« AnteriorContinuar »
probable and erroneous notion, that in the New Testament " mondo expIqa sæpe poni ubi opus non est, & sæpe omitti ubi ex usu ponerentur. The antecedent improbability of this notion is strongly evinced in the ninth chapter of Part I of the volume before us; and the absolute falsehood of it is demonstrated through the whole of Part II. Hoogeveen, in his Commentary on Viger, was contented with explaining and exemplifying some of the idiomatical uses of the article, without attempting to ascertain the ground of those uses: and, in his two pona derous volumes, Doctrina Particularum Lingue Græce, he has avoided the subject as if with a studied care ; nor has his late epitomizer Schutz given himself the smallest trouble to supply the palpable deficiency. Even Valckenaer thinks that he has done ample justice to the article by asserting its conformity to the Dutch de, het, and the French le, la, les; and he announces his supposed discovery with a self-complacence and Hippancy which, in a man of real learning, cannot but excite surprise.
'Ουδ' άρα πως ήν 'Εν πάντεσσ’ έργοισι δαήμονα φώτα γενέσθαι. 11. 1, 67ο. Indeed Adrian Kluit published, in 1768, a book in Dutch, with the Latin title, Vindicie Articuli é, , só : but its want of celebrity, and the idea of its contents deducible from the manner in which it is referred to by Everard Scheid and by Schleusner, may lessen our concern for being unable to obtain it. Finally, the learned and acute Godofredus Hermannus, in his late valuable treatise De Emendanda Ratione Græcæ Grammatice, while he fills many pages with less useful matter, passes by the subject of the article with complete neglect.
With no less a degree of justice, therefore, than of the diffidence which usually adorns transcendent merit, Mr. Middleton advances the claims which his subject possesses to peculiar attention.
• If we regard the subject as a question merely of Profane Philology, it possesses a degree of interest, which might have more strongly recommended it to notice. In the course of ihe last century almost every other topic connected with Greek Criticism has been minutely and profoundly discussed : we have seen disquisitions on the Homeric Digamma, on the Greek Accents, on Dialects, on the quantity of the Comparatives in INN, on the licence allowed in Tragic Iambics and on their Cæsura, on the Greek Particles, and on Metrés, especially those of Pindar, I will not deny that these inquiries are all of them of the highest importance to the cause of Classical Literature : yet the present, considered in the same point of view, may claim at least a secondary rank, whilst in its connexion with Theology, and, perhaps, I may add, with the Philosophy of Grammar, it obviously admits them not to any competin tion. Preface, pp. 13, 14.
After having studied this elaborate and comprehensive volume with an attention which few publications deserve, we venture to assure the lover of classical and sacred philology that it will not delude his expectation. It is modest in pretension, but in execution it displays extensive and wellemployed erudition, an acute and discriminating judgement, and a talent of reasoning, patient, cautious, comprehensive and conclusive. In felicity of criticism, we can deem it scarcely inferior to the inimortal Dissertation of Bentley; in difficulty of performance, it is obviously superior; and in the importance of its relation to the whole compass of Grecian literature, it is above all comparison.
Mr. Middleton's volume consists of two parts. The first is the “ Inquiry into the Nature and Uses of the Greek Article :* the Second Part is a large body of “ Notes on the New Testament,” referring principally to passages capable of important illustration from the doctrine and rules established in the preceding division of the work. We shall endeavour to lay before our readers a faithful idea of the plan and execution of both parts. We promise merely a schediasm: but we are much mistaken, if our report, brief and imperfect as it must necessarily be, do not convince the student of the Christian Scriptures, and of those most perfect of human compositions, the ancient Greek anthors, that he owes to his own gratification and improvement a diligent study of the work itself.
: In the first Chapter of the first Part, Mr. M. examines the opinions of the most eminent ancient and modern grammarians, on the subject of the Article ; Apollonius Dyscolus, Gaza, Harris, Monboddo, and Horne Tooke. He animadverts, with brevity and temper, on the defective and inconsistent character of their doctrines. The solid grounds of his animadversion may be apprehended from a short extract.
