« AnteriorContinuar »
by the new arrangement of words, but this is only part of the meaning. We were not aware before that this was a passage which required a note at the present day. The meaning is :the sailors when they were out at sea (Ev T Eye) conspired
to throw Arion overboard, &c.
Chap. 31.-έxxλnïóμevoi dè tñ äpp. The editor thinks no correction necessary here, nor do we: he says 'some would substitute ἐκδυόμενοι, and ἐξελαιούμενοι.” It is not worth while recording such absurd proposed changes: one of themλavo-has not even the merit of being intelligible here. Chap. 38. διεφθαρμένον τὴν ἀκοὴν. The editor changes ἀκοὴν into φωνήν. “The word κωφός, § 34, signifying τὸν κοφθέντα nai ¿Qαipedévтa Tùv ona, i.e., a mute, as we may infer from § 85, a sense in which it is used indeed by all the ancient authors, I have no doubt that some copyist, ignorant of the true meaning οι κωφός, wrote ἀκοὴν instead of φωνήν, being led into this error by the more recent signification of the word, and that which it still retains in modern Greek, viz., deaf.'
This is rather a bold change, and quite an unnecessary one. It appears as if the editor had a notion that the bit of Greek which he has given explains the etymological origin of the word, into the elements of which he seems to think that enters. The primary meaning of xwpòs is nothing more than blunted, made dull, round, heavy, and lifeless, and it is peculiarly applicable to a blunted weapon. The word xapos, in chap. 34, seems to us to express the general state of the youth's faculties, who was certainly both deaf and dumb. Herodotus, no doubt, knew that a person born absolutely deaf continues, as a matter of course, dumb also; and such a person must always remain dumb, unless he is properly educated. In referring then to the want of hearing, as the great physical defect, the old writer did more wisely than his new editor in making the change.
Such a note as the following might have been omitted:chap. 41, pòs de TouT: I have followed this reading, which has the support of one MS., considering it superior to the common text,—πρὸς δὲ τοῦτο: but I should prefer πρὸς δὲ, ἐς τοῦτο nal oέ, if I had the authority of MSS.' By referring to Schweighæuser's Varietas Lectionis,' it appears that three MSS. have pòs de TOUT: Schæfer adopted it from Reiske's conjecture, and Schweighauser kept it. We do not, therefore, understand what is meant by saying that the common text has πpòs de TOUTO. The new reading which the editor would prefer, if the MSS. allowed it, is an old conjecture of Valknaer's, adopted by Reiz.
Chap. 50. The editor very properly keeps τpírov uráλavtov,
Schweighæuser's correction for rрíα žμiтáhæтα. We think he ought to have referred to the corrector's name; as it stands now, a reader may very fairly infer, that the correction was made by the present editor, though we do not think that it was his wish to convey this impression. The same remark applies to the following note.
Chap. 62. For the common reading 'Axapvav, supported by all the MSS., the editor writes 'Axapveús, which, he says, 'is Ionic for 'Axxpveùs.' 'Axapveùs is Valknaer's conjecture, adopted by Schæfer and Borheck; which, says Schweighauser, must be the true reading, or else 'Anapves. We doubt the propriety of any change.
Chap. 84, near the end, for xar' avrov, the editor writes μετ' αὐτόν, contrary to the best MS. We think κατὰ is right. Schweighæuser compares a similar usage in iii. 4.
Chap. 92. κνάφου is a correction for κναφηΐου, the shop of a carder, which is the ordinary reading, but which certainly conveys a very ridiculous meaning.' It should have been added, that xvάou is Wesseling's correction, which certainly appears necessary on comparing iv. 14. The general distinction between nouns in -OS and -ειον, intimated by the editor, is quite correct, but as many words in -elov, such as ayyetov, opayεtov, &c., do not refer to shops or buildings, the correction of Wesseling, though probable, is not quite certain.
Chap. 97. The editor considers Sing the pres. inf. of δικάω, not the future of δικάζω. We never saw the verb δικάω
Chap. 109. εἰ δὲ θελήσει . . . ἀναβῆναι. The same with ἀναβήσεται. Β. ii. § 11, ἐθελήσει ἐκτρέψαι, τοι ἐκτρέψει, δε These and many similar examples (see note B. vii. § 104), both in Herodotus and other authors, are sufficient to show that the paraphrastic future formed by means of the auxiliary verb Sé, used by the Modern Greeks, is of very ancient origin.' This opinion, we believe, is correct; and though the doctrine has been laid down before, it has not yet met with that general reception to which it is entitled. A similar remark applies to some usages of xw, on which see the editor's note on chap. 120.
Chap. 120. διατάξας εἶχε The common reading is διατάξας ήρχε, but I prefer διατάξας εἶχε, used for διέταξε. The editor should define what he means by the common reading : pxe is not found in Schæfer, Borheck, nor Schweighæuser. Though it seems quite clear, as the editor maintains, that ex was used by the ancient Greeks as an auxiliary verb, it does not follow that it is exactly equivalent to the aorist.
When the Nurse (Tpopos), speaking of Medea's says:
οὓς προδοῦσ ̓ ἀφίκετο
μετ ̓ ἀνδρὸς ὅς σφε νῦν ἀτιμάσας ἔχει. Med. 32.
it is clear that the aorist would not express so strongly the signification of a husband who has wronged her, and whose injury is not repaired.' The Greek phrase-ouros Gè aτIμáσas σὲ ἀτιμάσας exe, is a more strictly intelligible expression than our this man has dishonoured you: the passive notion expressed by the form dishonoured' is inconsistent with the leading notion of the sentence, which is that of the active agency of the injurer.
