivey, late meaning of, 485.

ovykonn, 158,

ovykptvewv, ovyKpiots, late use of, 344.

ouptatorns, ethageine of, 313.

ouprodlrys, 255.

otprropa, 318.

ovv, date of change in spelling of, 24, note 2; in composition with sub- stantives, 256.

ouvdvres Oar, 3.49.

ovveyyus, 119. *

ouveiddev, 89, 90.

ovvrdooecOa, meaning of in late Greek, 75.

ovpirrery, future of, 387 ff.

cVeonpov, 492.

ovoxodacris, un-Attic, 486.

opupyAaros, 286.

axafev, oxav, 296.

oxiviadpés, orthography of, 196.

ow ew, perfect passive of, 99.

odpara, of slaves, 474.

Be

Tdpaxos, 174.

taupovr, pliability of meaning of, 179.

TGXLOV, 149.

TaxvTaTos, 150.

TeOeAnkevat, 415. a

TeOvngev, 411.

Tetoat, not Tica, the true Attic form, go.

TeXevtatératos, 143.

tésaxos and répos, distinguished, 72.

Téppa, 26,

T™PchAabois, 359.

779n, 208.

Thvikdbe, THViKadTa, strict meaning of, 122 ff.

70ers, riOns, orthography of second pers sing. pres. ind. act. of r:@éva, 316, 317.

70évaz, inflexions of, 315 ff. ; 220.

tixreyv, future of, 403.

tin, orthography of, 359.

tépos and répaxos, distinguished, 72.

tpavaiey, future of, 382.

Tpaxnros, 25.

Tpintnp, 58.

Tpomarnp, 58.

Tpoxaixds, orthography of, 111.

tpvBArrov, 265.

Tpvyouros, 360.

TpvE, 147.

TpupepaivesGar, aorist of, 77.

aorist of,

| Tuyxaveyw, construction of, 3425 per-

fect of, 483.

Mm 2

532

TvAn, 256. : ; zUnrew, limitations to its use in Attic,

25 ff. To be future of, 193, 410.

T.

tados, 363. .

HPpifew, future of, 193, 410.

SSpia, history of the word, 23.

uiés, inflexions of, 141, 142.

tAvorhp, 360.

-tvew, verbs in, formation of, 74; have no perfect active, 96.

ids, not vids, 143.

imdyew Ti yaorépa, 363.

tralOpros, UraOpos, 321.

imé\Aaypa, meaning of, 362.

breidAew, 89, 99.

imépdprpus, 478.

imépoxos, 26.

imeprédAAcv, 16 note.

inépxecOar, in metaphorical sense inflected throughout, 109.

imo xveicba, aorist of, 190.

imo padns, 282.

imdderypa, 62.

troOnpootyn, 174. :

troordOyy, meaning of; 147.

imécracts, meaning of, 348.

brorpomaceay, 158.

-vs, substantives in, gen. sing. and pl. of, 318.

tomAné, gender and meaning, 146.

toreplfewv, late construction of, 311.

2.

ayeoOa, 376.

¢avos, meaning of, 131.

apos, history of the word, 22. apuyé, gender of, 139.

parifev, un-Attic, 16.

paris, un-Attic, 20.

pevéopa, pevgotpar, 93, 94.

npn, 20.

paver, aorists of, 217; future of, 396. 0elp, gender of, 362.

HOelpecGar, v. BraleoOar, 144, 145. pbipevor, of, used by Xenophon, 174. pidduvn, 196.

peat is 483.

piAoraicpueyv, orthography of, 313. odéivos, pAéws, pAods, 355. poBetcOa, passive, not middle, 189. gparay, fut. of, 400.

povat, pdvos, 20.

poveve, poetical, 15.

popbh, 26.

INDEX I,

poppokortety, 69.

popriov, popros, 20.

ppacerOa, 190.

ppacrnp, 165.

pevovv, in Xenophon, 174.

ppevav cuppopa, 9.

phy, un-Attic word, 9. dpovipever Oar, 479.

dvyadevew, 478. ;

pvddrrey, corruption for puAdrres@at,

379- pupinv, 174. x.

xadenaivey, aorist of, 78.

xdpak, gender, 137-

xaprevritec@at, reason for middle in- flexions of, 193.

xéCev, future of, 92.