• He who pretends to determine the uses of the Greek Article should first endeavour to investigate its nature and origin. 'Without such an inquiry he may, indeed, collect from Greek writers something like rules for its insertion or omission ; but he will not be able to give them probability and consistency : they will not be of general application; he will be driven to the unsatisfactory solution of Pleonasm and Ellipsis ; and he will be compelled to admit, as is done continually, that though the Article is by its nature a Definitive, it is sometimes used to mark indefiniteness, or wholly without meaning: doctrine which is countenanced in the excellent Lexicon to the N. T. by Schleusner... Quodcunque ostendis mihi sic, incredulus odi. There must be some comMON PRINCIPLE, by attending to which these opposite uses of the Article
be reconciled to each other and to common sense ; there must be to use the words of Plato, Tous vouley è divxk,ded on tà aútè lid tãowy; and it is worth our while to inquire for it.' pp. 2, 3.
Chapter II is devoted to the ascertaining of the true nature and definition of the Article. The grammarians, in general, Alexandrine, Byzantine, and modern, have considered the Article as a distinct and independent part of speech. So Dionysius: Thrax ; "Αρθρον έση μέρος λόγου πλωτικών, προτασσόμενον και υποτασσόμενον της κλίσεως των ονομάτων. και 20. But the Dialec. ticians of the Stoic school considered the Article and the Pronoun as identical. Mr. Jones (whose Greek Grammar, on an original but not incontestable plan, is well worthy of consultation) has likewise forsaken the ordinary route. "He introduces the Article in his chapter of Pronouns; but, apparently, for the conveniency of his plan of declension, rather than because he dissented from the common doctrine.--Mr. M. first inquires into the Homeric use of the article; a subject which has not a little exercised critics and editors, nor undeservedly. For the student who is desirous of imbibing the pure streams of Grecian learning, secure from the deterioration of subsequent ages, cannot be too earnestly exhorted to the assiduous study of the oldest writers in the Ionic dialect, and, above all, of Homer;
'Εξ ουπερ πάντες ποταμοί, και πάσα θάλασσα,
Και πάσαι κρήναι, και φρείατα μακρά ντουσιν. Il.0, 196. We have often lamented that, in the universal plan of teaching in our schools, the common Greek (n xový dátextos) which was generally used by authors after the fall of Grecian liberty and the decline of Grecian genius, but which at no time was vernacular, is taught as if it were the pure idiom ; and youth are led implicitly to believe that the Ionic and Attic were provincial deflexions from a common standard. It would be happy if the assumption of this gross and pernicious error were precluded by the use of an lonic Grammar and Lexicon for initiation in Greek learning, and if some of our 'Burneys and Porsons would furnish the means for this improvement, the condescension would not degrade them. But we return from this digression.-A remarkable passage in the latwoxd Znthuceta of Plutarch * shews that the infrequency of the
* Our classical readers will not be displeased to be presented with the whole passage. Having mentioned the Latin language, Plutarch proceeds: Των καλουμένων 'ΑΡΘΡΩΝ 'ουθέν προσδέχεται το παράπαν, αλλ' “ωσπερ κρασπέδους χρήται τοις ονόμασι. Και 'ου θαυμαστόν έστιν, όπου και "Ομηρος
επέων κόσμω περι • γενόμενος, ολίγοις των ονομάτων 'ΑΡΘΡΑ, ώσπερ λαβας εκπώμασι δεομένοις, ή λόφους κράνεσιν, επιτίθησι διό και παράσημα των επων εν οις ταυτα ποιέι, γέγονεν, ως το,
"Αιαντι δε μάλιστα δαίφρoνι θυμον όρινε
Πόιεεν όφρα το κήτος υπεκπροφυγών αλέοιτο και βραχέα προς τούτοις έτερα. Τοις δε άλλοις, μυρίαις ουσιν 'ΑΡΘΡΟΥ μη προσόντος, ου δεν εις σαφήνειαν ουδέ κάλλος και φράσεις βλάπτεται. Plutarchi Mor. ed. Wyttenbach, tom. 7. pp. 112, 113.