Chap. 155.-The editor reads- тà dè vũv пageóvтa Пanтúns γὰρ ἐστι ὁ ἀδικέων, τῷ σὺ ἐπέτρεψας Σάρδις οὗτος δότω τέ οἱ δίκην. The change consists in writing ré oi for To, and taking away the comma after Sardis. As the text usually stands, it may admit of explanation thus:-'as Pactyes is the culprit, let him be punished by your governor of Sardis; ' i.e., of course when Darius had sent somebody to release the governor from his blockade. If this interpretation is objected to, and there are several reasons against it, we must translate thus:-'as Pactyes is the culprit, to whom you intrusted Sardis,' &c. But this appears to be at variance with chap. 153, where we are told that the command of the city was intrusted to Tabalus, a Persian. The reader may consult Schweighæuser's note on this passage, which he will probably not consider satisfactory, nor are we able to propose anything better than what we have done. The Sórw Té of the editor we cannot admit, because this correction of the passage by the introduction of T is not consistent with the Herodotean usage of that little word, as far as we understand it.
Chap. 167. τῶν δὲ διαφθαρεισέων νεῶν τοὺς ἄνδρας, οἵ τε Καρχηδόνιοι, καὶ οἱ Τυρσηνοὶ ἔλαχόν τε αὐτῶν πολλῷ πλείους, καὶ τούτους ἐξαγαγόντες κατέλευσαν,” the editor has the following remark: to understand this passage we must arrange the words as follows-οἵ τε Κ. κατέλευσαν καὶ οἱ Τυρσηνοί, οἵ πολλῷ πλείους αὐτῶν λαχόντες, καὶ τούτους ἐξήγαγον. We readily plead our total ignorance of the meaning of this passage after the editor's new arrangement: what have we to do with the arrangement of the words of Herodotus? he has arranged them himself, and if we alter his arrangement, we may make sense into nonsense, but that is the full extent of our arranging powers when thus applied to his text.
Chap. 174. The words-ἀργμένης δὲ ἐκ τῆς χερσονήσου τῆς
Βυβασσίης, ούσης τε πάσης τῆς Κνιδίης, πλὴν ὀλίγης, περιῤῥόουare arranged thus in the note:— τῆς χερσονήσου δὲ τῆς Κνιδίης ἀργμένης ἐκ τῆς Βυβασσίης, εούσης τε πάσης περιῤῥόου, πλὴν ὀλίγης : the Peninsula of Cnidia, beginning from Bybassia, and &c. The perplexed construction of the text has led some critics to imagine that there was a peninsula called Bybassia, but probably it was only a small district of Asia bordering upon the peninsula of Cnidia.' But Herodotus says there was a peninsula called Bybassia (ἐκ τῆς χερσονήσου τῆς Βυβασσίης), and as to the order of the words, nothing could be clearer. The subject of which predication is made is-s Kvidins, the Cnidia, which, as the historian tells us, began at, or from, the Chersonese Bybassia, and was completely surrounded by water, except a small portion where the canal was dug, which was to defend the Cnidia on the land side, that is, on the side of the peninsula of Bybassia; the existence of which peninsula, then called Bybassia, is as distinctly affirmed in this passage as if Herodotus had written a long chapter about it.
Chap. 194. The editor has retained qonunious, which has been commonly changed into ovxniou, though, as far as we understand Schweighauser's remark, all the MSS. have the accusative. We are inclined to think the editor is right in retaining the MS. reading, and yet we doubt whether the editor's interpretation of 'casks made of the date-tree' is right. Our reason for doubting about this is that the date-tree is not adapted for making staves.
We have here examined a few of Mr. Negris's notes on the first book from our remarks it will appear that we generally differ from him as to the propriety of his emendations, and frequently also as to the accuracy of his explanation. If we were to pass an opinion on the notes to the rest of the work, it would not be materally different.
OUR object in the present article is briefly to notice some of the most recent publications on Hebrew, which may be useful to students and learners, who have not the opportunity of making themselves regularly acquainted with the progress of this branch of philology. We observe that the Rev. Alfred Jenour, author of a translation and exposition of Isaiah, had a similar intention when he composed his
Treatise on Languages, their Origin, Structure, and Connexions, and the best Method of teaching them; containing an Account of the most useful Elementary Books in Latin, Greek, French, Italian, Spanish, and German, as also in Syriac, Arabic, Persian, and Hindostanee, with particular Directions for the Study of the Hebrew, and a Summary of its Grammar. London, 1832, 8vo. pages xi. 172, price 3s. 6d.
We think that the intention specified in the title is so much beyond human powers, that we cannot feel disappointed in finding the information given in this work very defective and inaccurate, even as to the spelling of the names of authors whose works are recomiended. We will endeavour to supply some defects of Jenour's treatise, by briefly pointing out those Hebrew works only which are the best in their kind at the conclusion of the year 1833. We most properly begin with Gates and Introductions, as
The Gate to the Hebrew, Arabic, and Syriac, unlocked by a new and easy Method of acquiring the Accidence. By the Author of the Gate to the French, Italian, and Spanish unlocked. London, 1828, 8vo. price 7s. 6d. The author of this book (Goodbugh) begins with asserting, in the words of Celerier, whose Hebrew Grammar we have mentioned in No. XI. of our Journal, a fact of which none will doubt who reads our pages: 'Il est de fait que l'étude de l'Hébreu, comme celle des autres langues Orientales, reprend en beaucoup de lieux une nouvelle vie. La Société Biblique, couvrant le monde entier de ses presses et de ses traducteurs, ranime partout la science des livres saints.' This Gate contains a curious collection of testimonies in behalf of the Hebrew language, like that of Addison in his Spectator, No. 405: There is a certain coldness and indifference in the phrases of our European languages, when they are compared with the Oriental forms of speech, and it happens very luckily, that the Hebrew idioms run into the English tongue with peculiar grace and beauty. Our language has received