Xelpadpova, 75.

Xetpepids, xetmépios, 125.

xeiv, aorist act. of, 300.

xelp, inflexions of, 224.

XelpbTeEpos, 209.

xeipmvag, 16.

xeperdrepos, 209.

xépoos, 20.

xéoopar or XEToUpat ?, 92.

xqpn, 479.

xGés, orthography of, 37° ff.

xOeowéds, xGeCivds, xPLos, 370.

xoAdbes, 364.

oA, XoAOs, 20.

xoAuces, gender of, 364.

xoArovc0a, 29.

xovdpokoretov, 365.

xovdpokwvetov, 365.

xoov, Attic inflexions of, 274.

xpewduTeiv, 481.

Xpéws, Attic inflexions of, 482.

xpnv, Expay, 81.

xpiv, anomalous contraction of, 133, 134.

_Xpycba, 133.

xpnomeverv, 480. :

xptew, aor. pass. of, 98; perfect pass. of, 98.

xptceos, 287.

xapeiv, fut. of, 397-

¥,

Watev, un-Attic, 391. WerrtCecOat, 382. Viv, 133) 134, 323- Ynporaoreiv, 314. Unxev, 323.

wi a8os, 363. WAdKoupos, 132. dds, 253.

INDEX II.

AESCHINES, 2. 15, p. 122; 14. 18, p. 4743; 16. 23, P. 4953 23. 29, Pp. 4715 51. 5, p- 320; 67. 38, p. 1173 77. 11, p. 227; 82. 23, p. 195; 86. 27, Pp. 308; 90. 30, p. 387.

Aeschylus, Agam. 516, p. 248; 905, p. 85; 1274, p. 85; 1308, p. 217; 1313, p. 3845 1384, p. 290.

Choeph. 184, p. 2633 275, Pp. 1793 374, P- 4653 523, Pp. 2423 747, P- 85; 859, p. 275, note.

Lumen, 267, p. 78; 288, p. 112; 299, p. I12; 500, p. 401; 600, p. 290; 614, p. 112; 972, p. 78; 982, p. 436.

Pers. 767, p. 245 ; 1002, p. 6o.

Prom. Vinct, 115, p. 164 ; 625, p. 422; 988, p. 93.

Sept. 374. P- 5013 520, p- 343 3 709, P- 17; 961, p. 263.

Supp. 662, p. 436, 4725; 807, p. 451; 983, p. 366; 1052, p. 430. Andocides, 20, 20, p. 30; 20. 29, p. 93 26. 7, p. 1953 31+ 44, p. 110. Antiphon, 112. 31, p. 447; 113. 29, Pp. 301; 115.9, p. 107; 115. 25, p. 3575 127, p. 262; 130. 29, p. 3215; 134. 41, p. 218; 147. 14, p.

8

58. Apollon. Rhod., 1. 516, p. 121; 2. - 778, p. 121; 4. 738, p. 121. Aristophanes, Ach., 10, p. 2353 17, P- 2393 33, P- 403 147, P. 193 203, p. 95; 278, p. 392; 321, p- 17, note; 410, p. 43; 472, Pp. 40; 544, p. 8; 564, p. 10; 616, p. 280; 659-662, p. 36; 690, p. 41; 709, p. 853 745, P- 323; 758, P- 213; 778, P. 1343; 822, p. 3233 - 870, p. 465; 883, p. 48; 893, p. 39; 894, Pp. 128; 905, p. 281; 979, P. 300; 1046, p. 44; 1067, p. 66; 1129, p. 67; 1141, p. 125; 1150, Pp. 422. Aves, 9, p» 1153 54, Pp. 10; 121, - Ps 2243 204, P. 445 5 334, P- 1175 342, p. 8; 306, p. 422; 385, p. 81; 404, Pp. 41; 511, p. 230, 235; 760, p. 343; 788, p. 374; 832, Pp. 195; 1148, p. 99; 1350, Pp. 2593

1470, p. 373 1498, p. 122; 1568, P- 3793 1586, p. 133.