Article in the Iliad and Odyssey was not overlooked, nor materially misunderstood, a thousand years after the time of Homer. Professor Heyné, from a misconception of th3 subject (which shews how greatly the republic of letters needed such a work as that before us), and a too facile adoption of sentiments supported by certain great names (a fault hy no means usual with him) makes the following observation :
Articulum ab Homero non agnosci, et esse ei 'o pro 'aviós, 'ex uvos, satis nunc decantata est observatio ; firmata disputationibus virorum doctorum :-ut mihi ipse displiceam quod eum non ubique constanter ejeci.” Excurs. ji. in II, p. tom. vii. p. 422. Mr. M. has shewn that Heyné's repentance was precip tate, and his observation erroneous, having arisen from an inaccurate apprehension of the authorities to which he refers, and from not regarding a fact strongly suggested by the diction of Homer, the real IDENTITY of the Article and the pronoun 'o. Such instances as these readily occur. 'o so me vuxtà 'eosxus. ΙΙ. α, 47. Χέιρα- την βάλεν η ρ' έχε τόξον. , 594. Τον δ' άγε μοιρά. 602. ο ρα πατρί φίλη έπετο. 644. Του δε Πάρις - αποκταμένοιο χολώθη. 660. Του όγε χωόμενος. 662. Ο τα πολέμιζε. ο, 539. Tas δύο, χαλκέας, - την δε μίαν χρυσης, τη ρ' έσχετο χάλκεον έγχος. υ, 271,272. Innumerable examples of this kind exist, which seem not obscurely to prompt the right solution of cases like the following: Ο πλησίον ειστήκει πολύμητις Οδυσσεύς. δ, 329. Τοιο "ανακτος. λ, 322. Νέστωρ δ' ο γέρων. 636. Σίν τον μυθον. τ, 185. Με τον δύστηνον. Χ, 59. Παιδ' ολίσαι τον "αριστον. ω, 242. three verses we find examples of both kinds.' Ta' nowe
? -αι μεν τ' αγχιστίναι κέχυνται - ο 'εμμεμαώς εξαλλεται, ε, 140142. By a luminous examination of this questiou, Mr. M. completely establishes, in our opinion, that the difference between the Article and the Pronoun is not essential buț accidental, and consequently, when we are speaking of the nature of the article, that there is no difference at all; and Homer's usage of the artịcle has nothing in it peculiar, but accords strictly, so far as it goes, with the practice of succeeding ages." pp. 14, 15.
Mr. M. next pursues his investigation into the object to which the article has relation. Here bis patient assiduity and his talent of successful induction are employed to a most valuable purpose. He examines the question with nicety and precision, and he attains the conclusion that the Article has always, when strictly considered, an anticipative refer; ence to an object at the time post obvious and familiar to the speaker's inind. To a hearer or* reader, indeed, the reference may be obscure. This occasional obscurity arises out of the necessity of the case; and the removal of it is at once the province of a good writer, and the pleasure of an
attentive and judicious reader. Further; the anticipative reference includes only two possible cases; for the anticipation must be either of that which is known to the hearer or reader, or of that which is unknown. In the former case the Article, with the word annexed to it, whether noun, adjective, or participle, subserves the purpose of a retrospective reference; in the latter case, that of a hypothetical reference, or a respect to some object concerning which an assumption is made. Finally, this elaborate disquisition terminates in the conclusion, that in all cases the article and the word to which it is prefi.red, form an Assumptive Proposition, the parts of which are the following :
The Subject - is - the Artiele.
the participle of existence ("w) implied, and in some instances actually expressed.
Thus the learned author, by a course of cautious analysis and induction, arrives at a great and fundamental principle, which, with characteristic modesty, he calls his hypothesis. He then proceeds, in the spirit o: true philosophy, to put this principle to the test of a symtbetic application to the facts in grammar and idiom of which a solution is required. If it be found capable of solving them, in a consistent and rational manner, without constraint or management, it ought to be esteemed truc. Mr. M. urges this arduous inquiry, with dis, tinguished impartiality, acumen, and erudition, through six chapters, viz. III-VIII. Advancing to this lapis Lydius, he says,
• In the last Chapter it was my endeavour to produce evidence in favour of each distinct head of the Hypothesis: I am next to shew, that if it be admitted, it is capable (if I may use the expression) of solving the principal phenomena : in other words, that it will account for the most remarkable peculiarities in the usage of the Article, and that what may to some appear to be arbitrary custom, is in truth, supposing the principles laid down to be sufficiently established, a natural, if not a necessary consequence. Should this point be made out to the satisfaction of the reader, it is obvious that some weight will accompany the decisions, to which this inquiry may lead. If the prevailing usage in its principal varieties be such, as would arise out of the supposed nature of the Article, that nature, it will be concluded, has been accurately ascertained. I shall, therefore, on the evidence already adduced, suppose the Article to be such as it has been described to be, and shall now proceed to apply what has been said, to the explanation of the most remarkable insertions of the Article ; to its most remarkable omissions ; and to some cases of insertion and omission conrbined.' pp. 45, 46.
In our next number, we shall submit to our readers a com: pendious, analysis of this highly important part of the work; as it may contribute to excite a more eager perusal of thie