probable and erroneous notion, that in the New Testament" apa 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 ponderous volumes, Doctrina Particularum Linguæ Græcæ, he has avoided the subject as if with a studied care; ner 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 flippancy which, in a man of real learning, cannot but excite surprise. Ουδ' ἄρα πως Εν πάντεσσ ̓ ἔργοισι δαήμονα φῶτα γενέσθαι. 11. *, 670. Il. Indeed Adrian Kluit published, in 1768, a book in Dutch, with the Latin title, Vindiciae Articuli 6,, Tó: but its want of celebrity, and the idea of its contents deducible from the manner in which it is referred to by Schleusner, may lessen our concern Scheid and by being unable to it. Finally, the learned and acute Godofredus Hermannus, in his late valuable treatise De Emendanda Rationé Græca Grammatica, 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 the 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 Casura, on the Greek Particles, and on Metres, especially those of Pindar. I will not deny that these inquiries are all of them of the highest impor tance 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 competi 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 immortal 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 authors, 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. pro 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 bability 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 is wholly without meaning: a doctrine which is counte nanced 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 may be reconciled to each other and to common sense; there must be, to use the words of Plato, τὸμνούμενον ἐν εἶναι, ἀεὶ ἂν τὸ αὐτὸ ἐπὶ πάσιν, and it is worth our while to inquire for it.' pp. 2, 3. Chapter II is devoted to the ascertaining of the true na ture and definition of the Article. The grammarians, in general, Alexaudrine, Byzantine, and modern, have considered the Article as a distinct and independent part of speech. So Dionysius Thrax ; Αρθρον ἐστὶ μέρος λόγου πλωτικόν, προτασσόμενον και υποτασσόμενον τῆς κλίσεως τῶν ὀνομάτων. § 20. But the Dialecticians 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 πᾶσα θάλασσα, Και πᾶσαι κρῆναι, και φρείατα μακρὰ νάουσιν. Il., 196. We have often lamented that, in the universal plan of teaching in our schools, the common Greek ('n xown diáλextos) 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 Ionic 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 Пarwund ZnTμara 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: Τῶν καλουμένων ̓ΑΡΘΡΩΝ οὐθὲν προσδέχεται τοπαράπαν, αλλ' ωσπερ κρασπέδοις χρῆται τοις ονόμασι. Και του θαυμαστόν ἐστιν, ὅπου καὶ Ὅμηρος επέων κόσμων περιο γενόμενος, ολίγοις τῶν ̓ονομάτων ̓ΑΡΘΡΑ, ὥσπερ λαβὰς εκπώμασι δεομέγαις, ἢ λόφους κράνεσιν, επιτίθησι· διὸ και παράσημα τῶν 'επῶν ἐν οἷς ταυτα ποιει, γέγονεν, ὡς τὸ, *Αιαντι δὲ μάλιστα δαίφρονι θυμὸν ὄρινε Τῷ Τελαμωνιάδη και τὸν Πόιεεν ὄφρα τὸ κῆπος υπεκπροφυγὼν ἀλέοιτο· ΑΡΘΡΟΥ μὴ Plutarchi Mor. και βραχέα πρὸς τούτοις ἕτερα. Τοις δὲ ἄλλοις μυρίοις ουσιν 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 the 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 by no means usual with him) makes the following observation : "Articulum ab Homero non agnosci, et esse ei 'O pro 'auros, 'xv, satis nunc decantata est observatio; firmata disputationibus virorum doctorum:-ut mihi ipse displiceam quod eum non ubique constanter ejeci." Excurs. ii. in Il, g. 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 ne vUxTÌ 'εOIXús. 1. α, 47. Χειρα τὴν βάλεν ἡ ῥ ̓ ἔχει τόξον. ν, 594. Τὸν δ ̓ ἄγε μοιρα. 602. Ὁ 'ρα πατρὶ φίλῳ ἕπετο. 644. Του δὲ Πάρις - αποκταμένοιο χολώθη. 660. Του γε χωόμενος. 662. Ὁ τῷ πολέμιζε. ο, 539. TW Tas δύο, χαλκέας, — τὴν δὲ μίαν χρυσήν, τῇ ρ ̓ ἔσχετο χάλκεον ἔγχος. 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. Τόσο ανακτος. λ, 322. Νέστωρ δ' ο γέρων. 636. Σὲν τὸν μῦθον. τ, 185. Με τον δύστηνον. Χ, 59. Παιδ ̓ ὀλέσαι τὸν αριστον. ω, 242. Within three verses we find examples of both kinds. Tad "Epic CORESTES" και μὲν τ' αγχιστῖναι κέχονται — Ὁ εμμεμαώς εξαλλεται. ε, 140 142. 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 but 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 article 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 his 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 reference to an object at the time most obvious and familiar to the speaker's mind. 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 prefixed, form an Assumptive Proposition, the parts of which are the following: The Subject is the Artiele. The Predicate the Word annexed to the Article. The Copula -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 of true philosophy, to put this principle to the test of a synthetic 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 distinguished 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 combined? pp. 45, 46. In our next number, we shall submit to our readers a compendious analysis of this highly important part of the work; as it may contribute to excite a more eager perusal of the |