Ecccles., 32, p- 2353 121, p. 301; 155, p. 281; 227, p. 224; 606, p. 73; 950, P. 2355 667, p. 408; 977, P.

Equit., 15-26, p. 413 51, p. 67; 112, p. 153; 273, p- 178; 283, p. 733 294, p. 3843 358, p. 180; 360, P- 3933 396, p.140; 412, p. 85; 435) P. 2543 454, P- 1783 480, p. 213; 717, p. 316; 781, p. 180; 973, P- 373 1018, p. 443 1033, Pp. 342; 1090, p. 67; 1131, p. 4443 1153, P.» 119; I177, p. 733 1206, p- 140; 1247, p. 213; 1263, p. 36.

Lys., 225, p. 1453 316, p. 366; 300, P. 379; 506, p. 4415 507, DP. 85; 519, Pp. 1353 553) P. 219; 592, p. 69; 743, p- 41; 831, p. 25, note 1; 895, p. 316; 984, p. 423; 1008, p. 70; 1224, p. 245.

Nub., 30, p. 483 74, p. 67, 300; 107, p. 302; 137, p. 289; 153, P- 93 339 P+ 733 639, P- 70; 762, p. 90; 776, p. 440; 811, P- 393; 838, p. 275; 883, p. 106; 1237, P. 3223 1240, p. 2543 1347) P- 229; 1363, p. 853; 1373, P- 853 1409, p. 106; 1441, p. 195.

Pax, 46, p. 43 176, p. 3793 186, p. 1303 347, P- 853 366, p. 118; 381, Pp. 435 405, P. 4403 541, p. 80; 637, p. 310; 717, p. 3643 775» P- 363; 796, p. 30; Sor, P. 342; 1075, p. 473; 1081, p. 91; 1142, p. 124; 1182, p. 231.

Plut. 77, Pp. 2433; 102, p. 327; 106, p. 437; 206, p. 102; 216, p. 299; 369, p. 441; 388, p. 723. 589, p. 301; 696, p. 231; 720, p. 79; 854, Pp. 453 804, p. 733; 912, P. 10; 932, p. 3793 981, p. 465 984, p. 2143 992, p. 463 1055, p. 408; 1084, p. 360.

Ran., 97, Pp. 43; 138, p. 189, note; 177, p. 456; 243, P. 3553 259, P. 1393 265, p. 2993 335, P- 314; 468, p. 218; 571, p. 139; 830, p. 379; 941, p. 78; 1082, p.

INDEX II. 535

39; 1163, p. 19; 1221, p. 92; 1235, p- 380; 1309; p. 36; 1339, p. 36; 1380, p. 380; 1384, p. 380; 1393, P. 380; 1427, p. 193 1450, P. 4515 1477; Pp. 39-

Thesm. 18, p. 773; 136, Pp. 193 246, p. 197; 468, p. 17, note; 504, p- 108; 566, p. 254; 593, p. 85; 719, p. 68; 761, p. 216; 865, p. 395 1144, p. 40; 1146, p. 413 1155, Pp. 413; 1224, p. 378.

Vesp., 36, p. 102 5 112, p. 40; 162, p. 220; 262, p. 284; 558, p. 231; 635, p. 230; 646, p. 78; 801, p. 235; 819, p. 441; 1158, p. 301; 1168, p. 302; 1291, p. 137; 1305, pp. 67, 245; 1366, p. 254; 1396, p. 2543 1404, p, 4463 1439, p- gos! 1490, p. 308; 1529, p. I

78. Athenaeus, 1. 21. C, p. 22; 27. D, p. 473 2. 49.F, p. 46; 54. F, p. 127; 59, P- 346; 60, p. 285; 62, p. 196; 3.99. D, p. 308; 3.100. A, p. 302; 110.C, p. 267; 117. B, p. 261; 4. 134. F, p. 3753 139. D, p. 130; 161, D, p. 150; 170. B, p. 79; 172. F, p. 183; 6. 227. A, p. 211; 228. E, p. 355; 235, Pp. 214; 241. C, p. 443 247, p. 285; 266. F, p. 50; 6. 268, C, p. 140; 322. A, p. 279; 7- 280. D, p. 40; 293. A, p. 309; 293. D, p. 793; 305. B, p. 449; 322. D, p. 10; 324. B, p. 322; 8. 338. E, p. 70; 347. E, p. 733 362.C, p. 3543 364. B, p. 47; 9. 367. D, p. 265; 374. D, p. 307; 375. E, p. 81, 268; 383. A, p. 403; 286. A, p. 129, 342; 387. F, p. 199; 400. D, p. 273; 401. p. 476; 409. C, p. 322; 9. 409. E, p. 300; 10, 411. E, p. 139; 423. D, p. 223; 426. F, p. 381; 430. p. 300; 431. B, p. 129; 446. E, p. 91; 11. 463. P. 437; 499. D, p. 65; 502. F, p. 361; 12.516. D, p. 92; 525. A, p. 84; 13. 568. D, p. 151; 571. A, p. 205; 579, E, p. 366; 14. 623. F, p. 264; 641. p. 437; 642. A, p. 98; 15. 667. A, p. 170, 178; 677. A, p. 308; 699. D, p. 131.

Demosthenes, 13. 26, p. 4333; 93. 24, Pp. 1523; 113. p. 389; 120. 7, p. 155; 155.15, Pp. 127; 214. 29, p. 100; 235 fin. p. 467; 245. 10, p. 346; 284. 17, p. 401; 297. II, p. 42; . 302. 3, P. 4575 314-13, p. 286; 315. 24. Pp. 335; 323- I, p. 180; 329- 23, p- 123; 332. 20, p.g; 401. 17, p. 67; 411. 3. Ps 2943 430 21,

p- 466; 480. 10, p. 474; 505. 29, P- 97; 537 extr. p. 265; 567. 12, P- 294; 572. p. 262; 623. 22, p. I10; 630, 28, p. 26; 780. II, p.9; 782. 8, p. 130; 787. 23, p. 265; 799 21, Pp. 4773 845. 23, p. 428; 848. 12, p. 282; 893. 15, p. 357; 990. 4, P. 945 IOIO. 15, P. 4715 TO2I. 20, P. 333, 3343 1057, P. 1425 1062, p. 142; 1075, p. 142; 1077, P- 142}; 1170. 27, p. 323; 1295. 20, p- 318; 1295. 20, p. 318; 1303. 14, p- 118; 1304, p. 162; 1392. 4, p. 30.

Dinarchus, 110, 2, p.-I1. Euripides, A/c. 757, p. 224.

Andr. 225, p. 456.

Bacch, 798, p. 95 ; 920, p. 179.

Cycl. 132, p. 4553 172, p. 3943 Base P- 1393 35 p- 1393 406, p.

El. 1032, p. 220.

Hel. 452, p. 89; 587, p. 228; 583, p. 173 914, p. 126; 930 p. 241; I0T0, p. 455; 1602, p. 297.

Heracl. 647, p. 391-

Herc. Fur. 74, p. 115; 158, p. 133 243, Pp. 3875 340, p. 170; 1054, P- 387 ; 1136, p. 335; 1266, p. 220; 1319, p. 86; 1368, p. 63.

Hipp. 110, p. 323; 683, p. 18; 687, p. 86; 1093, p. 953 1197, p- 222; 1391, p. 164.

Ton. 943, P. 4553 1187, p. 2323 1525, P- 317-

I. A. 339, P. 227; 607, Pp. 993 769, p. 311.

LI. T. 951, p. 783; 987, p- 17; T4I0, p. 116,

Med. 60, p. 71; 92,p-179; 188, p- 180; 237, p. 78; 604, p. 95; 1409, p. 275, note.

Ov. 141, p. 3165 504, Pp. 451; 700, p. 438; 1474, p. 115.

Phoen. 546, p. 38; 1273; p. 13.

Rhes. 25, p. 305; 816, p. 97.

Supp. 442, p. 20%.

Troad. 474, Pp. 241.

Herodotus, 2. 7, p. 147; 158, p. 72;

167, p. 16; 3. 36, p. 2543 62, p. 2195 4. 105, p. 173 5. 53, P. 723 94, p. 13; 6. 37, p. 17; 86, p. 18; 126, p. 18; 7. 13, p. 173 152, p. 13; 9. 82, p. 495.

Hesiod, Of. e¢ Di. 528, p. 150; 777;

p- 135. Theog. 144, Pp. 210; 793, p. 217.

Homer, //ad, 9. 203, p. 223; 270, p.

473; 13. 342, Pp. 322; 15. 128, p. 247; 16, 847, p. 843 17- 575: P-

536

2143 17. 575) P- 214; 20. 128, p. 135; 21. 262, p. 3173 318, p. 1473 23. 282, p. 67.

Odyssey, 2.99, P. 1173 291, p. 573 3- 298, p. 87; 6. 128, p. 255; 226, p. 322; 7- 198, p.1353 a8 P- 118; 8. 251, p. 313; 9. 10, p. 66; 240, p. 469; 10. 152, p. 197; 361, p- 2753 20. 83, p. 216; 21. 111, p. 745 22. 198, p. 123; 23. 134, P.

INDEX I.

A, p. 67; 410. E, p. 142; 410. E, p- 142; 432. D, p. 2353 452. F, p. 313; 460. D, p. 402; 470. A, E 189, note; 539. E. p. 312; 603. E, P- 195.

Symp. 413. B, p. 29.

Theaet, 144. B, p. 335; 147- D, P- 3343 153-E, p. 75; 154.D,p.9; 178. C, p. 415; 197. C, D, p. 2533 198. B, p. 253; 200. B, p. 253; 200. D, p, 334:

313.

Hyperides, Ov. Fun. Col. 13. 3, Pp. 390; Col. 11. 142, p. 409.

Isaeus, 51. 32, p. 428; 84. 37, p. 3323 86. 10, p. 332.

Isocrates, 1. C, p. 203; 44. B, p. 1423 62. A, p. 78; 203. A, p. 340; 213. D, p. 346.

Lycurgus, 166. 16, p. 218.

Lysias, 93- 43, P- 1235 94-41, Pe 1453

Tim. 26. C, p. 227. Pollux 1. 79, p. 321; 2.17, p. 14%, _ 1575 2. 33, P- 1325 2. 41, Pe 1553 2. 76, p. 164; 168, p. 178; 3. 17, p- 208; 78, p. 4743 7+ 13) P» 2135 40, p. 322; 48, p. 312; 108, p. 159; I9I, p. 256; 200, p. 3143 9. 124, Pp. 37; 10. 12, p. 418; 21, p. 4713 34, P- 207, 2673; 35; P. 322% 39

94, p. 262; 102. 12, p, 262; 111. 160, p. 241; 136. I, p. 219; 147. 34, p. 107; 165.12, p. 110; 180. 5, p. 63.

Pindar, O/. 13. 43, p- 84.

Pyth. 4 extr. p. 70.

Nem. 9. 46, p. 208.

Plato, Afo/. 20. A, p. 142.

Axioc. 368. E, p. 418.

Charm. 172. D, p. 70.

Cratyl. 406. C, p. 313.

Critias. 109. D, p. 99; 117. A,

p. 369. Crito. 53. E, p. 110. Euthyd. 278. C, p.g1; 302. A,

p- 398.

Euthyphro. 4. B, p. 227.

Gorg. 477. B, p. 673 481, p. 456; 492. E, p. 39; 494. C, p. 133; 506. C, p. 195; 510. D, p. 448; 512. E, p- 456; 527. A, p. 410.

Hipp. Maj. 292. B, p. 262.

Laches. 192. E, p. 408.

Legg. 646. C, p: 349; 666. D, p. 3773_687. D, p. 1423 757, P. 329; 800. D, p. 67; 840. D, p. 194; 845. A, p. 149; 913. B, p. 4473 916. A, P- 155-

Parmen, 149. A, p. 449; 141. E,

P- 194.

Phaedo, 69. B, p. 213; 99. B, p. 303; 104. A, p. 333-

Phaedr. 242. A, p. 293; 251. A. p- 270; 254. E, p. 146.

Phileb, 62. D, p. 194.

Polit, 282. A, E, p.135; 289. C, Pp. 135-

Protag. 321. A, p. 303.

Rep. 371. p- 293 378. A, p. 142; 378. D, p. 3535 379- Pp. 3013 398.

p- 256; 103, p. 251; 136, p.

175. Sophocles, 47. 312, p. 448; 571, p-

64; 679, p. 241; 786, p. 132 5 1185, P- 1173 1373) P- 134.

Ant. 447, P» 226; 571, p- 1433 887, p. 1333 1231, P. ve

El, 596, p. 3173 606, p. 1343 1306, p. 379.

Oced. Col. 335; Pp. 1153 505, p. 116; 528, p. 1733 1339, p- 68.

Oed. Rex 246, p. 18; 428, p. 18; 696, p- 465; 840, p. 449; 967, P-

423.

Phil, 666, p. 273 992, Pp» 316; 1306, p. 13.

Trach. 24, p. 241; 276, Ps: 85; 564, p. 242; 675, p. 225; 698, p. 323

Theocritus 3. 50, p-933 8. 78, p. 69;

II. 31, p. 210; 13. 36, p. 933 14. 5fs P- 93-

Thucydides, 1. 2, p. 358; 6, p. 993

13, p- 1423 62, p. 116; 70, p. 294; 2. 17, P. 195; 20, P. 3373 40 P- 81; 84, p. 132; 97, p. 218; 3. 8, p- 126; 12, p. 110, note; 22, p. 167; 54,p- 101; 61, p. lor; 4.9, P- 3143 24, p- 119; 26, p.98; 36, p- 318; 120, p. 108; 4.121, p. 107; 5. 63, p. 11; 6.3, p. 107, note; 66, ~ Pp. 337; 88, p. 358; 96, p. 223; 104, p. 314; 7. 66, p. 993 81, p. 340; 8. 23, p. 118; 92, p. 262; 107, p. 116.

Xenophon, Amad. 1. 2. 17, Pp. 2793

2, 1. 22, p. 187; 2. 4. 25, p. 1095 2. 5. 15, p. 188; 2.6.1, p. 481; 4. 3. 12, p. 923 4. 3-13, Pp. 109; 4. 3- 26, p. 203; 4. 5. 19, P- 3575 4-6.

INDEX I. 537

22, pp. 109, 200, 238; 4. 7. 12, p. 109; 5. 4. 29, p. 358; 5. 8. 15, p- 198; 6. 2, 19, p. 358; 6. 3. 10, p.

35°

Cyrop. 1. 3. 4, Pp. 11553 1. 3. 14, Hs 3143) Te 3:37; P- 263 3) FT. 4.42, P- 495; 1. 6. 16, p. 176; 2. 2.1, p, 69; 2. 4. 18, p. 109; 3. I. 35, p. 456; 3. 2. 19, p. 185; 4. I. I, p. 109; 4.1.11, p. 172; 4.5. 56, p. 4273 5- 3-52, p. 448; 5.4. 38, p- 3995 5- 5- 39) P- 303; 6. 1.9, p. 241; 6. 3. 13, p. 3783 7- I. 30, p. 500; 7. 5. 65, p. 59; 8. 2. 5, Ds 456; 8. 5. 12, p. Tog.

£q. 2. 2, p. 623 3.3, p. 3503 4. 4) P. 3233 ©. I, p. 323.

Hell, 1. 7. 8, p. 1325 2. 2. 20, p. 218; 2.3.49, Pp. 144; 4.1. 40, p. 142; 4. 8. 39, Pp. 593 5- I. 27, p. I5I; 5+ 3-1, p. 4273 5. 4. 58, p. 296; 6. 5. 20, p. 189, note; 7. I. 29, p. 428.

fiero. 2. 4, p. 1523 3. 3, P. 59-

Mem. 2, 1. 3, p. 60; 2.1. 5, p. 152; 3-3- 2,p- 4275 4.3.13, p.62.

Oec. 16. 14, p. 126; 17.4, p. 124.

Rep. Ath. 2. 16, p. 367.

Symp. 4.7, P- 915 4+ 305 Pe 3575 4: 43, P- 486; 9. 2, p. gt.

INDEX IH.

Accusative plural of substantives in -eUs, 234. Adverbs in -Oev, 114, 177. of place confused, 114, 115. compounded with prepositions, 117. Anapaestic verse, licence in, 51. Antiphon, his diction, 30, 107, 164, 227. Aorist, optative forms of, 429 ff, rarely a first and second aorist co- existent, 215 ff. aorists of verbs in -aiyw and aipw, 76 ff. in -6nv, with active signification, 186 ff. Apollonius Rhodius, diction of, 121. Aspiration, Attic, 196. Athenian civilization homogeneous,

32, 33- : Attic dialect, in relation to Athenian civilization, 33. early history of illustrated by Tra- gedy, 3, 4. short duration of, 1. purity of, 199. old words replaced by new crea- tions, 22. by new formations from the same stem, 19. Augmentation, inconsistencies of At- tic, 79 ff. double, 83 ff. of verbs beginning in a diphthong,

244.

Caricature, as affecting the diction of comedy, 46. Comedy, utility of in deciding questions of Atticism, p. 33 ff, Comparatives, double, 209. Compound words, late methods of forming them, 361. in Ionic and Tragedy, 6. Contraction of verbs in -apat, 463 ff. in -éw, 297 ff. ‘of adjectives in -eos, 287. “Cyclops in Homer, prevalent mistake regarding, 209, 210.

Dawes, his work characterized, 229. gages literary dialects in Greece, 162 ff.

Diminutives in -dovoy, 148. Dual number, rules regarding, 289 ff. true forms of nom. and acc. 3rd declension, 142.

Euripides, diction of, 35, 121.

Futures in -@ncopat, 189 note. middle, Doric, g1 ff. futures deponent, 376 ff.

Legal technical terms, 26. Lysias, diction of, 202.

Metaphor, picturesqueness of in Ionic and Tragedy, 16. growth of freedom in the use of,

479 ff. Middle voice and Active, often con- fused in MSS, 377 ff. direct middle, 368. in the future tense, 376 ff.

Nominative plural of substantives in ~eUs, 233, 234-

Optative forms discussed, 429 ff.

Parasite, history of the name, 214 ff. Parody, in the senarii of Comedy, 37 ff in hexameter, 46. in Epic, 47. in choric metres, 36. Parsimony, law of, 120. Perfect tense, original meaning of in Greek, 200. ° optative forms in the active, 449. Pluperfect, inflexions of, 229 ff. Prepositions used adverbially, 119. governing adverbs, 117. Proverbial sayings preserve old forms,

49 0. Pseudo-oracles in Comedy, 46 ff, Reduplication, Attic, 95 ff. .

INDEX II].

Sigma in perfect passive, 97 ff.

Sirens, error regarding the, 210.

Sophocles, fondness for é« in compo- sition, 7.

Substantives used as adjectives, 21.

Superlatives, 144.

Thucydides, diction of, 28, 107, 218. Tragic dialect explained and discussed, 3, 4, 8, 58, 140, 223.

Verbs in -dw, contracting in -y, 132 ff.

539

denoting mental states, 152 ff.

in -evopat, 141.

in -ifopat, 141.

with signification definable by con- text, 178 ff.

deponent, 192.

denoting rivalry necessarily middle, 192 ff,

Xenophon’s diction, 28, 30, 59, 62, 67, 69, 109, 115, 124, 160ff., 187, 203.

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY